December 7, 2025 • 18 mins
Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn were not peripheral figures in Jeffrey Epstein’s world but central operators who helped build, maintain, and financially sustain his criminal enterprise. As Epstein’s longtime lawyer and accountant, they created and managed the complex web of trusts, shell companies, bank accounts, and legal entities that allowed money to move discreetly while obscuring its purpose. Lawsuits filed by survivors and the U.S. Virgin Islands government describe them as “indispensable captains” of the enterprise, alleging they facilitated payments to victims and recruiters, structured entities to shield assets, and continued working for Epstein even after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Though they deny any knowledge of abuse, judges have allowed civil claims against them to proceed, ruling that allegations of aiding and abetting trafficking are legally plausible and worthy of full discovery.
After Epstein’s death in 2019, Indyke and Kahn were named co-executors of his estate, giving them control over key documents, assets, and settlement negotiations, including a $105 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Their continued gatekeeping role, combined with their status as beneficiaries of Epstein-linked trusts, has fueled criticism that the system has protected the very professionals accused of enabling his crimes. Despite being repeatedly named in court filings and investigative reports, they have largely avoided public scrutiny and congressional testimony. Critics argue that the failure to subpoena or question them under oath reflects a broader pattern of performative oversight, where political theater replaces substantive investigation into the financial and legal infrastructure that made Epstein’s long-running operation possible.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
After Epstein’s death in 2019, Indyke and Kahn were named co-executors of his estate, giving them control over key documents, assets, and settlement negotiations, including a $105 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. Their continued gatekeeping role, combined with their status as beneficiaries of Epstein-linked trusts, has fueled criticism that the system has protected the very professionals accused of enabling his crimes. Despite being repeatedly named in court filings and investigative reports, they have largely avoided public scrutiny and congressional testimony. Critics argue that the failure to subpoena or question them under oath reflects a broader pattern of performative oversight, where political theater replaces substantive investigation into the financial and legal infrastructure that made Epstein’s long-running operation possible.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off talking about Darren Endyke and Richard Kahan.
When Epstein cut his notorious non prosecution agreement in Florida
in two thousand and seven. In two thousand and eight,
his risk profile changed dramatically. From that point on, anyone
(00:21):
working closely with them knew they were dealing with a
registered sex offender whose conduct had been described in excruciating
detail and public documents. The Benski complain argues that this
is the moment where continued assistants becomes especially indefensible. It
alleges that, instead of backing away in Dyke and Khan
(00:41):
help restructure Epstein's affairs to keep the machine running while
managing legal exposure. That's when entities were shuffled, properties held
in a more insulated vehicle, and philanthropy became even more
useful as a shield. If true, it transforms them from
pre scandal professionals into post scandal risk managers for a
(01:02):
known predator. That is the heart of why survivors and
the Virgin Islands went after them after Epstein's twenty nineteen
arrest and death. Most people assume the story would resolve
around public officials, guards, and the question of how he died.
What slid under the radar initially was the power that
landed squarely in the hands of Endike and Khan. In
(01:25):
his will, signed just days before his death, Epstein named
them co executors of his estate, a decision that surprised
even some of his other advisers. That position gave them
control over which assets would be sold, how claims would
be handled, in which documents would be fiercely protected under
attorney client or privileged theories. It also meant they were
(01:48):
now responsible for negotiating with governments, banks, and victims. The
same people accused of building the structure were suddenly in
charge of dismantling it. That's a conflict of interest you
could see for morbids, and the Virgin Island settlement shows
how that conflict played out in practice. To resolve the
law enforcement action, the estate, Indike, Cohn, and ten epstein
(02:09):
own entities agreed to pay more than one hundred and
five million dollars hand over Little Saint James and some
of the profits from Epstein's Virgin Island operations. The narrative
from the government is that the territory force the estate
to disgorge ill gotten gains and compensate the public. The
narrative from the co executors is that they cooperated in
(02:30):
good faith and help bring closure. What is undeniable is
that this settlement allowed them to continue in place and
keep managing the remaining assets, including a powerful trust structure
that still lists them as top beneficiaries. For survivors who
see them as architects, that feels less like accountability and
more like a negotiated truce. Now. One of the most
(02:52):
controversial vehicles in that post death landscape is the so
called nineteen fifty three trust. Reporting indicates that the trust
controls significant residual wealth and aims a small club of beneficiaries,
including Endike and Khan at the top. That means that
the very people being sued for aiding and abetting the
enterprise may ultimately benefit financially from the assets left after settlements.
