Emails between top executives at JPMorgan Chase show they had concerns about Epstein’s transactions dating all the way back to 2012, but still chose to look the other way.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon
Ron Wyden
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 885
Yes28%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party0%
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 · 90 sponsored · 401 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Top JPMorgan Chase executives had knowledge of the pervasive presence of young women or underage girls at Epstein’s homes.
Top bank execs also knowingly withheld information from federal law enforcement about Epstein’s financial transactions until after his arrest. See here the Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by JPMC before and after Epstein’s arrest in 2019.
Top JPMorgan Chase execs coached Epstein on how to withdraw cash through shell companies instead of his personal accounts, helping him conceal information from compliance personnel and government regulators.
Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase likely violated federal anti-money laundering laws by failing to properly screen and report payments from Leon Black to Jeffrey Epstein, and underreporting Epstein’s suspicious activity to the Treasury Department.
Bombshell new report out from my investigators this morning spanning our four year investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s financial records.
This report shows exactly how Wall Street protected Epstein and enabled his sex trafficking for decades. Mega thread following with some key points:
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
@jasonleopold.bsky.social gets a sneak preview of @wyden.senate.gov's report on how banks ignored Jeffrey Epstein's suspicious transactions.
www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
NEW/EXCLUSIVE: Deutsche Bank failed to promptly report to US authorities more than $250M in suspicious transactions tied to Epstein, including funds used to pay women in Russia & other Eastern European countries, according to a new report from @wyden.senate.gov
🎁 🧵 www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
CARTOON OF THE DAY
(if you know who made this let us know)
This deal solidifies the Trump family's immunity from tax audits. Under no circumstances should the American people believe that Trump‘s former personal attorney will stop his schemes to funnel taxpayer dollars to his allies and supporters.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
after he got big mad about canadian wildfire smoke he decided to just domesticate it
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Trump admin defunds lawyers helping unaccompanied kids
@wyden.senate.gov:
"The Trump administration is quietly breaking the law and continuing to smother a federal office created and funded by Congress to protect children from trafficking and other dangers."
www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-memb...
If there's a way to make people's lives worse and more expensive Trump's gonna do it every time
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
The extraordinary wildfire outbreak across Oregon, eastern Washington, and southern British Columbia has become even more alarming amid critical fire weather conditions. Over 500,000 acres have already burned in OR & WA alone, and that number could be >1 million acres by Mon.
Nobody works harder to protect pedophiles and creeps than the Trump administration
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
New: On Monday, HHS withdrew guidance reminding nursing-home owners they can’t impede residents from voting. The administration replaced it with a new memo alluding to instances when Republicans sicced sheriffs and prosecutors on people helping nursing-home residents vote.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Sen. Wyden introduces bill to curb Trump's tariff powers
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Sen. Wyden: I was just home for town hall meetings in rural Oregon, where Trump got over 70% of the vote, and the farmers told me they're barely hanging on to family farms. Small businesses are closing after tariffs made their businesses impossible. The Trump tariffs cost the average family $1,700
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
WYDEN: When the new tariff on Canada takes effect, will Canada have higher tariffs than China on some products?
JAMIESON GREER: On a small handful
This bill WOULD block the November ban from going into effect. I do have a separate bill that would keep hemp on the market with strong consumer protections (more on that in the link below). A one size fits all approach clearly doesn’t work here, and I’m going to keep at it.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History885 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
885 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-03-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (41-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (49-41, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-20 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-18 | S.J. Res. 118 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 118 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-17 | S. 1383 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (89-10) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (82-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (84-10) |
| 2026-03-10 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2026-03-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-28) |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-04 | S.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-04 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2026-03-02 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-33) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-34) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-47) |
| 2026-02-11 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-02-10 | S.J. Res. 95 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2026-02-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-02-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion 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.