File 102 - Casey Wasserman Told Maxwell He Wanted to See Her in Leather. He's Running the 2028 Olympics.

Summary

---

The Epstein Files: File 102 - Casey Wasserman Told Maxwell He Wanted to See Her in Leather. He’s Running the 2028 Olympics.

Podcast: The Epstein Files
Host: Island Investigation
Episode Date: February 28, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Epstein Files delves into newly released documents illuminating the personal communications between Casey Wasserman, the influential billionaire heading the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, and Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted accomplice to Jeffrey Epstein. Leveraging the AI-powered analysis that defines the series, the hosts reconstruct a timeline of suggestive emails, cross-referenced with travel manifests showing Wasserman's proximity to Epstein and Maxwell. The episode critically examines the gulf between documentary evidence and Wasserman’s public denials, as well as the institutional response (or lack thereof) from Olympic authorities and the broader corporate sphere.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Who is Casey Wasserman? (01:48–02:33)

• Background & Significance:

  • Not just a wealthy executive, but "institutional royalty", grandson of Hollywood mogul Lou Wasserman.
  • Current head of Wasserman Media Group; chairman of the LA28 Olympic Organizing Committee—responsible for a $7 billion event.

• Memorable Quote:

  “He isn’t just a, you know, a wealthy executive.”
  —B (02:02)

2. Close Review of Emails Between Wasserman and Maxwell (03:11–06:16)

• Timeline & Nature of Communications:

  • March–April 2003: Multiple emails establish escalating familiarity and innuendo.
    • Early March: Maxwell emails late at night, pressing for meetings (“What should you do? Miss me? ... What do you think?”).
    • Later emails: Jokes, suggestive allusions, exclusivity (“You, me and not else much”), banter over KitKats and baked beans.
    • Key Exchange: Wasserman to Maxwell —

      “I think of you all the time. So what do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?”
      —Quoted by B (06:02)

• Analysis:
  The language is described as highly suggestive and exclusive—far beyond casual business rapport.

• Notable Analysis:

  “You are reading a private, coded banter between one of the most powerful men in Hollywood and a woman who served as the primary architect of an international sex trafficking ring.”
  —C (05:04)

3. Public vs. Private: The Official Wasserman Defense (06:16–07:09)

• Wasserman’s Response:

  • Publicly: Regrets the emails, claims they pre-date knowledge of Maxwell’s crimes, asserts no relationship with Epstein.
  • Hosts counter: The intimacy and frequency of communication contradict the “no connection” narrative.

• Quote:

  “Why does a man who claims absolutely no relationship with Epstein send emails ending in zoxo to Epstein’s primary accomplice...?”
  —C (06:40)

4. Physical Proximity: The 2002 Africa Trip, Clinton Foundation, and Epstein’s Jet (07:12–10:49)

• Flight Logs & Manifests:

  • Wasserman and wife are listed on a 2002 Clinton Foundation humanitarian trip on Epstein’s private Boeing 727, together with Clinton, Ghislaine Maxwell, and others.
  • Multi-leg, multi-week African tour—“thousands and thousands of miles over multiple days... inside a customized Boeing 727.”

• Key Point:
  Unlikely to remain mere acquaintances after such prolonged exposure.

• Quote:

  “You do not spend weeks ... and then follow it up months later with emails saying zoxo and asking her to wear tight leather, if the relationship is merely a passing formal acquaintance. The timeline completely destroys the alibi.”
  —C (10:26–10:49)

5. Immediate Fallout in the Talent and Business World (11:25–12:17)

• Consequences:

  • High-profile clients (e.g., pop star Chappell Roan, Olympian Abby Wambach) sever ties with Wasserman’s agency.
  • Led to corporate restructuring; Wasserman sells his music agency amidst public scrutiny.

• Quote:

  “The talent market enacted an immediate penalty ... [they] demand ethical accountability and they exercise their financial power.”
  —C (12:23)

6. Institutional Response – Or Lack Thereof (12:53–15:34)

• Olympic Committee and Corporate Silence:

  • Despite people in entertainment cutting ties, neither LA28’s executive board nor the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an ethics review or leadership change.
  • Instead, public statements back Wasserman.

• Contrast to Other Scandals:

  • Referenced US Gymnastics (Larry Nassar) and FIFA corruption scandals, where institutional accountability was immediate and severe.

