Tag: house oversight committee
The Accountant's Suitcases: What Really Happened To Contents Of Epstein Safe?

The Accountant's Suitcases: What Really Happened To Contents Of Epstein Safe?

Let’s say you’re a middle-aged accountant who has spent your career working for one very rich, globally connected man. It’s high summer and you’re in the Hamptons when you get word that Number One Client – your only client – has been arrested by the feds. You may or may not have an idea why. You know a lot about Number One Client. You know where his money is, how his hundreds of millions are structured. He pays you handsomely for it. You also pay his bills, including wires totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to girls. You might even know, as the President of the United States has said, that Number One Client likes girls “on the young side.”

He’s been in trouble before, and authorities never bothered with you. But now, not only is he in jail, federal agents have broken down the baronial door of his Upper East Side mansion and are pawing through everything – the sex toys, the massage tables, the taxidermied dogs… and the safe.

Cutting through it with a diamond-tipped saw took the good part of a night. Inside: 48 loose diamonds, envelopes of cash totaling $70,000, multiple hard drives, binders of CDs, and various passports (Israeli, Austrian, and American – all with Epstein’s photo, but not his name).

Suspicious!

But their warrant – narrowly focused on sex crimes from 2002-2005 – doesn’t allow the feds to seize that stuff on the spot. They could cart off CDs found elsewhere labeled in ways related to their quest, like, for example, “Misc. Girls Nude/Dinner—Scientists.” But they need another warrant for the passports, cash, and unlabeled CDs.

They leave.

You have a choice: Stay at the beach? Go back to the city?

No rush!

With the boss in jail as of July 2019, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accountant Richard Kahn really was in no hurry to get back to the city. He says he left it to the house manager to decide how to handle the feds and their quest.

Incredibly, in the two official federal investigations into Epstein, no one seems to have bothered to interrogate Kahn about anything – let alone this episode – until the House Oversight Committee called him in last month.

Kahn told them that “I received a call from Merwin [Dela Cruz, the house manager] … telling me that ‘I packed up two bags of Epstein’s belongings or things that were safe, and I left them with your doorman in New York City. I just wanted to let you know.’ I said to him, ‘I’m not home. I’ll be home in three or four days. And, you know, at that time, I’ll bring it up to my apartment.’” Kahn says he moseyed back to Manhattan, found the suitcases with his doorman, and brought them up. “I never touched them. I never opened them. I left them in my dining room.”

Well, the house manager told a very different story. When the FBI returned to the mansion with a warrant for the safe’s contents, they found it empty. According to the FBI’s handwritten notes, Dela Cruz said that Kahn, who he described as “the money guy,” had instructed him to pack the contents of the safe into two suitcases and deliver them directly to his – Kahn’s – apartment dining room on Sunday, his day off.

The FBI called Kahn to get the suitcases out of his apartment and into their hands. Kahn added his lawyer to the call. He claims he was back in his office that day and had returned the “never touched” suitcases to the mansion within 20 or 30 minutes of hearing that the FBI wanted them.

The New York FBI did eventually get their hands on some of the materials from the safe. But even then, the logging of them was weirdly delayed, by at least a month in some cases, according to the records. Released DOJ records indicate that the FBI’s logged contents included unlabeled hard drives and approximately eight binders containing CDs of photos, in addition to the cash, diamonds, and passports.

But a property receipt from the initial FBI search indicates that the only items seized from the safe at the time were two black binders of CDs and 13 loose CDs. Special Agent Kelly Maguire, the leader of the team that searched the house, testified at Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial that agents did not have the legal authority to seize other CDs at that time.

So where did they go? What else of interest might have been on disks stored in a safe alongside loose diamonds and fake passports?

Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, wrote in his book Holding the Line that the FBI also discovered an Israeli passport inside the safe. We have not found any trace of that passport in the files released by the DOJ.

Michael Wolff has claimed that Epstein kept “a dozen or so” compromising photos of Trump in his safe, and would occasionally take them out to show Wolff and other friends. There is no record of those photos in the DOJ files released so far.

Special Agent Maguire did speak with Richard Kahn on the phone before the suitcases were returned. According to the call’s FD-302 interview form, Kahn was careful to add his attorney, who advised that Kahn had not opened or tampered with the contents of the suitcases and would return them to Epstein’s house in 20-30 minutes, which he reportedly did.

The FBI took the suitcases, gave Kahn a property receipt, and moved them to a secure location at the FBI New York Operations Center.

