Feds launch new Epstein criminal investigation! What, how, when, why?

I’ve been saying this was in the works for months, but as usual, found myself gaslit by the world!

According to a September 23, 2026 leak in the Wall Street Journal, a federal criminal investigation related to our favorite deceased financier is currently underway.

My view has long been that the Feds were likely to bring some sort of new federal “sex trafficking” case in relation to Epstein. “How could that be?” you ask, befuddled. “He’s been dead for over seven years!” And the relevant conduct tied to his purported “sex trafficking conspiracy” would have taken place so very long ago!

Well, please recall that Epstein’s status as a decedent did not prevent the government from subsequently charging Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator in his alleged “sex trafficking” conspiracy. Her trial took place in 2021, and the “conspiracy” posited by the government was alleged to have taken place several decades prior, encompassing conduct that allegedly spanned from 1994 to 2004. This length of time having elapsed was clearly no impediment for the government to press forward with its favored “trafficking” theory.

According to a bevy of recent civil litigation that has gained approval by the courts, Epstein’s trafficking “venture” purportedly continued all the way up to his death in 2019. So a mere seven years elapsing should be a “piece of cake” if the Feds really want to bring some new “conspiracy” charges. Further, designating Epstein’s supposed activity a “sex trafficking venture” creates a multitude of lax criteria for how the government can proceed to construct its case.

Here’s how I discerned there was likely a new Epstein-related federal criminal investigation underway — centered on, but not necessarily at all limited to, his former accountant, Richard Kahn, and former in-house lawyer, Darren Indyke.

First off, I’m one of the vanishingly few maniacs who actually sat through the entirety of their 6+ hour depositions before the House Oversight Committee in March 2026. See here, and here.

Of note is that both the Republican and Democratic staff, as well as at times the actual members of Congress who popped in, were about equally aggressive in their questioning. And arguably, the Republicans were even more aggressive. Which may seem counter-intuitive given the current partisan valence of the wider “Epstein” mania.

Over the course of those many painstaking hours, Indyke and Kahn were pelted with question after question that could easily constitute a “perjury trap,” depending how inventively some theoretical prosecutor would like to go after them.

Perhaps more relevant, though, is how certain questions were framed, and what information the questioners were apparently seeking to extract.

Here’s a notable excerpt where Congressman William Timmons (R-SC) makes a point to show up in person for the Indyke deposition. More than four hours into the proceeding, Timmons drops the cordial formalities, and declares “the American people are pissed” about Epstein. Among the things they’re “pissed” about, claims Timmons, is that “the names” of child sex abusers have still not been disclosed. He also claims Americans are “pissed” because there has not yet been adequate “accountability” imposed on persons who “conspired” with, and were “instrumental” to, Epstein’s alleged continuation of his “scheme” after 2008-2009, when he was released from carceral custody in Florida. Timmons accuses Indyke himself of being one of those persons, and thereby laments that the desired “accountability” has not yet been imposed upon him. He then tries to elicit a bunch of information from Indyke that could plainly be used in furtherance of a potential “sex trafficking” prosecution:

Note that Timmons invokes his prior experience as sex crime prosecutor in South Carolina. Also note that being a Republican, Timmons is likely to have far more of an “open line” with the Trump DOJ than any Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. Thirdly, note that Timmons accuses Indyke of being “part of” Epstein’s purported “trafficking scheme,” including via the making of “false promises” to purported victim women — which echoes the statutory language of the Trafficking Victims’ Protection Act. An element of which is that “commercial sex acts” be facilitated by use of “false promises.” In other words, Timmons is using this legislative inquest to assist in creating the factual predicate for a potential “sex trafficking” prosecution, which he adamantly desires to see forthcoming. Timmons also expresses his view that every adult woman in Epstein’s employ, with the exception of Lesley Groff, is a “survivor” — and opines that Indyke was “instrumental” and/or “complicit” in Epstein’s victimization of these “survivors” through his repellant “human trafficking” enterprise.

There’s also been a flood of recent civil litigation, in both state (NY) and federal court, that likewise accuses both Indyke and Kahn of being co-conspirators in Epstein’s “sex trafficking” operation. See, e.g.:

Sure enough, WSJ says the recent federal criminal investigative activity has been based out of the Southern District of New York. Which is also incidentally where Trump’s November 2025 directive was aimed (see below.) Todd Blanche said on January 30, 2026 that Jay Clayton, then the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York — and who was interfacing with “Epstein Survivors” and their lawyers to impose any demanded redactions on “Epstein Files” — was the point-person “in charge of any potential investigations” related to Epstein.

