By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Billionaire Les Wexner, founder of the L Brands retail empire, has informed members of Congress that he was “duped by a world-class con man” in his former financial adviser, Jeffrey Epstein. Wexner denies any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes or participation in the abuse of girls and young women, asserting he was “naïve, foolish, and gullible” to trust him. Despite the extensive mention of his name in Epstein’s documents, Wexner maintains he has done nothing wrong and is eager to “set the record straight” regarding their decades-long association. The relationship between Wexner and Epstein soured when Wexner discovered Epstein had stolen “vast sums” from him and his family.
Read the original article here
Billionaire Les Wexner is now set to face a congressional probe, with the billionaire slated for a deposition concerning files related to Jeffrey Epstein. This development signals a potentially significant moment in the ongoing investigations into Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking ring and the individuals connected to him. The focus on Wexner, a prominent figure in the business world and the former CEO of L Brands, highlights the widening net of inquiry into this deeply disturbing case. It appears lawmakers are eager to delve into his relationship with Epstein and any potential involvement or knowledge he may have possessed regarding the disgraced financier’s activities.
The anticipation surrounding Wexner’s deposition is palpable, though there’s a pervasive sense of skepticism about what meaningful information might emerge. Many observers anticipate a strong reliance on the Fifth Amendment, with frequent pronouncements of “I do not recall” and “I plead the Fifth.” This predictable response, often seen as a tactic to avoid self-incrimination, leaves many questioning the actual utility of such proceedings, particularly when dealing with individuals of significant wealth and influence. The concern is that this might devolve into a performance, a mere show of accountability rather than a genuine pursuit of truth and justice.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that the rules simply don’t apply in the same way for the ultra-rich and well-connected. The expectation is that Wexner, like others before him, might be afforded a different set of procedures and consequences compared to an ordinary citizen suspected of serious crimes. The idea of actual arrests and prosecutions for everyone involved seems like a distant fantasy for many, leading to a deep-seated cynicism about the effectiveness of the current justice system. The feeling is that powerful individuals can often navigate these situations with relative ease, leaving the public disillusioned.
The strategic intentions behind the GOP’s involvement in this probe are also a subject of considerable speculation. Is Wexner being put forward as a way to project an image of being tough on pedophilia, even if it means highlighting a prominent figure within their sphere? The question arises as to why powerful billionaires would need to resort to someone like Epstein to fulfill their desires, implying a deeper, more complex dynamic than simple attraction. This line of questioning hints at a belief that the motivations for associating with Epstein might have extended beyond personal gratification to include power, influence, or other undisclosed arrangements.
Furthermore, the deposition presents an opportunity to explore Wexner’s broader involvement in various influential groups, including a long-standing pro-Israel lobby. The potential for ties between such organizations, influential figures like Wexner, and individuals like Epstein, potentially with links to intelligence agencies, adds another layer of complexity to the investigation. The sheer magnitude of wealth and power associated with these individuals leads some to believe that their passing would have little to no impact on the lives of ordinary people, underscoring a feeling of disconnect and powerlessness.
The pervasive belief is that nothing substantial will materialize from this deposition, that it will be another instance of wealthy and connected individuals evading genuine consequences. The phrase “rule $ don’t apply to rich, connected people” echoes the frustration that these individuals are perceived to be getting away with everything, right in front of everyone’s eyes. The current state of affairs is seen by some as a reflection of a fundamentally broken system, with political parties allegedly capitalizing on the societal fractures for their own gain.
The term “cowards” is used to describe these billionaires, suggesting a lack of moral fortitude or willingness to face accountability. Until actual arrests are made, the prevailing view is that any statements or actions by officials are merely lip service, designed to create an illusion of action without any real substance. The involvement of the “Pedo in Chief” is mentioned, suggesting a belief that a high-level figure is actively protecting individuals from arrest, either for personal reasons or due to external pressures, and that this figure is a traitor and a criminal themselves.
Even if Wexner claims to have been a victim of Epstein’s, stealing millions from him, the lack of a lawsuit or police report raises serious questions. Billionaires are known for their desire to hoard wealth, making it unlikely they would allow substantial theft without some form of recourse, unless it involved blackmail. The ongoing investigations and the potential for further legal entanglements, including questions about whether a particular administration or justice department is truly investigating, fuels this deep-seated skepticism.
