Businessman Les Wexner is expected to face a barrage of questions from lawmakers Wednesday as part of their ongoing probe into Jeffrey Epstein, and one law expert predicted the session to be an explosive and “uncomfortable process” for the aging billionaire and longtime Epstein associate.“It seems like [lawmakers] are very interested, at least getting to the substance of Les Wexner’s relationship here,” said Anthony Marcum, lawyer and assistant professor at Capital University Law School, speaking with ABC 6 in its report Wednesday.“So certainly the committee has a lot of advantage in how this process is run. I certainly wouldn’t want to be subpoenaed by Congress, and so it’s an uncomfortable process.”Wexner is a key figure in the probe into Epstein and how he managed to accumulate his vast wealth and power. In the 1980s, Wexner hired Epstein as his financial adviser, granting him broad authority over his finances, including power of attorney. Wexner also gave his $77 million New York townhouse to Epstein for free in 2011 for unknown reasons.In January, lawmakers issued Wexner a congressional subpoena to testify before the House Oversight Committee, a testimony that will be given behind closed doors, and in Columbus, Ohio, rather than the typical setting for a congressional deposition at the Capitol, something Marcum described as “not common.”Last month, Wexner was revealed to be among 10 individuals listed in a 2019 FBI email as a potential “co-conspirator” of Epstein. As the former owner of Victoria’s Secret, Epstein and President Donald Trump have also been documented at multiple events hosted by the lingerie company, including in 1997 at a Victoria’s Secret Angels Party in New York City, New York, and in 1999 when Epstein and Trump were filmed at a Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show in New York.“You’re gonna expect about an hour from one side, the majority party, and then another hour from the minority party,” Marcum told ABC 6, an Ohio-based affiliate of ABC and FOX. “They can go multiple rounds, so they can go quite a long time asking questions, going back and forth. It seems like this subpoena was bipartisan, so there’s bipartisan appetite for asking questions.”