Other clues:

• On May 29, 2026, a cohort of “Epstein Survivors” associated with World Without Exploitation, the “anti-trafficking” NGO founded by Lauren Hersh — who I hope to share a bevy of startling information on at some point — gathered outside the House Oversight Committee’s interview of Pam Bondi and took questions from journalists. Among the subjects discussed was who could potentially be prosecuted to satisfy these Professional Survivors’ demands for retributive state action. Dani Bensky, a professed Survivor who I also intend to write more about at some point — since she’s evidently become a full-time political activist over the past year — declared to the TV cameras that “there are lots and lots and lots of leads in the files” as to who ought to be prosecuted, especially “regarding Indyke and Kahn.” She waved around printouts of emails purportedly showing that Indyke and Kahn had facilitated money transfers which were integral in Epstein’s orchestration of his “sex trafficking venture.” Bensky is one of the leaders of the full-time “survivor” crew who’ve been relentlessly hectoring Todd Blanche and Kash Patel to prosecute somebody, for something.

Still other clues:

• At a hearing in federal court on April 2, 2026, Brittany Henderson — law partner and now-wife of Bradley Edwards, the leading “Epstein Victim” lawyer — declared to me that there ought to be further criminal prosecutions of Epstein associates. When I asked who she specifically had in mind, she expressly cited “his lawyer, his accountant” — meaning Indyke and Kahn.

Why does it matter who this particular lawyer thinks ought to be prosecuted? Well, her hubby Edwards said on a February 12, 2026 podcast that he was actively providing “information” to the government, since these unspecified government actors had “asked us, you know, who else was involved.” Edwards/Henderson were also actively liaising with the DOJ to implore that certain “Epstein Files” be redacted or removed from the DOJ’s website, on the ground that “victim-identifying information” had been egregiously compromised. And the DOJ — at the direction of then-Deputy AG Blanche — appears to have invariably acceded to these histrionic demands, progressively removing and redacting whatever “files” the outside lawyer consortium was frantically calling attention to.

The context for my April 2 exchange with Edwards and Henderson were some recent curiosities that had appeared on the court docket for the Bank of America class-action lawsuit. On March 10, lawyers for BofA sent a letter to Judge Rakoff declaring it “has now become clear” that a criminal investigation relating to “Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture” was “pending.” The reason the lawyers had pieced together this information was because they were arguing that Rakoff should grant a stay for the BofA civil action, since the pendency of any criminal investigation on materially relevant matters is often cited as basis to hold civil litigation in abeyance. Rakoff rejected this argument, and granted preliminary approval to the class-action settlement on April 2, followed by finalized approval on August 27. (Total amount: $73 million, plus 30% for “attorney fees.” Cha-ching.) Notwithstanding the failure of the BofA lawyers’ argument, some of the evidence for an ongoing criminal investigation they marshaled sure seemed to be at least preliminarily valid:

Blanche did state on January 30, 2026 that among the records the DOJ was withholding in its massive “Epstein Files” production were “anything that would jeopardize an active federal investigation.” Which suggested that some sort of “federal investigation” was indeed “active.” Although Blanche hedged with vague legalese when journalists inquired as to whether an active criminal investigation was actually happening. However, Blanche had gone out of his way to divulge that no files were being withheld on the basis of “national security or foreign policy,” which was one of the exceptions included in the text of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. At the same time, he made no comparable statement in relation to the “ongoing investigation” exception, which was also included in the text of the Act.

Recall this post from Trump on November 14, 2025:

That’s a directive from Trump for the FBI and DOJ to initiate some sort of active criminal investigation related to Epstein, and his purported associations with various individuals and entities, namely high-profile Democrats whom Trump figured would make optimal scapegoats. Edwards denied to me in April that he had direct knowledge of any ongoing criminal investigation, and maintained that the communications with DOJ he’d referenced had only been more general discussions “over the years,” rather than pertaining to any tangible, discrete investigation. Yet we now know from the WSJ leak that an investigation has been underway for some unspecified number of “months.”

Those who purport to be demanding “accountability” via further criminal prosecution have long honed in on Indyke and Kahn as the ripest available targets. Strangely enough, recent “Epstein Files” show us that Denise George, the former Attorney General of the US Virgin Islands, complained to the FBI in 2023 about supposedly being stifled in her own intrepid pursuit of these alleged Epstein co-conspirators. George claimed that over the course of her island-centric “investigation” — which eventually yielded $243 million for a USVI slush fund across at least three separate settlements (Epstein Estate, JP Morgan, Leon Black) — she took the liberty to make certain findings of fact, namely that Indyke and Kahn “were participants in the [Epstein] human trafficking operation.” Which one might think would mean the two men could face some rather severe criminal liability.

