Pedophile Epstein’s Money Man Grilled in Heated Testimony

It pains me to think and I deeply regret. that I may have unknowingly assisted. Epstein in any way. >> One of the key men, a part of Jeffrey. Epstein's inner circle, his accountant, his money man, sat for an hours-long. deposition in front of the House. Oversight Committee. And now we have the. actual video of it. You will see for. yourself his answers that he gave to. whether or not he knew about what. Epstein was accused of doing. Why did he. stay working for this guy for so long? You're going to be able to judge his.

credibility with your own eyes. Let's. get to it. Welcome to Sidebar, presented. by Law & Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, super quick. I got some really. exciting news to share with you right. now. So, we have spent so much time. together here at Law & Crime obsessing. over every wild twist and late-night. case that we wanted to find a way to get. you even closer to the action. So, what. do we do? We finally launched Law &. Crime Plus. This is your new go-to spot. for thousands of hours of. commercial-free episodes and exclusive. case files, by the way, where you can.

dive into the evidence yourself. We. really built this for the community of. people who stay up late analyzing every. detail while waiting for a verdict. So, it's just as much as your space as it is. ours. So, go ahead, download the app, check out the features, let us know what. you think. You can head on over to. lawandcrimeplus.com today to snag our. limited-time deal of just $3.99 a month. or $40.99 for the year. Now, we. previously told you here on Sidebar. about the depositions of two of Jeffrey. Epstein's right-hand men, his accountant. Richard Kahn and his lawyer Darren.

Indyke. But, we didn't have the videos. Now we do. Now we have the videos of. their depositions. They have been. released and we are getting a much. better picture of how they responded to. sometimes kind of fiery questions from. the House Oversight Committee that's. investigating Epstein and his inner. workings and his dealings to see whether. or not anyone else has been connected, whether or not anyone else should be. investigated. And I've said this before, I'll say it again. Seeing somebody. testify is very different than reading. the transcript. This is Long Crime. Why. do you think we cover these trials,

okay? Actually watching a witness. testify can tell you so much. You can. judge credibility in a whole other way. And by the way, when you're looking at. this deposition, he's under oath. Indyk. is under oath. So, let's not forget. that. Why do I say that? Because if the. committee believes that they were lying, they can refer the matter a perjury. charge to the Department of Justice to. prosecute. Separate question about. whether or not they would actually do. that. I'll talk about that a little bit. later. But, these are men who worked. with Jeffrey Epstein for decades,

including when he played guilty in. Florida in connection with those state. charges, solicitation of prostitution. involving a minor back in 2008, the. sweetheart deal. So, they were with him. through his arrest, they were with him. through his confinement, and they were. with him up until his federal sex. trafficking trial. By the way, they. served as co-executors of his estate. after Epstein was found dead in his jail. cell in 2019. You're going to hear. Richard Kahn talk about what it was like. to do that. But, to hear them tell it, the pair barely knew this guy. But, what. did they know exactly, right? That's the.

question. Could they be lying, misleading to protect themselves when. maybe they say they didn't have any. knowledge about what Epstein was accused. of doing? Is it possible they were I. don't know, wearing the darkest of. rose-colored glasses all the time? Or. were they really shielded from what. Epstein was doing and what he was. accused of doing? Were they really. separated? By all accounts, they didn't. have a social relationship with him, per. se, more professional relationship. But, we're going to play some of the biggest. moments from the depositions, let you.

decide. Now, this video, we're only. going to focus on Richard Kahn, the. accountant. We're going to save his. lawyer, Darren Indyk, for another day, because there is just too much Kahn. video that we got to go through, okay? And yes, this is Epstein's money man. Managed his financial affairs, handling. wire transfers, signing checks, filing. taxes, distributing money on Epstein's. behalf. And by the way, remember when. Epstein was charged with sex trafficking. of minors? Sex trafficking in and of. itself, there is kind of a financial. component, right? The idea usually is is.

that you're providing some benefit, something of value to these victims to. ultimately be abused, for them to engage. in commercial sex acts, whether it's. flying them or giving them gifts or. paying for things. I mean, remember the. Diddy case was a lot about this. Sure, this is a little bit different. But you. would imagine that looking at the money, seeing the money trail, could be a big. part of the case. At least it's Jeff to. suspect. And remember, Epstein was. reportedly worth hundreds of millions of.

