Top Democrat Reveals How JPMorgan Chase Helped Epstein Hide His Crimes

A report released by Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden on Thursday called for Congress to further investigate JP Morgan Chase over its ties to Jeffrey Epstein, one of the bank’s biggest clients, and his alleged sex-trafficking organization.

Before Epstein was arrested in September 2019, JPMorgan Chase reported only a handful of “suspicious activity reports” documenting roughly $4.3 million worth of transactions from his accounts between 2002 and 2016. After he was arrested, and subsequently died in prison, JPMorgan Chase filed “far more comprehensive” reports documenting an additional 5,000 wire transfers moving $1.3 billion in and out of Epstein’s accounts—a total that was 300 times greater than what was previously disclosed.

The report suggests that JPMorgan Chase executives waited to disclose his suspicious transactions to regulators in order “to continue working with Epstein,” even after he was terminated as a client in 2013 over money-laundering concerns. Citing newly unsealed emails, the report indicated this was done because of Epstein’s influence over billionaire Leon Black.

The report implicates multiple JPMorgan Chase executives, who apparently closely monitored the alleged sex trafficker’s accounts, reporting to CEO Jamie Dimon.

In March 2012, John Duffy, the former CEO of JPMorgan’s U.S. Private Bank, instructed Epstein on how to make large withdrawals from his account without raising alarms at the bank, newly unsealed emails showed. In August 2013, Mary Erdoes, the CEO of the wealth and asset management division of JPMorgan who remained in near constant contact with the alleged sex trafficker, “blessed” efforts to continue doing business with Epstein, according to the report.

Wyden said that the extent of the bank’s underreporting went “beyond a total compliance breakdown.”

“It’s impossible to believe the decisions that led to the coverup of Epstein’s financial transactions regarding his sex trafficking never reached the very top,” he wrote in a series of posts on X. “Given the scale of Epstein’s trafficking operation, it’s clear that many more powerful people were involved. My staff have seen a paper trail with their own eyes. Banks that helped enable him should be investigated. As should anybody involved in Epstein’s trafficking ring.”

Earlier this week, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer subpoenaed JPMorgan Chase for access to some of Epstein’s financial records.

On Tuesday, multiple congressional Democrats made a video reminding members of the military and intelligence community of their duty to the Constitution, not to President Trump.

The comments—made by military and intelligence veterans Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, and Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan—set the MAGAverse off. By Thursday, President Trump suggested they be charged with sedition and executed. And yet the Democratic lawmakers remained unfazed.

“We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation,” they wrote in a joint statement posted by Kelly. “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.” They signed it with a reminder: “Don’t Give Up the Ship!”

Kelly later responded personally to Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s claim that their comments are part of an “insurrection” and “a general call for rebellion.”

“I got shot at serving our country in combat, and I was there when your boss sent a violent mob to attack the Capitol,” Kelly wrote. “I know the difference between defending our Constitution and an insurrection, even if you don’t.”

Slotkin posted her own response.

“Earlier today President Trump threatened myself and a number of other service and veteran lawmakers with arrest, trial, and death, because he didn’t agree with a video we put out this week,” Slotkin said. “I swore an oath to the Constitution many times, most recently less than a year ago as a senator. To the Constitution—not to any one man, not to any one president.”

Here is their original message to troops:

ICE is claiming the computer ate its records the day after it was sued for abuse.

404 Media reports that after ICE’s Broadview Detention Center outside Chicago was sued October 30 for allegedly abusing detainees, the agency said that two weeks of video footage that could have shown how immigration detainees are treated in the facility was lost in a “system crash” on October 31.*

“The government has said that the data for that period was lost in a system crash apparently on the day after the lawsuit was filed,” one of the lawyers representing detainees, Alec Solotorovsky, said in a Thursday hearing about the footage, according to 404 Media. “That period we think is going to be critical … because that’s the period right before the lawsuit was filed.”

Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security said in court that the video footage was “irretrievably destroyed,” and on Thursday, government lawyers said that “we don’t have the resources” to keep preserving surveillance footage from the detention facility. In a seemingly flippant remark, the government’s attorneys suggested if the detainees’ lawyers provide “endless hard drives where we could save the information, that might be one solution.”

The idea that ICE doesn’t have resources to preserve video footage is absurd on its face, as the agency is receiving an astronomical amount of funding thanks to President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” Some $200 billion has been allocated to immigration enforcement, more than some countries allocate to their entire militaries, and at least some of that should be allocated to data preservation and I.T. maintenance.

Also, it seems too convenient for ICE to have had a system crash the day after they were sued. The detainees who filed the lawsuit claim that the ICE facility is rife with abusive treatment and poor living conditions. In response, the government hasn’t provided much information on the footage, directing attorneys to a company called Five by Five Management “that appears to be based out of a house,” said Solotorovsky.

“We tried to engage with the government through our IT specialist, and we hired a video forensic specialist,” he said, adding that the government specialist attorneys spoke to “didn’t really know anything beyond the basic specifications of the system. He wasn’t able to answer any questions about preservation or attempts to recover the data.”

Immigration enforcement under Trump seems to continuously flout the law, with little recourse available except for lawsuits. At best, legal action seems to only slow the Trump administration’s actions. Will the detainees in Broadview be able to overcome what looks like a government cover-up?

* This story has been updated with the correct location of the ICE detention center.

The U.S. Coast Guard is no longer going to consider the swastika a hate symbol. 

The Washington Post reports that a new policy will take effect next month at the military branch that will reclassify the swastika, used by the German Nazi Party and adopted as a global symbol of fascism and white supremacy, as “potentially divisive.” Other symbols being reclassified include the Confederate flag and nooses, although displaying the flag will still be banned.

Some historic displays or art with the Confederate flag will still be permitted, the Post reports. The new policy comes even though the Coast Guard isn’t part of the Department of Defense, under which Secretary Pete Hegseth has sought to overhaul standards on harassment and hazing. 

Instead, the Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security, but that hasn’t shielded the military branch from the Trump administration’s attempts to change military culture. On Donald Trump’s first day as president, he fired the first woman commandant at the Coast Guard, Admiral Linda Fagan, ostensibly for focusing too much on diversity initiatives. 

Days later, the new acting commandant, Admiral Kevin Lunday, suspended the Coast Guard’s hazing and harassment policy, which included the swastika in a “list of symbols whose display, presentation, creation, or depiction would constitute a potential hate incident.”

Both in his first and second terms, Trump has trafficked in racist tropes, and reclassifying the swastika may be an attempt to retain and attract people the military would have previously turned away. In any case, racism is becoming less and less of a dealbreaker for national service under Trump.