Greetings from D.C.—it’s always a whirlwind.
First, I want to extend a sincere apology to Michael Tracey. Last week I published an article on the Capitol Hill press conference involving Epstein victims, and in the rush, I failed to properly include quotation marks around portions of text drawn from his reporting.
This was an honest but careless mistake. I had a finished draft ready the night before my flight but after a friend pointed me to Michael’s work—which overlaps with my own perspective on many aspects of the Epstein saga—I decided to weave in portions of his article last minute. When I told her I no idea who to trust anymore in the Epstein examinations in media, she recommended Michael. I was thrilled to find another source backing my perspective. In the piece posted I included a video of his NewsNation interview, link to his Substack, title of his books, and direct links to two of his recent articles. My intention was to highlight his reporting as an example of journalism that challenges conventional narratives, and to push readers his way.
Unfortunately, in the rush to publish before boarding a flight without Wi-Fi, my notes to my editor weren’t clear. The article went live without the proper credit and quotation marks it should have had. My fault entirely. As soon as I realized the error, I reached out to Michael directly, explained how it happened—sharing screenshots of my preflight communications, and took the piece down. Between hearings yesterday, I wasn’t able to revisit the edit or issue a fuller response right away. A good reminder that speed in publishing is not worth the risk.
Regarding claims that I “ripped off” material from another (earlier) article—those are not correct. In that piece, I cited documents related to Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. The screenshots I shared were exclusive, showing that both Giuffre and Churcher pitched the memoir to Weisfeld as “100% fact.” These materials came to me directly from the author of the dossier— compiled around 2021, who gave me full permission to publish without credit (his preference).
As for predictable criticism —headlines this week are of course labeling me a “rape apologist” because I believe certain #MeToo allegations, particularly in high-profile cases involving large payouts, deserve closer scrutiny.
The most sensitive flashpoint? Questioning the validity of some of the women who traveled as adults to Epstein’s island multiple times over the years—voluntarily— now framing those visits as rape in the aftermath of a victim compensation fund. I don’t raise the point lightly but I do believe the press has a responsibility to examine such claims critically. In all of the sex crime trials I’ve covered, I’ve raised difficult questions where scrutiny seemed warranted. That commitment hasn’t changed, even if it brings backlash.
As for hearings—yesterday was extremely fascinating. I attended the UFO whistleblower testimony at the Capitol in the morning, followed directly by the vaccine study hearing led by Aaron Siri. Both deserve thoughtful, detailed treatment rather than a quick summary, so I’ll be sharing more on them with a chat thread dedicated to both when I have the time.
In the meantime, below the paywall, you’ll find some photos and link to access Epstein’s birthday book in full—238 pages to sift through at your own pace. I haven’t had a chance to study it closely yet, but I’ll open a chat later today once you’ve had some time with it. The entries range from mundane to unsettling. Trump’s (alleged) entry is fairly uneventful compared to the rest.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the chat later.
Best,
JRK
