Michael Wolff's Emails to Jeffrey Epstein
Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein met sometime in the early 2000s, when Wolff attended a TED conference, traveling to the West Coast on Epstein’s private plane. In 2003, Wolff made a failed attempt to facilitate the sale of New York Magazine to Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, and Donny Deutsch, who were ultimately outbid. But the friendship continued until 2019, including a decade of email correspondence in the DOJ files found in 1,830 documents. These are their letters, with all original typos included.
2009
11/30/2009
MW: test
JE: [to Lesley Groff] Michael@burnrate.com is Michael wolfes email --organize for him to come with his girlfriend
12/1/2009
JE: [broken link about Scott Rothstein story]
MW: Jeffrey--This is great. Totally fascinating. Thanks for calling. Eager to see you soon. Best, m
2011
2/25/2011
MW: [subject: “We must catch up”] Have been defending you to the world’s press--my pleasure of course. And would love to see you. Best, m
JE: give me anumber to call
MW: In the air. On my way to Los Angeles. By there in 2 hours or so. [REDACTED].
4/25/2011
JE: can you call me [REDACTED]
MW: At lunch will call before 2
5/25/2011
Lesley Groff: HI Michael. Hope you are having a marvelous time in Paris! Jeffrey has a gift for you....the sneakers you admired when you last saw him...We have them here and would like to messenger them to you...did you have an office we should send to? or a doorman at your apartment? Just let me know address and when is a good time to send thanks, Lesley
MW: My office... 770 Broadway, 7th Floor, Is Jeffrey around next week?
5/31/2011
Lesley Groff: Hello Michael. Hope you are well and enjoyed the long weekend. Jeffrey wants you to know we have not heard back from Ian....he also wonders if you have tried on your sneakers! ;) I know Jeffrey would like to speak with you as well...today maybe? Are you back in NY? Let me know! thanks, Lesley
MW: Just trying on the sneakers this minute—perfect fit. And nice cushion. Very much appreciate and look forward to my run tomorrow. I have been pushing Ian who has been in transit almost constantly since we spoke. I am available to chat with or see Jeffrey this week. Best, Michael.
6/13/2011
JE: wed thurs?
MW: Ian has promised me he will have outline of a plan to you today. He’ll be in NYC tomorrow morning and we can meet together. Or I can meet on Wed morning--I’m leave for St. Petersberg on Wed at 6pm. m
6/21/2011
Wolff begins to work with several public relations companies to help clear Epstein’s name
MW: Jeffrey—Ian will be in town tomorrow and if you have availability it might be a good time to see him. I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the situation and to the process. I’m convinced that a disciplined approach can have a meaningful impact both short and long term. The short term strikes me as largely a procedural issue: deal with the British tabloids and the web profile. Ian’s network around the Mail and the Murdoch papers is strong and that, together with you not offering the tabloids any opportunities for coverage, ought to make them a non-issue. The web clean-up involves a search engine strategy (a rejiggering of search results through SEO and strategic content creation and replacement) and site design--you ought to have a sophisticated site representing you. This is probably a 3-4 month process.
The medium term (months 3-9) is about identifying a set of business journalists with whom you can build a friendly relationship. I actually think this is a set of people who you will enjoy and who will enjoy you. At the same time, you should be putting in place the other story. In real ways that story already exists--your support of scientific research and your international activity--it just needs a clearer structure and set of goals to hang it on. During this period, it would be good for you to become a source, both off the record and, when appropriate, on the record, for business stories for which you can offer your unique point of view.
Towards the end of the year, we can look toward one or two pieces of media that forthrightly introduce a new story line--and perhaps confront or contextualize the old story. I think Ian can put this plan together and execute with great finesse. I’ll be back in New York on July 5. Best, Michael.
6/28/2011
Conchita Sarnoff: [to NY developer David Mitchell] Hi David, As you might know I’m working on a Newsweek story about Epstein. Given your relationship with him I would like to speak with you. I’m on deadline please can you call me [REDACTED] thank you. Whatever you tell me if you prefer can stay Off The Record. Best, Conchita
David Mitchell: [forwards email to Epstein] I am going to email back that I have no interest in speaking to her Unless you tell me otherwise
JE: [forwards email to Michael Wolff] here we go again suggestions??
MW: Yes, don’t cooperate in any way. Who is this person? Is she the Daily Beast writer who has been following you? Do you have history with Tina? I’m in Italy, back next tuesday.
JE: yes
MW: What is her name?
JE: [REDACTED]
6/30/2011
MW: Jeffrey—Ian will be in NYC on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week, as will I. Would you like to get together with us? Best, m
JE: defintely
7/1/2011
JE: [Strauss-Kahn Prosecution Said to Be Near Collapse] maybe you should do the story that the same thing happened to Andrew with The [REDACTED]. she made it up. she fled the country after getting an arrest warrant,, she accused ten people of having sex. she accused boys her own age, the d.a. in writing said she had no credibility,, she has a long arrest record.. her story was never , I mean never investigated, not once..
7/10/2011
JE: [to Ian Osborne] I will be in ny for the weekend
7/16/2011
Ian Osborne: [to Epstein, ccing Wolff] Dear Jeffrey. Following our discussion last week, please find below or attached the following:
Metrics of “what success looks like” 12 to 18 months from now
Our advisory services agreement
Advice on the phone hacking litigation — we should move fast
“What success looks like”
The following is what we believe to achievable in a 12 to 18 month timeframe. provided that we are focused and disciplined:
Achieved the lowest possible profile in the UK and US tabloid press
Built decent relationships with the chief tormentors of the last several years, including but not limited to the Daily Mail. Mail on Sunday, New York Post
“Cleaned up” your Google search so that no references to the Florida charges/ paedophilia/ underage girls etc. feature in the first 10 search results: and are minimised in the first 100 search results
Established a positive and thorough web profile of you and your philanthropic activities
Built five to ten important relationships with top editors and columnists, including the Times. Journal. Financial Times, Economist and Business week — to the extent they write from time to time about your business, philanthropic and geopolitical activities
Re-established your position in international political circles, especially outside the US, with a focus on Europe, the Middle East and the BRIG markets
Put in place a first class and renowned Scientific Advisory Board of your Foundation consistent with your reputation among scientists
Have executed (or be in the advanced stages of planning) the first of what would be an annual summit or conference which brings together your business and philanthropic interests — this could be a joint initiative with the Abu Dhabi monarchy
Our client agreement
Please find attached our usual client agreement. It includes a robust confidentiality agreement, but if you have any additional nondisclosure agreements, we are fine with those. Assuming that you want to continue, please could you have your lawyers review the document and provide us with the details of the relevant entity.
Advice on phone hacking
I have included a separate short note on what we discussed last week. In light of the FBI investigation announced yesterday. and Attorney General Holder’s comments this morning, we believe you should not delay in proceeding with the first stage - which is to see whether your name and numbers appear in the evidence seized by the Metropolitan Police from News International and Glenn Mulcaire. With your consent, we will interview and appoint one of the leading UK lawyers pursuing these cases but time is of the essence if you are to receive priority from the Met Police. Please feel free to call me at any point. My cell is +44 7795 568322. Best wishes, Ian
7/19/2011
MW: Jeffrey—Had a long discussion with Ian yesterday about how to go forward and reviewed his proposal. If you can afford it, I’m confident it will be worth it. On the scale of one to ten, with ten being present state of antipathy to you, I think it can be reduced to 3-4 in 18 months. I’m completely signed on to being part of this effort and would hope to essentially co-manage the process with Ian—I would arrange with Ian on this. I’d personally have a sense of satisfaction in both helping you out and, in addition, figuring out the process here and striking a blow for reason and sense. It’s a kind of journalistic effort in reverse. Also, I think we’d enjoy working together. Delighted to discuss further. I’ll be in London next week if you are anywhere close—back in NYC on the 29th. Best, m
7/20/2011
Wolff offers to “neutralize” other journalists who are writing stories about Epstein
JE: are you around this weekend,, tina has asked Wayne Barrett to do an investigative piece. ? how do i appease her. this is crazy
MW: Good news is that nobody takes Wayne Barrett seriously. I would certainly suggest not cooperating with him in any way. Worst that will happen is that he rehashes old stuff—exactly why we have to start building a counter narrative. Then, even if only begrudgingly, any story would have to include what you are doing now. Let me think about Tina, she seems to have it in for you and there are lots of ways to neutralize her. I’m leaving for London on Friday night. Can you talk tomorrow?
7/22/2011
JE: I am only available on the phone after 6 tonight. im in ny all weekend
MW: Ian was going to try to see you tomorrow. Why don’t you and I speak tonight after six. I’ve made a few inquiries about Tina and Wayne Barrett.
7/23/2011
JE: in ny met with ian,, when can i call
MW: For the next hour or until late afternoon (London) time tomorrow. 917-825-9659
7/31/2011
MW: Jeffrey: Just wanted to follow-up on our discussion yesterday. The book I have in mind will focus on, although not be limited to, your view of the global finance structure and your personal and business story. This will involve a regular schedule of interviews over the next year. I’m excited about the project . I look forward to seeing you in Paris at the end of the month. Best, Michael
JE: thnks
8/10/2011
JE: should i ignore wayne barrett.. or try to minimize the damage? , ian ill be in paris starting tomorw
MW: Definitely ignore. All stories become larger and seem more authoritative when the subject comments. Even an off-the-record contribution makes the publication treat the story more seriously. I can’t see anything that you might say now making anyone question whatever story they have. Also, when you do speak it should be fresh and it should be on your terms. so...ignore. m
8/17/2011
8/19/2011
JE: [forwards to Wolff]
MW: It would appear that this is mostly focused on VI. I would suggest a response come through the Governor’s press office. It should be kept as brief and as general as possible. I will call you later.
8/29/2011
MW: Jeffrey: Let me know if dinner still works for you this week. I will be in Paris with my friend, Victoria Floethe, on Thursday and Friday. Best, mw
JE: tentatively thurs night if i do not have to return to ny in the morning. really look forward to meeting her,— and you
MW: wonderful. you’ll tell me when and where...
JE: 22 foch apt 2 dd
MW: fab
9/1/2011
JE: 22 ave foch,, door code 4079, apt 2 dd. phone 133144170210 see you at 8 -8:30? any food restriction?,, Ian you are welcome , ofcourse
MW: None. Looking forward
9/2/2011
MW: Well that was great fun. I loved that guy. And Victoria loved you. Soon. m
JE: [broken link: http://djiboutiplan.com/abdourahman-boreh-3
MW: i am thrilled that you looked so happy.
9/7/2011
JE: [The Last Women Standing on Wall Street]
9/8/2011
MW: I’m back in NYC—let me know when you are and if you’d like to get together. Best, mw
JE: great,, how was the trip?
MW: Trip was great. I’d like to live in London. And Rupert Murdoch has made me almost a household name among the Brits.
9/23/2011
MW: Are you around this weekend? Coffee?