The prospect of a deposition inevitably brings to mind the recurring phrases of denial and evasion: “I don’t recall, I don’t recall, I plead the 5th.” This is viewed as another wasted effort, an exercise in obfuscation where no real truth will emerge because these individuals are perceived to protect each other. The concern is that the deposition will be filled with such non-answers, with Wexner potentially opting to read financial reports rather than address the alleged horrific acts.
The anticipation of a “whole lot of the number 5” – referring to the Fifth Amendment – is a stark indicator of the low expectations for genuine disclosure. The question of when Donald Trump’s deposition might occur is also raised, suggesting a desire for broader accountability within that circle. The hope, however faint, is that eventually, someone will break and reveal the truth, but the current justice department is seen as unlikely to apply sufficient pressure. The perceived failings of key figures within the justice system further contribute to this pessimistic outlook.
The statement “I’d like to answer this question but on the advice of my attorney I will plead the 5th” is a predictable outcome, highlighting the belief that there’s a separate legal framework for the wealthy and powerful. These proceedings are often seen as a performance, a carefully constructed facade of accountability rather than a genuine attempt to uncover wrongdoing. The implication that Wexner might be the next person to “kill himself” is a dark and cynical prediction, reflecting the perceived impunity of such figures and the extreme measures some believe they might resort to.
The assertion that Wexner is one of the key co-conspirators, a well-known billionaire, and that he will likely lie or remain silent through his lawyer is a widely held belief. The contrast drawn between how a Democrat might question Wexner versus how a Republican might, focusing on political talking points rather than alleged crimes, illustrates a perceived partisan manipulation of the situation. The core accusation is that these powerful individuals never face the consequences for their actions, leading to an expected “I don’t recall” fest.
The notion that Republicans might “suck his dick and then let him go on his merry way” is a harsh critique, suggesting a perception of subservience and a lack of genuine oversight. The prediction is that this will ultimately lead to nothing more than further concealment of crimes committed by those connected to Trump’s circle. The idea that Trump himself might want Wexner to testify, only for Wexner to lie or plead the Fifth, highlights the complex and potentially manipulative dynamics at play.
The belief that the Department of Justice will never prosecute Wexner for perjury, while an ordinary citizen would face immediate federal prison, underscores the deep-seated feeling of inequality. A radical suggestion is proposed: that crimes against children should be punished by forfeiting all net worth, with even gifted assets to be reclaimed. This punitive measure aims to disrupt the financial incentives that might drive such behavior.
The phrase “I wished to depose in this context means to get rid of” reveals a desire for the removal of such individuals, rather than just their testimony. The prediction of “I do not recall” and zero new information remains a dominant theme. The mention of Wexner having provided a preliminary written statement, while being eager to tell the truth, is met with suspicion regarding the timing of his willingness to cooperate. The fact that he is only now being deposed, given the information in the files, is seen as “crazy.”
The question of why Wexner isn’t being arrested, and the focus on congressional performance rather than actual prosecution, points to a frustration with the perceived inaction of the justice system. The possibility of the DOJ being in charge of handling perjury during the deposition raises concerns about impartiality and effectiveness. The age of Wexner is also brought up, with a cynical suggestion that he might not live long enough to face any real consequences.
The comparison of how federal agents might visit an ordinary citizen versus the current situation, where a deposition is the primary step, highlights the perceived leniency towards the wealthy. The expectation of “I don’t recall”s and a lack of new information is almost universally anticipated. The stark accusation that Wexner, Epstein, and Trump were all involved with teenage girls and boys, and that Wexner might be a scapegoat, reflects a deep-seated anger and a belief that more powerful figures are being shielded.
The suggestion that Billionaire Les Wexner ought to do “more philanthropy and less Wexner” is a play on words, but it speaks to a desire for a more positive contribution from him and others like him. The repetitive and emphatic statement about Wexner’s deposition underscores the significance of this event, even amidst the prevailing skepticism. The idea that Wexner might “roll on Jeffy E and blame everything on him,” perhaps claiming blackmail related to an affair, and insisting that he was unaware of any wrongdoing, is a predicted defense strategy.
The speculative scenario where Wexner might implicate an “UNDISCLOSED REDACTED” entity in setting up Epstein for other rich men, complete with tapes, adds a conspiratorial flavor to the discourse. The mention of Epstein’s involvement in Iran-Contra planes with Lex, and Ghislaine Maxwell’s father’s ties to Israel, further intertwines these complex networks. The ultimate fear and prediction for many is an “incoming pardon,” suggesting that despite the deposition, powerful individuals will ultimately be protected.