Lesley Groff Talks About Jeffrey Epstein
Lesley Groff Talks About Jeffrey Epstein
Lesley Groff 談論 Jeffrey Epstein
Introduction
Lesley Groff worked for Jeffrey Epstein for a long time. On June 9, 2026, she talked to a US government group.
Lesley Groff 為 Jeffrey Epstein 工作了很長時間。2026 年 6 月 9 日，她與美國政府的一個小組進行了對談。
Main Body
Groff worked for Epstein from 2001 to 2019. She planned his trips and his meetings. She also planned his massages. Some people say these massages were for bad things, but Groff says she did not know.
Groff 從 2001 年到 2019 年為 Epstein 工作。她負責規劃他的行程與會議。她還安排了他的按摩。有些人說這些按摩是用於不法之事，但 Groff 表示她並不清楚。
Groff talked about the people Epstein knew. She said Epstein talked on the phone with Donald Trump before the 2016 election.
Groff 談到了 Epstein 認識的人。她說在 2016 年大選之前，Epstein 與川普通過電話。
The FBI looked at Groff, but she did not break any laws. The government wants to find the truth about Epstein and his friends.
FBI 調查過 Groff，但她沒有違反任何法律。政府希望找出關於 Epstein 及其好友的真相。
Conclusion
Some people believe Groff. Other people think she knew about the bad things because she worked very close to Epstein.
有些人相信 Groff。而有些人則認為她因為與 Epstein 工作如此接近，理應知道那些不法之事。
Vocabulary Learning
🕒 Talking about the Past
When we talk about things that happened and finished, we often add -ed to the action word.
Look at these examples from the text:
- Work Worked*
- Plan Planned*
- Talk Talked*
💡 The 'Magic' Negative
To say someone did NOT do something in the past, we use did not + the basic word. We remove the -ed!
- Wrong: She did not worked.
- Right: She did not know.
- Right: She did not break.
🗺️ Useful Word Pairs
| Word | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| From... to... | Start time End time | From 2001 to 2019 |
| Before | Earlier than | Before the election |
Vocabulary Learning
Testimony of Former Assistant Lesley Groff Regarding Jeffrey Epstein
前助理 Lesley Groff 關於 Jeffrey Epstein 的證詞
Introduction
Lesley Groff, who worked as Jeffrey Epstein's long-term executive assistant, gave private testimony to the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 9, 2026.
長期擔任 Jeffrey Epstein 行政助理的 Lesley Groff，於 2026 年 6 月 9 日向美國眾議院監督與政府改革委員會提供了私人證詞。
Main Body
Department of Justice records show that Lesley Groff held a central role in Epstein's organization, as her name appears more than 160,000 times in the files. From 2001 to 2019, Groff managed the financier's daily business, which included organizing travel, arranging meetings with powerful global figures, and scheduling massages. Although FBI documents and survivor accounts suggest these massages were actually a cover for sexual abuse, Groff has always claimed she did not know about these crimes. Her lawyer, Michael Bachner, emphasized that Epstein intentionally kept Groff away from his illegal activities to make his business look legitimate.
司法部記錄顯示，Lesley Groff 在 Epstein 的組織中扮演核心角色，因為她的名字在文件中出現了超過 16 萬次。從 2001 年到 2019 年，Groff 管理這位金融家的日常業務，包括組織行程、安排與全球權勢人物會面以及預約按摩。雖然 FBI 文件和倖存者陳述暗示這些按摩實際上是性虐待的掩護，但 Groff 始終聲稱她對這些罪行不知情。
During the committee meetings, Groff provided details about the people associated with Epstein. Specifically, she testified that she arranged several phone calls between Epstein and Donald Trump before the 2016 US presidential election. Furthermore, while Groff was mentioned in FBI documents as a possible co-conspirator and appeared in several civil lawsuits, those cases were eventually dismissed and she has never been charged with a crime. This inquiry is part of a larger effort to find the truth, which includes testimony from other associates and an investigation into activities at the Zorro Ranch estate.
在委員會會議期間，Groff 提供了關於與 Epstein 相關人士的詳細資訊。具體而言，她證稱在 2016 年美國總統大選之前，她為 Epstein 與 Donald Trump 安排了多次電話通訊。此外，雖然 Groff 在 FBI 文件中被提到可能是共犯，並出現在多起民事訴訟中，但這些案件最終均被撤銷，她從未被指控犯罪。此次調查是尋找真相之更大努力的一部分，其中包括其他相關人士的證詞以及對 Zorro Ranch 莊園活動的調查。
Conclusion
The situation remains controversial, as some committee members believe Groff's testimony is convincing, whereas others argue that her claims of ignorance are unlikely given how closely she worked with Epstein.
情況依然充滿爭議，因為部分委員會成員認為 Groff 的證詞具有說服力，而其他人則認為，鑑於她與 Epstein 合作如此緊密，她聲稱不知情的說法並不合理。
Vocabulary Learning
⚡ The 'Professional Connector' Shift
To move from A2 to B2, you must stop using simple words like and, but, and because for every sentence. The text provides a perfect roadmap for using Formal Transition Markers. These words act as bridges that make your English sound sophisticated and organized.
🛠️ The Tool Kit
| A2 Word (Basic) | B2 Upgrade (From Text) | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Also / And | Furthermore | Use this to add a second, more important point. |
| But | Whereas | Use this to show a direct contrast between two different opinions. |
| Specifically | Specifically | Use this to move from a general idea to a precise detail. |
🔍 Deep Dive: The Power of 'Whereas'
At A2, you might say: "Some people like him, but others don't."
