Author: admin

(WASHINGTON) — In his opening statement to the House Oversight Committee, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime attorney Darren Indyke claimed that he had “no knowledge whatsoever” of the late financier’s crimes and categorically denied facilitating the sex trafficking of women.

“I’m left trying to explain what many people who knew Jeffrey Epstein have noted after his death: he led two entirely separate lives, his professional one and the other, a private, personal one that caused many others to suffer,” Indyke said on Thursday, according to his prepared remarks obtained by ABC News. “That I did not know what my client did in his private life may be difficult for some to believe, but it is true.”

Indyke addressed some of the allegations levied against him in civil lawsuits filed after Epstein’s death, including that he withdrew hundreds of thousands in cash for Epstein and coordinated sham marriages to keep victims in the United States.

According to Indyke, he never tried to “structure” cash withdrawals to avoid triggering an alert to the Treasury Department. He seemingly acknowledged that he did withdraw thousands for Epstein, arguing that the sex offender required large amounts of cash because he had trouble obtaining credit cards from major banks.

“For a person in Mr. Epstein’s financial position – with five multimillion-dollar residences staffed by dozens of employees and with an extensive travel itinerary – it did not strike me as unusual that Mr. Epstein’s business, household and personal needs required large amounts of cash on a regular basis,” he said. “I never believed that cash that I withdrew for Mr. Epstein and his staff was used by Mr. Epstein or his staff for any improper purposes.”

Indyke also said he never did “arrange, assist or facilitate any marriages between acquaintances of Mr. Epstein.” Multiple now-settled lawsuits alleged that he assisted with at least three marriages to keep Epstein’s victims in the United States.

“I did not consider it appropriate to interrogate anyone as to the reasons for their decisions to marry or the bona fides of their relationships,” Indyke said in his remarks.

Indyke claimed that he would have quit working for Epstein had he known about his abuse and trafficking of women and girls. According to Indyke, Epstein vowed to never commit another crime after his 2008 guilty plea.

“After he pled guilty in 2008 to procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, Mr. Epstein appeared to me to be devastated and extremely contrite,” Indyke said. “He was adamant that he had no idea anyone involved was underage, and personally assured me he would never again let himself be in that position. I believed him, and I made the mistake of believing Mr. Epstein that he would not again commit a crime. I deeply regret doing so. Most importantly, I feel horrible for those women whom Mr. Epstein abused.”

Indyke served as Epstein’s longtime attorney since the mid-1990s.

As Epstein for years attempted to avoid scrutiny while orchestrating a notorious sex trafficking operation, Indyke — together with accountant Richard Kahn — allegedly helped him navigate legal issues and formed part of the financier’s inner circle. Indyke allegedly helped facilitate at least three sham marriages between Epstein’s victims and withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for Epstein, according to one lawsuit, and attested to Epstein’s character when he faced legal scrutiny.

“Knowing that they would earn millions of dollars in exchange for facilitating Epstein’s sex abuse and trafficking, Indyke and Kahn chose money and power over following the law,” alleged one lawsuit that Indyke and Kahn agreed to settle with no admission of wrongdoing.

Neither man has been charged with any crimes. They both deny any wrongdoing and say they were unaware of Epstein’s crimes while working for him.

The deposition Thursday comes as the House Oversight Committee attempts to zero in on members of Epstein’s inner circle to better understand how the disgraced financier was able to commit decades of crime with seeming impunity.

Following higher profile depositions of people like billionaire Leslie Wexner as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the questioning of both Indyke and Kahn arguably presents the committee with their strongest opportunity to learn more about Epstein’s life and crimes.

“I was not aware of the nature or extent of Epstein’s abuse of so many women until after Epstein’s death,” Kahn told lawmakers last week, according to his prepared remarks. “However, it pains me to think, and I deeply regret, that I may have unknowingly assisted Epstein in any way.”

Executor of Epstein’s Trust 

In a will signed two days before he was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell, Epstein named Kahn and Indyke as the co-executors of his estate and bequeathed them $25 million and $50 million, respectively. At the time of his death, Epstein’s estate was valued as much as $650 million. It was last valued at approximately $127 million, according to an October 2025 court filing, after paying out multiple settlements to Epstein’s victims.

As co-executors of Epstein’s estate, Indyke and Kahn recently agreed to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein’s victims that accused them of “facilitation, participation, and concealment of Epstein’s illegal conduct” for their own financial gain.

According to the lawsuit, both men helped “structure Epstein’s bank accounts and cash withdrawals to give Epstein and his associates access to large amounts of cash in furtherance of sex trafficking.”