9/24/2011
JE: I am off to paris,, can speak from there.. Ill be back in two weeks what s new
MW: Just checking in. Give me a call from Paris.
10/4/2011
JE: I am aware that it might be time to start redoing the pages. are there concrete things that you suggest . I have been doing as little publicity as possible
MW: Should begin with strategy, goals, and story and then move into design and structure. It’s a good process that makes you think through both identity and message. Let’s discuss steps.
10/5/2011
Ian Osborne: Michael is right. Should Michael and I circulate an outline and then have a call later this week to discuss? In the interests of time we should aim to do sooner rather than later. As part of redoing the pages, we also need to focus on Google.
MW: Times story today (As Amanda Knox Heads Home, the Debate Is Just Getting Started) on Amanda Knox is another good example of the importance and effectiveness of overall web strategy.
JE: I am open to a real plan. amanda knox , only had a murder charge, luckily she didn’t kill a seal
10/7/2011
Ian Osborne: Great Shall me meet tomorrow? I am meeting Michael later today to finalize our plan for you.
JE: Yes let’s meet Tomorpw
10/19/2011
MW: [subject: “Alive”] So...done. Breathing again. Jimmy Finkelstein scared by press. I’ve got my agreement—and freedom. Are you in town? Lots of time to get to work on Jeffrey Epstein project. Shall we begin? Have you been in touch with Ian? Ian—I will call you later.
JE: i will be back tomororw thru sun,, the lawyers coming in on sat, congragulations,, lts scheulde time fri or sun
MW: great
11/2/2011
MW: I’m in Paris from Friday (4th) through Wed. Any chance you’re there too?
JE: Yes
MW: Great...if you’re free, just say when.
11/7/2011
JE: schedule tomorow?
MW: I’m a free man. I have no schedule, except steam and swim.
JE: why don’t you send ,me a financial proposal.
11/8/2011
Epstein discusses becoming Wolff’s paying client
MW: The question is how much you want to do. In my estimation, the full plan, rolled out over 18-24 months, has a transformative effect and would allow you to be as public as you want to be, and I believe, enable you to be who you want to be without any meaningful blowback. This allows us to not only take advantage of opportunities as the arise, but allows us to create opportunities through controlling your own story—putting you in a position to be as aggressive, creative, controversial, or authoritative with your public identity as you might want. You would be immunized from opprobrium and so would the people who associate themselves with you. Obviously, we could take a lesser, piecemeal course too. We could begin by just developing a new web presence—both a news site and a clean-up of the existing search results. A good part of this could be done without substantial time from you--at least in the initial backend phase. Then, too, if you’re still unsure about what you want to do, I have no problem continuing to chat with you about it on a casual basis. mw
JE: understood, what do you envision as the time and money , in the various categories. or are you suggesting a full time job, or ghost writer, or.....
MW: fulltime job, perish the thought. I thought Ian had sent you an outline of various possibilities—since I am allergic to all money discussions. Let me chat with him today.
MW: Ian’s approach is fairly simple, it’s his fees (I’ll work out my arrangement with him) and then we’ll separately get bids on the outside costs—primarily technology costs associated with the web build out and search engine cleanup. Again, this first stage, build out and clean up, is going to have to be done for anything to proceed, so I think it’s a logical thing to go forward with and doesn’t over commit you. This will involve 3-4 months during which time we can continue to chat about how ambitious you’d like to be—and, in any event, you’ll have improved the search profile and given yourself a web presence that takes control of your own story. What’s the best way to put budget details for this in front of you? Do you want it to go to you directly or through your lawyer? m
11/14/2011
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC?”] If so...a chat?
JE: not yet still in europe
MW: I’m back...until Nov 27th. Then to London and Venice.
11/25/2011
MW: I’m in London next week. You? Eager to intersect.
12/18/2011
MW: Ian and I chatted yesterday—so would love to get together with you at your convenience and begin to discuss plans. I’m here until the weekend, then leaving for a few days in England and then a few days in Paris over the New Year, back on the 4th. Are you in Paris, by any chance?
JE: everyone , including me returns to ny around the 4th , see you then,, happy holidays,
MW: great...
2012
1/2/2012
Ian Osborne: Jeffrey, Good to speak earlier. Please find attached the updated plan with timeline, which I’ve discussed extensively with Michael. We believe this to be fast but achievable. Just to reiterate, by doing this you are not obliged to put the finished site up. Of course, our instinct is that you should (and the sooner, the better) but it depends on your exact circumstances and plans at the time, and we recognise that these things are subject to change. In the meantime, I will send our usual agreement to Darren. Michael [Wolff] will begin work this week, and I will begin next Monday, January 9th. Best wishes, Ian
JE: do not begin any work,. until everything is reviewed.. in addition i am wailing for the investment papers. for artnership 53
1/3/2012
Ian Osborne: [subject: “Updated plan”] Jeffrey, Good to speak earlier. Please find attached the updated plan with timeline, which I’ve discussed extensively with Michael. We believe this to be fast but achievable. Just to reiterate, by doing this you are not obliged to put the finished site up. Of course, our instinct is that you should (and the sooner, the better) but it depends on your exact circumstances and plans at the time, and we recognize that these things are subject to change.
1/5/2012
MW: I’m back and can get together at your convenience. Best, mw
JE: are you going to davos? DLD, Ted?
MW: I’m going to DLD.
JE: Im surprised they didn;’t invite me,
MW: Would you go if they did?
2/1/2012
MW: [”Are you in NYC?”] Get together?
JE: 16th?
MW: Sure.
2/16/2012
MW: [subject: “Brooklyn”] That was fun
3/6/2012
MW: [subject: “Paris”] I’ll be there at the end of the month—28th to 1st. So if you’re there...a swim?
JE: paris it is
3/7/2012
MW: can’t wait
3/16/2012
JE: leaving for paris sat night ,,you are of course welcome to hop on plane
MW: Kind and tempting offer. But have to be in NYC this week, then will go to London on Friday to give a speech, then to Paris on Wd 28th and will hope to see you in the pool. Saw Ed Epstein the other day who was praising your insight and perspicacity. m
3/26/2012
JE: are you in paris yet?
MW: Wednesday
3/29/2012
MW: [subject: “Heading down to the pool now...”]
JE: im back in ny
MW: I’m back on Saturday.
4/29/2012
JE: ill be back week of 6th , breakfast.?
MW: Yup. You name it.
5/7/2012
MW: get together this week?
5/9/2012
MW: I’m dying to hear your report from France. Meanwhile, you might find this amusing: [Juicegate and my Twitter redemption]
7/13/2012
MW: Would love to catch up. Btw, this column was derived from our last chat: [Mitt Romney’s Bain capitalism pays dividends to Obama]
7/24/2012
MW: Are you in NYC?
JE: tomororw ?
MW: Sure. When Works?
8/10/2012
Epstein invites Wolff to visit Little Saint James, otherwise known as “Epstein’s Island”
MW: [subject: “Paris”] I think we’ll be there from Aug 27th to Sept 2nd...you?
JE: ny 20-22 then caribean where you must come in the fall
MW: would love to caribean...if you have any time 20-22, I’m available
JE: definetly [REDACTED]
MW: Got it! Will organize
9/23/2012
MW: If there are any activities or meetings you might be able or comfortable to include me in, I’d be obliged. best, m
JE: President of the Maldives. ? tonight. 7 ? .
MW: I can’t tonight, having dinner with Rohan Silva, Cameron’s policy guy.
JE: want to come at 7 meet and then leave?
MW: Yes. Great. Your house?
JE: yes
MW: perfect. see you then.
9/24/2012
MW: That was totally fascinating. What a view. Thanks. And I might like to follow up with him. m
JE: [REDACTED]
9/30/2012
JE: This past week included, Julie taymor, woody allen, elon musk , frank gehri, bottstein, hillis, bill gates, under sec general u.n., i need pr help
MW: you do. you really do. and one of my favorite subjects. mornings and lunch are tough this week, but any day later in the afternoon I can get together, if you’d like. m
10/2/2012
MW: I’m in Paris late next week—11-14th, then London until 21st. How ‘bout you?
JE: come see me in paris.
MW: great.
10/10/2012
MW: We arrive on Thursday. Are you available? if so, when might work? and where are you swimming? m
JE: come for dinner
MW: Great. Which night works?
JE: Thurs?
MW: Great.
10/11/2012
MW: [subject: “Paris”] We have arrived. Hotel Meurice. What time do you want us?
JE: 830 ? my cell [REDACTED]
MW: Great. Address again?
MW: Sorry just got this. Yes, planning on it. What is your address again?
JE: always a treat, Im open to ideas ,
JE: 22 foch 2512 door cod apt 2dd
10/12/2012
JE: I enjoyed your questions re sex with women in saudi to the two gay boyfriends
MW: Ahhhhh. They should wear signs.
11/30/2012
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC?”]
JE: Norway
MW: sounds cold. next week?
JE: 9th?
MW: Great.
12/12/2012
MW: ...And if you do happen to hear anything out of DOJ re FCPA or RICO, I’d love to know. m
JE: i will know over the weekend, reserach lady Rothschild lynn forester, foremerly lynn stein, andrew stein
MW: on the job
2013
1/17/2013
MW: [subject: “Are you around?”] If so, I’m at your convenience. m
JE: i leave tonite however ed epstein is coming at 5 , you are of course welcome to join
MW: I have a meeting then. Call me when you’re back. m
2/21/2013
MW: I’m not in fact going to be able to make it this morning, much to my regret—just have too much to do before leaving this afternoon. But that was thrilling yesterday, as interesting a day as I’ve had in a long time. Can’t wait to debrief. I will be back on the 3rd and eager to see you after that at your convenience. Best, m
JE: you will be missed , I suggest you contact david stern to hear about program for people that got screwed in china. he is in london “David Stern“ [REDACTED]
MW: thanks
5/1/2013
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC?”] If so, would love to catch up at your convenience. m
JE: tomorow walk?
MW: sounds good
5/2/2013
JE: walk in park around 1240. hot dog /lunch?
MW: sounds perfect!
5/3/2013
MW: [subject: “thanks...”] ...for the hot dog. I will be in Paris with Victoria from June 12-17. Best, m
5/22/2013
MW: Just checking on your whereabouts June 12-17. I’ll be Paris...you?
JE: Probably same , great
MW: Fab. Looking forward.
6/10/2013
MW: Shall we try getting together on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday? What might work for you? m
6/12/2013
MW: [subject: “Arrived in Paris”] Tomorrow? Friday? Saturday? Or Sunday?
JE: opera tour at 330?
MW: Sure. Where?
6/13/2013
MW: [subject: “Thanks”] That was really terrific.
7/10/2013
JE: [subject: the evening of jeffrey and graydons first encounter] [Princess Diana’s Black Dress Was The Best ‘Revenge’ After Separation]
MW: Ha! Quite amusing. m
7/26/2013
MW: Would love to see you at your convenience. m
JE: Monday
MW: could do breakfast.
JE: maybe sometime tomorrow??
MW: tomorrow great. you name it.