After Kahn handed over the suitcases, the record reveals more errors, inconsistencies, delays, and general weirdness in the FBI’s handling of the evidence from the safe and their reporting of these events. A “book of CDs” appeared in one inventory of the suitcases on July 11, only to be flagged as an erroneous entry in an “amended inventory” 20 days later.

FBI photographs of the suitcases taken on July 11, 2019 include two black images that are not redactions. Documentation pertaining to Kahn appears to have been entered with significant delays compared to other similar reports. A 302 report and inventory of the suitcases from Kahn were drafted on July 17, 2019, but not entered until over a month later on August 20 – ten days after Epstein’s death.

Kahn’s sworn testimony regarding the safe’s contents and the suitcases directly contradicts an FBI Task Force Officer’s sworn affidavit filed by SDNY in applications for subsequent search warrants (which only include the house manager’s version of events).

A cover-up?

Much like COURIER national correspondent Camaron Stevenson’s reporting on Kahn’s partner in Epstein-world, lawyer Darren Indyke, we find Kahn’s testimony to the Oversight Committee to be seriously undermined by the DOJ’s own files.

At the very least, we know the FBI’s handling of the safe materials and Richard Kahn’s interim possession of them destroyed a clean chain of evidence from the get-go.

Nina Burleigh is a journalist, author, documentary producer, and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Katie Chenoweth is associate professor of French at Princeton University and an investigative researcher.

Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Remains Cool And Calm During Bogus House Hearing On Epstein

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent much of Thursday in a closed-door hearing about accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. It all amounted to a laughable circus led by noted moron James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee.

After Comer threatened Hillary and former President Bill Clinton with jail time if they didn’t testify, the couple agreed to appear before the committee. Of course, the GOP insisted on doing this behind closed doors because that’s the best way for the partisan lawmakers to control the narrative.

Ahead of the hearing, Hillary Clinton shared her opening statement, where she rightly called the committee out for so, so many things.

The Oversight Committee’s Epstein investigation is a sham. While the Clintons were subpoenaed and are required to sit for long closed-door sessions, many of the Department of Justice and FBI officials involved in the Epstein investigations and prosecution were allowed to simply submit written statements.

In her statement, Clinton excoriated the committee for refusing to hold public hearings or allow the media to attend, and for refusing to call people who figure prominently in the files, such as one Donald J. Trump.

Finally, she pointed out that if the Trump administration was earnestly committed to its supposed goal of stopping sex trafficking and addressing Epstein’s myriad crimes, it would get to the bottom of why the Department of Justice and FBI are withholding material that implicates Trump.

Oh, and then there’s the whole thing where she said she never met Epstein, never flew on his plane, and, presumably, never drew him a fun little naked-lady sketch as a birthday tribute, unlike how one Donald J. Trump seems to have done.

Once the hearing started, things almost immediately got very stupid. Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado snapped a photo of Hillary Clinton and sent it to right-wing YouTuber Benny Johnson, who posted it online, saying, “This is the first time Hillary has had to answer real questions about Epstein. Clinton does not look happy.”

Well, would you be happy being forced to testify about a person you say you’ve never met—all while Trump, a former close friend of Epstein, doesn’t have to answer for a thing?

Sure, the committee rules explicitly forbid taking pictures, and sure, Boebert was typically smug and sarcastic about it, because rules don’t apply to Republicans, but it was quite the move for a committee that refused to let Clinton testify in public.

Closed-door means closed-door, not forcing Hillary Clinton to testify in private while you dribble out shit to your favorite right-wing influencer.

Boebert’s antics led to the hearing being halted for a bit. It also led to Johnson whining that it’s totally cool that he posted the photo because Clinton was “trying to get out of answering questions about Epstein.”

And how exactly could Johnson tell that from just a photo? It sure sounds like Boebert or another GOP goblin leaked more than just a picture.

In a mid-afternoon statement, Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California demanded that a full, unedited transcript be released within 24 hours—which is unlikely. For one, it’s a heavy lift for such a long testimony, and for another, Republicans on the committee will want as much time as possible to mischaracterize or just straight-up lie about Hillary’s testimony.

Garcia also told the press that Clinton had not invoked the Fifth Amendment, setting her apart from, say, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator. And of course, since the GOP will never call Trump to testify, he doesn’t even need to bother with deciding whether he would take the Fifth.

