My investigation is focused on following the money on Epstein’s trafficking operation. The Treasury Department has its own Epstein file -- thousands of bank records that make up a roadmap of his finances. Secretary Bessent has refused to turn it over.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon
Ron Wyden
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes28%
No70%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Ron Wyden
U.S. SenatorDemocratOregon
SoupScore
Ron's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 84 sponsored · 373 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
There’s a big deadline coming up on Friday, when the DOJ is required by law to release its Epstein files. But that’s not going to be the end of it. We need a lot more answers about Epstein’s trafficking ring, and everybody involved ought to be brought to justice.
Here’s what I want to know: is the failure to question these key Epstein co-conspirators simply an inexplicable oversight? Or has the DOJ left them alone because they’re sitting on a mountain of evidence that would embarrass Trump and other powerful people if it came to light?
To this day, Indyke and Kahn still control Epstein’s $100 million estate portfolio. And it’s not just the money. They also have possession of thousands of Epstein’s emails, bank documents, photographs, calendar items and flight logs.
So today I’m asking the question nobody else seems to be asking: why has the DOJ never questioned Indyke and Kahn?
Indyke and Kahn are core Epstein henchmen, and the FBI has apparently never bothered to talk to them. It’s also important to remember that Pam Bondi was Florida Attorney General during the time of these crimes, and seemingly never pursued any investigation.
Indyke and Kahn even took millions each from Epstein’s accounts shortly before his arrest and after his death. Here’s the real head scratcher: it appears neither Indyke nor Kahn have EVER BEEN QUESTIONED in connection with any criminal investigation of Epstein’s crimes.
Indyke and Kahn’s work for Epstein made them rich. Forensic analyses and evidence presented in lawsuits that my investigators reviewed indicate that Epstein paid them both well upwards of $10 million. The real figure might be double that amount.
They structured big cash withdrawals from Epstein's accounts to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement and authorized thousands of suspicious wire transfers. Evidence also shows that Kahn may have concocted a sham marriage to keep one of Epstein's victims in the US illegally.
According to unsealed bank records that my investigative team reviewed, Indyke and Kahn even had authority over Epstein’s bank accounts. They oversaw virtually every aspect of the financial infrastructure that paid for Epstein’s sex trafficking.
These men weren’t just doing Epstein’s taxes and managing his affairs. The evidence shows they were DIRECTLY involved with the operation of his trafficking network.
We know who some of Epstein’s key accomplices were. Darren Indyke was his in-house lawyer. Richard Kahn was his accountant. Read a lot more about them here:
If you ask me, it makes no sense that only two people, Epstein himself and Ghislaine Maxwell, have faced prosecution for this massive, international sex trafficking network that involved hundreds of millions of dollars and upward of 1,000 women and girls.
My investigators are back with more on our follow the money investigation into Epstein.
Here’s a thread for anyone interested in learning about another major Epstein mystery:
My staff have seen some of that file. It shows who paid Epstein and where his money was going. Getting this file released publicly is the key to getting justice for Epstein's victims, and holding his associates accountable. And that's why I'll continue to follow the money.
One last point: I remain concerned about what the administration could do to its DOJ Epstein files. But the administration is sitting on another Epstein file, buried at the Treasury Department. A concrete money trail showing who helped finance Epstein's crimes over the years.
So it would be a positive development — and a real change of course — if the Trump administration suddenly bowed to bipartisan pressure and released the files as required by law. But whatever they do release, you have every reason to be skeptical of the content.
And finally, Bondi had an opportunity to go after more of Epstein’s henchmen when she was the Attorney General of Florida. That’s where a lot of Epstein’s crimes were committed, and at least one of his associates is still living in south Florida, selling real estate.
Third: the Trump admin did assign hundreds of FBI agents to look at the Epstein file, but somehow it wasn't able to hunt down any more pedophiles or Epstein enablers. Because those agents were apparently assigned to comb through the files for Donald Trump’s name and protect him.
Let’s remember: Maxwell is not just Epstein’s pal. She is also a trafficker and a serial abuser of women and girls. She was right at the heart of one of the most notorious sex trafficking rings in history. Despite all that, Trump himself says a pardon for Maxwell is on the table.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History851 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
851 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-44) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-45) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-46) |
| 2025-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (77-23) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-38) |
| 2025-02-03 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (83-13) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-35) |
| 2025-01-30 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (80-17) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (78-20) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-42) |
| 2025-01-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-42) |
| 2025-01-28 | H.R. 23 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | YES | ✕ | Nomination Confirmed (77-22) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (97-0) |
| 2025-01-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (68-29) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-23) |
| 2025-01-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (59-34) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-39) |
| 2025-01-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-01-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (72-26) |
| 2025-01-22 | S. 6 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-01-21 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46) |
| 2025-01-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (99-0) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (64-35) |
| 2025-01-20 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Amendment Agreed to (75-24) |
| 2025-01-17 | S. 5 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Amendment Rejected (46-49) |
| 2025-01-15 | S. 5 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Amendment Agreed to (70-25) |
| 2025-01-13 | S. 5 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.