JE: email me in the morning please
MW: ok
7/28/2013
JE: got swamped, want to come to dinner tomore
MW: Can’t tonight. Free the rest of the week. You?
8/19/2013
MW: An interesting predicament... A) The status-quo is to your liking;
B) By advising Gates, you run the risk of upending the status quo, causing both upset to yourself and to Gates. Any connection of you to Gates generates at a minimum eyebrow raising coverage, aimed at Gates as much as you, or, possibly, a shit storm. The connection might not be made, but also might be made at any time; chances of the connection being made rise proportionately with your continuing involvement with Gates.
C) You can bet on the possibility of not being connected and hedge by putting crisis people in place and having them ready to respond if and when the connection is made--much goes awry in these situations in the gap between exposure and getting competent people to deal with the exposure.
D) You can out yourself. You can do it in a way that tries to preserve as much as possible of the status quo—for instance, Gates referencing you in some way and saying something positive about the importance of your contribution; or you giving an interview to a dull financial journalist, with positive comments from Gates, i.e. not hiding anything, but putting it on the record as undramatically as possible. But it is also likely that this will just provide the opening for the shit storm anyway. On the other hand, you can try to define a new normal by redefining yourself—the JE we don’t know—someone different enough from the past press that the story becomes that much more complicated and, hence, that much more difficult to slap a label on.
E) Unless you are luckier than you should plan on being, the status-quo is lost.
F) Is the Gates involvement worth that?
Here is one unique approach which I think I can offer: I believe that i could write a redefined Jeffre Epstein story--personal, find, complex, funny, smart—that would deal with all the issues in a nuanced enough way that might make it anti-climactic for anybody else to try to deal with them. We’d seize the narrative. I’d be pleased to do this not just because I think it would help the situation, but also because I think it would be fun to tell your story. I’d suggest doing this sort of thing in New York Magazine. This approach involves more personal exposure but it seems safer to me than trying to low ball the story—again, that’s just hoping you don’t get noticed.
In addition, I would certainly put people in place now who are ready to deal with any sort of eruption of the story. Then there is long term strategy for after this is out in the open. That has to be thought through. Anyway, in a nutshell. I leave for Berlin on Sunday and then London. I’m back on September 7.
JE: thanks youve given me much to think about
JE: when you are away , why don’t you think of an outline so we can discuss
8/20/2013
MW: my pleasure
8/28/2013
MW: Here’s what I am thinking about... The goal is to shift the story—to reintroduce you. If I write from the point of view of knowing you, than that removes the notion ghat there’s an examination or investigation or, implicitly, something negative involved with you getting press. Quite the opposite, the bias is that there is something positive—and unexpected. So, we get to address and defuse all the issues that might otherwise be the subject of an expose, without making them the point.
The only way someone else could have a pretext to write about you is because of scandal or now Gate’s relationship to you and your relationship to scandal. But if I write about you as a friend, then the justification has to be that there is another dimension to the story. Also, if I do it, other people will tend not to do it, because the story has been claimed, and I’m a prominent enough voice that mostly other writers won’t want to follow me.
I think the best way to approach it is on three different levels: a) Why Gates would find you so interesting and valuable—obviously talk to Gates about this; b) My friendship with you—how we met; ten years of knowing you; our chats; and the ways in which that shows you to be inherently unique and interesting; c) your troubles—but only as a foreign counterpoint to what makes you unique and interesting and valuable to Gates (otherwise, what makes you unique gets written about as the weird counterpart to the troubles, which become the baseline).
I would still say if you are happy with the way things are, then no attention is the best attention; but if you want to continue with Gates, then you do have to get out in front. For me, it would be easy to do this and enjoyable. And for you this is a particularly advantageous approach--i.e. a well positioned friend with (if I do say so) a particularly deft touch and platform to write about anything he wants to write about.
Thoughts? BTW, I am back in New York on September 7. m
JE: lets meet when you are back. thanks,
MW: Look forward.
9/9/2013
JE: are you back?
MW: I am, and available.
JE: Im in carib talk later?
MW: Great. [REDACTED]
9/10/2013
JE: now?
MW: I’m in a meeting until 11.
JE: will call around 12?
MW: Great
9/24/2013
JE: you didn’t get a chance to share your outline ?
9/22/2013
JE: do you want to come by this morning for breakfast with ehud barak at 1130. or thorborn jagland, head of the nobel peace prize commitee this afternoon ?
MW: Great. Will be there at 11:30. But will have to leave at 1:00.
9/25/2013
MW: Finishing up something to today, but on the job. I thought you looked handsome in the Post.
10/20/2013
MW: We had mentioned the 23rd, but I now have something from 10-2. If 23rd still works, can you do it after 2:30 or 3:00. Or another day? Just leaving Venice now...back late this afternoon.
JE: 24
10/28/2013
MW: I thought you might like this: [The PR plan behind Ronan Farrow’s incredible career]
11/9/2013
Wolff offers to help Epstein find a young new assistant
MW: If you’re still looking for an assistant...girl I know, 24-25ish, graduate student at Columbia, very bright and adventurous, could be what you’re looking for, named [REDACTED]. m
JE: Great , next step ? Skype her
MW: Want me to put her directly in touch?
JE: please
11/11/2013
MW: [subject: “Introduction”] [REDACTED]—I know Victoria mentioned to you that my good friend Jeffrey Epstein is looking for an assistant. So let me introduce the two of you. Jeffrey, [REDACTED]. [REDACTED], Jeffrey. Best, m.
11/16/2013
MW: Victoria and I are there Thursday, Fri, and Saturday...you?
JE: Thurs good
MW: Great. We get in that morning. Will need nap etc. So drinks or dinner? Look forward. m
11/20/2013
MW: What works for you? Anything after 6ish good for us tomorrow. m
JE: need to play by ear. I m having dinner with jack lang tomorrow. would you like to join.? i will need to ask as it is his invite.
11/21/2013
MW: Sure.
JE: dinner won’t work tonight will call you in the morning, where are you staying, what number can i call
MW: 917-825-9659
JE: great
11/22/2013
JE: tried to call
MW: Call again and I will answer
MW: Deux Magots closed. We’ll be at Café Flores.
12/7/2013
JE: i should be back in ny the week of 14th , you?
12/8/2013
MW: I am here.
2014
1/2/2014
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC”] I’m here until the 19th, then off to London. If possible, let’s try to get together. And happy new year! m
JE: 8 9 th
MW: yes, sounds great. you name it.
1/14/2014
MW: I can make it. I’ll be back from London. m
1/22/2014
MW: I’m able to get back from London by Sunday evening. Is that dinner invite still good? m
JE: Yes
MW: Lovely. Count on it then.
1/27/2014
MW: Super! Really nice evening! Thanks. When are you back?
JE: can you come by today at 4? some important things to discuss
MW: Yes. But would 4:30 work?
JE: yes
MW: I can now do 4:00, if that works better.
JE: yes
MW: see you then
2/8/2014
JE: it has not been widely disseminated , but should put an end to the dylan sympathy
MW: Woody and Soon-Yi came to dinner this week and seemed grateful for the piece I wrote about them. I’ve been reluctant though to do more--that is, not sure they want more. What do you think? Is the document something they want in circulation? I can do a column for Monday morning that incorporates it. And by the way, thanks for introducing us. They both are terrific. The injustice and illogic of all this is infuriating. Are you in Paris?
JE: it could be titled. why Kristof should apologize to woody. He let an admittedly disclosed family friend hijack his column and reputaiton , regurgitating 20 year old allegation that the documents, that were available to him . show were judged false AT THE TIME. experts hired , interviews taken . came to the conclusion for now everyone to read that , dylans statements were fantasy. Kristof did a disservice to those whose victim status is beyond question. deciding instead to give a voice to someone whose allegations when she was 7 years old were at the time not only suspect , but reviewed and found wanting.
MW: You saw this? [The Woody Allen - Dylan Farrow case: media spin for the Farrow family?]
JE: yes but the document makes all the difference
MW: Yes. Agree But do you think I should do another column about it? I don’t want them to think I’m a stalker/opportunist taking part in a feeding frenzy.
JE: dylan s own response that points out that woodys has big houses seems out of focus. I like going after Kristof. instead of dylan. here is the report. they said at the time that she was coached and nothing happened. didn’t he have an obligation to publish it. does he now.
JE: they like you and vic a lot. no issue. document key
2/18/2014
MW: [subject: “Are you back?”]
2/24/2014
MW: [subject: “Get together this week?”
JE: not back until 12th
MW: ok
3/14/2014
MW: Are you around over the weekend or early next week?
JE: today .? i leave tonite
MW: Im having some terrible dental thing this morning, don’t know what shape Ill be in.
4/2/2014
MW: I’m just back from London. Here until LA trip on the 15th You?
MW: 7 8?
JE: 8 is great.
5/31/2014
JE: are you around?
MW: In London. Back tomorrow. Around until 10th—then Paris. You?
JE: ny till tues
MW: Free anytime Monday?
JE: 3
MW: Ok
7/8/2014
MW: I’m back in NYC. You?
JE: sat
MW: good
7/11/2014
MW: tomorrow still good? what works?
JE: 9 am?
MW: Sure.
JE: running late 10?
MW: Ok
7/15/2014
MW: I’d like to help you on your public profile issues, so tell me how you’d like to think about it. My sense is that your unsure about turning this into an extended and time-consuming project, so perhaps we ought to talk a bit more about what’s involved in that. But more immediately, your September meeting seems like an ideal opportunity to test the waters by putting together a top tier group of funders, an activist or two, and some selected journalists, invited on an off-the-record basis. I am at your disposal.
JE: thanks a lot
8/6/2014
MW: New York Magazine would be willing to let me do the kind of piece you and I have been discussing, with it based around your meeting on September 6. I think I can pull this off in a way that would accomplish much of what you’d like--and as well, it would be fun for me. Are you in NYC, or will you be in any time this month? I’m in London from 27 to 4, but otherwise here. m
JE: I’ll be back 18 talk then.
MW: great
8/15/2014
MW: Can you get together next week?
JE: tues or wed
MW: Great. Either works for me. Let me know. m
8/17/2014
JE: do I want bill gates to suggest that the largest charitable fund structure was my brainchild and that as far as he is concerned , he knows of no better financial advisor or am i asking for trouble.
MW: My impulse is that yes that ‘a exactly what you want him to say, but let me think on it and we’ll discuss on Wed.
8/20/2014
JE: can we do 10 instead of 9?
MW: yes
9/2/2014
MW: Just checking that Monday meeting is going forward. I’m in London, back on Thursday. Had a very nice time with Woody and Soon-Yi in Paris. m
9/4/2014
MW: I’m back, by the way. Are you in NYC?
9/5/2014
JE: gates asked delay until his people approve / but i will see you during the week
MW: Ok.
9/11/2014
MW: [subject: “FYI: My Guardian piece”] [As the newspaper industry shrinks by 8 per cent a year, how is the Guardian coping?]