(03:18):
It's an arrangement that might make sense in a normal
estate planning context, where trusted professionals are rewarded for loyalty.
In this context, it looks like a reward system built
into the architecture of a criminal empire. Plaintiffs argue that
it creates perverse incentives to protect assets rather than illuminate
(03:39):
how they were used. The CO executors argue that the
structure is lawful and that their work has increased the
pot available to survivors. Both things can be technically true
while still smelling rotten, and like usual, the congressional angle
arrives late in the story and the timing matters. For years,
we have asked for all kinds of committees or hearings
(03:59):
about Epstein's death, the Sweetheart deal, and the Bureau of
Prison's failure, but nobody ever dragged the CO executors into
the bright lights. When Representative James Comer finally started waiving
subpoenas around the initial targets were familiar political names, presidents,
Attorney general's, FBI directors, and other headline friendly witnesses. That's
(04:19):
great if your priority is grabbing cable news chirons, but
it does very little to map the plumbing of how
the enterprise actually worked. The people who signed the checks,
set up the shell companies, and control the estate remained
conveniently off stage. The public got a lot of noise
and very little forensic follow through. Only in August of
twenty twenty five did the House Oversight Committee find the
(04:42):
issue a subpoena directed to the Epstein Estate care of
its co executors seeking records like the will, birthday book,
contact books, financial agreements, and other key documents on paper.
That looks like a step in the right direction, and
the Committee has since released some of the records provided
by the the estate. But a paper subpoena to an
estate is not the same thing as hauling the men
(05:05):
in charge of the estate into a hearing room for
sworn testimony. It's the difference between requesting documents curated by
the gatekeepers and questioning the gatekeepers themselves. The scope of
the subpoena is broad, yet still carefully framed around records,
not conduct. That's how you look aggressive without actually interrogating
(05:27):
the professionals who made this machine run. And of course,
that pattern fits a familiar Washington playbook, targeting the polarizing
political names, generate outrage on social media, and then declare
that you're following the evidence wherever it leads. In reality,
the evidence often leads straight into the offices of lawyers, accountants,
and bankers. Who make donors nervous. When you stop just
(05:49):
short of that line, you convert an investigation into a pageant.
That is what critics see in the way Congress has
largely kept Indyke and Cohn out of the public frame.
Our signatures are on documents released by the Committee, but
their faces are not in the witness chairs. The result
is a performance a transparency, not a confrontation with enablers. Meanwhile,
(06:12):
the litigation against them continues. The surface about their daily
work for Epstein, Law three sixty and other outlets summarize
claims that they handled payments to women around the world,
set up corporate accounts used to conceal trafficking expenses, and
coordinated travel logistics that aligned with known patterns of abuse.
Plaintiffs argue that the sheer volume of red flag information
(06:35):
from the two thousand and eight conviction to later lawsuits
and media coverage made we Didn't Know implausible. The co
executors lawyers insist that hindsight bias is doing work here
and that professionals are not obligated to treat every disturbing
rumor as a crime. That clash will ultimately come down
to documentation, deposition, testimony, and how judges and juries defined
(06:58):
should have known philosophical question, it's a factual one. And look,
what is often missed in the public conversation is how
dependent a predator like Epstein is on precisely this kind
of professional infrastructure. He needed someone who knew how to
get a plane registered, a trust formed, a private foundation
approved by the IRS, and the wire sent with the
(07:20):
right memo line. He needed staff housing, leases that look normal,
payrolls that pass superficial scrutiny, and cash replenishments that didn't
triple arms. Those are not tasks you outsource to random assistance.