• Quote:

  “Does a $7 billion price tag buy institutional immunity? The evidence suggests that it absolutely does.”
  —B/C (15:32–15:34)

7. Missing Records and Private Panic (16:02–17:36)

• Vetting Black Hole:
  • DOJ admits to withheld files; no records yet released of direct Wasserman–Epstein emails.
  • Reports surfaced that the LA28 board was privately considering replacements for Wasserman, such as Kevin McCarthy, despite public statements of confidence.
  • Indicates “they were building a lifeboat while telling the public the ship was fine.” (17:36)

8. Muted Media Coverage (17:52–18:38)

• Media Reluctance:

  • Mainstream US entertainment outlets notably equivocal in coverage.
  • Wasserman’s industry influence cited as a key factor.

• Quote:

  “The industry is looking the other way because the cost of scrutinizing the man who controls the Olympic contracts and the talent pipelines is simply too high for their business models.”
  —C (18:23–18:38)

9. Is This ‘Accountability’ or a Shell Game? (18:38–19:20)

• Critical Summary:
  • Wasserman’s sale of the agency is portrayed as strategic deflection, not real accountability. He retains LA28 leadership and prestige.
  • Host calls it “a shell game disguised as consequence.” (19:20)

10. Bringing It Together: Institutional Protection (19:20–20:22)

• Thesis:

  • The evidence points to "institutional protection" when financial interests are large enough—a $7 billion event overrides ethics and accountability.

• Final Question:

  “If the paper trail we have ... is enough to force musicians and athletes to immediately cut ties, what exactly do the corporate sponsors of the 2028 Olympics know that the public doesn’t? And how much money is institutional silence worth?”
  —B (20:22)

---

Memorable Quotes and Moments – By Timestamp

• “He isn’t just a, you know, a wealthy executive.” —B (02:02)
• “You, me and not else much.” —Wasserman email, quoted by B (04:48)
• “I think of you all the time. So what do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?” —Wasserman email, quoted by B (06:02)
• “You do not spend weeks … and then follow it up months later with emails saying zoxo and asking her to wear tight leather, if the relationship is merely a passing formal acquaintance.” —C (10:26–10:49)
• “The evidence suggests that [a $7B price tag] absolutely does [buy institutional immunity].” —B/C (15:32–15:34)
• “They were building a lifeboat while telling the public the ship was fine.” —C (17:36)
• “The industry is looking the other way because the cost of scrutinizing the man who controls the Olympic contracts … is simply too high…” —C (18:23–18:38)
• “It is a shell game disguised as consequence.” —C (19:20)
• “How much money is institutional silence worth?” —B (20:22)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:12 — Introduction to Casey Wasserman and his ties to Olympics and Hollywood
• 03:11 — Timeline and dissection of 2003 emails between Wasserman and Maxwell
• 07:12 — The 2002 Africa trip: Wasserman, Maxwell, Clinton, and Epstein
• 11:25 — Corporate and talent fallout following document releases
• 12:53 — Institutional response: LA28 and IOC reactions contrasted with precedent
• 16:02 — Missing files and evidence of internal Olympic board panic
• 17:52 — Analysis of the media’s muted coverage owing to Wasserman’s Hollywood power
• 18:38 — Critique of whether asset sales count as accountability
• 19:20 — Summary: Institutional protection for powerful individuals vs. accountability
• 20:22 — Concluding question on the scale of institutional silence

---

Conclusion

This episode systematically connects documentary evidence—emails and flight logs—to public and private institution behaviors. The inquiry highlights a disjunction between individual and institutional accountability, raising pointed questions about the limits of ethics in the presence of vast financial interests. All claims are tied to primary source documentation, inviting listeners to scrutinize the records themselves.

---

For supporting documents and further reading, visit EpsteinFiles.fm.

Next episode teaser: “Thor Bjorn Jagland set up a Putin meeting for Epstein. Norway just charged him.”

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey, it's the creator of the Epstein Files. Before we get into today's episode, I need to tell you about my brand new podcast, Wardesk. If you value how we fact check the narrative and follow the raw data on this show, Wardesk is built for you. It's a massive ongoing investigation into the rapidly escalating developments happening in the Middle east right now. It is completely post partisan and follows the facts. Instead of cable news talking points, we go straight to the source to explain the reality of global conflict. Search for Wardesk on Apple podcasts or Spotify right now or check this episode's description for the links and hit follow. Alright, let's get into the episode. 3 million pages of evidence. Thousands of unsealed flight logs. Millions of data points, names, themes and and timelines connected. You are listening to the Epstein Files, the world's first AI native investigation into the case that traditional journalism simply could not handle.

