This article uses overtly editorial language — 'playing dumb,' 'insane denial' in the headline — that prejudges Wexner's testimony before presenting it. It selectively assembles the most damaging historical facts about Wexner without giving equivalent space to his denials or the 'limited evidence' qualifier in the FBI document, functioning more as advocacy than reporting.
Loaded LanguageNarrative FramingSelective OmissionAppeal to EmotionContext Stripping
“One of the men most closely linked to Jeffrey Epstein is now playing dumb about his well-documented ties”
“The Victoria's Secret billionaire insists he was a victim, not an accomplice”
This article is almost entirely organized around the Trump-Epstein angle despite that being a peripheral element of Wexner's testimony. The headline sensationalizes a vague recollection by Wexner — that Trump attended Victoria's Secret shows, which Wexner found 'odd' — into a major framing device. Historical records of Trump attending shows with Epstein are presented as corroboration for an innuendo the article builds but cannot substantiate.
Narrative FramingContext StrippingAppeal to EmotionLoaded LanguageSelective Omission
“He did remember that Donald Trump would like to show up to the Victoria's Secret runway shows. Now, that was a little odd to him”
“Trump attended multiple Victoria's Secret fashion shows organized by the company that Wexner once owned”
The headline adopts Democratic lawmakers' characterization as its framing device. The article leads with 'Dems blast Wexner' and organizes information to emphasize Democratic criticism. A brief parenthetical notes Democrats did not attend the Clintons' January deposition — important context that undercuts the partisan framing but is quickly buried.
Loaded LanguageNarrative FramingSelective OmissionAdversarial Neutrality
“Denied everything, and quite frankly, it would have been nice to see more remorse”
“A source familiar with the matter noted that Democrats did not attend the Clintons' scheduled deposition on Capitol Hill in January”
This article uses loaded language ('torched by lawmakers') and emphasizes the Trump-Epstein connection prominently despite Wexner's actual testimony being ambiguous on that point. The piece characterizes Wexner as having 'famously' given Epstein the townhouse 'for a nominal $1 fee' — a claim Wexner disputed in his testimony — without adequately flagging the dispute.
Loaded LanguageContext StrippingNarrative FramingSelective Omission
“Victoria's Secret founder Les Wexner has been torched by lawmakers after he claimed he was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein”
“He also famously gave the financier his Manhattan townhouse - then the largest single-family property in the city - for a nominal $1 fee in the 1990s”
This article was published before the testimony concluded. Its framing as an explainer about what Democrats 'said' versus what Wexner 'claimed' uses asymmetric qualifying language — Democratic accusations are presented as statements while Wexner's denials are flagged as claims. Also inaccurately states Wexner hired Epstein in 1991 when the relationship began in the mid-1980s.
Loaded LanguageAdversarial NeutralitySelective Omission
“Democrats said that Mr. Wexner, the former chief executive of Victoria's Secret and a prolific donor to Republican candidates, repeatedly denied having any personal relationship with Mr. Epstein”
“He may as well have, Democrats said after spending the day in his hometown of New Albany, Ohio”
This article provides unusually detailed testimony content via an unnamed source, but notably emphasizes Wexner's exculpatory statements about Trump multiple times — more than any other outlet — suggesting an editorial priority in clearing Trump's name. The inclusion of internal links referencing other Trump-adjacent Epstein content reinforces this framing.
Narrative FramingSelective OmissionSource Selection Bias
“He stated that he was never aware of Trump engaging in sexual relations with anyone introduced by Epstein or Maxwell”
“He further testified that he was never aware of Epstein arranging sexual contact for any high-profile individuals”
Solid reporting with good procedural detail about the absence of Republican members. Describes Democrats seeking to 'portray Wexner as a key enabler' — useful framing that acknowledges the political dimension. Notes Garcia's '~billion dollars' figure as a claim rather than fact, which is appropriate journalistic caution.
Narrative FramingSource Selection Bias
“House Democrats, speaking during the deposition, sought to portray Wexner as a key enabler of Epstein's crimes”
“There is no single person that was more involved in providing Jeffrey Epstein with the financial support to commit his crimes than Les Wexner”
This article buries the lede on Democratic skepticism and gives relatively more space to Wexner's prepared statements. Notably, it prominently mentions the upcoming Clinton depositions — information most left-leaning outlets gave less prominence — creating a subtle both-sides framing that benefits conservative readers. The FBI co-conspirator claim is contextualized with Wexner's spokesman's rebuttal.