You put them in the hands of people you trust.
The reason in Dike and Khan loom so large in
survivor lawsuits is that they allegedly sat in that trust
(07:41):
circle for decades. If you pull them out of the story,
the whole operation looks much harder to execute. Now, from
a legal theory standpoint, the cases against them test the
boundaries of aiding and abetting. In the professional services context,
Courts have traditionally been cautious about imposing liability on lawyers
and accountants for the crimes of their clients, for fear
(08:03):
of chilling legitimate work. The Benski litigation and similar suits
argue that Epstein's situation is not a close call. They
say professionals went far beyond ordinary representation and became active
participants in designing and maintaining a criminal enterprise. If judges
accept that framing, it could open the door to more
(08:26):
aggressive enforcement across other cases where professionals insulated traffickers, fraudsters,
or organized crime figures. If judges rejected, the message to
future indike in con types will be that the line
remains fuzzy and forgiving. Either way, the outcome matters far
beyond this one scandal. And you know that the financial
(08:47):
institutions are watching this closely because their own liability has
already become very real. Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase
have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle claims
that they knowingly or recklessly facilitated Epstein's trafficking operation. Now
Bank of America and BNY Mellon are facing similar suits,
(09:07):
alleging that they ignored suspicious patterns, including payments to plaintiffs.
They say, we're routed through entities controlled by people like
con and Endyke. The more granular the picture becomes of
how those payments worked. The harder it is to pretend
that everyone involved was operating in a fog. Professional enablers
and institutional gatekeepers are distinct, but they form a single ecosystem,
(09:32):
the co executors said at the Nexus of those worlds.
That's why their story is so dangerous to people who
still want this confined to one bad guy and his girlfriend. Politically,
focusing on Indik er Khan cuts against the tribal incentives
at dominate DC right now, if you followed their emails,
bank records, and entity charts, you don't just bump into
(09:53):
one party's donors or one fashioned friends. You had Democrats, Republicans, royals,
tech executives, bankers, lawyers and philanthropists, and multiple countries. That's
not helpful. If your business model is weaponize EPSTEIN selectively
and protect the home team, the safer move is to
keep the spotlight on a handful of big names you
(10:14):
already dislike and keep the rest buried and exhibits that
nobody reads. Calling Indike and con in for sworn testimony
would risk blowing up that script. It would also risk
documenting on live microphones how many powerful people benefited from
their work. There is also a psychological comfort and pretending
the real story is somewhere else. For some, it's easier
(10:37):
to focus on wild intelligence agency theories or singular villains
than on the boring mechanics of wire transfers and trust agreements.
Indike and Con represent the boring mechanics. They're the guys
in suits signing papers, not the monster in the news photos.
That is exactly why they matter so much. Trafficking on
(10:58):
Epstein's scale is not how possible without people like them
turning this shit into spreadsheets. When you look at it
in that way, the decision not to grill them publicly
starts to look less like oversight and more like self
protection by the establishment that uses the same machinery every day,
and that Wall Street journal piece underscores how insulated they
(11:20):
have remained compared to others in Epstein's orbit. While associates
like land Maxwell have been tried and sentenced and various
bankers have lost jobs or paid settlements, the co executors
still live relatively quiet lives. They appear in core papers
and stories, but you don't see them in purp wlocks
or high profile hearings. Their names trigger recognition only among
(11:41):
people who have been reading these documents for years, that
anonymity is a feature, not a bug. The system is
much more comfortable punishing a few front facing figures than
questioning the legitimacy of its own professional class. The August
twenty twenty five subpoena to the Estate Caravan, Dike and
con is the closest Congress has come to acknowledging their centrality.
(12:05):
But again it's aimed at the records, not live testimony.
