House lawmakers investigating the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case heard from two of Epstein’s longtime advisers. They claimed they were never interviewed by government investigators. Democrats argue that this contradicts Attorney General Pam Bondi’s claims that the Justice Department thoroughly reviewed the evidence and found no grounds for further allegations against powerful figures.
On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee released deposition videos from Richard Kahn, Epstein’s longtime accountant, and Darren Indyke, Epstein’s longtime lawyer and co-executor of his estate.
The committee stated that the depositions were conducted on March 11 and March 19. In their testimony, both men said federal authorities did not question them about Epstein’s crimes, despite their years spent in his inner circle.
Democratic House Rep. Ro Khanna rips into Darren Indyke, Jeffrey Epstein’s attorney, who claimed he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
Ro goes after the “coverup” of the Epstein files and Pam Bondi.
Khanna also wants to gain access to hard drives that could contain encrypted… pic.twitter.com/qomtfLxBpI
— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) March 20, 2026
Kahn testified that he had “never been questioned by any government authority.” Indyke told lawmakers he had not been interviewed by federal investigators about Epstein’s abuse. Their statements came months after the Justice Department and FBI issued a memo stating their review found no incriminating “client list” and no credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals.
The testimony has given Democrats on the committee new ammunition. They have been pressing Bondi and senior Justice Department officials about what they see as gaps in the government’s review of the Epstein files.
This conflict intensified this month after Democratic lawmakers walked out of a closed-door briefing led by Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. They then moved to enforce a subpoena seeking Bondi’s sworn testimony.
Bondi’s department has insisted that its review was thorough. In a July 2025 memo, the DOJ and FBI stated that they examined extensive digital and documentary evidence. They concluded there was no reason to pursue new public disclosures beyond what had already been released, except for materials protected to shield victims and evidence related to child sexual abuse.
JUST IN: Epstein lawyer Darren Indyke likely perjured himself repeatedly in today’s deposition, says Rep. Dave Min.
Min says he is shocked Indyke didn’t plead the fifth.
“I think it’s very likely he perjured himself over and over and over again.”
“I’m not gonna go into detail,… pic.twitter.com/j7cCUJVf0h
— E X X ➠A L E R T S (@ExxAlerts) March 19, 2026
Bondi also faced criticism last year after her earlier comments raised expectations that dramatic new revelations would come from the files.
Lawmakers investigating Epstein have argued that the failure to interview people like Kahn and Indyke creates clear gaps in that review. Both men told the committee they had no knowledge of Epstein’s abuse while they worked for him, and neither has faced criminal charges.
Indyke testified last week that he had “no knowledge whatsoever” of the abuse, while Kahn said he was not aware of Epstein’s crimes during his time as the financier’s accountant.
The committee’s inquiry has also focused on materials lawmakers are still seeking, including hard drives mentioned during Indyke’s deposition and additional estate records connected to victims’ civil claims. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said after Indyke’s deposition that survivors “deserve to know the truth” and promised to continue pushing for more disclosures.
Epstein, the wealthy financier charged in 2019 with federal sex-trafficking offenses, died in jail that year. His former associate Ghislaine Maxwell was later convicted on sex-trafficking charges.
The renewed battle in Congress highlights that, despite millions of pages already reviewed or released, lawmakers from both parties remain in disagreement with the Justice Department over whether the public has seen the complete picture of how Epstein operated and who around him may have avoided tougher scrutiny.