[B]

Welcome to the Epstein Files. Last time we tracked Thomas Barrick, Trump's inaugural committee chair who texted Epstein over a hundred times and is now the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. In this investigation we are looking at Casey Wasserman, the billionaire running the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics and emails he sent to Ghislaine Maxwell that are now part of the released files as part of our ongoing investigation. As always, every document and source we reference is available at epsteinfiles fm. So let us start with the emails, the released Epstein Files, communications between Wasserman and Maxwell, where Wasserman told her he wanted to see her in leather.

[C]

Right. And to really grasp the gravity of this specific file you have to understand exactly who Casey Wasserman is. We are looking at a direct collision between documentary evidence of a criminal network and the absolute highest echelons of power.

[B]

He isn't just a, you know, a wealthy executive.

[C]

No, not at all. He is institutional royalty. He is the grandson of the legendary Hollywood mogul Lou Wasserman.

[B]

The man who essentially built the modern entertainment industry through mca.

[C]

Exactly. Casey inherited that kingdom. He built Wasserman Media Group and he completely dominated sports and music representatives representation. But his crowning achievement, the position that makes him a massive global diplomatic figure, is his role as the chairman of the LA28 organizing committee.

[B]

He is the man chosen by Los Angeles to oversee the 2028 Olympics.

[C]

We are talking about an operation with a budget exceeding $7 billion.

[B]

Seven billion. And the evidence we are examining comes straight from the document cash released under the Epstein Files Transparency act or efta. These are the electronic communications recovered directly from Ghislaine Maxwell's personal accounts straight from the hard drives. Yeah. We are going to walk you through the timeline of these emails step by step. The specific exclusions we are scrutinizing take place in March and April of 2003. And we are not going to just summarize these messages for you. We are looking at the exact timestamps, the specific phrasing and the escalating tone

[C]

because the timeline is where the official story falls apart. The Tameline begins on March 17, 2003. We have two emails sent in the very early hours of the morning at 0.02 and then again at 0 3.51. Ghislaine Maxwell writes to Wasserman, I am

[B]

looking directly at the IFTA archive right now, specifically the document ending in 2270 for anyone following along at home. And she writes, quote, what should you do? Miss me? Then there was always that Talmud meeting I think I mentioned once before. What do you think?

[C]

The timestamps reveal a lot. There it is past midnight. She's sending a follow up at three in the morning.

[B]

Three in the morning. And then at zero 2.58 that same morning, Maxwell pushes for a physical meeting. The archived document states, quote, I'll be back in Nytom. I should land early afternoon. Are you sure that a breakfast meeting is out of the question? An early breakfast meeting?

[C]

The official story doesn't match the data. Look at the language she uses. It is suggestive. That is also highly insistent. She is actively managing her schedule around his, pressing for an early breakfast meeting, casually asking what he should do and outright suggesting he should miss her.

[B]

You do not speak to a peripheral business contact like this.

[C]

You absolutely do not. This is the language of established, deeply ingrained social comfort. She expects a response. She feels entirely comfortable demanding his time before the sun even comes up.

[B]

Well, the tone shifts even further into explicitly sartatious banter. Three weeks later, we track the timeline to April 7 and April 8, 2003. The communications escalate significantly. Maxwell asks what combo works for him.

[C]

And look at his response.

[B]

Right. Wasserman replies, and I quote the document directly. You, me and not else much.

[C]

Just pause on that.

[B]

And then Maxwell responds that he will not have to share her with either a cheddar cheese, a baked bean or a Kit Kat.

[C]

To which Wasserman's documented reply is, or anything else.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

You are reading a private coded banter between one of the most powerful men in Hollywood and a woman who served as the primary architect of an international sex trafficking ring. Look at the progression they are trading inside jokes about baked beans and KitKats. They are eliminating the presence of anyone else. You, me and not else much.

[B]

It's very exclusive.

[C]

That is a statement of deliberate isolation. By April 12 and April 13, 2003. They are coordinating logistics. Maxwell confirms she is staying at the Peninsula Hotel in New York.

[B]

And Wasman responds that he can meet, quoting the document. Probably late afternoon like 4isho.

[C]

Xoxo hugs and kisses.

[B]

Which brings us to the specific quote uncovered in the release that generated the initial media reports from cnn, the BBC and the Los Angeles Times. The document specifically states, in Wasserman's own words to Maxwell, I think of you all the time. So what do I have to do to see you in a tight leather outfit?