It requested Epstein's birthday book, contact lists, agreements, financial statements,
and other documents that the co executors already control. In
other words, it asks the gay keepers to curate what
the public gets to see. That can be useful, but
it's fundamentally backward. If the question is whether those same
(12:27):
gay keepers spent years helping to hide a trafficking ring,
the committee could change that overnight by scheduling depositions and
public hearings for both men. As of now, it is
chosen not to, and that silence speaks louder than any
press release. From the perspective of the survivors, the stakes
here are not abstract. Women like Danielle Benski are not
(12:49):
suing Endike in Cohn because they want a random name
to punish. They're suing the people they believe orchestrated the
financial side of their abuse. They describe a system where rent,
medical bills, and stipends all flow through a controlled network
of accounts managed by these professionals. When they say the
enterprise could not a function without them, they're talking about
(13:10):
lived experience in that system. There are lawsuits asked the
court to treat that experience as evidence of complicity, not
just unfortunate proximity. Whether the system is willing to do
that is still an open question, And even if the
courts in Congress continue to dodge the hardest version of
that question, the public record is already shifting. Ten years ago,
(13:32):
the story was mostly Epstein and his mysterious money. Today
we can name the lawyer, the accountant, the banks, and
some of the entities that kept them afloat. That change
didn't happen because institutions suddenly found their conscience. It happened
because survivors, reporters, and you kept pushing. Every new filing
and investigative piece adds more detail to the mosaic. What
(13:55):
is still missing is a full sworn exploration of exactly
what Indikenn did and why. That's where the real accountability lives.
So when you say that there was no Epstein enterprise
without con and Endyke, you're echoing the law enforcement and
civil plaintiffs have started to frame the case. The Virgin
Islands call them indispensable captains. The lawsuits described them as
(14:16):
the engineers of a financial architecture designed to sustain and
shield trafficking. The evidence for that narrative is piling up
in court dockets and archives. They deny it and insists
they were blindsided like everyone else. The only way to
test those competing stories, honestly is to drag every document, transaction,
and decision into the light. And that has not happened yet.
(14:40):
Until it does, every highly produced Epstein hearing that skips
over them looks like a dog and pony show, exactly
as intended. It channels public anger into partisan theater instead
of a systemic examination. It terms a sprawling network of
enablers into a simplistic morality play about whichever politician you
already hated. It leaves the people who built the machinery
(15:02):
in a comfortable half shadow, where they keep arguing that
it has nothing to do with them, and the deeper
you read into the record, the harder that claim is
to swallow. The question now is not whether in Dike
in con matter, it's whether anyone in power is willing
to treat them like they do if you zoom out.
Their story is a case study and how power protects
(15:23):
itself through specialization. Epstein supplied the appetite and the connections.
Professionals like Indike and Cohn supplied the tools, banks supplied
the pipes, regulators supplied the blind spots, and politicians supplied
the selective outrage. Each piece can tell itself a story
about just doing the job. Put together, it's a system
(15:44):
that lets a predator operate for decades while everyone stares
at their own narrow lane. Unless you break that pattern
by holding the enablers to account, the next Epstein already
has everything he needs, And in my opinion, that's why
the fight over subpoenas, discharge petitions, and the scope of
congressional investigations matters far beyond the day's headlines. It's not
(16:04):
about score on points and Trump versus Anti Trump grudge matches.
It's about whether the United States is willing to examine
the professional classes that turn predation into a business model.
Indike and Kahn sit right at the fault line. Their
story is the story of how something like this actually
works in the real world, where every atrocity comes paired
(16:26):
with a ledger entry and a signed contract. If power
refuses to interrogate that story, it's not because the evidence
is missing. It's because the blast radius of the truth
runs straight through the people and institutions that still run
the show. And look, this is where the story either
gets real or stays fake forever. You don't expose Epstein
(16:47):
by yelling about ghosts and presidents while carefully avoiding the
two men who built the scaffold he stood on. You
expose them by dragging the lawyer and the accountant into
daylight and asking them under oath how the checks were cut,
but how the shells were layered, and how the machine
kept running after everyone knew exactly what he was. Anything
short of that is noise, Anything short of that is theater.