dollars when he died. So there is a lot. to keep track of here. And it makes. sense that Richard Kahn's name appears. more than 50,000 times in the DOJ's. Epstein files library. So let's talk. about this, okay? Let's go through the. video. And by the way, this was a. closed-door deposition. You don't. usually see the video being released, but this is an unusual case where. transparency matters. Okay, so during. his opening statement to the committee, Kahn insisted he didn't know about. Epstein's alleged crimes. That the one. bit of misconduct he did know about, right, that precipitated the state.

charges in Florida, the accusation again. that he'd been involved with a minor, it. was a mistake that Epstein swore to. never make again. >> In the years that I provided outside. accounting and bookkeeping services for. Jeffrey Epstein, I was not aware of the terrible and. unforgivable things that he did to women. and girls. My relationship with Epstein was. strictly on a professional level. We did not interact socially, and I. never attended any of his parties or his.

social functions. While Epstein was alive, I never. observed any sexual abuse or trafficking. of women, and never received a complaint. either by one of Epstein's victims or. anyone else of such abuse or. trafficking. Epstein told me that his 2006 arrest was. a mistake, that he did not know the woman was. underage, and that nothing like that would happen. again. I believed him at the time and never saw.

what appeared to be a minor in his. presence. Had I learned of any of his horrific. behavior, I would have quit work. immediately. >> Now again, we know that Epstein pled. guilty to state charges to avoid the. more serious federal charges, but maybe. Kahn really had no more knowledge about. the extent of that investigation or what. potential evidence there was against. Epstein should that deal have not been. worked out. Now members of the. committee, they asked Kahn to go into. more detail about why he would continue.

to work for a man who had been convicted. of a sex crime that involved a child. >> I think you briefly touched on this, but. after learning of Mr. Epstein's legal. troubles, you of course ultimately. decided to continue your employment with. Mr. Epstein. Did you ever consider. leaving or discuss leaving your. employment? >> yes, 100%. Uh I apologize for not. alluding to that earlier. Um. I without a doubt questioned leaving him. and um.

in hindsight, I regret that I relied on. Epstein's word that this would never. happen again. Uh and I believe at the time. we were in the middle of the financial. crisis and I had a family to support. So, I made the wrong decision in staying. for him, staying working for him. because I later learned as co-executor. that Epstein continued to abuse hundreds. of minors and adults. So, I made an. improper decision.

>> And. you briefly, I think, touched on this. before obviously knowing that you. started in 2005 and before Mr. Epstein. uh formally came to you with his legal. troubles in 2008, did you suspect that. he was ever. trafficking women, sex trafficking. women, or abusing women or girls in any. way? >> No, I never suspected any of that. >> Did anyone in Mr. Epstein's orbit ever. express concern to you.

about Mr. Epstein and. um. his dealings with women before his 2008. conviction? >> Before his 2008 conviction, I never saw. minors in the presence of Epstein. Um. on my visits every 3 weeks when Epstein. was in town, occasionally I saw his assistants, but I. never saw anything that looked improper. In addition, no woman has ever come to me and said.

that she was in danger, that she was being sexually abused or. sexually trafficked. >> And just so that the record is clear, um. so. no minors, no no women outside of or I'm. sorry, no minors or girls present. with Mr. Epstein at any time? >> Yeah. I'm not saying that I never saw. minors. I'm saying I never saw present. I never saw minors in Epstein's. presence. Period. Correct. Yes, that's what I'm. saying.

What I'm saying is that. occasionally, when Epstein was in the. office, I did see his assistants and no. one ever approached me, communicated and. said that they were in danger, or that they were being sexually abused. or trafficked by Epstein. >> Is it fair to say the assistants were. adult females? >> Correct. Yes. >> When did you become aware that Mr. Epstein had to register as a sex. offender following his arrest and. incarceration in 2008?

>> I believe I became aware. I I assume uh. after. I guess after he was to be released from. jail. >> And who did you learn that from? >> I learned that from um. his attorney Darren Endyk. >> Did anyone um. check the dates of births of any. employees on the payroll?

>> When we received uh. we can't, you know, I usually. would hand out a uh employment package. to new employees and um. I would uh receive their information. with date of birth um. and if they were on the insurance plan, I would receive their personal. information. as well. In addition, when we prepared gift tax returns, if. Epstein was reporting a taxable gifts, we were required to um. know that individual's date of birth.