“The Epstein Enterprise would not have existed for the duration it did and at its scope and scale, without the collaboration and support of others. No one, except perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell, was as essential and central to Epstein’s operation as these Defendants,” the lawsuit alleged.

The settlement did not include an admission of wrongdoing and still needs to be approved by a judge.  Though the lawsuit was brought against them personally, the $25-35 million settlement would be paid by Epstein’s estate, according to the settlement terms.

“Neither Mr. Indyke nor Mr. Kahn socialized with Mr. Epstein, and both men reject as categorically false any suggestion that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that they were aware of his actions while they provided professional services to him,” an attorney for the men told ABC News in December.

Allegedly arranged sham marriages

In a lawsuit filed by government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Indyke and Kahn were alleged to have helped facilitate at least three sham marriages created to secure immigration status for some of Epstein’s victims, further securing control of the women and ensuring they could remain in the United States.  

“The victims were coerced into participating in these arranged marriages, and understood that there would be consequences, including serious reputational and bodily harm, if they refused to enter a marriage or attempted to end it,” the complaint alleged.

According to a civil lawsuit filed in 2019 by an anonymous accuser, one woman alleged that Epstein’s longtime attorney — not explicitly named as Indyke in the lawsuit — helped prepare the legal paperwork for the marriage, going as far as arranging photographs “to give the appearance that the marriage was legitimate.”

“When the victim inquired about getting divorced … Indyke tried to talk her out of a divorce and threatened that she would lose Epstein’s protection,” a 2024 lawsuit alleged.

Files released earlier this year by the Department of Justice appeared to reference some of the marriages allegedly arranged by Indyke and Kahn.

“Good morning Jeffrey! We are going now to get marriage license,” an unidentified individual wrote Epstein in 2013. “She is asking if it’s possible to meet with you? Because she has some questions.”  

Withdrawing thousands in cash 

Court filings as well as documents released by the Department of Justice suggested that both Indyke and Kahn played integral roles in managing Epstein’s wealth and overseeing his regular expenses, including alleged payments to women.

According to the Virgin Islands lawsuit — which was settled by the Epstein estate with no admission of wrongdoing — Indyke and Kahn allegedly arranged payments from Epstein’s personal, corporate and nonprofits bank accounts to victims. That lawsuit alleged that Epstein — together with Kahn and Indyke — managed more than 140 different bank accounts.

According to documents released by the DOJ, Indyke served as an officer for many of the holding and shell companies related to Epstein’s real estate and financial holdings.

A 2020 settlement between Deutsche Bank and the New York state financial regulator also suggested that an attorney for Epstein — who sources told ABC News is Indyke — methodically withdrew cash for Epstein in a manner they said intentionally avoided scrutiny.

Limiting the withdrawals to $7,500 in cash — the maximum amount permitted and below the threshold to trigger concerns — Indyke allegedly withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars for Epstein over four years. While the transactions were below the $10,000 limit to trigger an alert to the Treasury Department, a report by New York State’s Department of Financial Services faulted Deutsche Bank for ignoring red flags about Epstein’s bank accounts.

Jail visits and a character reference 

After securing a plea deal in Florida, Jeffrey Epstein was visited in jail frequently by Indyke, according to visitor logs maintained by the Palm Beach Sheriff. Indyke also helped secure a lenient work-release program for Epstein by vouching for his employment, allowing Epstein to leave the jail for up to 16 hours a day, ABC News reported in 2021.

Prior to Epstein’s plea deal, Indyke also attested to Epstein’s character. According to a letter sent from defense lawyers to prosecutors in Florida, Indyke vouched for Epstein’s character and claimed that Epstein provided financial and emotional support to his family.

“Although Jeffrey was adamant that we owed him nothing, Jeffery honored us by agreeing to be the godfather of our children,” the letter quoted Indyke. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday that the Pentagon will be asking Congress for more money to cover the Iran war, saying he wants to ensure current and future costs are covered “above and beyond.”

A senior administration official confirmed that a $200 billion request was sent from the Pentagon to the White House on Wednesday. The Washington Post first reported the request.

It was not clear whether the White House had formally submitted the request to Congress as of Thursday morning or what kind of reception it would have among lawmakers, who remain deeply divided on President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran.

The conflict began Feb. 28 after negotiations on its nuclear and ballistic missile program failed, and the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes. In its third week, the U.S. says it’s destroyed more than 7,800 military targets, 120 Iranian ships and 11 submarines.

Pentagon officials told a group of senators in a closed-door briefing earlier this month that the war in Iran cost at least $11.3 billion in its first six days.