Narrative FramingSelective Omission
“retail billionaire tells House probe Epstein 'duped' him, Trump never close to infamous sex offender”
“Later this month, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will provide depositions”
Solid factual reporting that includes important procedural context like Comer's absence and the bipartisan nature of the subpoena. The article gives Garcia's accusations prominent space while Wexner's testimony is presented through prepared remarks. Mentions the Clinton depositions, providing useful comparative context.
Source Selection BiasNarrative Framing
“There is no single person that was more involved with providing JeffreyEpstein with the financial support to commit his crimes than Les Wexner”
“The Wexner deposition, which came after the panel issued a subpoena pursuant to a motion made by Democrats on the panel”
This article provides detailed testimony content and useful background on how Wexner says he came to trust Epstein. Its framing is somewhat favorable to Wexner, devoting significant space to his explanation of being manipulated. It mentions Democratic criticism but gives it less prominence than the prepared statement, reflecting a mild conservative lean.
Selective OmissionNarrative Framing
“I was naïve, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein. He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong”
“He told House investigators that he was introduced to Epstein in the 1980s by a fellow executive”
This article leads with Democratic criticism of Wexner and gives Garcia's quote prominent placement. It fairly notes Wexner's prepared statement but frames the story primarily through lawmakers' skepticism. The description of Democrats 'pressing' Wexner implies adversarial guilt without presenting Wexner's denials with equal weight.
Narrative FramingSource Selection Bias
“Democrats pressed him over his decades-long relationship with the notorious sex offender”
“There would be no Epstein island, there'd be no Epstein plane, there would be no money to traffic women and girls”
Reasonably balanced reporting that presents both Wexner's denials and Democratic criticism with comparable weight. Includes the important detail that only Democratic lawmakers attended while Republican staff were present. Minor left lean in leading with Congressman Garcia's accusatory quote before presenting Wexner's statement.
Narrative Framing
“Lawmakers accused the billionaire of knowing about Epstein's crimes, but failing to stop them”
“I was naive, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein”
Straightforward reporting focused on Wexner's prepared statement with appropriate context about the Epstein files. Includes the detail about Wexner giving Epstein power of attorney and the timeline of their falling out. Slightly favors Wexner's narrative by giving it more space than Democratic criticism.
Selective Omission
“I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly 20 years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar”
“He said he was assisting me as a favor. Little did I realize that, from the very start, Epstein was conniving to gain my trust”
One of the more comprehensive articles, including specific details about Epstein's financial dealings, the FBI email's 'limited evidence' qualifier, and important context about other names in the files that turned out to be unconnected to Epstein. Fairly presents both Wexner's testimony and Democratic skepticism without clear partisan lean.
Collective Narrative Alignment
“four have since been revealed as random members of an FBI line-up that had no connection to the late pedophile”
“Federal prosecutors initially listed Wexner as a potential co-conspirator following Epstein's arrest in July 2019, but the FBI found 'limited evidence regarding his involvement'”
This article was published before the deposition concluded and is largely a preview piece summarizing expected testimony. It notes Giuffre's allegations and Wexner's consistent denials. Relatively neutral given the pre-deposition nature, though framing Wexner as one of Epstein's 'most prominent former friends' without qualification leans slightly against Wexner.
Narrative Framing
“As one of Jeffrey Epstein's most prominent former friends, Wexner has spent years answering for their decades-long association”
“Wexner says he is an ethical man, philanthropist and community builder who was 'duped by a world-class con man'”
Concise and factual reporting that quotes Wexner's statement directly and includes context about the Epstein files and the co-conspirator label. Balanced treatment giving Wexner's denial and the congressional investigation roughly equal space. The subhead referencing Democrats 'testing an attack line' slightly reveals editorial perspective.
“I was naïve, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein. He was a con man”
“Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna have said Wexner's name in the files is 'likely' incriminating, but the businessman has not been charged with any crimes”
Provides useful context others omit, including Massie's 'bigger than Watergate' claim and Bondi's involvement, placing the deposition in the broader political landscape. Accurately notes the 'limited evidence' qualifier in the FBI document and Wexner's bipartisan political donations — a relevant fact that complicates simple partisan narratives.