>> Would you verify those individuals'. dates of birth? >> Um in New York State. I believe um. that you're required to. have working papers from either your. school or from your parents if you're a. minor. Uh I never saw any working papers. in New York, so I knew there were no. minors um that were working for Epstein. on his payroll. And for the um.

dates of births, um you know, when we. saw the gifts, there was nothing, you. know, that was alarming that stood out, so. when you say did I ever verify them, uh I wasn't in tune, you know, saying. was every date making sure it was a. minor, but I I I never saw a date of. birth. that was a minor um. with the exception of potentially uh one. gift that was to um. what I believe was a family friend of. Epstein's. >> And who was that family friend of. Epstein's? >> Epstein uh made gifts to.

and she was reported on his gift tax. returns. >> Do you recall what that gift was at the. time? That she was a minor. >> Yeah, I believe he purchased for her, um, gift cards. American Express gift cards. >> Do you know how much uh, value was for. those gift cards? >> Probably somewhere in the 10 to 15,000. dollar range. >> And just to be clear about something, no. one has accused Kahn or Indyk of.

directly participating or engaging in. alleged sex abuse or trafficking. They. have been accused in litigation of. enabling Epstein, okay? But the. committee members, they pressed them. about whether anything suspicious ever. came up in documentation or ledgers for. Epstein or anyone else that Kahn might. have provided accounting services for, including Epstein's apparent girlfriend. when he died, Kerenna Shuliak. What did. he say? >> And did you ever see any transactions. that you found alarming or found.

suspicious in any way? >> I never saw a transaction in Epstein's. books and records. that said payment for sex. Or I don't recall ever seeing any. payments that said, you know, for massages. So, there was. never anything in his ledger that, uh, alluded to that, if that's what you're. asking. >> And just a follow up to that, I'm not. referring just to sex trafficking, but. anything illegal, not just sex. trafficking. >> Not that I'm aware of. >> And, uh, did you ever provide any financial. advice or assistance to any women.

associated with Jeffrey Epstein? As such. as tax advice or just any informal. financial advice. >> Uh, about four or five of Epstein's. assistants. had asked if I would do a favor and. prepare their tax returns. >> Do you remember who they were? >> I believe it was Kerenna Shuliak. It. might have been one other, two others, but those are the names that I recall. >> So, you mentioned in 2008, uh, you'd. heard about the arrest, but by 2019, is. that when you started to learn about the.

extent of his crimes? >> When the Miami Herald article came out, it was alarming because there was a lot. more depth to what took place in 2008. And at the time, this was the time when. um we had just gotten dropped. by Deutsche Bank. >> So, after he was dropped by banks, did. you help him try to find new firms that. would open accounts for him? >> When Epstein was dropped, uh. by Deutsche Bank, uh I tried to help. Epstein open up cash and brokerage.

accounts. >> Did you ever help him uh withdraw cash. amounts that wouldn't trigger federal. reporting, specifically because of that. amount wouldn't trigger federal. reporting? >> I never had signatory on any of. Epstein's accounts, uh with the. exception of HBRK, which was my company. Uh there was a company, uh a design. company that I had signatory authority. for the sole purpose of processing. payroll. I never signed uh any cash withdrawals. on that. And at one point in time, one of his.

trusts I had signatory authority, but. all of his other accounts, I never had. signatory authority until the last 6. months when Epstein was alive. >> Now, to me, when I listen to that, it. wasn't like a blanket denial that, you. know, Epstein never did that, right? Epstein would never be skirting around. federal reporting laws. No, just more. like, I didn't have sign-off authority. I don't know what he did, right? That. seemed to be my take about it. Now, I do. want to dive into some of the more. salacious and controversial allegations. that come out of the Epstein files.

release. The claims that President. Donald Trump had sexually assaulted a. teenage girl. Now, remember, this. information comes from tips that came. into the FBI's National Threat. Operations Center, which means there's a. lot of second-hand information. There's. no corroborating evidence. But you had, quote, redacted reported an unidentified. female friend who was forced to perform. some President Trump approximately 35. years ago in New Jersey. The friend told. Redacted that she was approximately 13. to 14 years old when this occurred and. the friend allegedly bit President Trump. while performing.