When asked about the $200 billion request, Hegseth didn’t confirm the total, saying that the number “could move.”

“As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move. Obviously it takes, it takes money to kill bad guys,” Hegseth said in a news conference Thursday morning. “So we’re going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is — everything’s refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond.”

Wartime supplementals are used to ensure the military remains ready to handle other potential conflicts and to replenish stockpiles spent on the ongoing mission.

Asked about the $200 billion request on Thursday, Trump said “we’re asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we’re talking about in Iran.”

“So we’re in very good shape, but we want to be in the best shape. The best shape we’ve ever been in,” Trump said.

House leadership has not received a formal defense supplemental request from the Trump administration, according to a source familiar with the details.

Asked about the amount, Speaker Mike Johnson said Congress has a commitment to “adequately fund defense.”

“I’m sure it’s not a random number, so we’ll look at that,” Johnson said Thursday morning. “But obviously it’s a dangerous time in the world, and we have to adequately fund defense, and we have a commitment to do that.”

As of Wednesday night, several Senate appropriators, including Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, said they had not yet seen the request.

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations committee, said she had not seen the funding request, and would need details to be provided.

“We have not seen that request, and I will tell you that this administration needs to tell Congress definitely what they’re doing and how long this is going to take. There is no goal here, and we’re not going to write them a blank check,” Murray said.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who is on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, told reporters on Thursday morning that to her knowledge the Pentagon has not made a request to Congress.

“What we have is a number that we have heard the White House presented to the Pentagon. So far as I know it has not been presented to us in Congress. So it needs to not only be presented, the amount, but also the rationale behind it,” Murkowski said.

The money that has so far been spent to fund operations in Iran comes out of Pentagon funds already allocated by Congress. Congress has not yet approved any additional funding for the war with Iran.

The funding request also indicates plans for a longer war — after Trump has previously said the war would last four to five weeks. The president has also brushed off that timeline, saying “whatever it takes.”

ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MONTGOMERY, Ala.) — The former Alabama Supreme Court justice who wrote the controversial ruling that temporarily halted in vitro fertilization services two years ago is running for state attorney general — and a group of conservative IVF parents is banding together to try to stop him.

Jay Mitchell wrote the majority opinion in a ruling that classified frozen embryos as people, prompting three of the state’s largest IVF treatment providers to halt care out of fear of wrongful death lawsuits when handling embryos.

“Unborn children are ‘children’ … without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics,” Mitchell wrote in the majority ruling in 2024.

The decision led to widespread public outcry and an effort at the Alabama statehouse to pass a bill protecting IVF treatments. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill shortly after the legislature passed it.

In the aftermath of the ruling, a group of parents who relied on in vitro fertilization to build their families created “Alabama Families for IVF,” a conservative grassroots coalition. The group is now airing ads against Mitchell in the state, voiced by Annie Hensler, who became a mother through IVF, though they have not yet endorsed a specific candidate.

“The attorney general’s office is a very powerful position, and we cannot have someone in that position that has this kind of judgment,” Katelanne Fadalla, an IVF parent who chairs the group, told ABC News.

Alabama’s attorney general would be responsible for enforcing state laws, including those related to reproductive health.

“We cannot risk having someone in office with this much influence over Alabama legislation who has already demonstrated that they cannot think through the consequences of the words that they write,” she added.

In a statement to ABC, Mitchell said, “I support IVF. My opinion protected IVF families and upheld Alabama law, but woke liberals and my political opponents continue to push lies about this case because they know I will fearlessly advance President Trump’s agenda as Alabama’s next Attorney General.”

Fadalla said she was preparing for her first consultation about IVF when news of the ruling broke in 2024.

“It was absolutely devastating,” she said.

“The opinion that came out of the Supreme Court from Jay Mitchell was not only extremely disruptive, but it was devastating to families across the state of Alabama during a time when all we are trying to do is grow our families,” Fadalla said.

In an ad airing across the state, the group accuses Mitchell of going against President Donald Trump, who declared his support for IVF after the 2024 ruling and called on the state legislature “to act quickly to find an immediate solution to preserve the availability of IVF in Alabama.”

“We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder — you know that. That includes — and you saw this was a big deal over the last few days — that includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America,” Trump said during the 2024 presidential campaign shortly after the ruling.

Mitchell has defended his record, describing himself as a “rock-solid conservative and warrior for the Trump agenda.”

“Jay shares the incredible commitment Alabamians have to faith, family and freedom, and his legal record proves that he is ready and willing to defend those values in court,” his campaign states on its website.

Three candidates are running in the Republican primary for Alabama attorney general, which will take place on May 19.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.