When things finally wrapped up well after 5 PM ET, Clinton spoke to the press, and it was clear that the hearing got both stupid and weird.

“It then got at the end quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate,” she said. “One of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet.”

Sure, why not.

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, never one to miss an opportunity to be creepy and inappropriate, demanded that Clinton answer a question about whether she had any feelings about photographs showing Bill Clinton getting a back rub from a young woman or any other of his associations with Epstein. Hillary told Mace she wasn’t there to talk about her feelings.

Mace did, however, tell the press afterward that Clinton “took every question from every single member.”

Of course she did. Clinton sat for 11 hours of testimony over the farce that was the Benghazi Committee in 2015. She could do 6.5 hours of questioning on Epstein while standing on her head.

But you know who apparently didn’t seem to have any questions about Epstein? James Comer. Clinton confronted him during the hearing and pointed out that he hadn’t asked her a direct question about Epstein all day. Kind of a wuss move from the committee chair who threatened jail time if the Clintons wouldn’t appear.

Hillary is done, but Bill Clinton testifies on Friday, and let’s be honest: You can expect his questioning to be even stupider, weirder, and longer. Republicans are going to continue to protect Trump and other favored right-wingers, and they’re going to continue to try to make the Clintons the real villains. But in their dark little cramped hearts, Trump’s toadies all know that they’ve got nothing.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Bannon Epstein

Epstein's MAGA Enabler: Why Steve Bannon Needs A Mirror

There may be nobody — perhaps not even Donald Trump himself — who embodies the degeneracy of what used to be called conservatism like Stephen K. Bannon. That the "War Room" host still exerts influence over the American and international right as a media personality, political strategist and power broker indicates just how empty of moral character that movement truly is.

Like dear leader Trump, Bannon owes his prominence and prosperity to a pervasive atmosphere of impunity. Every day, in an era of burgeoning scandal on every front, both of them test its limits — and have yet to find any at all.

What the Epstein files have lately revealed about Bannon, however, as disclosed in hundreds of emails between him and the predatory financier, is so depraved as to be almost unbelievable. In the face of these damning documents, the former Trump campaign manager has offered mutterings and excuses that scarcely even amount to a denial.

Not only did Bannon begin to execute a costly "op" (as he called it) with Jeffrey Epstein to rehabilitate the latter's image — which ended only with his arrest by federal authorities in 2019 — but they conspired politically together on various schemes both in the U.S. and Europe. Desperate for Bannon's help, Epstein financed his travel and connected him with potentates and politicians around the world. He paid Bannon hundreds of thousands of dollars to tape a dozen or more hours of "documentary" interviews that were evidently meant as media training, in anticipation of Epstein's prosecution.

All absolutely damning when assessed in the context of Epstein's vile assaults on girls and women, as well as his apparent financial crimes. Yet what seems most appalling so far, and most illustrative of the enveloping corruption, was their joint plotting against Pope Francis, whose liberal gestures toward gays and lesbians, migrants, Muslims and the global poor had enraged the self-styled "traditionalists" of the Catholic Church.

Together Bannon and Epstein aimed to produce a documentary film exposing the culture of hypocrisy and concealment surrounding homosexuality in the church, based on a 2019 French book "In the Closet of the Vatican." Bannon met with the book's author several times in Paris, where he also met Epstein, who had an apartment there.

With Epstein as the executive producer, Bannon predicted that the movie would wreak cataclysmic damage on the papacy and his other political adversaries, from Beijing and Brussels to Chappaqua. "Will take down Francis. The Clintons, Xi, Francis, EU — come on brother," he wrote, encouraging Epstein (who would soon be dead).

Stop to ponder for a moment exactly what Bannon was attempting to engineer. He wanted to produce a movie, with the help of a monstrous pedophile who had victimized hundreds of children, that would destroy the reputation of the Holy Father and perhaps many others equally without blame. And aside from the political benefit to his hard-right allies, Bannon no doubt hoped to bank a substantial profit.

It isn't easy to imagine a more sinister project. By comparison, Bannon's swindling of the suckers who financed his "We Build the Wall" nonprofit and his phony indictment of the humanitarian Clinton Foundation look quaint.

Now a few of Bannon's longtime enemies in the MAGA movement — including Elon Musk and Roger Stone, dismal characters in their own right — have leaped to attack him over these reports. Presumably Musk would like to distract attention from his own cameo role in the Epstein files, including his solicitation of an invite to "the wildest party" on Epstein's Caribbean island. And the scorpion-like Stone is merely stinging a perceived rival, as he always does.

