Jeffrey Epstein's personal attorney for roughly two decades sat before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday and delivered the same line every other Epstein associate has offered under oath: he had no idea.
Darren Indyke, who also serves as an executor of Epstein's estate, told lawmakers in his opening statement that he "had no knowledge whatsoever" of Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls at the time it was happening. He said he would have quit working for Epstein if he had known about the trafficking of women and underage girls. He is the latest in a string of Epstein associates to take that position under sworn questioning.
Former President Bill Clinton, Epstein's former accountant Richard Kahn, and one of Epstein's largest clients, Les Wexner, have all told the committee the same thing in sworn depositions: they did not know.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer put the problem plainly after the deposition.
As with all the other witnesses, they all claim they never had any knowledge before it became public that Mr. Epstein was involved with women, doing anything inappropriately with young women.
That is now the uniform testimony from every major figure in Epstein's financial, legal, and social orbit who has appeared before the committee. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. He died in 2019 in a New York jail cell while facing charges for sex trafficking. Yet the people who managed his money, ran his legal affairs, and moved in his circles all insist they noticed nothing.
Comer said Indyke was asked directly why he continued working for Epstein after the 2008 guilty plea, AP News reported. According to Comer, Indyke told lawmakers that Epstein convinced him it was a one-time mistake and that Epstein was remorseful.
Democrats on the committee were not satisfied. During a break from the deposition, they said Indyke had taken a "defensive" posture. Rep. Dave Min went further, accusing both Indyke and Kahn of covering up for Epstein.
I think what has become crystal clear over the course of these last few depositions is that these people are going to lie to us over and over and over.
Both Indyke and Kahn have repeatedly denied knowledge of the abuse. Earlier this year, they agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit brought against them as estate executors for up to $35 million. That suit alleged, as a civil claim, that the two men had aided "Epstein's illegal conduct" for financial gain. Neither Indyke nor Kahn admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
The deposition did produce one concrete disclosure. Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, said after the session concluded that Indyke confirmed the existence of hard drives held by private investigators hired by Epstein.
These hard drives are of great interest to our committee.
The contents of those hard drives have not been publicly described. What data they contain, when they were created, and what relevance they hold to the committee's investigation are questions that remain publicly unanswered.
Democrats are also pushing for the release of further documents from Epstein's estate, including a tranche of materials related to a lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Epstein's former girlfriend and confidant Ghislaine Maxwell, along with documentation on businesses connected to Epstein. Democrats said Indyke indicated he is awaiting further instructions from the Republican-controlled committee about providing those records.
Comer countered that the committee had already requested those documents from other entities and that obtaining them from the estate would produce "overlapping information."
While hard drives and estate documents represent legitimate investigative threads, Democratic lawmakers devoted significant questioning to an uncorroborated accusation made by a woman against President Donald Trump in 2019 during the Epstein investigation. The accusation has not been substantiated. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.
Garcia said Indyke would not confirm or deny whether the woman who made that accusation had also entered an agreement with Epstein's estate. The nature and terms of any such agreement have not been publicly disclosed.
Comer was blunt about the political motivation behind the line of questioning.
They have created a false narrative that Donald Trump's somehow some type of liability in this.
The investigation, which began with bipartisan cooperation, has fractured into open partisan warfare. That breakdown was on display Wednesday night when Democrats stormed out of a briefing with Attorney General Pam Bondi. Democrats argued Bondi had appeared on Capitol Hill only to head off her own deposition, which is scheduled for April 14. Comer called the walkout a "low point in the Epstein investigation" and accused the Democratic lawmakers of "acting like low-IQ fools."
Comer said he still plans to hold the Bondi deposition but would consult GOP committee members about whether they still support the plan.
Democrats are planning to hold a public hearing with survivors of Epstein's abuse and others with knowledge of his conduct, regardless of whether Republicans participate.
Investigators have not publicly confirmed what the private investigator hard drives contain, whether any of the estate documents withheld so far hold substantive information about Epstein's associates, or whether the committee will ultimately compel production of the Giuffre-related materials.
Seven years after Epstein's death, every deponent who sat across from this committee has delivered the same answer: I did not know. The public has waited long enough to find out whether that is coordinated discipline or the truth. A congressional investigation that spends its energy chasing uncorroborated accusations against the sitting president instead of compelling real document production is an investigation that risks giving Epstein's actual enablers exactly what they want: more time and less scrutiny.