(17:11):
They're an Indike and Richard Kahn are the difference between
scandal and a system. They're the reason Epstein wasn't just
a predator, but a predator with logistics mobility, insulation, and longevity.
If Congress won't touch them, it's not because they don't matter,
it's because they matter too much. The minute you interrogate
the infrastructure, the blame stops being convenient, partisan, and containable.
(17:33):
It spreads. So here's the cold truth at the end
of it all. An investigation that can't bring itself to
question the enablers is not an investigation. It's permission, permission
for the next epstein, the next trust, the next accountant,
the next lawyer to watch it happen and bill it
by the hour. If this ends without indike and con
(17:54):
on the record under oath, then nothing was exposed. It
was just managed. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box.
What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off talking about Darren Endyke and Richard Kahan.
When Epstein cut his notorious non prosecution agreement in Florida
in two thousand and seven. In two thousand and eight,
his risk profile changed dramatically. From that point on, anyone
(00:21):
working closely with them knew they were dealing with a
registered sex offender whose conduct had been described in excruciating
detail and public documents. The Benski complain argues that this
is the moment where continued assistants becomes especially indefensible. It
alleges that, instead of backing away in Dyke and Khan
(00:41):
help restructure Epstein's affairs to keep the machine running while
managing legal exposure. That's when entities were shuffled, properties held
in a more insulated vehicle, and philanthropy became even more
useful as a shield. If true, it transforms them from
pre scandal professionals into post scandal risk managers for a
(01:02):
known predator. That is the heart of why survivors and
the Virgin Islands went after them after Epstein's twenty nineteen
arrest and death. Most people assume the story would resolve
around public officials, guards, and the question of how he died.
What slid under the radar initially was the power that
landed squarely in the hands of Endike and Khan. In
(01:25):
his will, signed just days before his death, Epstein named
them co executors of his estate, a decision that surprised
even some of his other advisers. That position gave them
control over which assets would be sold, how claims would
be handled, in which documents would be fiercely protected under
attorney client or privileged theories. It also meant they were
(01:48):
now responsible for negotiating with governments, banks, and victims. The
same people accused of building the structure were suddenly in
charge of dismantling it. That's a conflict of interest you
could see for morbids, and the Virgin Island settlement shows
how that conflict played out in practice. To resolve the
law enforcement action, the estate, Indike, Cohn, and ten epstein
(02:09):
own entities agreed to pay more than one hundred and
five million dollars hand over Little Saint James and some
of the profits from Epstein's Virgin Island operations. The narrative
from the government is that the territory force the estate
to disgorge ill gotten gains and compensate the public. The
narrative from the co executors is that they cooperated in
(02:30):
good faith and help bring closure. What is undeniable is
that this settlement allowed them to continue in place and
keep managing the remaining assets, including a powerful trust structure
that still lists them as top beneficiaries. For survivors who
see them as architects, that feels less like accountability and
more like a negotiated truce. Now. One of the most
(02:52):
controversial vehicles in that post death landscape is the so
called nineteen fifty three trust. Reporting indicates that the trust
controls significant residual wealth and aims a small club of beneficiaries,
including Endike and Khan at the top. That means that
the very people being sued for aiding and abetting the
enterprise may ultimately benefit financially from the assets left after settlements.
(03:18):
It's an arrangement that might make sense in a normal
estate planning context, where trusted professionals are rewarded for loyalty.