[C]

Stop right there and process that sentence. I think of you all the time. This is a definitive statement of emotional or at least persistent psychological real estate. And then the request for a tight leather outfit. We have to cross examine the official alibi here.

[B]

Right. Because when these documents were first extracted and published, the official Wasserman camp issued a highly coordinated public defense.

[C]

Let's hear what they claimed.

[B]

I have that defense right here. Wasserman's representative stated that he deeply regrets the emails. He claimed they were sent long before her crimes came to light. And he insisted unequivocally that he never had a personal or business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

[C]

That contradicts the evidence on its face. I mean, analyze the massive gap between the public posture and the private communications. Why does a man who claims absolutely no relationship with Epstein send emails ending in zoxo to Epstein's primary accomplice to his top lieutenant? Exactly. Why is he requesting to see her in a tight leather outfit at a luxury hotel? But coordinating late afternoon meetups and engaging in familiar suggestive banter.

[B]

You have to look at the comfort level in these texts.

[C]

It's entirely casual.

[B]

A person does not write I think of you all the time to a passing acquaintance. They met at a charity gala. They do not coordinate a 4ish rendezvous with kisses and hugs attached to the signature. The official defense minimizes the nature of the correspondence to protect the institution Wassermann leads. So if the emails from 2003 establish that intense level of comfort, we have to ask how Casey Washman ended up in Ghislaine Maxwell's inbox in the first place. This requires expanding the perimeter of our

[C]

investigation because you don't just wake up and ask someone to wear leather.

[B]

Right. You build to that. So we are going to shift the timeline back to September 2002 to track the physical intersections between Wasserman and the Epstein Maxwell network.

[C]

To understand the origin of those Spring 2003 emails, you have to look at the physical proximity established the previous fall. The EFTA documents give us the exact logistical data of how they shared space. We are not guessing about their whereabouts. We have the manifests.

[B]

We have the Africa trip manifest. I am pulling the specific document released under the Epstein Files Transparency act. The file ending in 8629. This is the flight itinerary for a 2002 humanitarian trip organized by the Clinton foundation, flown entirely on Jeffrey Epstein's customized

[C]

private plane, the infamous Boeing 727.

[B]

The email is from a Clinton scheduling director sent directly to Ghislaine Maxwell outlining the passenger list for a massive multination tour.

[C]

We need to walk through the exact geography of this manifest because the geography dictates the duration of the exposure. People here, they shared a flight and they picture a two hour hop from Los Angeles to Seattle. That is not what this is. This was an extensive multi week journey across the African continent.

[B]

The flight legs dictate the reality of the triple. The manifest tracks the plane from New York City to Accra, Ghana.

[C]

That's a massive transatlantic leg right there.

[B]

From Accra to Kumasi. From Kumasi to Abuja, Nigeria. From Abuja to Kigali, Rwanda. From Kigali to Maputo, Mozambique.

[C]

Just tracing that on a map, you are crossing the entire continent.

[B]

From Maputo to Cape Town, South Africa and finally from Cape Town to Johannesburg.

[C]

That is thousands and thousands of miles over multiple days inside a customized Boeing 727. Do not undertake a journey like that without extensive unavoidable interaction with the other passengers. A Boeing 727 configured for private use is essentially a flying living room.

[B]

There are dining areas, lounge spaces, shared facilities.

[C]

You are eating together. You are experiencing the exhaustion of international travel together. You are navigating foreign logistics together.

[B]

And the passenger list is explicitly detailed in the EFTA release. I am reading the names aloud for you President Clinton. Doug Band, David Slade, Jim Kennedy, Eric Nonax, Rodney Slater, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker. And listed right there in seats 11 and 12 for the entire duration of the trip. Casey Wasserman and his wife Laura Wasserman.

[C]

Time to apply the COVID up check. The official defense from Wasserman's representatives notes that it was a single humanitarian trip in 2002. They frame it as an isolated event for a charitable cause, suggesting he was just a guy who hitched a ride to do some Good in the world.

[B]

The official claim is that sharing a plane for a philanthropic mission does not equal a relationship with the plane's owners.

[C]

Look at what they are leaving out. You do not spend weeks hopping across the African continent on a private jet alongside Ghislaine Maxwell experiencing all those different cultures and high level diplomatic meetings. And then follow it up months later with emails saying Zoxo. And asking her to wear tight leather. If the relationship is merely a passing

[B]

formal acquaintance, the timeline Completely destroys the alibi.