The friend was allegedly hit in the face. after she laughed about biting President. Trump. The friend said she was also. abused by Epstein. And there was also a. note that this tip was apparently sent. to the Washington office to conduct an. interview. And remember there was that. whole back and forth about missing. interviews and eventually there were. interviews that were released by the. government. But you have this other one, online complaint reported she was a. victim and witness to a sex trafficking. ring at the Trump golf course in Rancho. Palos Verdes, California between 1995. and 1996. Complainant reported Ghislaine. Maxwell as the madam and broker for sex.

parties, clients of whom included. Epstein, Robin Leach, and Donald Trump. Complainant reported participating in. orgies and that some girls went missing, rumored to have been murdered and buried. at the facility. Complainant reported. being threatened by Trump's then head of. security that if she ever talked of what. went on there or who she saw, she would. end up as fertilizer for the back nine. holes. But, there's a note here too, complainant was spoken to and deemed not. credible. Additional research showed. three separate incidents involving. police which requested in mandatory.

psychiatric evaluations. Okay, I say all. that to go back to Khan. So, Richard. Khan was involved in apparently paying. out settlements from the Epstein Victims. Compensation Fund, which means in a way. he should have inside knowledge of some. of the claims these women made, right? Well, Jane Doe number four. So, a woman. who claims that President Trump. assaulted her when she was a teenager. was reportedly paid a settlement from. that fund. Now, Khan arguably has kind. of been wishy-washy on his statements. about that. Why do I say that? This is. what he said during a back and forth.

with Representative Ro Khanna during. that March 11th deposition. I want you. to listen carefully also to the idea of. a release. So, you put in language in a. document that would restrict the victims. from being able to continue to sue other. people that were allegedly involved in. what Epstein and Maxwell were accused of. doing. Just take a look. >> Is it true that the Jane Doe 4, the. citation is Doe versus Jeffrey Epstein 1. colon 19 CB 07675. Southern District of New York, received a financial settlement directly.

from the estate? Is her attorney is. claiming? >> I'm sorry. I I don't know who Jane Doe 4. is. >> Uh she's the person who has been widely. described as alleging that President. Trump uh raped or abused her when she. was 13 in the 1980s. And her attorney is out there and said. that she received a settlement from the. estate. >> Um. >> Congressman, may I just tell him who. Jane Doe 4 is just to refreshes him?

>> Okay. I believe I understand who you're. referring to. If you don't mind me, would you please repeat the question? >> Is it true that she received a financial. settlement directly from the estate? Her. attorney said that. >> she has. I just want to clarify. >> I believe that Jane Doe 4. uh received a settlement via mediation. with the estate I believe in 2025. >> And her attorney's saying she received. that settlement because she was a victim. of Epstein and President Trump. Is that.

accurate? >> I don't recall the um. mediation statement or the lawsuit in. particular, but. I don't have recollection of President. Trump. I know that she alleges that. Epstein. abused her, but I don't recall President. Trump. >> I I guess it would only be the mediation. statement that would be. >> I believe she filed a lawsuit, so there. was a complaint which I believe is.

public. So, if I'm. uh not speaking correctly, we can look. at the complaint and see if she makes. that allegation, but I don't recall from. the mediation statement that um. I don't even actually. Now I'm thinking about it. I don't even. know if she made a mediation statement. So, I I don't have any recollection of. her making allegations against President. Trump. >> So, at this point then So, I I just to. get on the record that Jane Doe Doe Ford. did get a settlement. You don't know. anything beyond it, but she she was. given a settlement. Is it your There's.

some people who said, "Oh, this is all a. hoax." Uh. the survivors obviously say there over a. thousand survivors. Given your situation, would you say it's. fair to say that there are hundreds of. women who were abused or. uh raped or trafficked? And would you. say that there more than uh. uh Epstein and Maxwell that were. involved? >> I don't agree with the statement that. there were a thousand plus survivors. My understanding is that the Epstein. Victims Compensation Program gave out.

awards to 136 women. The estate then settled. mediation or or individually with. another 59 individuals, which I believe. is 195. I believe um. and there's uh allegations that maybe. there's another. 50 women out there in my belief. So, I. I'd say the number is probably somewhere. in the 250 range, not 1,000. >> And what about Would you say it's fair.

to say that there were other men. involved either in trafficking, raping, abusing, participating in the abuse of. these girls other than Maxwell and. Epstein? >> I can't speak for what other men did. I. could only speak as co-executor what I. see in the lawsuits against the estate. uh that I'm now tasked with reading and. trying to understand. Uh but I can say to you that. in some of the settlements that were. made. as well as the Epstein Victims Epstein. Victims Compensation Program women were.

