TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @Tiffany34006057

@gothburz - Peter Girnus 🦅

I am the attorney for Leslie H. Wexner. I have been preparing my client for this deposition for eleven months. We rehearsed his testimony. We reviewed the financial records. We anticipated every question the committee might ask. We prepared binders. We retained consultants. We ran mock depositions in the same room where the actual deposition would take place, which is my client's living room, because the committee agreed to come to his house. In New Albany, Ohio. The suburb he built. The mansion he owns. The one where a woman reported being sexually assaulted in 1996. We did not select the venue. We accepted it. My client sat in his leather chair and told Congress he was a victim. I thought this went well. He explained that Jeffrey Epstein was his financial adviser. That the relationship was professional. That he never considered Epstein a friend. That when he learned about the allegations, he severed ties immediately. This is the defense. My client — who built Victoria's Secret, who negotiated the acquisition of five national retail brands, who personally managed one of the largest fortunes in American retail — did not notice that his financial adviser was running a sex trafficking operation. For decades. While managing his money. While holding his power of attorney. While receiving approximately one billion dollars. I want to be clear: my client is not stupid. My client built an empire. My client reads contracts the way a surgeon reads scans. My client once renegotiated a lease in Columbus over a fourteen-cent discrepancy per square foot. My client simply did not notice the billion dollars. My client visited the island. He brought his family. He described it, under oath, as a "pretty crummy island." I did not coach him to say this. I would not have coached him to say this. When your client is being asked about the most infamous sex trafficking site in modern history and he calls it "pretty crummy," you do not coach that. That is a man being honest about his aesthetic standards while being dishonest about everything else. The island was, by all accounts, crummy. It was also the place where children were imprisoned and assaulted. My client noticed the landscaping. There was a moment during the deposition that I need to address. The committee informed my client that approximately $20 million in stock and cash had been transferred from his charitable foundations to one of Epstein's charities. His charities. His foundations. His money. His signature on the governance documents. My client said — and I am quoting him here because the video is public — "Effing shocked. I just — I'm appalled. I never heard that." He then turned to me and asked, on camera, "Did you know that?" I did know that. I had prepared a binder. The binder was on the table. My client had not read the binder. This is not unusual. Many clients do not read the binder. What is unusual is being asked, on camera, in front of a congressional committee, whether you told your own client about the $20 million his charities gave to a sex trafficker. I made a face that I hope was not captured clearly. My client also testified about the first time he heard the allegations against Epstein. He called Epstein. He said, "What the hell is this?" Epstein told him he was being "shaken down by a hooker." My client believed this. He found this explanation satisfactory. He did not ask a follow-up question. He did not call the police. He did not call me. He did not call anyone. A billionaire's financial adviser — the man who held power of attorney over his fortune — was accused of sex crimes, and the explanation "a hooker is shaking me down" closed the matter. The victims were children. Epstein used the word "hooker." My client used the word "believed." I should tell you about the comparisons my client made voluntarily. He compared Epstein to Bernie Madoff. "Bernie Madoff is a boyscout compared to Jeffrey," he said. Madoff ran a $65 billion Ponzi scheme. Epstein ran a child sex trafficking ring. My client chose to compare them on the axis of financial betrayal. He also said, "If it was a movie, no one would believe it." He is correct. In the movie, the man who funded the operation, sold the trafficker his primary residence, visited the island with his children, accepted the hooker explanation without question, and didn't notice $20 million leaving his charities would not be cast as the victim. He would be cast as the third act. The committee did not believe my client. Representative Steve Lynch said my client was "perfectly competent and lucid" but "just not telling the truth." Representative Robert Garcia said "no single person was more involved in providing Jeffrey Epstein with the financial support to commit his crimes than Les Wexner." He also said that without my client's support, there would be no island. My client's position is that these statements are inaccurate. My client's position is that one billion dollars was a professional relationship. That the island visit was brief and crummy. That the townhouse sale was market-rate. That the charities operated independently. That the hooker explanation was credible. That the power of attorney was routine. That the decades of financial entanglement were unremarkable. That the mansion where a woman reported being assaulted was, and remains, his home, and the deposition went fine. The committee released the video the next day. They posted it on YouTube. Five hours. No redactions. In my experience, committees sit on depositions for months. They negotiate over transcripts. They allow review periods. This one was online before my client's morning coffee. On the same day the video was released, February 19, 2026, the United Kingdom arrested Prince Andrew. Britain arrested a prince. A member of the royal family. In handcuffs. The Governor of Ohio went on camera and said my client was not a problem. "Barring some new information of something that he has done illegal," Mike DeWine said, "I don't see that as a problem." One billion dollars. An island. A mansion. A hooker explanation. $20 million in charity money. A five-hour deposition the committee called "not credible." A victim's report from the property where my client currently sits. No problem. My client has not been charged. My client has not been arrested. My client has not been indicted. My client drove home from the deposition in under one minute because the deposition was in his house. My client slept in the bed he's slept in for thirty years. In the mansion the committee came to. In the suburb he built with the money he made from the company he founded. The money that funded the financial adviser. Who funded the island. That my client visited once. And found crummy. I am my client's attorney. I prepared eleven months for this. I made the binders. I ran the mock depositions. I anticipated every question. I did not anticipate "Did you know that?" on camera. I did not anticipate "pretty crummy island" under oath. I did not anticipate my client comparing a child sex trafficker to Bernie Madoff and meaning it as a compliment to Madoff. The system worked exactly as I designed it to work. My client testified. My client was called a liar. My client went home. My client was not charged. One billion dollars. Zero consequences. I am the defense. The defense rests. It has never been disturbed.