The Perennial Patronage of the Powerful
FIRST INSTANCE: The Omertà of Oz This isn't the first time the defense of 'merely associating' with a known predator has surfaced. We can trace its lineage back to at least the early 2000s, though its roots are far older. When Leslie Wexner's extensive ties to Epstein became undeniable, the narrative quickly shifted. Wexner, a billionaire owner of L Brands (Victoria's Secret), claimed he was
merely a victim of Epstein's financial machinations, not a participant in his depravities. The 'proximity without complicity' defense was born, suggesting that those at the top are simply too busy being important to notice the criminal enterprises operating directly beneath their noses (or, in this case, on their private islands). REPETITIONS: The Clintonian Quandary & Royal Distractions The same
playbook was dusted off for Bill Clinton. After flight logs and photos surfaced showing his numerous trips on Epstein's private jet, the defense was 'he knew nothing of the illegal activities.' One might wonder how many 'wellness retreats' one can attend with a convicted sex offender before one starts asking questions. Curiously, this argument never seems to apply to, say, a low-income individual
found in the company of a known drug dealer. Even the British monarchy wasn't immune. Prince Andrew's disastrous BBC interview in 2019, where he attempted to explain away his friendship with Epstein, offered a masterclass in the 'I was just really unlucky with my friends' gambit. He spent an entire weekend at Epstein's Manhattan home *after* Epstein had served a sentence for sex offenses, and