Yet there are many self-proclaimed Catholics and Christians in Trump's orbit, MAGA influencers and conservative pundits who should have something to say about these appalling revelations. Why have we not heard from JD Vance, vice president of the United States, a fairly recent Catholic convert and a MAGA nationalist like Bannon, who spends so much of his time blathering on social media? Why haven't we heard from Peter Thiel, the ultra-right gay billionaire and Epstein buddy who lectures about the "Antichrist" among "woke Democrats"?

Indeed, very few of our moral arbiters on the right have felt moved to speak up about Bannon — just as they remained silent when his coconspirators in the "wall" scam served prison terms, while he skated with a presidential pardon.

The most apt summation of this MAGA mountebank appears in a video recently released among the Epstein files, one of several shot for that aborted documentary.

Bannon asks Epstein, "Do you think you're the devil himself?"

"No," Epstein retorts. "But I do have a good mirror."

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024). The paperback version, with a new Afterword, will be published in February 2026.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


James Comer

"Transparency"? Why Republican Comer Won't Let The Clintons Testify In Public

Under Republican control, the aims of the House Oversight Committee are to promote partisan narratives rather than to reveal facts and advance public understanding of national issues. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), its chairman, has displayed that routinely self-serving approach in the committee’s “investigation” of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal – and especially in his zeal to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Comer was never among the tiny handful of Republicans who demanded that the Trump administration release the government’s files on the deceased sex predator. Instead, the plodding Comer dutifully followed Donald Trump’s lead in defecting public anger over the case. Focusing on the Clintons, who know little (Bill) or nothing (Hillary) about this matter, is exactly how Trump has handled his own troubling connections with Epstein for the past several years.

With tens of thousands of mentions of Trump in the released Epstein materials, that distraction is more urgent than ever. And the Clintons somehow remain enticing targets for politicians like Comer and even some of the Democrats on his committee.

But after resisting the subpoenas for months – until it became clear that a vote to hold them in contempt would pass the House – the Clintons have flipped Comer’s script. Rather than give depositions behind closed doors, as the Republicans evidently prefer, the former president and secretary of state have demanded that the committee question them in a public hearing.

On February 5, Hillary Clinton posted this challenge on X:

“For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith. We told them what we know, under oath,” she wrote. “They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”

In a follow-up post, she urged Comer to “stop the games.”

“If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let’s have it—in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.”

Comer is not about to accept that challenge, which he ignored.

First, he knows how that worked out when Hillary Clinton showed up to testify about the Benghazi terror attack for 11 hours, at the behest of his predecessor, former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) – in short, not well for Gowdy and the Republicans, who made themselves look stupid as Clinton briskly schooled them. It’s not at all clear that Comer, a simpleton often mocked in whispers by his fellow Republicans, would fare better against both Clintons.

Second, Comer is obviously planning to pursue the devious strategy that proved more successful for Gowdy during the Benghazi farce – to record the depositions and then selectively leak snippets that create a misleading impression of the testimony. That is how Gowdy abused Sidney Blumenthal, the journalist and former Clinton White House aide called to testify privately for nine hours during that inquest in 2015.

I wrote extensively about that clown show – and the complicity that Gowdy enjoyed from the New York Times Washington bureau, which eagerly lapped up the leaks – in a series of posts. Gowdy and his stooges fabricated a tale about Blumenthal’s supposed “business interests” in Libya and how they had influenced Clinton’s policy. Having invented that diverting story, the Republicans could not afford to let the public see and hear Blumenthal’s testimony demolishing it.

So despite protests from Democrats, notably the late and highly esteemed Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), a much sturdier figure than the current ranking Democrat, Blumenthal’s testimony was kept under wraps – where it remains a decade later. Neither Gowdy nor his fellow Republicans wanted the public to see how they had misused their power to spread falsehoods, pursue partisan grudges unrelated to Benghazi, and generally make fools of themselves.

Will House Democrats, the Epstein victims, and the media allow Comer to get away with the same game? For all their rhetoric about “transparency,” not to mention similar high-minded blather from the Republicans, why would they permit this nonsense?

This attempt to conceal and distort the Clintons’ testimony is the latest episode in the ongoing Trump coverup – and it would be shameful indeed to allow such a deception to proceed.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024). The paperback version, with a new Afterword, will be published in February 2026.

Reprinted with permission from Creators

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World