In this context, it looks like a reward system built
into the architecture of a criminal empire. Plaintiffs argue that
it creates perverse incentives to protect assets rather than illuminate
(03:39):
how they were used. The CO executors argue that the
structure is lawful and that their work has increased the
pot available to survivors. Both things can be technically true
while still smelling rotten, and like usual, the congressional angle
arrives late in the story and the timing matters. For years,
we have asked for all kinds of committees or hearings
(03:59):
about Epstein's death, the Sweetheart deal, and the Bureau of
Prison's failure, but nobody ever dragged the CO executors into
the bright lights. When Representative James Comer finally started waiving
subpoenas around the initial targets were familiar political names, presidents,
Attorney general's, FBI directors, and other headline friendly witnesses. That's
(04:19):
great if your priority is grabbing cable news chirons, but
it does very little to map the plumbing of how
the enterprise actually worked. The people who signed the checks,
set up the shell companies, and control the estate remained
conveniently off stage. The public got a lot of noise
and very little forensic follow through. Only in August of
twenty twenty five did the House Oversight Committee find the
(04:42):
issue a subpoena directed to the Epstein Estate care of
its co executors seeking records like the will, birthday book,
contact books, financial agreements, and other key documents on paper.
That looks like a step in the right direction, and
the Committee has since released some of the records provided
by the the estate. But a paper subpoena to an
estate is not the same thing as hauling the men
(05:05):
in charge of the estate into a hearing room for
sworn testimony. It's the difference between requesting documents curated by
the gatekeepers and questioning the gatekeepers themselves. The scope of
the subpoena is broad, yet still carefully framed around records,
not conduct. That's how you look aggressive without actually interrogating
(05:27):
the professionals who made this machine run. And of course,
that pattern fits a familiar Washington playbook, targeting the polarizing
political names, generate outrage on social media, and then declare
that you're following the evidence wherever it leads. In reality,
the evidence often leads straight into the offices of lawyers, accountants,
and bankers. Who make donors nervous. When you stop just
(05:49):
short of that line, you convert an investigation into a pageant.
That is what critics see in the way Congress has
largely kept Indyke and Cohn out of the public frame.
Our signatures are on documents released by the Committee, but
their faces are not in the witness chairs. The result
is a performance a transparency, not a confrontation with enablers. Meanwhile,
(06:12):
the litigation against them continues. The surface about their daily
work for Epstein, Law three sixty and other outlets summarize
claims that they handled payments to women around the world,
set up corporate accounts used to conceal trafficking expenses, and
coordinated travel logistics that aligned with known patterns of abuse.
Plaintiffs argue that the sheer volume of red flag information
(06:35):
from the two thousand and eight conviction to later lawsuits
and media coverage made we Didn't Know implausible. The co
executors lawyers insist that hindsight bias is doing work here
and that professionals are not obligated to treat every disturbing
rumor as a crime. That clash will ultimately come down
to documentation, deposition, testimony, and how judges and juries defined
(06:58):
should have known philosophical question, it's a factual one. And look,
what is often missed in the public conversation is how
dependent a predator like Epstein is on precisely this kind
of professional infrastructure. He needed someone who knew how to
get a plane registered, a trust formed, a private foundation
approved by the IRS, and the wire sent with the
(07:20):
right memo line. He needed staff housing, leases that look normal,
payrolls that pass superficial scrutiny, and cash replenishments that didn't
triple arms. Those are not tasks you outsource to random assistance.
You put them in the hands of people you trust.
The reason in Dike and Khan loom so large in
survivor lawsuits is that they allegedly sat in that trust
(07:41):
circle for decades. If you pull them out of the story,
the whole operation looks much harder to execute. Now, from
a legal theory standpoint, the cases against them test the
boundaries of aiding and abetting. In the professional services context,
Courts have traditionally been cautious about imposing liability on lawyers
and accountants for the crimes of their clients, for fear
(08:03):
of chilling legitimate work. The Benski litigation and similar suits
argue that Epstein's situation is not a close call. They
say professionals went far beyond ordinary representation and became active
participants in designing and maintaining a criminal enterprise. If judges
accept that framing, it could open the door to more
(08:26):
aggressive enforcement across other cases where professionals insulated traffickers, fraudsters,
or organized crime figures. If judges rejected, the message to
future indike in con types will be that the line
remains fuzzy and forgiving. Either way, the outcome matters far
beyond this one scandal. And you know that the financial
(08:47):
institutions are watching this closely because their own liability has
already become very real. Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase
have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle claims
that they knowingly or recklessly facilitated Epstein's trafficking operation. Now
Bank of America and BNY Mellon are facing similar suits,
(09:07):
alleging that they ignored suspicious patterns, including payments to plaintiffs.
