Zooming out, it’s clear that Epstein was the head of a major criminal enterprise. Sex trafficking, money laundering, probably drugs. Trump, Bondi and Blanche want to shut down all investigation and keep it quiet.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon
Ron Wyden
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes26%
No72%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Ron Wyden
U.S. SenatorDemocratOregon
SoupScore
Ron's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 73 sponsored · 333 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
There is a lot more to read here, including Black’s abuse of tax shelters and the possibility that he and Epstein’s lawyers conspired to violate U.S. tax laws.
Epstein met with Russian government officials and Russian state-owned entities more than a dozen times between 2015 and 2017. Many of those meetings took place within hours of separate meetings between Epstein and Black.
Documents also show Epstein was in contact with a prominent Russian government official and provided the location of a woman who was on Black’s payroll. Epstein asked for “suggestions” on how to deal with her.
There are documents showing Epstein and a powerful lawyer named Brad Karp surveilled women on Black’s behalf.
Black was paying Epstein like he was the CEO of a major Fortune 500 company. Why? Black was also paying millions of dollars to women -- including some connected to Epstein. It looks like hush money. Emails indicate Black paid millions of dollars to women using Epstein as a middleman.
Black already employed the best tax and estate planning advisors in the country. He didn’t need Epstein’s advice, and he certainly didn’t have any reason to pay Epstein at rates several times greater than he was paying actual tax professionals.
Black paid Epstein $170 million over just a few years in the 2010s. He’s claimed the payments were for tax advice, which doesn’t hold up at all.
Wall Street titan Leon Black was among Epstein’s primary sources of income. Their relationship went back to the 1990s, but Black flooded Epstein with cash in the years Epstein was a registered sex offender.
Newest in my Epstein investigation: A man who was one of Epstein’s key sources of cash has a lot of questions to answer.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
In the past six months of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill, fewer women and families are getting critical medical care, and many more are facing skyrocketing health costs.
I’m partnering with @warren.senate.gov and @wyden.senate.gov to help expose how health care cuts endanger access to lifesaving care.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
NEWS: Continuing Epstein Investigation, Wyden Questions Leon Black over New Revelations in Epstein Files, Appearance of “Hush Money” Payments and Surveillance of Women
Senator Mullin failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of constitutional rights and due process. It is clear he would continue the abuses at DHS and support Stephen Miller and JD Vance’s violent policies. I voted no.
Jared Kushner makes up for his flaws as an investor by being a wildly corrupt appendage of his father-in-law’s wildly corrupt administration. The U.S. becomes less safe and more corrupt every day Jared Kushner remains involved in our political system.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
We’re grateful for the partnership of Senator Wyden @wyden.senate.gov and other leaders in Congress to get this money back.
Kash Patel refused to deny that the FBI is buying up Americans' location data. This is a shocking end run around the 4th amendment and exactly why we need to pass real privacy reforms NOW.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Wyden to Gabbard: "Last year, your agencies testified 'Iran's large conventional forces are capable of inflicting substantial damage to an attacker, executing regional strikes & disrupting shipping, particularly through Hormuz.' In other words, every problem were seeing now was predicted"
This is stunning interference. The document I’m after literally says “unclassified” at the top. The investigation it details is closed. Given Blanche's close personal ties to Donald Trump, this reeks of a continued coverup to protect key names in the Trump administration.
My Finance Committee team immediately sought key documents from that investigation. What was the result, and why did the investigation end? We were notified that the DEA intended to release those documents to the Finance Committee.
Then Deputy AG Todd Blanche intervened.
Recent reporting revealed that Epstein was one of several targets of a big drug trafficking investigation a decade ago. DEA has key info. Based on what we know, Epstein was likely pumping his victims, young women and girls, with incapacitating drugs to facilitate abuse.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-15 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-14 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (49-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Final passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Bill Passed (77-20, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕ | Amendment Rejected (10-88, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Amendment Rejected (53-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (14-83, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.J. Res. 106 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 106 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-46) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.J. Res. 106 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 105 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 105 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-45) |
| 2025-10-08 | S.J. Res. 83 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 83 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-10-08 | S.J. Res. 71 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 71 | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-51) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 105 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-10-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-08 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 104 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-47) |
| 2025-10-07 | H.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-10-07 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-10-06 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-10-06 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-42, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-06 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (45-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-03 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | Resolution S.Res. 412 | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. Res. 412 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-10-01 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-01 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-30 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | S. 2806 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-09-29 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-43) |
| 2025-09-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-45) |
| 2025-09-19 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-19 | S. 2882 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-09-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25 | YES | YES | ✓ | Decision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52) |
| 2025-09-17 | — | Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.