9/15/2014
JE: gates asked delay until his people approve / but i will see you during the week
MW: Ok.
9/19/2014
JE: this week, thiel, summers bill burns, Gordon brown, Jagland, ( council of europe and nobel chairman ). mongolia pres , hardeep puree ( india), boris ( gates). jabor ( qatar ). sultan ( dubai, ), kosslyn ( harvard), leon black, woody. you are a welcome guest at any.....
MW: Great. Tell me when and where. I look forward. m
9/20/2014
Wolff invited to Epstein’s house to meet industry leaders and Juilliard students
JE: tomorrow terje larsen leon black peter thiel. boris Nikolic. . thorborn Jagland. Jullliard students. starting at 10 am. ?
MW: Great. I have to run downtown for a lunch. But can return right after. Free rest of week.
9/22/2014
JE: are you free at 1030 tonite
MW: I’m an early to be guy, but what do you have?
MW: That is, early to bed
JE: Mongolians, kevind rudd, ( former austrailn prime ). etc etc etc
MW: Where? Your house?
JE: yup 10 30 ? i AM ALSO NORMALLY SLEEPING
MW: Ok. I’ll be there.
9/23/2014
Lisa New: [to Epstein] That was fun- definitely the highlight of a day that was not without other interesting moments. Don’t know which was better-- the wholly unexpected surprise reminder (by a prime minister) of my boyfriend from 1976( who was in high school, who lived with his doting parents), or , getting creamed on my producer’s budget but then offered the opportunity to profess poetry for production funds . There may be someone as good in New York, but i’ll never tell you and you really have a heck of a seminar table there . When do we do Whitman’s “Song of Myself” 1-15 Who else is reading with us? I’m ready .
A few other follow ups : David and Brigid pointed out that reality tv doesn’t cost anything because it is, as it sounds, very low budget . No writing , no special expertise or knowledge or research , no archival footage , no copyright clearance , no actors , no travel beyond the one location , certainly no clinton or woody allen or justice elena kagan or david brooks or Lena Dunham or even Professor New. That said , I think If were hiring the crew id do it for less — probably 1, 250,000 all in. But I haven’t won 10 Emmys and David has . That has value too. As does Wgbh . But I’ll be more prepared for the next conversation and want to be much more prepared for templeton, so thank you .
I really liked Michael. I would like to send him some stuff , but in googling him I noticed that we have the same birthday! May I have his email? You are in! Yeay! Lets see what this may mean? I’ll improve my numbers and you’ll improve your deep reading ?
JE: [forwards to Michael Wolff] clinton woody kagan , do not add one penny to budget
MW: Fab! And tomorrow?
JE: not sure yet talk in mornig
MW: What time???
JE: thurs 1
9/25/2014
MW: See you at 1:00....
10/10/2014
JE: larry summers thought that a “ the rehabilitation of JEffrey Epstein” , would fare will with gates him, barak, etc....
MW: Good. Are you in town?
JE: only til two, here next week starting tues
MW: Ok. Make me some time! Best, m
JE: definitely
10/17/2014
JE: speak today?
MW: Great. When works? I’m on a deadline until about 11:00 and have 12:30 lunch. m
JE: late today?
MW: Phone? 5:00?
JE: ok
11/19/2014
JE: mort will neeed a pr person. ideas?
MW: Yes, several. Let me put together a few suggestions. But probably Matthew Hiltzig would be best. He handles high profile individuals (for many years was Harvey Weinstein’s guy) and has lots of crisis experience. But I will think further. I saw Mort at a dinner last week. We had a nice conversation but he repeated himself to everybody there.
11/20/2014
MW: The other logical idea is Ken Frydman who, for many years, worked for Mort as the Communications guy at the Daily News, then went off on his own and has continued to advise Mort on a variety of things--including his Senate balloon a few years ago. They certainly understand each other and, I believe, have a deep well of good will. Also, Ken is very plugged into NYC media, where the most of the attention is going to come from.
12/21/2014
JE: page 6 again, we shoudl get out in front wherare you?
MW: I’m in NYC. Are you? This week?
JE: caribean
MW: When back?
JE: not sure. 12 tj jan?
MW: ok
12/31/2014
Josh Gerstein (Politico): [to Alan Dershowitz] Hi Prof. Dershowitz: I’ve been following the Jeffrey Epstein litigation saga on and off for some time. When I checked the federal court docket last night, I came across the attached filing. It makes some serious allegations about you and several other people related to the case. I wanted to make sure you had a copy of the filling and to ask if you have any comments on the allegations raised in it. I’m planning to write a blog entry or story on this and will probably do so fairly soon since the filing is a public record at this point. Anyway, if you want to respond, please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks
Alan Dershowitz: [to Epstein] I spoke to him. He too was shocked. But he’s going to report it.
JE: [to Michael Wolff]again
MW: What means?
JE: filing attached
MW: I read. What are implications? Is this a surprise?
JE: now that they are accusing dershowitz , it might be fun to point out the ludicrous allegations,
MW: Who are these people?
JE: same characters that represented the alleged victims. bad guys
2015
1/2/2015
MW: I’m going to try to have this piece about you done by Fed 1. So would be great if we can do a long sit down middle of the month. Also what are chances you can set up something with Gates this month in NYC? m
1/3/2015
Wolff begins campaign to protect Epstein from survivor accusations
Ian Osborne: Jeffrey, Happy New Year. Rather unfortunately, your ongoing case has made the front page of every British newspaper today (see attached). I hope that all ok. Best wishes, Ian
JE: [forwards email to Michael Wolff] whoops
MW: Can you give me time middle of the month and schedule Gates? Obviously, no time like now to deal with this. And this will be a game-changing rebuttal.
JE: kathy ruemmler former white house counsel and good buddy , is suggesting she responds on my behalf to the press inquiries. ? thoughts?
MW: I think that is a reasonably good approach. I might make the central point that court documents are a back door way to make protected libelous allegations. Plaintiffs in pursuit of settlements can wildly and improbably allege anything they want—the media then can repeat this without any obligation to verify. I would add this is particular true on the British tabloid press, and in particular, the Daily Mail and its campaign against Prince Andrew. Then issue the emphatic denial.
JE: if she is the spokesperson it will ratchet up the attention thoughts/?
MW: Probably. Issues is how much this is spreading to US, or if it is still remains mostly British tabloid story?
MW: A statement from you or your reps does open in up in the U.S. Is the Times or WSJ calling you for comment?
JE: not yet. but they will,
MW: I would not act till then. And I would hit very hard on media’s willingness to hide behind court documents and repeat all manner of preposterous allegations. In that regard, I think you should prepare a detailed list of the most preposterous aspects of all this—this will give the NYT and WSJ some pause.
1/4/2015
Wolff discusses the “gullible press” in terms of Epstein’s sexual assault allegations
JE: Thoughts?
MW: My gut is to let it ride for a few more days. It seems so transparently tabloid that I find it hard to believe it will have legs. On the other hand, given Cosby example, who knows. Again, if a response is needed, I’d go with stressing that these are unidentified complainants and a dubious lawyer making these allegations, against not only you, but any bold-face name they could plausibly associate with you. I.e. extortion aided by a gullible press. On my part, this press wave is an opportunity for me to deal with the whole business in a larger context, casting you as a victim of media, zeitgeist, and ambulance-chasing lawyers. I actually think this current stuff is an opportunity to cast doubt on the conviction. If I can finish this in Feb, should be out by mid-to-late March.
JE: this is a case of the girls suing the govt. . saying their rights were violated. im not a party, at all. its nuts, howver dershowitz uncontrollable is going on today show and good morning america tomrow
MW: Almost all the twitter traffic on this is out of the UK.
1/5/2015
JE: can you speak?
MW: Yes [REDACTED]
1/6/2015
JE: time?
MW: now works...917-825-9659
MW: Or what works for you...tomorrow also fine
1/7/2015
MW: Does Saturday work for you? What time is good? Also, I have an idea that you might want to think about in terms of a response.
JE: Phone anytime staying in v island
MW: When back? Need some face time, though we can try on phone.
JE: wed week. [REDACTED] now?
1/9/2015
JE: [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. the story teller , crafted much of it out of the whole cloth. . part of her story , is that she was at multiple orgies with clinton and speciifically, the minute details of a dinner had on the island with him, he sat on my left. came by black. heli. flown by ghislaine. clinton was NEVER EVER there, never. it punches a hole in the dershowitz , andrew allegation. making it all apparent that it was fantasy. and delusional. thoughts. who should break the story.
MW: Is Clinton willing to say he was not there? Btw, I’ve just filed a column for USA Today for Monday explaining how Dershowitz and Andrew allegations were picked up from unverified civil court docs, transferred to UK tabs, which go wild because of no libel rules on U.S. court papers, and then translated back here as “reported fact.” Problem with [REDACTED] story is that tabs are too invested in present story line, and unlikely that the Times or WSJ will want to touch it—tho, depending on who is willing to on record, they might. There is another politico reporter I know who might do it, again, if the on-the-record sources are public people. Or, I will use it for New York Magazine, but that won’t be until Feb. Can you still talk tomorrow? When works? Woody and Soon-Yi coming for dinner tonight. m
[Wolff: Prince Andrew, Dershowitz and the new news age]
JE: anytime tomorw ok
1/10/2015
MW: Can you talk at noon? Probably need about 30 minutes. What is best number?
JE: now good?
MW: Need 15
JE: free now
1/16/2015
JE: Out of respect and love for my former girlfriend I have tried to keep her out of my mess. she was never questioned , or subpoenaed. her name never surfaced.. I thought it right as a friend to protect her name. however during the entire [REDACTED] time she was my serious girlfriend. She traveled with me almost everywhere. each house, she is on the plane many many times. she knew and remembers [REDACTED]. She never saw anything that Virginia claims. She can confirm 1. I was never alone at the house. staff, friends etc. , no girl ever complained , not once. 2. jane doe 1 and 2 , were local strippers, that would call all the time asking if they could do massages. . . they left message after message. 3. We had a serious love relationship , I had promised her not to involve her in my story as it was so sordid. . she was 22 - 24 at the time. . 4 she has photos after photos showing we were together. . 5 she knows clinton was never on the island. 6 she knows no sex with steven hawking, she knows no sex with ehud as he was also never on the island. 6 she is 38 years old now and presentable. . 7 she woudl acknowledge that these girls asked to bring their friends . many of their best friends sat in the kitchen while they gave massages outside on the terrace. ( no sex _). . they certainly looked over age. nevr heard anyone say otherwise. , Jeffrey never asked for underage, that is crazy, .. 8 . [REDACTED] answered the phones. served coffee. . there were many massage people , men women, aged up to 60.
MW: I don’t think I would put her out there. It probably seems too self-serving. But let’s discuss. I have an idea about how to best use. Do you have time to continue our conversation post-3:00 today or tomorrow?
JE: today ok.
