Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which men did Virginia Giuffre name in her 2019 sworn affidavit?
Executive Summary
Virginia Giuffre’s 2019 sworn affidavit, unsealed in August 2019, lists a core group of high‑profile men she alleges she was trafficked to and ordered to have sexual encounters with; the names most consistently reported across contemporaneous and later accounts include Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Glenn Dubin, Jean‑Luc Brunel, Marvin Minsky, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Les Wexner, alongside references to unnamed powerful figures such as “another prince,” a “foreign president,” and an owner of a French hotel chain [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and document summaries vary on whether figures such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump appear explicitly in the 2019 affidavit or are referenced in related depositions and unsealed records, and several named individuals have publicly denied the allegations or disputed their characterization in the court filings [4] [5] [6].
1. What the affidavit explicitly lists — clearer names and consistent entries
The documents unsealed in August 2019 and summarized in multiple outlets repeatedly show a cluster of consistently named men that appear in Giuffre’s sworn statements and related depositions: Prince Andrew (the Duke of York), lawyer Alan Dershowitz, modeling executive Jean‑Luc Brunel, hedge‑fund manager Glenn Dubin, MIT researcher Marvin Minsky, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Senate leader George Mitchell, and billionaire retailer Les Wexner. Those names are cited across several contemporaneous summaries and later recaps as persons whom Giuffre said she had been directed to encounter by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell [1] [2] [6]. The repetition of these names across sources indicates they were central to the affidavit’s allegations, though presence in an affidavit does not equate to a legal finding of guilt; the reports stress that the documents reflect allegations and claims made by Giuffre rather than judicial conclusions [1].
2. Where sources diverge — contested inclusions and later recantations
News accounts and document annotations diverge on whether former President Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were explicitly named in the 2019 sworn affidavit itself or appear in broader unsealed materials and depositions from related litigation. Some summaries credit Giuffre with naming Clinton and Trump among the broader set of people referenced in the unsealed records, while other source summaries limit Clinton’s appearance to other Epstein‑related filings and note that Trump’s inclusion is less clearly tied to the 2019 affidavit [4] [5] [7]. The affidavit’s handling of Alan Dershowitz is another point of divergence: initial filings included allegations against him that were later contested, portions removed, and subject to denial—the record reflects evolving pleadings and contested statements, not a static roster accepted as fact [3] [7].
3. The affidavit’s unnamed figures — hints without identities
Beyond named individuals, the 2019 affidavit contains references to unnamed powerful figures—descriptions such as “another prince,” a “foreign president,” and the owner of a large French hotel chain—that the unsealed materials do not identify by name. Multiple summaries emphasize these redactions or anonymous descriptions, which leave open the possibility that other prominent figures were referenced but not publicly identified in the court record [2] [5]. Those anonymous entries matter because they show the affidavit aimed to describe networks and patterns, while simultaneously being constrained by the limits of what the filer chose—or was required—to publicize in the lawsuit’s documents [2].
4. How contemporaneous reporting and later recaps handle denials and legal context
Reporting across 2019 and later recaps uniformly notes that several men named in the affidavit publicly denied the allegations and that some of the named figures have taken legal or public relations steps to contest the characterizations. Accounts underline that being named in unsealed court papers or depositions is not a judicial finding of wrongdoing and that litigation context—defamation suits, depositions, and selective redactions—shapes what appears in any released filing [1] [3] [7]. This framing is essential to understand the practical meaning of the affidavit’s list: it documents an accuser’s allegations and recollections within litigation rather than proving criminal responsibility.
5. What to take away — consistent core, contested periphery, and open questions
The strongest, most consistent takeaway from the assembled documents and news summaries is that Virginia Giuffre’s unsealed 2019 affidavit centers on a core set of named men (Prince Andrew, Dershowitz, Dubin, Brunel, Minsky, Richardson, Mitchell, Wexner), while the appearance of other high‑profile names in related Epstein‑era records is more variable and disputed across reports [1] [4] [5]. Differences among sources reflect evolving court filings, partial redactions, and subsequent denials or legal challenges, so any list drawn from these materials should be treated as a snapshot of allegations reported in civil litigation and media summaries, not as an adjudication. Future releases of unsealed material or authoritative court rulings would be needed to resolve remaining ambiguities.