[C]

Completely. The Africa trip was in September 2002. The flirtatious emails coordinating hotel meetups occurred in March and April of 2003. The physical proximity on the jet evolved directly into familiar suggestive correspondence. What is the Wasserman camp minimizing? They are actively minimizing the continuity of the connection.

[B]

We are trying to build a firebreak between the flight and the emails.

[C]

Precisely. And who benefits from pretending he was just a peripheral figure? Every single corporate sponsor and political entity entity tied to the 2028 Olympics. If he's a core associate, the entire 7 billion dollar apparatus is tainted.

[B]

We have to look at how the real world reacted when these files were released under the epa. Because the impact hit Wasserman's empire immediately. This was not a story that stayed confined to the political sphere. It hit his primary business operations.

[C]

Hit them hard.

[B]

Wasserman Music is a powerhouse talent agency. Following the document Dubai major artists read the room and publicly severed ties. The pop star Chapel Roan dropped the agency almost overnight. I am looking at her public statement regarding the departure. I refuse to passively stand by. The Olympic gold medalist soccer star Abby Wambach also publicly severed ties with the organization.

[C]

The fallout forced a massive corporate restructuring. The business press tracked the subsequent fire sale of the powerhouse music agency. Wasserman sold off the music division amidst the intense scrutiny generated by the EFFI releases.

[B]

Because the artists read the emails, they looked at the flight logs and they decided the association was toxic to their

[C]

own brands, the talent market enacted an immediate penalty. Chapel Roan and Abby Wambach represent a demographic that demands ethical accountability and they exercise their financial power.

[B]

Which brings us to the $7 billion question. If the talent market forced accountability, if musicians and athletes refuse to be associated with him, how did the international sports apparatus respond? We have to look at the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics operation and the total non response from the International Olympic Committee, the ioc.

[C]

We need to establish the baseline here. You have to understand the historical precedent for how international sports organizations react when their leadership is linked to abuse scandals or Criminal networks. The standard protocol is immediate suspension, resignation or a massive independent ethics purge pending a full investig.

[B]

We have seen this repeatedly across different sports. Look at the total collapse and restructuring of US Gymnastics following the Larry Nassar cover up when it became clear that executives ignored the warning signs. Entire boards were forced out. High level executives resigned in disgrace.

[C]

Right. Or look at the FIFA corruption purge where executives were raided, suspended and permanently removed simply for financial improprieties and bribery. The historical baseline dictates that institutional proximity to a massive scandal results in immediate leadership changes pending an external investigation.

[B]

Now track the LA28 micro timeline following the EFTA document dump. Hour by hour, the deviation from historical precedent becomes glaring.

[C]

Walk us through it.

[B]

The files go public. The BBC and Los Angeles Times publish the specific contents of the emails. The public sees the tight leather outfit. In the immediate aftermath, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other elected politicians publicly call for Wasserman's resignation. The pressure reaches the executive level.

[C]

The LA28 executive board convenes and according to established sports ethics protocols, this is the exact moment an interim chair is named while an independent investigation assesses the risk. The board is supposed to protect the institution, not the individual.

[B]

Instead, the board issues a statement declaring that Casey Wasserman should continue to lead LA28 and deliver a safe and successful Games. They do not suspend him. They do not initiate an independent probe into his ties to the Epstein network. They back him completely.

[C]

And the International Olympic Committee. The IOC issues total silence. They decline to apply any public pressure or release any statement regarding the EFTA documents.

[B]

We must run the COVID up check on this institutional response. The official board statement claims Wasserman is fit to lead and deliver a safe Games. The official position is that his past correspondence from 2003 does not compromise his current leadership capabilities for 2028.

[C]

That contradicts all established ethics protocols. Analyze the incentive structure. The LA 28 games do not just represent a sporting event. They represent a $7 billion financial apparatus. We are talking about massive corporate sponsorships from Fortune 500 companies, exclusive media broadcasting rights worth billions, and massive public infrastructure commitments from the State of California. Does a $7 billion price tag buy institutional immunity?

[B]

The evidence suggests that it absolutely does.

[C]

When the financial stakes reach a certain threshold, the institution will prioritize stability over accountability. The IOC silence is not an oversight. It is a calculated corporate decision to protect the revenue stream. Replacing the chairman of an Olympic organizing committee this close to the event creates financial panic.

[B]

Sponsors get nervous.

[C]

Broadcasters demand reassurances. The board looked at the emails looked at the money and chose the money.