Narrative Framing
“This is bigger than Watergate. This cover-up spans decades”
“Wexner is the wealthiest person in Ohio and a frequent donor to political campaigns”
Pre-deposition article that accurately states Wexner was 'widely considered a key figure who facilitated' Epstein's connections — a characterization that reflects media consensus but is presented without qualification. Correctly includes Giuffre's allegation. Brief but factually accurate.
Narrative Framing
“widely considered a key figure who facilitated the convicted sex offender's connections to the rich and powerful”
“at least one that refers to him as a 'co-conspirator'”
Clean, factual reporting that presents Wexner's prepared statement at length before addressing Democratic skepticism. Includes important context from the FBI document, the 'limited evidence' qualifier, and Wexner's cooperation with prosecutors. One of the more balanced treatments of the story.
“I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar”
“The FBI referred to Wexner as a possible 'co-conspirator' in an Aug. 2019 internal document compiled days after Epstein's death”
Clean, organized reporting that presents both Wexner's testimony and historical context about the relationship with Epstein. Correctly notes that Wexner disputed gifting the townhouse and says it was sold at appraised value. Gives Democratic criticism and Wexner's denials roughly equal space.
“Wexner pushed back on several long-circulating allegations, saying he was 'never on his airplane,' didn't gift Epstein the Manhattan townhouse but instead sold it at what he was told was appraised value”
“The billionaire was referred to as a 'co-conspirator' in an internal FBI document in August 2019, a document that was prepared shortly after Epstein died in jail”
Concise, factual article that accurately presents the key points of Wexner's testimony and the FBI document's co-conspirator reference with the 'limited evidence' qualifier. Includes Wexner's cooperation with prosecutors and Giuffre's allegation. One of the more precise articles in handling the distinction between the FBI document label and Wexner's legal status.
“Law enforcement officials working on Epstein's 2019 sex-trafficking prosecution identified Wexner as one of 10 'co-conspirators'”
“Wexner said in his statement that he 'never witnessed nor had any knowledge of Epstein's criminal activity'”
One of the most balanced articles in the set. Presents Wexner's prepared statement in detail, includes Democratic skepticism with specific quotes, and contextualizes the co-conspirator label accurately. Rep. Crockett's honest admission about 'running into dead ends' is included — an important detail many outlets omitted.
“We are running into dead ends at this moment when it comes to following the money”
“It is almost inconceivable to be missing the amounts of money that are missing and somehow Mr. Wexner [had] no idea”
Comprehensive pre-deposition article providing the most historical background of any piece in the set, including the 2003 Vanity Fair quote, the 'gang stuff' documents, and the timeline of the relationship's unraveling. One notable claim — that 'the overall picture provided by the DOJ documents is that Epstein did not run a sex trafficking ring' — is an extraordinary assertion presented without sourcing or caveat.
Selective OmissionFalse Equivalence
“He and I had 'gang stuff' for over 15 years”
“He has never been accused of wrongdoing and the overall picture provided by the DOJ documents is that Epstein did not run a sex trafficking ring”
Brief preview article published before testimony concluded. Neutral framing, accurate characterization of Wexner as 'one of Epstein's closest known associates,' and correctly notes he has not been charged. Minimal spin given its limited scope as a breaking-news preview.
“Wexner, the 88-year-old retail billionaire and retired founder of Victoria's Secret former parent company L Brands, has faced intense scrutiny for years”
“Wexner has not been charged with any crime”
Very brief breaking-news article published before the testimony was complete. Neutral framing, no significant spin. Accurately notes Wexner has never been accused of wrongdoing. Limited analytical value given its brevity.
“Wexner will testify as part of the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Epstein”
“Wexner has never been accused of any wrongdoing, and has denied any knowledge of Epstein's alleged abuse”
Extremely brief preview article that accurately describes the situation without spin. Notes Wexner's name appears over 1,000 times in the Epstein files and that the deposition follows a Democratic subpoena. No framing techniques detectable given the article's minimal length.
“Les Wexner, the former owner of Victoria's Secret, is set to take questions behind closed doors in Ohio on Wednesday over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein”
“Wexner's name appears over 1,000 times in the Epstein files”
