HOT MIC: “I’ll F***ing Kill You…” Les Wexner’s Attorney Caught Threatening Wexner
You weren’t supposed to hear this part.
This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit and was republished with permission.
Guest post by Brian Lupo
The House Oversight Committee released a five-hour deposition today of L Brands co-founder, Leslie Wexner. The Victoria’s Secret billionaire was allegedly one of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest associates, as the late sex-trafficker was tasked with managing large sums of money and was granted power of attorney over Wexner’s fortune.
Rep. Robert Garcia claims that “approximately…a billion dollars” was either given to or provided in stocks to Epstein by Wexner. Additionally, Wexner transferred a $56-77 million dollar home in Manhattan, the Herbert N. Straus House, to Epstein.
During the deposition released by the House Oversight GOP account on X, a question was asked of Wexner regarding Epstein having other clients in addition to him.
Wexner went on to give a long-winded answer about how Epstein operated and inventoried Wexner’s estate. “I didn’t count forks and spoons…Jeffrey said, ‘People could be walking out with forks and spoons.’ Gee, that’s a good idea. We should have an inventory.”
Wexner said he hired a house manager who had run the U.S. Embassy in Rome.
At the conclusion of his long answer, Wexner’s attorney leaned over and began to whisper in his ear. The mic was still hot and picked up the warning:
“I’ll f***ing kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, ok?”
Both Wexner and the attorney chuckled after they went back to their respective places at the table.
WATCH:
President Trump
At another point in the deposition, Rep. Jasmine Crockett asked Wexner about President Trump’s relationship with Epstein, and whether or not he ever witnessed “Trump having a sexual relationship with a person who was introduced to him by Epstein or Maxwell?”
“No,” Wexner responded.
“Has Donald Trump ever discussed Epstein with you?” she followed up.
Again, Wexner responded, “No.”
Crockett proceeded to ask if Epstein ever discussed Trump with him, and vice versa. Both times Wexner responded, “No.”
Meanwhile…
For more context of the question or to watch the full deposition:
Copyright 2026 The Gateway Pundit
Keep your Eye on the Prize - CHD's Petition update....
Gemini said
The primary battleground is not "conspiracy," but administrative law and biochemical manufacturing standards. The FDA’s pushback against the December 2025 petition (FDA-2025-P-6831) and its recent "Refusal-to-File" (RTF) actions in 2026 center on a few critical, high-level objections.
1. The "Standard of Care" Objection
The Direct Quote:
"CBER does not consider the application to contain a trial 'adequate and well-controlled'... because your control arm does not reflect the best-available standard of care in the United States at the time of the study." — Dr. Vinay Prasad, CBER Director, Feb 2026.
The Explanation:
This is the FDA's most aggressive new posture. They are essentially accusing manufacturers—and by extension, the petitioners' target products—of "rigging" their clinical trials. The FDA argues that for a vaccine to be truly "safe and effective" for licensure, it shouldn't just be compared to a placebo (saltwater) or a "standard" dose. Instead, it must be tested against the best current treatment available (like a high-dose flu shot for seniors). By using a "substandard" comparator in trials, the FDA claims the resulting data is scientifically "inadequate" for a full Biologics License Application (BLA).
2. The "Semantic Reclassification" Objection
The Direct Quote:
"The petitioner’s request for reclassification relies on a misinterpretation of agency guidance... mRNA vaccines function as biologics, not gene therapies, due to the lack of genomic integration." — FDA Regulatory Response (Draft), 2026.
The Explanation:
CHD’s petition hinges on the Accardi Doctrine, which legally requires an agency to follow its own rules. CHD points to FDA guidance defining products that "transfer genetic material" as Gene Therapy. The FDA’s objection is a technical "firewall": they argue that "Gene Therapy" requires a permanent change to the host’s DNA. Since mRNA is "transient" (it disappears after a few days and doesn't enter the cell nucleus), the FDA contends it is exempt from the much stricter, multi-decade safety monitoring required for Gene Therapies.
3. The "Process 1 vs. Process 2" Manufacturing Objection
The Direct Quote:
"CBER reviews process and method validation consistent with a product lifecycle approach... minor manufacturing changes supported by data showing comparability [do not require] overly stringent and onerous comparability data." — FDA Guidance on Manufacturing Flexibilities, Jan 2026.
The Explanation:
This addresses Sasha Latypova’s core evidence. She argues that the "clean" batches used in trials (Process 1) were fundamentally different from the "mass-produced" batches given to the public (Process 2), which she claims were contaminated with residual DNA. The FDA’s objection is that they allow for "manufacturing flexibilities." They argue that as long as the manufacturer can show the end products are "comparable" enough, they don't need to redo the clinical trials. They view Latypova’s demand for new trials for every manufacturing change as "onerous" and unnecessary for public health.
4. The "Administrative Circumvention" Objection
The Direct Quote:
"The Citizen Petition process should not be used to circumvent the administrative order process... The proposed revocations should be rejected as they would inappropriately intervene in the practice of medicine." — FDA Notice of Action, late 2025.
The Explanation:
The FDA often objects to the format of these petitions. They argue that a Citizen Petition is meant for small, specific changes (like a warning label), not for the "summary revocation" of a multi-billion dollar license. They view the petition as an attempt to "short-circuit" the law. By framing the petition as a "political" or "practice of medicine" issue rather than a "safety" issue, the FDA can legally dismiss it without ever having to hold a public hearing on the actual manufacturing data.
----
In this case the Judge is the Defendant it appears.
The FDA needs to recuse itself.