allowed to have carve outs from their. release. And there were a number of carve outs. from uh both the Epstein victims. compensation program. and the mediation. >> What does that mean? >> What the carve-out means. when we set up the Epstein victims. compensation program. we set up a very um. broad release. And the thought process. as fiduciaries and co-executors was that. we did not want to settle with a woman.

for her to then turn around and sue. another employee or someone who was a. contractor or affiliated with the. estate. So, at the time when we were negotiating. the release. David Boies was involved in that. conversation and we uh at first he was. against the broad release and when the. estate and Jordy Feldman and Ken. Feinberg all decided that the estate was. going to give out larger rewards because. the release was a little broader. he agreed to the release. But, what I'm saying is that uh the.

carve-out would be. if this uh plaintiff's attorney or if. this victim was unsure of whether or not. this person was covered by the release. They wanted that name to specifically. say this release does not cover this. individual. >> There were other men involved based on. that. >> I'm not making allegations. Women wanted to have. other names carved out. I'm not making. any statements that other men were. involved. I I'm not aware of what went. on. Thank you. >> We'll end the minority round here. We'll.

go off record. We'll go back on the record. Uh. Mr. Khan. and let's. 1:02 p.m. Mr. Khan, um. towards the end of the. last hour. um there were discussions about the. estate settlement fund for victims and. survivors of the crimes of Mr. Epstein. and it was mentioned that there were. carve-outs for. um other individuals. Could you please.

inform us of who those individuals are. that were carved out? >> Yes. My recollection. uh is that from the Epstein victims. compensation program. I'm aware of two carve outs. There may. have been a few more, but these are the. two that I'm aware of. Um one was Alan Dershowitz. And the other carve out was Prince. Andrew. Regarding the mediation.

there were two additional carve outs. One was Leon Black. And the other was Jes Staley. >> Okay, but then just one day after that. deposition, Kahn had apparently reached. back out to the committee attorneys. So, on March 13th, the Oversight Committee. sent a letter to Kahn asking for. clarification calling out what they said. were concerning shifts. Part of that. letter reads, quote, on March 12th, 2026, so it's the day after, you. represented to Oversight Democratic.

staff attorneys that contrary to your. prior statement during the deposition, the individual identified as Jane Doe 4. did in fact file a claim against the. estate, but the claim was denied and no. settlement was reached. In a second call. on March 12th, 2026, you represented to. Oversight Democratic staff attorneys. that you can no longer stand by your. assertion that no settlement was reached. with Jane Doe 4. Instead, you stated on. this second call that you can neither. confirm nor deny whether a settlement.

was reached with Jane Doe 4. Now, so far. it appears Kahn hasn't commented further. on that, but I will tell you this much. It does seem being Jeffrey Epstein's. accountant was potentially financially. lucrative because this brings up. questions of Jeffrey Epstein's estate. and him managing the estate and after. all the affairs are done, what his. payout would be. And by the way, if any. of this ever went to trial, doesn't even. have to, you can make this point now, financial incentive. That's the first. thing you would cross-examine a witness. about, right? Regarding someone's.

credibility. Question if they knew about. and covered up or looked the other way. regarding alleged crimes. And when I say. probate here, once that happens, once. all the affairs are taken care of, there. would have been massive payouts to go to. people that were managing this, like. Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indyke, his. girlfriend Corinna Schlielack, Kahn. himself. We're talking about tens of. millions of dollars each. And the. committee members, they questioned Kahn. about that. >> Yes, I am a beneficiary of the 1953. Trust. Um. >> And you are among the top three.

beneficiaries in terms of dollar. amounts. Is that correct? >> I believe I am the. in the top three of beneficiaries, yes. >> Um and specifically, it's my. understanding that um the trust. um. bequeaths $50 million to Mr. Indyke and. $25 million to you. Is that correct? >> Yes, I believe that the uh. trust has a bequest to me for $25.

million. >> Um I I think the question that arises. then, um given that you described your. relationship to Mr. Epstein this morning. as strictly professional, um why he. would leave you a bequest of that size. through his trust. >> So, I was not involved in Epstein's. draft think I was will documents. But what I can say is that Epstein asked.

me to be. wasn't alive, but I was requested to be. his co-executor and co-trustee. I believe that it's likely that I will. receive zero. from Epstein's 1953 Trust. based on the value of its assets and its. remaining obligations. As of. the last publicly filed quarterly. accounting, the estate had approximately. $120 million. of assets.