Ghislaine Maxwell: [to Epstein] This is from you and Shelley? My job was to manage construction of the houses and manage households. What photos does she have? Do not attachk jane doe’s makes you look bad. This puts shelly from and center fo the storm...can she be subpoenad or questioned..is this as she remembers it..has to be much more careful.. But this would help me a lot.
JE: idea in formation
Ghislaine Maxwell: In principle I like it. Should focus though on what is factually incorrect in vr story.. She travelled with you and not me would take huge heat off me. If she can disprove anything for a fact then it might help ie she can say euhud and clinton were never at island. She was with you and vr and never say anything etc
JE: Don’t know in formation
JE: [to Michael Wolff] time?
MW: now works...917-825-9659
MW: Or what works for you...tomorrow also fine
1/27/2015
MW: [att: Epstein_legal.rtf] Do you have time to chat about this today? It’s based on our discussion the other day of the legal history. I need to fill in some of the gaps and get necessary back-up. To give you some sense of proportion, this is about 1200 words and the final piece will run at about 7000-8000 words. NYC appears to be closed so I am around most of the day.
JE: tomrow ?
ME: Tomorrow can work. Time? Phone?
1/28/2015
MW: [subject: “What time works for a call?”]
JE: 330?
MW: Great. What number?
1/29/2015
Robert Trivers: someone called a couple of days ago from Reuters doing a long piece on you so he said we talked for some time, me emphasizing variables not commonly seen in the press, such as your integrity but i have long experience with the press and trust not a single one of them; they will listen sympathetically, giving off positive noises where appropriate and then go ahead and write whatever hatchet-job they have had in mind in the first place !! hope you are fine
1/30/2015
MW: Can you go over UN week schedule with me today? And then can we do a read-through tomorrow or Sunday?
JE: [Plenty Of Innuendo, But No Hard Evidence Of New Clinton Sex Scandal]
MW: Speak tomorrow?
1/31/2015
JE: now?
MW: Yes call you in 3 min
MW: Just called. Call me: [REDACTED]
JE: [forwards Robert Trivers email to Michael Wolff]
MW: I like Trivers.
JE: Please call ....she has people trying to contact her on facebook, stopping by her house, calling her....she doesn’t know what to do and she wants it to stop. she has a 6 month old baby...please give her a call.
MW: See if you can give me one with a direct offer of money.
JE: i m trying to find it , i know i have it
MW: I think I’m inclined to send this whole thing to you. What’s your feeling?
JE: do you need. want quotes mort , gates etc?
MW: At this point, I don’t really think so. Just need to mention them in context with you, at the house, etc. Having them actually wish you, is a stronger statement than a prepared quote (which always sound forced and milk toast).
MW: pitch is of course that their association with you is going to come out anyway, so best it be done in a favorable context--and, once done here, it will then necessarily be a smaller headline everywhere else.
JE: I’ll try, but it must be their decision in the end. . i will get the money emails when the girls wake up.
MW: [subject: “here it is”] [attaches a copy of the New York Magazine article about Epstein that was never published]
JE: time to speak?
MW: Calling now... [REDACTED]
JE: ok
2/1/2015
JE: [forwards email from Robert Trivers] [Exclusive: Some charities to refuse money from U.S. financier accused in sex case]
MW: Can you speak at about 2:00?
MW: [subject: “Lana Belhalevic”] Do you have anything I can quote from here—was there an official finding?
MW: [subject: “take a look at this graph...”]Here’s what I have on this point now re Gates Foundation. Add whatever you can to it, and I’ll try again. It’s an important enough point, on reconsideration, that it doesn’t have to be that simple. “It is Bill Gates who at the end of the summer began prodding Epstein to begin a process of public rehabilitation. Epstein has been advising Gates on a new way to increase the clout of the Gates Foundation by adding a constallation of other chartiable funds that would be bundled with the Gates operation.”
JE: by adding a donor advised fund. where the foundations expertise could be used by others that would like to partner with gates. science funding for . 1 decoding biological signals. 2. synthetic general intelligence 3. music as a means to reverse engineer the brain, 4 mysteries of sleep. 66th st studio 54 days, i already lived in the penthouse. luxury was not recent can you send me the latest draft
MW: A donor advised fund is too technical, unless you can unwrap that. Is my description off or in the vicinity?
JE: will do
JE: a fund that allows people to donate the money to the gates foundation and share its expertise.and direct where their money goes
2/2/2015
MW: If I set this up as follows, what would be the correct math: “And then there is too, that he is right. Since I began working on this piece in September, Epstein predictions about the price of oil, yen, ruble, and euro have all born out. (If I had invested $100,000 the way Epstein said I should in early September, by the end of January I would have made $2.3 million. Alas, I did not.)”
JE: yws
MW: I think this is only missing the UN Week stuff and a needs a bit more on charitable. Speak tomorrow.
JE: please resend in word or other format
MW: this should be in same Word rtf format that I sent last one...but trying again. lemme know.
JE: lots of edits typos etc. will send tomorw along with un week
MW: Great. Forgive typos. Trying to hurry. Professionals will handle that. Speak tomorrow.
MW: [subject: “Can you talk at 3:00?”]
JE: flying late tonite?
MW: Not sure I can do it late tonight. Are you back tomorrow? Would love to get that section with names in order ASAP.
JE: understood
2/3/2015
MW: I can do 11:30 or 5:00. Either work for you?
JE: ill try for 5
MW: [subject: “Now?”]
JE: 615?
MW: Yes, for a bit.
2/4/2015
MW: [subject: “When is good?”]
MW: “(if I had invested $100,000 the way Epstein said I should in early September, by the end of January I would have made $2.3 million. Alas, I did not.)” Any chance there a calculation here that could work...would be fun...
JE: yes. its easy
MW: great. what’s the number?
2/5/2015
JE: can you send updated version.. need it in order to get approvals.
MW: We are in Paris from 7th to 11th if you have any times...
JE: Some edits
2/6/2015
Jody Quon (NY Magazine): Dear Michael, I hope this message finds you well. Know that we have been trying to reach Jeffrey via email but he is not responding. Can you kindly advise his cell phone or other contact person for him and we can try that as well. And of course, if you think it would help if you called him to urge to respond, that would be marvelous. Let us know. Many thanks for your help. We are excited about your piece.
MW: I have pinged him. Let me know what you hear.
MW: [to Epstein] Much urgency at the magazine about your photo. If you could tell them when you’re back, would be obliged. Also, they have seen the piece and love it--they wonder only if we ought to cut back on the sex/scandal stuff and not let it overwhelm the larger story. This may be good idea and I will give it some thought. Off to Paris now. Speak soon. m
2/7/2015
JE: rumeller thinks it should hve more of jeffrey is a good friend , personal positve traits , she thinkgs it reads as if Michael wolfe the guy with younr girlfriend , is part of a group of mysoginst men that belives that Jeffreys wealth and advice overrules the indecency of mens behavior.. . thoughs
2/8/2015
MW: I’m not sure there’s a market yet for Jeffrey as sweet guy. I think it’s explanation and context time. We have to be able to see you as something more than sex offender—you need purpose and meaning. I think that it’s okay that you seem like a man thing. That may not win you point with women, but it also means you’re not an outcast. At this point, I think you have to be brought back into the world; you have to seem interesting and worthwhile beyond the tabloid story. We have to give the other narrative. It might actually be a woman’s voice that should say you are in fact a nice guy. We can use Kathy in the piece to do that. Will she sit on the phone with me this week for a few minutes? But that being said, I think that i can work in some more personal details. Anyway, a Paris morning breaks. m
2/9/2015
Marvin Orellana (NY Magazine): Hi Michael, it was just to say no word from Jeffrey. Have you heard anything from him? Let us know. I feel like he probably thinks we’re crazy emailing but any news you have let us know! Best, MO
2/10/2015
MW: I’ve spoken to him and he says he will arrange. Obviously can’t do more than that. But will try again.
MW: [forwarding email thread to Epstein] Let me know what you want to do about this. Cold in Paris. m
JE: will know my schedule tomorow
2/12/2015
MW: What did you decide about NYM picture? And can I set up a call with Kathy Ruemmler? m
2/13/2015
JE: [Jeffrey Epstein And His Apologists Still Have A Lot To Answer For]
MW: Roger Stone! Oy. And speaking of conspiracists!
MW: [subject: “Now?”]
JE: 615?
MW: Yes, for a bit.
2/15/2015
JE: You back!
MW: Not till 22nd . You?
2/16/2015
JE: where are we>? how important is the photo? im not yet in new york maybe paris on thurs. . ? ruemmler does not want her name in it. she will speak to you whenever you want. .
2/17/2015
MW: I’d say photo is fairly important. Makes the piece more difficult without it. Certainly lessens the negotiating position with regard to what’s in it. From PR view, I think it makes you look more upfront and uncowed--especially if it’s you straightfaced sitting at the head of the table. I think that can be a powerful statement. Let’s talk about Ruemmler. I’m back on Sunday and assume I will spend the next week trying to close the piece. m
JE: ok
2/20/2015
JE: summary of legal advice xThe article does not really need to address the case, its themes, its facts, its inflation of reality since the window into your fascinating life will drive the narrative even without the focus on the “facts” of what you did/didn’t do/were accused of/etc. too much risk in Dreyfus like comments .
MW: Agree
JE: fun i have been asked if I could somehow structure a few lessons for world leaders on the real markets and how they work. IT seems that there is a consensus that though they need to know , they have no one to ask privately.
MW: That is fun. What form?
JE: Phone later
MW: Great. I’m good btw 5-6 London time.
MW: Free for next hour or so: [REDACTED]
JE: 30 minutes?
MW: Yes.
2/23/2015
MW: Are you in NYC?
Lesley Groff: Did you want to set up a photo shoot for NY Magazine (Michael Wolff) for this Fri or Sat if possible?
JE: no time available . ask if a picture that we have on file will suffice? Michael woudl greatly prefer a picture in the dining room.
MW: It won’t. Very much not. Can you do it on Saturday morning in NYC? I will come with them. Can be done in 30 minutes.
JE: okokok don’t yell? )))::
MW: Ha! 10:00 Saturday morning?
JE: i wont be there. i come in fri afternoon and leave super early 5am sat.
MW: Friday at 6:00PM?
2/24/2015
MW: I think photo may be make/break on this. I’m okay if you’re ambivalent about piece and want to let it go. But if you think it’s an opportunity (I do), you should try to arrange photo. I can chat after noon... m
JE: number?
MW: [REDACTED] Need 30 min.
JE: wrong number?
MW: 9178259659. Sorry.
2/25/2015
JE: latest?
MW: I’m going back and forth with them on changes. Will send as soon as there’s a stable draft.
2/26/2015
JE: latest?
