By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Jeffrey Epstein has been described as a conman, with an individual admitting to being “naive, foolish and gullible” for placing trust in him. Despite being “conned,” this person asserts they have committed no wrongdoing and have nothing to conceal. The statement emphasizes a lack of culpability despite the deception experienced.
Read the original article here
Billionaire Les Wexner has stepped into the spotlight, making statements to lawmakers that paint him as a victim, “naive” and thoroughly “conned” by the now-infamous Jeffrey Epstein. This narrative, offered during testimony, positions Wexner not as an enabler or accomplice, but as someone tragically misled by Epstein’s machinations. The core of his defense rests on this claim of profound naiveté, suggesting that his immense wealth and business acumen somehow blinded him to the reality of Epstein’s actions.
The idea that a seasoned billionaire, a titan of industry responsible for brands like Victoria’s Secret, could be so utterly deceived by Epstein is met with considerable skepticism. Critics and observers have pointed to the sheer scale of the financial and material support Wexner allegedly provided Epstein, including his Manhattan mansion and private jet. The question naturally arises: how does one “get conned” into gifting such significant assets to an associate, especially when the eventual revelations cast such a dark shadow over that associate’s character?
Wexner’s testimony implies a stark contrast between his supposed business genius and his personal gullibility. He built a vast empire, demonstrating a keen understanding of markets and consumer behavior, yet, according to his own account, he was oblivious to the criminal enterprise operating under his patronage. This juxtaposition fuels disbelief, with many finding it hard to reconcile the image of a shrewd businessman with that of an innocent bystander duped by a predator.
The argument of being “conned” is further challenged by the longevity and depth of the relationship between Wexner and Epstein. Decades of association, shared assets, and what appeared to be a close personal bond are difficult to reconcile with a simple misunderstanding or manipulation. The financial and logistical infrastructure Epstein built, which facilitated his crimes, was in large part enabled by Wexner’s resources and, according to some, his active involvement.
Furthermore, the defense’s emphasis on Wexner’s naiveté seems to ignore the basic legal principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense. While Wexner might claim he was unaware of Epstein’s illicit activities, this lack of knowledge, if genuine, does not absolve him of responsibility for the consequences of his association and the resources he provided. The idea that a person with Wexner’s life experience and resources could be so profoundly out of touch with the reality of Epstein’s life, especially given the rumors that circulated for years, is a difficult pill to swallow.
The claims of being “conned” also raise questions about power dynamics. The narrative often portrays predators as manipulating those less powerful. Here, however, the alleged victim is an incredibly wealthy and influential individual, while the alleged perpetrator, despite his crimes, was dependent on Wexner’s resources. This inversion of typical power dynamics further complicates the “naive” defense.
The implication that Wexner was somehow forced or manipulated into supporting Epstein’s criminal enterprise is met with incredulity. The sheer magnitude of the support, the voluntary nature of the transfers of wealth and assets, all suggest a willing participation rather than a reluctant submission. The suggestion that he was “conned into raping kids” or “conned onto an island” by Epstein sounds like a desperate attempt to deflect blame.
In essence, Wexner’s plea of being “naive” and “conned” by Epstein is being widely interpreted as an attempt to salvage his reputation and avoid legal consequences. The evidence, the scale of the financial entanglement, and the historical context of Epstein’s activities make this defense appear disingenuous to many. The core issue remains that providing the resources and infrastructure for criminal acts, regardless of claimed ignorance, carries significant weight.