[B]

We have to investigate the void. We have examined the emails that are in the ETA files. But we must direct your attention to what is not in the files. The blind spots and the missing records. This is the vetting black hole.

[C]

The released files show the Wasserman Maxwell correspondents. We have the proof of their familiar banter. But what did the broader unredacted communications between Wasserman and Jeffrey Epstein look like? If Wasserman was emailing Maxwell with this level of familiarity are we expected to believe there were no direct communications with Epstein himself?

[B]

Epstein was the principal. Maxwell was the facilitator.

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

The gaps in the documentary record are massive. The Justice Department admitted during their press conferences that they withheld certain files based on privileges or ongoing investigations. We do not have the complete picture of the communications but. But we do have evidence of internal board panic that contradicts their public statements of support.

[C]

Bring in the evidence from the deadline reporting. This is a crucial piece of the puzzle. Behind closed doors. While the LA28 board was publicly stating that Wasserman was perfectly fit to lead the Games, they were privately floating former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy as a potential replacement for him.

[B]

The official board's statement expressed total confidence in Wasserman.

[C]

Break that down. If you have total confidence in your chairman you do not privately assess political heavyweights for succession in the middle of a media firestorm. You do not float a former speaker of the House unless you are preparing for a catastrophic collapse in leadership.

[B]

The internal tension reveals what the board actually believed.

[C]

They recognized the extreme toxicity of the EFTA documents. They panicked about the public optics and sponsor fallout. And they quietly searched for an exit strategy while maintaining a unified public front. They were building a lifeboat while telling the public the ship was fine.

[B]

There is also a glaring media gap. CNN noted in their broadcast that this story did not break as widely or aggressively as expected given Wasserman's massive profile in Hollywood.

[C]

Analyze the mainstream entertainment media's muted response. Wasserman sits at the absolute center of the talent representation industry. Hollywood media relies on access to his agencies, his clients and and his boardrooms. The restrained coverage is a direct reflection of his power within that specific ecosystem.

[B]

Trade publications thrive on access journalism.

[C]

If you go after Casey Wasserman you lose access to the biggest stars, the biggest directors and the most lucrative inside scoops. The industry is looking the other way because the cost of scrutinizing the man who controls the Olympic contracts and the talent pipelines is simply too high for their business models.

[B]

We Must run a final cover up check on the concept of accountability. Does Wasserman selling his talent agency constitute accountability for his connections to the Epstein network?

[C]

Rip that premise apart. Selling a music agency for a massive lucrative profit while maintaining total control over the $7 billion Olympic organizing committee is not accountability. It is strategic repositioning. It is a corporate maneuver designed to weather the immediate scrutiny. He shed the assets that are most vulnerable to public pressure. Like pop stars who can publicly resign on social media. While keeping the crown jewel, he retains the power, the immense global prestige and the absolute control over the LA28 games. It is a shell game disguised as consequence.

[B]

We need to pull all these threads together for you. The EFTA documents prove in writing a familiar suggestive relationship between Casey Wasserman and Ghislaine Maxwell. We have the emails, we have the zoxo. We have the request for tight letter outfits. We have the flight manifest proving prolonged physical proximity on Epstein's private plane across the African continent. Proximity to the Epstein network has destroyed careers, dismantled fortunes and led to criminal charges globally. Yet in this specific case, the individual maintains uncontested control of a $7 billion international event.

[C]

The evidence leads us to the institutional protection thesis. When an institution has enough financial exposure, it will provide cover instead of consequences. The scale of the financial stake overrides the documented evidence. The 2028 Los Angeles Olympics are proceeding under the leadership of a man whose connections to the Epstein network have never been subjected to an independent ethics investigation by the ioc. The historical precedent of accountability has been completely abandoned to protect the event.

[B]

We want to leave you with a final question to mull over if the paper trail we have, the emails and the flight logs released under the EFTA is enough to force musicians and athletes to immediately cut ties to. What exactly do the corporate sponsors of the 2028 Olympics know that the public doesn't? And how much money is institutional silence worth? Remember, this is an ongoing investigation and everything we cited is sourced at Epstein Files FM. Next time on the Epstein Files. File 103. Thor Bjorn Jaglan set up a Putin meeting for Epstein. Norway just charged him.

[A]

You have just heard an analysis of the official record. Every claim name and date mentioned in this episode is backed by primary source documents. You can view the original files for yourself at Epsteinfiles fm. If you value this data first approach to journalism. Please leave a five star review wherever you're listening right now. It helps keep this investigation visible. We'll see you in the next file.