They say, we're routed through entities controlled by people like
con and Endyke. The more granular the picture becomes of
how those payments worked. The harder it is to pretend
that everyone involved was operating in a fog. Professional enablers
and institutional gatekeepers are distinct, but they form a single ecosystem,
(09:32):
the co executors said at the Nexus of those worlds.
That's why their story is so dangerous to people who
still want this confined to one bad guy and his girlfriend. Politically,
focusing on Indik er Khan cuts against the tribal incentives
at dominate DC right now, if you followed their emails,
bank records, and entity charts, you don't just bump into
(09:53):
one party's donors or one fashioned friends. You had Democrats, Republicans, royals,
tech executives, bankers, lawyers and philanthropists, and multiple countries. That's
not helpful. If your business model is weaponize EPSTEIN selectively
and protect the home team, the safer move is to
keep the spotlight on a handful of big names you
(10:14):
already dislike and keep the rest buried and exhibits that
nobody reads. Calling Indike and con in for sworn testimony
would risk blowing up that script. It would also risk
documenting on live microphones how many powerful people benefited from
their work. There is also a psychological comfort and pretending
the real story is somewhere else. For some, it's easier
(10:37):
to focus on wild intelligence agency theories or singular villains
than on the boring mechanics of wire transfers and trust agreements.
Indike and Con represent the boring mechanics. They're the guys
in suits signing papers, not the monster in the news photos.
That is exactly why they matter so much. Trafficking on
(10:58):
Epstein's scale is not how possible without people like them
turning this shit into spreadsheets. When you look at it
in that way, the decision not to grill them publicly
starts to look less like oversight and more like self
protection by the establishment that uses the same machinery every day,
and that Wall Street journal piece underscores how insulated they
(11:20):
have remained compared to others in Epstein's orbit. While associates
like land Maxwell have been tried and sentenced and various
bankers have lost jobs or paid settlements, the co executors
still live relatively quiet lives. They appear in core papers
and stories, but you don't see them in purp wlocks
or high profile hearings. Their names trigger recognition only among
(11:41):
people who have been reading these documents for years, that
anonymity is a feature, not a bug. The system is
much more comfortable punishing a few front facing figures than
questioning the legitimacy of its own professional class. The August
twenty twenty five subpoena to the Estate Caravan, Dike and
con is the closest Congress has come to acknowledging their centrality.
(12:05):
But again it's aimed at the records, not live testimony.
It requested Epstein's birthday book, contact lists, agreements, financial statements,
and other documents that the co executors already control. In
other words, it asks the gay keepers to curate what
the public gets to see. That can be useful, but
it's fundamentally backward. If the question is whether those same
(12:27):
gay keepers spent years helping to hide a trafficking ring,
the committee could change that overnight by scheduling depositions and
public hearings for both men. As of now, it is
chosen not to, and that silence speaks louder than any
press release. From the perspective of the survivors, the stakes
here are not abstract. Women like Danielle Benski are not
(12:49):
suing Endike in Cohn because they want a random name
to punish. They're suing the people they believe orchestrated the
financial side of their abuse. They describe a system where rent,
medical bills, and stipends all flow through a controlled network
of accounts managed by these professionals. When they say the
enterprise could not a function without them, they're talking about
(13:10):
lived experience in that system. There are lawsuits asked the
court to treat that experience as evidence of complicity, not
just unfortunate proximity. Whether the system is willing to do
that is still an open question, And even if the
courts in Congress continue to dodge the hardest version of
that question, the public record is already shifting. Ten years ago,
(13:32):
the story was mostly Epstein and his mysterious money. Today
we can name the lawyer, the accountant, the banks, and
some of the entities that kept them afloat. That change
didn't happen because institutions suddenly found their conscience. It happened
because survivors, reporters, and you kept pushing. Every new filing
and investigative piece adds more detail to the mosaic. What
(13:55):
is still missing is a full sworn exploration of exactly
what Indikenn did and why. That's where the real accountability lives.