George was mostly focused on cash rewards, though. The fruits of which remain conspicuously insulated from public inspection. I’ve had a records request pending with the USVI Department of Justice since November 10, 2025, related to its “historic” 2023 settlement with JP Morgan for $75 million, and can still barely get a response. A separate request for records related to its settlement with the Epstein Estate, dated September 8, 2025, has similarly yielded nothing. Some unknown portion of the JP Morgan sum was supposedly earmarked for “local charities” and “initiatives to enhance public safety,” as well as other generic banalities, according to then-USVI Attorney General Ariel M. Smith. But records which might illuminate the actual destination of those funds have not been forthcoming. USVI seems to perhaps have some sort of archaic Caribbean public records procedure, alien to the rest of the Nation, despite being a full-fledged US territorial holding.

The most I’ve gotten was a May 13, 2026 message falsely claiming I had submitted my request to the wrong entity:

When I replied correcting Ms. Goomansingh, and confirming that I had indeed intended to direct my request to the USVI Department of Justice, since that is the entity which effectuated the settlement in question, I was greeted with (checks calendar) over four months of silence. They also don’t answer the phone at least 80% of the time, and when they do, the person who picks up will inevitably direct you to somebody else, who then also claims they too are the wrong person to ask.

Anyway, there have long been signals pointing to the existence of this federal “sex trafficking” investigation. I doubt a ton of people would have predicted that the Trump DOJ would be seeking to prosecute any Epstein-related matters whatsoever. After all, a huge contrived political controversy for the past year has been their supposed refusal to pursue new criminal investigations that the mass public supposedly craves.

Bear in mind, however: if the period of anticipated prosecution relates to the years 2008-2019, precisely zero of the females understood to be putative “Epstein victims” would have been under age 18 at the time of their claimed victimization. So in other words, this would strictly be an “adult sex trafficking” prosecution — and therefore would have nothing to do with the “accountability” the public supposedly demands in recompense for unpunished, large-scale “pedophilia” atrocities.

Still, the political logic for some federal criminal action is explicable for the Trump Administration. If there’s a new prosecution launched in which Trump himself is not an alleged participant, that could allow desperate Republicans to emotionally proclaim: HEY GUYS, look, the “accountability” you were all in such an uproar about is finally being delivered! (Trump himself would have no conceivable role with anything that transpired post-2008). This could superficially mollify certain segments of the GOP/MAGA “base” who remain disenchanted with the Admin’s handling Epstein-related developments from 2025-present. And who will of course not examine the details with any precision. Rather, they’ll just see cacophonous headlines about EPSTEIN CO-CONSPIRATORS INDICTED or some such, and give thanks to Savior Don for ushering forth this long-awaited justice.

Also bear in mind that Leon Black was just held in contempt of Congress last week by a unanimous bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. Black is one of the perceived Epstein co-conspirators whom Thomas Massie, for example, has flamboyantly demanded the prosecution of (and pre-judged the guilt of). Relatedly, Black is often alleged to have been the chief financier of Epstein’s post-2008 “operation.” So it would be conceivable for federal prosecutors to attempt to ensnare him in their newly-revealed investigation. The imbroglio that led to the contempt resolution against Black was largely the handiwork of another stalwart Republican, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Certainly it would behoove Republicans to triumphantly announce that they did right by their constituents, and made sure once and for all that the Epstein affair was resolved through the infliction of harsh criminal penalties.

Democrats would likely also be compelled to begrudgingly cheer. For instance, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) inserted the following demand for vengeance in his August 2026 report: “DOJ must conduct criminal investigations into Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn, Harry Beller and other Epstein aides.” Elected officials suddenly deciding it’s just swell to publicly petition for criminal prosecutions of certain private individuals might be a bit questionable on the merits, but hey, it’s the political climate we’re all currently in.

It also would not be surprising if the concomitant state-based criminal investigation now underway in New Mexico borrows, in some form or fashion, from this federally-tailored “trafficking” theory, although what the NM Attorney General could actually prosecute to that end is more ambiguous.

So anyway, as usual, a hearty congrats to all involved. We can hereby expect “Epstein” to stretch on for at least several more years in the federal law enforcement apparatus.

---