Have any sworn affidavits, depositions, or witness testimonies linked Obama to Epstein in court filings?

1. What the newly public documents actually are — and aren’t

House committees and other parties have released tens of thousands of pages of documents from Epstein’s estate and related collections — including emails and text messages — but those releases consist mainly of civil‑litigation and estate material rather than unsealed grand‑jury transcripts or sworn criminal‑court depositions; courts in Florida and elsewhere have refused to unseal grand‑jury materials, keeping those proceedings confidential ^{[4] [1] [3]}.

2. No sources here show sworn court testimony tying Obama to Epstein

The items cited in current reporting and the document dumps highlighted by news outlets and committees feature correspondence and references; none of the provided sources reports a filed affidavit, deposition, or witness testimony in a court filing that alleges a direct tie between Barack Obama and Jeffrey Epstein. Where concrete claims about Obama and the files appear, outlets frame them as political accusations or allegations, not as new, sworn court evidence ^{[2] [5]}.

3. What reporters have highlighted: names, emails and context about other figures

Reporting from CNBC, Politico and others emphasizes that the released emails include messages about figures such as Donald Trump and correspondence involving people connected to the Obama administration (for example, an email thread mentioning Trump that included Kathryn Ruemmler, who served as White House counsel under Barack Obama). Those items are being used in political argument and coverage, but the sources do not treat them as formal, sworn courtroom attestations linking Obama to Epstein ^{[1] [6]}.

4. Courts and judges are limiting access to the most probative materials

Multiple courts have declined to unseal grand‑jury transcripts and other sealed investigative files; for example, a Florida judge denied DOJ requests to unseal West Palm Beach grand‑jury transcripts and cited circuit precedent on secrecy. That judicial sealing means the most consequential sworn materials (grand‑jury testimony, sealed affidavits from criminal investigations) remain unavailable to the public in these sources ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Political uses and counterclaims complicate factual clarity

Political actors — including President Trump and some allies — have publicly accused the Obama administration and others of “making up” Epstein files or otherwise manufacturing evidence, while Republicans and Democrats push for release of additional records. News outlets report these accusations as political rhetoric, and at least one media outlet notes the White House contesting reporting that named Trump in documents; such contestation shows the revelations are being litigated politically as much as legally ^{[7] [2] [8]}.

6. What would count as an affirmative legal link in court filings?

A definitive legal link established “in court” would typically require sworn testimony (deposition or affidavit), grand‑jury testimony introduced in a filing, or prosecutorial pleadings alleging facts supported by sworn evidence. The sources provided do not identify any such filed document that alleges Obama had a relationship or was involved with Epstein’s crimes; instead they document emails, estate records and sealed grand‑jury material that remain off‑limits ^{[4] [3]}.

7. Where this story is likely to move next and what to watch for

Watch the outcomes of efforts to compel the Department of Justice to release unsealed investigative materials — including any House votes or litigation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act — because if judges or Congress force disclosure of sealed affidavits or grand‑jury transcripts, future reporting could either substantiate or fail to substantiate political claims; as of the reporting in these sources, courts continue to limit access ^{[9] [10] [3]}.

Limitations and final note: the answer above uses only the sources you supplied. Those sources document released emails and political disputes and make clear grand‑jury materials remain sealed; they do not report any sworn affidavits, depositions, or witness testimonies filed in court that link Barack Obama to Jeffrey Epstein ^{[1] [3] [2]}. If you want, I can track new releases or court docket entries going forward to see whether sealed materials become public.