So when you say that there was no Epstein enterprise
without con and Endyke, you're echoing the law enforcement and
civil plaintiffs have started to frame the case. The Virgin
Islands call them indispensable captains. The lawsuits described them as
(14:16):
the engineers of a financial architecture designed to sustain and
shield trafficking. The evidence for that narrative is piling up
in court dockets and archives. They deny it and insists
they were blindsided like everyone else. The only way to
test those competing stories, honestly is to drag every document, transaction,
and decision into the light. And that has not happened yet.
(14:40):
Until it does, every highly produced Epstein hearing that skips
over them looks like a dog and pony show, exactly
as intended. It channels public anger into partisan theater instead
of a systemic examination. It terms a sprawling network of
enablers into a simplistic morality play about whichever politician you
already hated. It leaves the people who built the machinery
(15:02):
in a comfortable half shadow, where they keep arguing that
it has nothing to do with them, and the deeper
you read into the record, the harder that claim is
to swallow. The question now is not whether in Dike
in con matter, it's whether anyone in power is willing
to treat them like they do if you zoom out.
Their story is a case study and how power protects
(15:23):
itself through specialization. Epstein supplied the appetite and the connections.
Professionals like Indike and Cohn supplied the tools, banks supplied
the pipes, regulators supplied the blind spots, and politicians supplied
the selective outrage. Each piece can tell itself a story
about just doing the job. Put together, it's a system
(15:44):
that lets a predator operate for decades while everyone stares
at their own narrow lane. Unless you break that pattern
by holding the enablers to account, the next Epstein already
has everything he needs, And in my opinion, that's why
the fight over subpoenas, discharge petitions, and the scope of
congressional investigations matters far beyond the day's headlines. It's not
(16:04):
about score on points and Trump versus Anti Trump grudge matches.
It's about whether the United States is willing to examine
the professional classes that turn predation into a business model.
Indike and Kahn sit right at the fault line. Their
story is the story of how something like this actually
works in the real world, where every atrocity comes paired
(16:26):
with a ledger entry and a signed contract. If power
refuses to interrogate that story, it's not because the evidence
is missing. It's because the blast radius of the truth
runs straight through the people and institutions that still run
the show. And look, this is where the story either
gets real or stays fake forever. You don't expose Epstein
(16:47):
by yelling about ghosts and presidents while carefully avoiding the
two men who built the scaffold he stood on. You
expose them by dragging the lawyer and the accountant into
daylight and asking them under oath how the checks were cut,
but how the shells were layered, and how the machine
kept running after everyone knew exactly what he was. Anything
short of that is noise, Anything short of that is theater.
(17:11):
They're an Indike and Richard Kahn are the difference between
scandal and a system. They're the reason Epstein wasn't just
a predator, but a predator with logistics mobility, insulation, and longevity.
If Congress won't touch them, it's not because they don't matter,
it's because they matter too much. The minute you interrogate
the infrastructure, the blame stops being convenient, partisan, and containable.
(17:33):
It spreads. So here's the cold truth at the end
of it all. An investigation that can't bring itself to
question the enablers is not an investigation. It's permission, permission
for the next epstein, the next trust, the next accountant,
the next lawyer to watch it happen and bill it
by the hour. If this ends without indike and con
(17:54):
on the record under oath, then nothing was exposed. It
was just managed. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.