MW: I’m expecting draft back this afternoon. Meanwhile, magazine called me about your photo concerns—and trying to buy photos etc. I don’t think they’re going to do that. So options are: 1) You make the shoot dependent on photo approval and with understanding that material from the shoot can only be used in the context of this article. They probably won’t accept this and not having a new photo may kill the piece--on the other hand, they might want the photo badly enough to do that. And, after all, movie stars getting approval. (One other way to do this is not ask for approval, but to ask for right to veto the ones you don’t want.) 2) Hire your own stylist. This person would make sure you were in appropriate pose and limit the possibilities for anything unscripted. 3) Just sit at the head of your dining room table, look steadily into the camera, don’t smile too much, and make them go after 15 minutes.
JE: Can you speak?
MW: I’m at a dinner. You?
2/27/2015
JE: Early tomorw , the lawyers want to guarantee that I am not seem to be making admissions. I appreciate your guidance
MW: Yes. Understand. We’ll make it work or we won’t do it.
2/28/2015
JE: going to paris. . I assume you will not agree to release anyting before my lawyers ok
MW: Let me know when I can call you. And what’s your number?
JE: now?
MW: 30 min?
JE: ok
3/4/2015
JE: Ive receive two calls re article. careful.
MW: From whom? Important to know.
JE: lady in charge of photo called her friend etc etc
MW: Can you give me more details? I should get to the bottom of this.
JE: ok
MW: You know anything more?
JE: I have a call in
MW: Ok
3/7/2015
JE: News ??? I bought the photos that were taken of me for 15K , as I did not trust him . They are mine , mag should need approval and you should see them firstb, he cashed the check
MW: They move slowly. They’re waiting for Adam Moss, the editor, to weigh in. Also, I spoke to photo editor and that has been handled (she apparently thought she was being helpful by trying to put me together with your former gf--now everybody impressed that former gf would go back to discuss it with you). What are you’re movements? I’m in LA next week, back the 16th.
3/9/2015
JE: Speak
MW: 2:00: Number?
JE: [REDACTED]
3/18/2015
MW: [subject: “Can you speak this morning?”] I’m good until noon.
JE: yes number?
MW: [REDACTED]
3/19/2015
JE: ive supported female econmist of the year for 10 years, any interst.
MW: well...not really inspiring me, but maybe. Most important: Gates.
3/27/2015
MW: [subject: “Speak?”] Can you talk about 3:00?
JE: yes and i prefer you use this informal photo if you are going ahead, i paid the photographer 20k for his already
MW: [subject: “now? [REDACTED]”]
3/28/2015
MW: It will probably have to be cut some and there will be other queries and I continue to smooth and tinker, but this is getting close. How ‘bout we speak tomorrow, late morning? And don’t forget Gates comment extolling your talent, virtue, and contributions to the future of the foundation! m
3/29/2015
JE: any issues?
MW: Yes Assuming this is the article that you had me read several weeks ago Better if you were not quoted and if it didn’t appear that you were the story’s catalyst.
MW: Have you read? When’s good to talk?
JE: be back on land around 4
MW: In NYC or otherwise? Why don’t we plan on talking then at about 5:00.
JE: number?
MW: need Gates comment, if possible. m
JE: ok, i need to run by lawyers, your sentene appears to read i nevefr met clinton or gore?? harsh about women, thought we modified that.
MW: ok. Talk at 5:00.
3/30/2015
MW: I’m looking for a little humor...would this work for you? “There an expression that if you’re sleeping with someone you work with they can come in late. It’s not my expression, it’s Jimmy Goldsmith’s.” At the same time, he recalls another of the British financier’s sayings, “A yacht is not a yacht without pretty girls.”
JE: yes
MW: ok, think I’ve addressed those issues and saw the women thing--that was added by the NYM editor (a woman). Have deleted. So...need Gates comment; and NYM fact checker, Alex, will call you after 1:00 today.
MW: And of course don’t indicate your very familiar with contents!
JE: I ve been called many things recently , retarded ws not one of them
MW: Ha!
MW: [subject: “his name is Alex Yablon [REDACTED]”]
MW: [subject: “He needs to leave by 7:00--Can you make that work?”]
JE: unlikely am not onland
MW: When would work?
JE: im borrowing a computer , talk later
MW: [subject: “Alex’s cell is [REDACTED]”]
MW: Can you give this guy a few minutes today? Would be good.
JE: can I have his number
MW: [REDACTED]
MW: I just spoke to the fact checker, and what you can expect him to do is just go through pretty much every detail and assertion of the piece and ask if its true. This is partly because I’ve said I’ve kept no notes or tapes, so you need to be the source. thanks. let’s speak later.
JE: will not be in office till 430, governors meeting
MW: Ok. I’ll tell him to call you at 4:30 then.
JE: still here in gocvt house. tomorw better
MW: There’s a lot to do on this. Can you at least start in an hour or so?
JE: try my best, sitting here in aroom full
3/31/2015
MW: What time can work for you this morning for fact-checking young man? I want to be mindful here of time so I can keep you apprised of changes.
JE: afternoon
MW: Any chance you can try this morning? Schedule is getting super tight now.
JE: are you free for a call?
MW: Yes.call. [REDACTED]
JE: i tried got voice mail again,
JE: sorry, but this will create many more problems than either you are i want to deal with. cannnot . must rethink, will call in 1 hr.
MW: (Forwarding Alex Yablon’s extensive fact-checking questions for an article in New York Magazine)
JE: nfw (no fucking way)
MW: you can either just say, you don’t want to answer in the specific and it raises no red flags; o, you don’t want to answer specifically, but you’ve been talking to me for several months, and you trust my take.
MW: Let’s remember goal here: to have something in print that creates a more nuanced context for you. In order to do that, we have to go through a process. There isn’t going to be a more favorable opportunity than this.
MW: [subject: “I need guidance...”]
JE: understood . i have a call set up at 5p,
JE: the lawers were a definite no, as is, the questions the fact questioner wrote has quesitons that are NOT in the draft you sent. ??? not sure if you sent the right one
MW: Can you call? [REDACTED]
JE: ill be off a conf in 15 minutes or so
MW: Ok
MW: [subject: “up to the minute”]
JE: not sure where you got some of this,? vr is not suing me at all . for example what is TK. . ? djbuti never came to ny . . i thought we would take fuck out? more to come after dinner
MW: Yes. All to be done. Nothing final and some things I wasn’t sure so place holders. Debuti just a detail. One fuck out. Forgot the other , but will come out, just part of the process , juggling 6000 words.
4/1/2015
MW: The magazine is jumpy so they’re planning to call every name referenced in the piece today. Not an unusual practice, but perhaps it’s worth you sending a heads up to people quoted—particularly Summers—and anybody else that might be surprised. And just to reiterate, we can still bail on the whole project. But I’m fine with whatever you decide. Moderating a panel this morning of television people, but free by 9:30.
JE: then bail, that cannot happen. it will cause more problems, sorry for the trouble.
MW: Deed done. Don’t worry about anything. Let’s talk later.
JE: I have been pristine in not letting people know of my review.
4/7/2015
MW: [subject: “Can you get together tomorrow?”]
JE: yes, is today good , we could go for a walk if weather holds
MW: tomorrow better., if that can work. have a deadline today.
JE: ok
4/8/2015
MW: [subject: “10 min behind”]
MW: [subject: “Are women bad for journalism?”] [Wolff: At Rolling Stone, ‘rape culture’ stopped questions]
4/14/2015
MW: [subject: “Catch up?”] Are you in NYC?
JE: im in carib, can speak this afternoon. . re mind me questions vs answers
MW: The question is just about what you want to do--do something? do nothing?
JE: number?
MW: [REDACTED] Free at 3:15
JE: [forwards email to Kathy Ruemmler]
JE: [to Michael Wolff] sorry, what I meant was the focus on me having all the answers , is less good than me having better questions to ask of people. getting them to think in a different way. . people leavign saying wow that was a good question, . Im not a know it all , but a sharer of experiences and someone who questions the pat answer.
MW: Yes. Good.
MW: I’m available for next 30 minutes. [REDACTED]
4/21/2015
MW: 1) You were going to see if Gates or representative will talk to NYM fact checker and if Gates will provide quote; 2) Decide how you are able to handle the fact-checker---again, I suggest just having a conversation, answering what you want, but in general saying that none of the questions raise any flags with you; 3) Do a final go-through with me on the copy, and perhaps get Kathy R. on the phone.
JE: gates said Melinda is against the idea.. you can reach out to kathy directly
4/27/2015
JE: letss speak today? time/ ? I hear john conoally is trying to write a book
MW: 11:30? 917-825-9659
JE: good
MW: waiting for you call. I’m available for the next 30 min. Then again at about 2:00.
JE: 2
5/13/2015
MW: [subject: “Can you speak today?”]
JE: yes, this afternoon
MW: great. 3:00ish
5/22/2015
JE: [attaches photo]
MW: Historic! A few thoughts: 1) On review, I think we can integrate some JE initiative into the piece, scientific or otherwise. What do you have in mind? 2) I’m resending New York Magazine fact-checking memo if you have a minute today or over the weekend, let’s discuss. 3) What day did you say for Woody/Chomsky/Dalai? (My only hard obligation: my daughter is getting married on June 12!)
MW: [forwards fact-checking memo from Lauren Kern (NY Mag)] NYM fact-checking memo
JE: zero sorry, just read this and
MW: I agree. But let’s talk about where else. I do think we can make this work and that it would be worth it.
5/26/2015
MW: I had a discussion with Caroline Daniel who runs the FT Weekend paper and she would be very interested in running the piece on the front of the weekend section pages. In a way this might be an evening better sort of positioning than New York Magazine—and with less hassle. Piece would have to be somewhat shorter and we could make the changes we discussed. What’s your feeling?
5/27/2015
MW: Do you want to chat about this? Are you around today?
JE: Yes, we can include kathy she thought that this was a better idea. however did not want to bait people by saying how life was so great for jeffrey and his guys
MW: Yes, great. How about 3ish?
JE: [forwards email to Kathy Ruemmler]
Kathy Ruemmler: Works for me.
MW: Great. Who’s got a conference line? Or call me at [REDACTED] m
MW: [to Epstein] [subject: “I liked Kathy. Perceptive and nuanced.”]
JE: good
6/1/2015
MW: I had breakfast this morning with the FT and they’re very eager, so recasting the piece as discussed. What would be your feeling about using Woody—Chomsky-Dalia Lama get together? I understand sensitivities, but would like to try it and see how it comes out. If it works, I think it might be such a mind blower that it would over shadow all other issues and, as we say, turn the narrative on its ear. m
6/3/2015
MW: Here’s a fast cut through this—have taken out a lot—which incorporates some of the things we’ve discussed. See what you think and let’s discuss asap. And what’s your feeling about using Wood-Chomsky-Dalia? Are you here?
6/4/2015
MW: [subject: “speak this afternoon?”]
6/5/2015
MW: [subject: “call me whenever’s convenient: [REDACTED]”]
6/9/2015
MW: [subject: “Did you look at that redraft?”] thoughts?
JE: asked for attny review, much better thanks
6/20/2015
MW: [subject: “Talk this afternoon?”]
JE: great
MW: call me whenever’s convenient: [REDACTED]
6/21/2015
JE: are you in town tomorrow
JE: awake?