Most recently, the estate. uh settled a lawsuit, a class action. lawsuit for $35 million, uh. which leaves approximately $85 million. The estate still has, unfortunately, four to five remaining lawsuits. In addition to the fact that it is. burning approximately 10 to 15,000, I'm. sorry, 10 to 15 million dollars a year. in legal fees and other expenses. Um as far as uh taking the role as. co-executor,

that's not a role that anyone would. want. I decided to take the role, as I. testified earlier, as I thought I'd be. best suited. to know Epstein's assets and to. be able to terminate employees in a. respectful and kind fashion. Lastly, uh being able to compensate. victims. for all of their harms. that they endured by Epstein was my top. priority in taking this role after. learning about all the terrible things. Epstein did.

To go back to your original question, uh. actually, let me just add one more. point. Being co-executor has caused. tremendous strife in me and my family. The anguish, anxiety, distress. is unfathomable. My reputation has suffered what I. believe to be irreparable damage that I. don't know if I'll ever recover from. taking this role. But you asked me the question, why.

do you think Epstein. awarded $25 million to me? I was not involved in the drafting of. his documents. But what I can say is. that Epstein's estate of approximately. $600 million, uh. if his estate was being probated in New. York or Florida. and there was no designation of a. co-executive fee. Currently, Epstein's. will calls for me to receive $250,000. for what will probably amount to 10.

years of work. As I just said, I don't believe I will. receive anything from Epstein's trust. based on the assets and liabilities. I believe that Epstein envisioned me. taking this role as co-executor and. co-trustee. to be many, many years of work. and at the same time, he didn't provide. for what would be an executor fee in New. York or Florida, which I believe the. statutory rate is approximately 2%. So, if I was not in Epstein's trust and. I was a corporate trustee, I probably.

would have received an executor fee of. $12 million. for. serving as co-executor. and serving as co-trustee. So, that could be the only reason why he. left me such a large bequest because if. you take away the $12 million, my. bequest is not different than many other. individuals that are in that trust for. $10 million. And lastly, I would just say other than. compensating victims, I would never take on this role again as.

co-executor. >> And this is really interesting, too. When they asked Kahn whether he had been. contacted by any sort of law enforcement. agency about Epstein, he said no. Epstein had apparently been under. investigation for years. We've talked. about this before, that there were. multiple agencies looking at this guy. This was both at the state and federal. levels. So, how could they not reach out. to the money man? And that seems to be. the committee's reaction, too. >> Have you ever been formally questioned. by any government authority in.

connection with Mr. Epstein? >> I've never been questioned by any. government authority. Although I did. receive. um. I believe a grand jury subpoena request. from the Southern District of New York. and I believe from the US Virgin. Islands. Department of Justice. I'm not sure what division but both of. the requests were for the same thing. They were asking for. um.

Epstein's estate documents. They wanted. to see his will. and his 1953 trust and I believe they. also asked for prior versions of some of. the trusts. which we complied with and provided. >> Have you ever been subject to any. regulatory regulatory action? >> No. >> Any financial regulatory action? >> No. >> Yeah, so right there is why people. question the government's handling of. this Epstein matter, why there's so many. questions, why there's so much. uncertainty, skepticism. They question.

whether everyone was fully investigated, whether all the apparent connections. were fully probed, whether other charges. against anyone else could be brought. I. mean, he wasn't even questioned with. respect to Ghislaine Maxwell's sex. trafficking case where she was. convicted. Now, this was a long. deposition, right around 6 hours. And. look, we haven't been able to get into. absolutely everything, kind of the big. parts here, but there is one big. question that loomed over this whole. proceeding. How could Cohn continue to. work for Epstein when he found out about. his conviction? Here's what he had to.

say. >> Believe you testified earlier that you. had some concerns after Mr. Epstein's. legal troubles in 2008 and 2009 when he. was in prison you decided to stay. employed because you were a new father, there was a financial crisis, is that. accurate to what you testified to today? >> In 2008. I trusted Epstein when he told me that. it was a mistake that he was with a. minor and that it would never happen. again. But I still had concerns and.