At B2, you use whereas to balance two opposing facts in one elegant sentence:
"Some committee members believe Groff's testimony is convincing, whereas others argue that her claims... are unlikely."
The Logic: Whereas doesn't just mean 'but'; it creates a mirror effect, comparing two different perspectives simultaneously.
🚀 Quick Application Guide
If you want to sound like a B2 speaker, replace your simple connectors using this logic:
- General Statement
SpecificallyDetailed Fact - Point A
FurthermoreStronger Point B - Opinion X
WhereasOpinion Y
Vocabulary Learning
Testimony of Former Executive Assistant Lesley Groff Regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Enterprise
前執行助理 Lesley Groff 關於 Jeffrey Epstein 企業的證詞
Introduction
Lesley Groff, the long-term executive assistant to Jeffrey Epstein, provided closed-door testimony to the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 9, 2026.
Jeffrey Epstein 的長期執行助理 Lesley Groff 於 2026 年 6 月 9 日向美國眾議院監督及政府改革委員會提供了閉門證詞。
Main Body
The administrative centrality of Lesley Groff is evidenced by the Department of Justice's released records, wherein her name appears over 160,000 times. Employed from 2001 until 2019, Groff managed the financier's daily operations, including the coordination of travel, high-level appointments with global elites, and the scheduling of massages. While FBI documentation and survivor testimonies suggest these massages served as a facade for sexual abuse, Groff has consistently maintained a position of ignorance. Her legal representative, Michael Bachner, asserts that Epstein deliberately isolated Groff from his illicit activities to maintain a facade of legitimacy.
Lesley Groff 在行政上的核心地位，可從司法部公布的紀錄中得到證明，她的名字出現了超過 16 萬次。Groff 從 2001 年受僱至 2019 年，負責管理這位金融家的日常運作，包括協調行程、與全球權貴安排高層會面以及安排按摩時間。雖然 FBI 的文件與倖存者證詞指出，這些按摩是性侵的掩護，但 Groff 一直堅持對此不知情。她的法律代表 Michael Bachner 主張，Epstein 刻意將 Groff 隔離開於其非法活動之外，以維持合法性的假象。
During the committee proceedings, Groff provided information regarding the individuals operating within Epstein's orbit. Notably, she testified to having facilitated multiple, though infrequent, telephonic communications between Epstein and Donald Trump prior to the 2016 US presidential election. Despite her inclusion in internal FBI documents as a potential co-conspirator and her mention in various civil litigations—all of which were subsequently dismissed—Groff has never been charged with a criminal offense. The committee's inquiry is part of a broader effort to establish accountability, which includes the scheduled testimony of other associates and the concurrent efforts of the New Mexico Survivor's Truth Commission to document activities at the Zorro Ranch estate.
在委員會的程序期間，Groff 提供了關於 Epstein 社交圈內人士的資訊。值得注意的是，她證詞稱在 2016 年美國總統大選之前，她曾協助 Epstein 與 Donald Trump 進行過多次但並不頻繁的電話溝通。儘管她在 FBI 內部文件中被列為潛在共犯，且在多起民事訴訟中被提及——而所有這些訴訟隨後均被撤銷——Groff 從未被指控犯有刑事罪。委員會的調查是更廣泛追究責任努力的一部分，其中包括安排其他相關人士作證，以及新墨西哥州倖存者真相委員會同步記錄 Zorro Ranch 莊園活動的努力。
Conclusion
The current situation remains a point of contention between committee members who view Groff's testimony as compelling and those who find her claims of ignorance inconsistent with her professional proximity to Epstein.
目前的情況仍是爭議焦點，部分委員會成員認為 Groff 的證詞具有說服力，而另一部分成員則認為她聲稱不知情，與她在專業上與 Epstein 的親近程度不符。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of 'Strategic Ambiguity' and Nominalization
To move from B2 to C2, a student must transition from describing actions to constructing systemic states. The provided text is a masterclass in Nominalization—the process of turning verbs (actions) into nouns (concepts) to create a detached, clinical, and authoritative tone.
◈ The 'State of Being' vs. The 'Act of Doing'
Contrast these two conceptualizations of the same fact:
- B2 approach: "Lesley Groff was central to the administration because the DOJ records show her name 160,000 times."
- C2 approach: "The administrative centrality of Lesley Groff is evidenced by..."
In the C2 version, the action (being central) is transformed into a noun phrase (administrative centrality). This shifts the focus from the person to the phenomenon. It allows the writer to treat a complex human relationship as a measurable data point.
◈ Lexical Precision: The 'Nuance of Distance'
Notice the use of "professional proximity" in the conclusion. A B2 student might say "she worked closely with him." However, "proximity" is a spatial and conceptual term that avoids implying a personal bond. It maintains a scholarly distance while hinting at a logical contradiction: how can one be proximate (physically and professionally close) yet ignorant (mentally distant) of the crimes?
◈ Syntactic Density and the 'Facade' Motif
Observe the repetition of the word "facade":
- *"...massages served as a facade for sexual abuse..."
- *"...to maintain a facade of legitimacy."
At a C2 level, we analyze the semantic resonance here. The author isn't just repeating a word; they are building a thematic layer. The first 'facade' is a functional mask (hiding a crime), while the second is a structural mask (hiding the nature of the enterprise).
C2 Mastery Key: Stop using adverbs to add intensity (e.g., very central). Instead, use precise nominalizations (e.g., centrality) and conceptual nouns (e.g., contention, accountability) to encapsulate entire arguments within a single noun phrase.