MW: Yeah, but churning a deadline until about 11:00. Then? Or after that? Had a great dinner with Woody and Soon Yi last night.
JE: number?
MW: [REDACTED]
7/27/2015
JE: how is it?
MW: Well, there’s a reason people keep doing this.
JE: nice
8/9/2015
JE: one month old?
MW: Indeed. And already my old life forgotten. Where are you? NYC this week? Chat?
JE: new Mexico. what is the best , and les than perfect part of your new life?
MW: Right from the start you feel you have a new friend and ally who will never turn on you (of course, I know this is not true—but willing suspension of disbelief). No sex.
JE: great , —at least the no sex part=)
8/13/2015
John Connolly (author): Mr. Titone, Thanks for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon. I am a writer for Vanity Fair magazine and I am writing a book on Jeffrey Epstein. Please keep me posted on the status of your case against Mr. Epstein for your client MR. Jean Luc Brunel. All the best, John Connolly
Jack Goldberger (attorney): [forwards email to Epstein]
JE: [forwards email to Michael Wolff] ??
MW: Connolly has a history of not delivering or of delivering unreliable stuff that can’t be used. A letter to a lawyer saying keep me posted, sounds more lazy than aggressive. Having said that, it’s easier to get away with unverified crap in a book than it is in a big magazine. Also, as I think I mentioned to you, I heard something about Connolly doing the research for a book that will be authored by someone else. I heard James Patterson, which would mean the book would have massive sales. (Patterson is a new type of publishing—he’s a bestselling crime brand, with a variety of crime books sold under his name; up till now, , it’s been mostly fiction, but I heard they’re trying to expand to “real life” crime.). Anyway, you should get a handle on this. It would be good to have someone call Connolly—perhaps this lawyer?—and get the basic background: whose the publisher, what’s the prospective pub date, etc. At broken record risk, you can certainly count on Connolly or somebody coming back to bite you, and ought to be planning for it, defensively or otherwise.
8/22/2015
JE: how is it?
MW: An interesting point about the biology of having a child is that very quickly you find yourself unable to imagine the life before the child. Given that context, completely wonderful. Hours of free entertainment. And you? I’m away from 1st till 16th. Are you here all next week?
JE: maybe, accordoing to the strength of hurricane danny when it visits the caribean
MW: lemme know
9/17/2015
JE: [forward email with photo] monumental
MW: Cool
9/18/2015
JE: oct 4 chomsky?
9/19/2015
MW: I’m in LA that day.
JE: when do you go and when do you come back?
MW: Super complicated book tour schedule, including in October two trips to Brazil, two to Mexico, three to Florida, one to LA, one Boston, one to Montreal. Leaving Tuesday, back Thursday, leaving Wed (30th) back 8th, etc.
JE: can you send me a copy
MW: Of course!
10/13/2015
MW: I am in non-stop travel on speaking tour (have just done LA, Brazil, Miami, Boston, and heading to Mexico City now), but eager to catch up. Where are you in November? m
JE: same as always how is it going?
MW: Speaking circuit mostly boring. But money disproportional. Have just sat down to lecture CBS board on the future of television, which is interesting because they were so clueless, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a bunch as dense as they come. Otherwise, everything copacetic--including renewed fatherhood. You?
JE: fun fun fun
11/2/2015
JE: news?
MW: Just travel. But back on wed for 10 days. You in NYC by any chance?
JE: Yes today
MW: Im on tarmac about to take off. Where are you end of this week or next?
11/12/2015
JE: how goes it? Im in paris . hope to see you when i return, hows baby
11/13/2015
MW: All good
11/14/2015
JE: [forwards 8/13 John Connolly email to Michael Wolff] can you ask Graydon ,
MW: Is the question whet here he’s writing it for VF? The answer would be no. Might they publish an excerpt from such a book were it to be written? Possibly. I would get someone to ask Connolly who the publisher and about the anticipated pub date.
JE: should i call him?
MW: Connolly? Definitely not. But you should have one of the people he’s calling for info ask him, if you can.
12/2/2015
MW: I’m finished with book tour. Let me know when your here and have some time. would love to catch up.
JE: friday?
MW: sure
12/11/2015
Sabrina Callahan [publisher]: Hi Michael, Nicole forwarded me your inquiry re: James Patterson. There’s no book on Epstein at this point. Connolly has been working on an investigation for several years, and since he and Jim are both from Palm Beach they have met. Eventually theymight see if there will be enough for a book, but it is too early to tell at this point. That said, if something does materialize, I’ll be sure to let you know. Let me know if you need anything else. My best, Sabrina
MW: [forwards email to Epstein]
MW: Does the Post just make this stuff up? Sheesh! Anyway, I would certainly be interested inf the Patterson franchise expands into nonfiction. Thanks again. Michael
JE: connaly a real con
12/15/2015
MW: [subject: “Heads up”] I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you—either on air or in scrum afterwards.
JE: if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?
MW: I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.
12/22/2015
MW: We’re having dinner with Wood and Soon Yi tonight. Do you think I should bring up this biography? I don’t want it to seem like I’m after something here.
JE: Not right time
MW: Ok. Appreciate.
2016
1/13/2016
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC?”] Get together?
JE: yes, what is your schedule i just arrived
MW: I’m around, except for lunch tomorrow and [REDACTED] on Friday afternoon. You name it.
2/19/2016
MW: NYT called me about you and Trump. Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting
JE: Im here today, ehud barak at 1 , would you like to join at 2?
MW: Have to go to a funeral of an old relative in NJ. Won’t be back into city until 3:30 or 4:00. Or what’s your weekend look like?
JE: paris be back the 5th for a few days we can do it then
MW: ok
2/24/2016
JE: Lots of reporters
MW: Yeah, you’re the Trump bullet.
2/25/2016
JE: march 2nd?
MW: sure
3/7/2016
Richard Johnson (NY Post): [to Alan Dershowitz] Just to be clear, the story I intend to publish tomorrow will state that Jeffrey Epstein is not letting his conviction for soliciting a teenage girl interfere with his debauchery. The billionaire money manager — and registered sex offender — is importing his playmates from Russia, sources say. A recent visitor tells me Epstein has a houseful of young women in his East 71st Street mansion. “Half of them are from the former Soviet Union and the other half are a mix of Americans and Europeans,” said my source. While all the women appeared to be at least 17, the age of consent in New York State, they were all several decades younger than 63-year-old Epstein, the visitor said. Epstein apparently has contacts in Moscow who find the young women for both Epstein’s “orgy island” in the Caribbean and his Manhattan townhouse. One procurer, Peter Listerman -- who introduced [REDACTED] to Mel Gibson and [REDACTED] to Cristiano Ronoldo -- says on a YouTube video: “I’m not a pimp, just a matchmaker.” Listerman, or a dead ringer in an Astrakhan fur hat, was photographed entering Epstein’s mansion in January. Richard Johnson, Columnist, New York Post.
Alan Dershowitz: [forwards to Epstein] Just forwarding. I refused to talk to Johnson.
JE: [forwards to Michael Wolff]
MW: It’s same old stuff. You’ve become an evergreen story. In fact, nobody believes he does any work anymore--he just recycles gossip chestnuts. And nobody takes him seriously, so unlikely that this will get further pick-up. But certainly don’t respond. And fuck him.
JE: [forwards to Ehud Barak] guess who is in the fur hat?
3/10/2016
MW: Did you get a chance to speak to Woody? They are coming for dinner next week. Are you here?
JE: Yes I tried he said las has spent time with him but I gave him the pitch . He is focused on tv showv
MW: Ok. Thanks much. m
3/13/2016
Wolff tries to intercept James Patterson and John Connolly’s book on Epstein, eventually signing an NDA to get an early copy of the manuscript from publishers
JE: [James Patterson’s Book on Palm Beach Perv Jeffrey Epstein Due Out in Fall]
MW: I don’t think it’s true. But if you want, I can check again.
JE: Can’t hurt
MW: Done. I will let you know what I hear. m
MW: [to publisher] Sabrina, the following crossed my desk this morning and [REDACTED] just wondering if there is any change in the status of a book by James Patterson about Epstein. Would appreciate any update you might have. This story sites a fall pub date. Thanks again. Michael Wolff
Sabrina Callahan: Hi, Michael, Erinn, [REDACTED] here, can give you the latest on this. Thanks, Sabrina
MW: Erinn, thanks, would appreciate that. Michael Wolff
3/16/2016
JE: did you get an aswer
MW: Not yet
Erinn McGrath: Hi Michael, so sorry for the delay - I was out of the office until this morning. We’ll be publishing the book in August. Would love to set up an interview with you and Jim sometime before then - and [REDACTED] happy to share an early copy once we have those available.
MW: When do you think you’ll have copies?
Erinn McGrath: In the next month or so I hope!
MW: Keep me posted. Would appreciate it.
Erinn McGrath: Will do!
MW: Just checking one mor thing...this will be nonfiction or fiction? And if it’s nonfiction, is this Patterson’s first nonfiction?
MW: [forwards thread to Epstein]
JE: Well that’s a different and not good story
MW: Quite bad.
JE: You should meet him . Let d talk strategy
MW: Yes. At your convenience. Worrisome.
3/17/2016
JE: not nice of your friend to lull us into not doing anything for months. I think now, artilcles a book a documentary should be undertaken as it will no longer be posible to remain quiet.. woody agrees.
MW: I agree too. Let’s talk later.
MW: [to Erinn McGrath] So...fiction or non? Very curious--and helpful with regards to something [REDACTED] working on. Thanks.
Erinn McGrath: It’s nonfiction -- not his first, but probably his biggest foray into the genre
MW: Great. And clarify for me, Connolly is saying he’s written the book under Patterson’s imprimatur, which seems to be a new sort of brand extension. This is don in fiction, of course, but any other examples like this that you know of in nonfiction?
Erinn McGrath: The book is being published by Little, Brown and Company (all of his adult titles are). Thanks!
MW: Yes, of course. I didn’t mean as a publishing imprimatur, but as a branding device—as Patterson has done with various of his fiction titles, using outside authors writing under his name. I just not aware of an instance in which this approach has been used in nonfiction. Any other examples that you can think of?
MW: [forwards publishing email thread to Epstein] Scan down several emails. The last has yet to get a response. But it is nonfiction and they seem trying to avoid my question about precise authorship.
MW: Let me know when you’d like to speak.
JE: Now?
MW: [REDACTED]
3/18/2016
MW: [subject: “Patterson”] A few things to think about: If the Patterson book is being published in August, that presents some time frame issues. You would not be able to do a competing book or documentary before then. That is not to say that they shouldn’t be pursued. In a sense, better that they know what Patterson’s position is and, a year from now say, be able to counter it. I have some thoughts on book and doc to share at your convenience.