I then evaluated along with the fact. that we were in a financial crisis and I. had a young family and I decided to. stay. Yes, that was my testimony. >> And after 2009, did your concerns about. Jeffrey Epstein end or wane? >> Uh um. Are you referring to a particular time. after he was released from prison? >> Just after he was released from prison. >> Uh after Epstein. was released, uh I could say affirmatively that I.

never saw a minor. Uh I never saw a. woman that was being abused. No woman had ever come to me and saying. that she was under distress, that she. was being sexually abused or sexually. trafficked. I never saw any payments that he made. that said they were for sex. I never saw payments that said cash. massages. So, um. although Epstein was still doing. terrible things uh that I later learned. as co-executor, at that point in time, um.

I did not uh during the later years, during 2009 to 2018, I did not see any. signs. uh until the Miami Herald article that. alerted me to uh me reevaluating. potentially leaving employment. There. were times during the period of time. that I wanted to leave you know, on my. own because I wanted to do something. else, but uh. I never saw signs from Epstein. and later learning about the terrible. things he did uh that made me want to. leave in the interim.

>> And after the Miami Herald article came. out in uh believe it was November of. 2018, why did you not decide to leave then? >> Uh at that point, I was um. everything was happening quite fast. Uh. we got dropped by the bank, and I was. then being asked to do things. Uh I. still was thinking about leaving, um. but I was, you know, quite busy at that. time putting out fires. Uh I would have. liked to think with a clear head, and me not dealing with trying trying up.

an IBE or open up accounts on Epstein's. behalf, I would have certainly. left working for him. >> To the totality of your knowledge, both. as your time working for Mr. Epstein and. subsequently becoming a co-executor of. his estate, um. was Jeffrey Epstein paid by individuals. to traffic women to them? >> Was he paid by individual? Not that I'm. aware of. >> You have a deep awareness of Mr. Epstein's finances and financial.

situation. Um. did any of his funds come from the. trafficking of women? >> No, not that I'm aware of. >> And does Mr. Epstein have any. unexplainable income in your time. as his personal accountant? >> No, to I walked through today all of his. income and I know where it was sourced. sourced from. Um. as I testified earlier, with certain clients I was involved. Um.

especially Leon Black, but other clients. I was not involved, so I can't speak to. the services he provided for those. individuals, but I have no reason to. believe that any of his income was. earned in an improper fashion. >> Okay, so there you have it. Some big. moments from his deposition. I just have. to say this. There'll be always a lot of. talks when you focus on him and you. focus on Darren Indyke. So again, we're. going to do another episode about his. testimony. We have the videotape there. Perjury, right? Perjury comes up a lot, right? Are they telling the truth? As I. mentioned, if the committee believes.

that he committed or Indyke committed. perjury, they can refer the matter to. the DOJ for potential filing and. prosecution, but I've said it before and. I'll say it again, perjury can be. notoriously hard to prove. Yes, if you. have a black and white case where. somebody testifies one way and you have. definitive proof that's not true, you. have to show that this was willful, right? It wasn't just a mistake, it was. willful, they knew they were doing it. And it can be difficult to pinpoint. exactly what Con knew or didn't know. Yes, we have a lot of documents here. Yes, that can be very substantial if.

there are emails, communications that. would suggest otherwise, but perjury is. not a slam dunk and also becomes a. separate political question whether the. Department of Justice would even move. forward with charges against anyone in. the Epstein case, particularly against. Richard Kahn. Now, I'm not saying that. he wasn't telling the truth. I'm not. saying that he was misrepresenting the. truth. We just don't know, but again, I. gave different options about what to. take away from this. Either he was kept. in the dark, he really didn't know about. any of this, or you know, is there. something else going on here? But, I.

will just say this is good for the. public to see with their own eyes his. answers, to judge for themselves his. answers. This is about transparency as. we try to get a better understanding of. Jeffrey Epstein and his inner workings. Now again, to be clear, Richard Kahn. hasn't been charged with a crime, he. hasn't been formally accused of a crime. What happens next with respect to his. testimony, how it will be used and what. fashion, we'll wait and see. So, we have. Jeffrey right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining. us and as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify,

wherever you get your podcast. You can. also check us out on NBC's Peacock as. well. If you want to follow me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation show, Jesse. Weber LIVE, Monday through Friday, 11:00. p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.