That being said, you do need an immediate counter narrative to the book. I believe Trump offers an ideal opportunity. It’s a chance to make the story about something other than you, while, at the same time, letting you frame your own story. Also, becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now. Still, this necessary involves you going public. And so the most basic decision is about your willingness to do that. My view is that in a couple of weeks you could master message and technical proficiency. I know a bunch of people who could be very helpful here. This would involve something along the lines of you writing an op-ed, doing a high profile television interview (Charlie Rose, I’d say), and perhaps some social media efforts.
Speaking of which, again, I think a strategic plan, involving your public identity, philanthropic activities and interests, and the development of media allies, ought finally to be put in place. A big, comprehensive, expensive effort.
The alternative is to continue to keep head down and hope Patterson book is just more he-said she-said and Connolly getting lost in the reeds (which, as an inveterate conspiracist, he always does). My worry is that Patterson can be counted on to produce a bestseller, and while he isn’t regarded as a serious writer, he’ll surely be unloading a lot of tabloid copy. Because this will be tied to the election, the Trump-Clinton angle will amp up the attention 10-fold, in fact, possibly, a hundred fold. Possibly more than anything you’ve encountered before.
Meanwhile—In a lawyer’s letter, I’d suggest including the following points--not necessarily legal, but a warning about how a press campaign might unfold (publishers are more worried about being caught in negative media controversy than they are of legal threats):
1) Little, Brown has made on the record representations to at least one well-known journalist that it is not publishing a book by James Patterson about Jeffrey Epstein--possibly an effort to avoid inquiries about the questionable nature of the book;
2) The actual author of the book, John Connolly, is something other than the stated author, James Patterson. Connolly is known to have developed an obsession with Epstein, such that, his longtime employer, Vanity Fair, has refused to allow him to write about Epstein for the magazine;
3) Sources have confirmed for us that Patterson has had little more than a minimal consulting role in the book, and that Connolly has functioned in every material way as the book’s researcher and writer. We believe Patterson’s “authorship” of the book will not stand up to scrutiny. And, indeed, that the entire notion of an extension of the Patterson franchise into nonfiction, as it has been used in fiction and children’s book--effectively other authors writing under the Patterson name--presents a host of journalism ethical issues.
JE: [forwards to attorney Martin Weinberg]
Martin Weinberg: [to Epstein] I like points 2,3 below but worry that too early a warning will simply result in their papering Patterson’s participation thus blunting any concern for how they exploit Patterson’s name. The points, however, feel strong and I would want to know more about timing from an insider. I do not think it in your legal interest to go on TV i.e. go strongly public for a variety of reasons and I do not understand how taking an anti-Trump position would help your legal or media life.
JE: I think thats in his interest not mine.
4/3/2016
JE: do you think we are closer to being able to get an advance copy of the book?
MW: On the usual cycle they would not have books until June. But I will query again. I would not wait for books to put a response in place. Your maximum point of influence is probably now, in the editing stage, when they are trying to minimize risks of litigation or adverse press. Of course, you can’t respond point by point, because you won’t have seen it. Hence, you’re negotiating blindly. But once the book is edited and vetted the house will have a vested interest in defending its decisions.
4/5/2016
Wolff asks Epstein for insight into the Panama Papers leak
MW: [subject: “in town this week?”]
JE: Tonite
MW: for how long?
MW: In addition to all else, need any insights into this Panama Papers leak
JE: I’m your man
MW: When can you chat?
4/8/2016
MW: Do you know Isaac Perlmutter, who sold Marvel to Disney and lives in Palm Beach?
JE: No
MW: Alas
4/14/2016
MW: [to Erinn McGrath] Hi...do you have copies yet on the Patterson book? Thanks, Michael
Erinn McGrath: Hi Michael, I’m sorry for the delay! Nothing in just yet, and the on-sale date has been moved to late August. I will keep you posted!
MW: When’s your best guess for copies?
Erinn McGrath: We’re late on this one...hopefully May?
MW: [forwards email thread from McGrath to Epstein] see below...
Martin Weinberg: [to Epstein--attachment missing] As just received
JE: ask him to submit qwuestions in writing as a prelude
Martin Weinberg: So i am certain, this thought is superseded by decision for reid to author second letter?
JE: [forwards thread to Michael Wolff]
MW: My view: 1) Nothing to be gained by talking to him--especially considering that the book, if it is to come out in August, is already written; 2) He’s only trying to talk to you to lend credibility to what he already has; 3) I’ll be the delay, as indicated by the publisher, involves legal vetting and Little, Brown lawyers asking him to reach out to you for comment; 4) The face that the lawyers might be nervous offers you an opportunity to indicate that they might expect an aggressive response from you to the book, meaning they will be more conservative in what they let him say; 5) I would have your attorneys write the letter I suggest you write; again, book publishers are not journalistic organizations and od not have the resources to independently vet facts so they always runs scared.
4/20/2016
MW: Catch up?
JE: not until Monday, happy passover
MW: I’m in Mexico City early next week giving a speech, back Wed. If you’re around at the end of the week let’s catch up. And a happy Pesak to you too!
4/28/2016
David Ingram (Reuters): [to Martin Weinberg] Hi Marty, The attached lawsuit was filed this week in federal court in California alleging that Jeffrey Epstein and another man, Donald Trump, raped her in 1994. We’re planning to publish a story on the suit this afternoon, and we want to make sure it is fair. Is Mr. Epstein available to speak? Or do you want to offer a comment on this behalf? My number is [REDACTED] and I’m available any time. I also just tried your cell phone. Thank you in advance. David Ingram
Martin Weinberg: [forwards email to Epstein] Reporter said 1994 claim fed ct California Will go to press in several hours
JE: [forwards email thread to Michael Wolff]
MW: Well, I guess if there’s anybody who can wave thus away, it’s Donald. Let me know if there’s anything I can do.
JE: no , obviously somoene who is deranged, but lets see, it will be released by reuters this afternoon supposedly
5/11/2016
MW: [subject: “Are you around?”]
JE: paris [REDACTED]
MW: Any news?
JE: none.. trump lawsuit thrown quickly out. .
MW: all bizarre.
5/25/2016
MW: I’m interviewing him this afternoon. Anything you think I should ask?
Epstein often posts “Trump brain dumps”
JE: do you want to be provocative . ? trump shuttle. hawaiin tropic contests. . mortgage on mara lago. . ? revenue of golf courses as income.??! . total debt of all cos . ? people don’t want to contribute money as he said he is worth over 10b , why should they? , calif already coming up short. . father bought chips in the casino to stave off bankruptcy, chips because it was better than a first lien. under the gambling rules. matt his bag man? his loan from his brother in law (JUdges husband) how much did his father leave.. his brother robert etc. otherwise you can just throw easys
MW: Job is to get through the hard ones in without being ejected from the room. What’s the one question that pierces through?
JE: maybe you could ask why bernie nussbaum got vince fosters letter quickly, that is a Hillary problem. he would smile then you can ask his relationshipwith the electricians union and maralago . and out you go.
MW: What’s the thumb nail on Nussbaum/foster
JE: Nussbaum white house counsel. . Hillary doing naughties with vince
MW: What was the letter?
5/26/2016
JE: how did it go?
MW: These campaign things are intense, disorganized, frustrating. But interesting. I ended up with him as he ate pints of ice cream in his creepy Beverly Hills house. He’s quite a strange monster. Desperate desire to be liked for such a combative guy. Any chance you’re around next week?
6/1/2016
MW: [The Donald Trump Conversation: Politics’ “Dark Heart” Is Having the Best Time Anyone’s Ever Had]
6/9/2016
MW: [subject: Are you in Paris, by any chance?]
JE: nope , i assume you are? hows the weather?
MW: Today, spectacular.
6/22/2016
MW: [subject: “Your view of Brexit?”] Got a few minutes to chat?
JE: [REDACTED]
MW: Will try you at about 11:00
JE: ok
MW: [to Erinn McGrath] Just wondering what the current status is of this. Again, would love to get a copy. Should be available by now, no?
Erinn McGrath: Thanks for following up on this — we expect manuscript this week :)
MW: [forwards email thread between himself and Erinn McGrath to Epstein]
MW: [subject: “My Viacom column from this morning”] [Michael Wolff on How a Cornered Philippe Dauman Could Save His Viacom Job]
7/2/2016
JE: could you requiest the manuscript this week, id appreciate it
MW: Yup. On it. But if they said they are just getting manuscript now, that means they won’t have galleys for minimum if four months and up to eight months. Continues to sound odd, if not fishy, to me.
7/4/2016
MW: Still not too late to jump down their throats with lawyers. They are vulnerable because Patterson didn’t write the book he’s claiming to write. It’s not edited or lawyers yet so you could still have big impact. And I won’t add that if you don’t tell the story someone else always will.
JE: [forwards to Kathy Ruemmler]
Kathy Ruemmler: I don’t see how you do it in your own voice and not get sued by VR’s lawyers.
7/7/2016
JE: Manuscript ?
MW: Not in house yet and will be minimum of 8 weeks after it comes in before being edited and legaled and ready for any form of pre-pub distribution. So they say.
8/1/2016
MW: [after long thread asking publisher when James Patterson’s book Filthy Rich will be published] Any chance you have galleys yet or [a manuscript] you’re showing? Best, Michael.
8/2/2016
Erinn McGrath: Yes! We can pass along a copy so long as you’re able to sign a NDA
MW: That’s no problem. Do you want to send me the NDA? And when is official pub date now?
Erinn McGrath: Gabby, cc’ed can get you the NDA! The new pub date is 10/10
MW: Great. Thanks. m
8/3/2016
Michael Wolff signs and NDA with James Patterson’s publisher, for an advanced copy of the manuscript “Filthy Rich”
Erinn McGrath: Thanks for signing this NDA, Michael -- we will let you know once we’re able to send you a copy of the manuscript.
MW: [forwards email thread to Jeffrey Epstein]
MW: [forwards Forbes 2016 list of World’s Highest-Paid Authors - James Patterson is on top, Wolff is not included] FYI
JE: ugh
8/4/2016
JE: woudl roger like dinner with you me and woody?
MW: I will ask
8/5/2016
MW: hey...do you know when I might get this? Today by any chance? Just have a block of time this weekend when I thought I could go through it. Best, Michael
JE: news
MW: None. Pinged them earlier, no response.
8/11/2016
MW: Got a status on this? Thanks. m
JE: Ping
MW: Have pinged them.
8/15/2016
The publisher gets cold feet…
Erinn McGrath: Hi Michael, unfortunately I am not able to share anything at this time, though I will let you know as soon as I am able to. Thanks for your patience!
8/18/2016
MW: [to Epstein] Weird.
9/6/2016
JE: any word?
9/12/2016
JE: thoughts?
MW: I really have no idea. I’ve pinged them again. I assume there will be one of two responses to the book: 1) It get’s some traction as a tabloid story, but mostly regarded as more of the same, tho if it has new allegations it will get more tabloid attention; 2) It blows out into a major best-seller, which means it will cross-over from tabloid into mainstream, with significant cable news coverage, a revisit by the New York Times, etc. You should be getting ready to respond. If it falters you won’t have to respond. But if it break big, you’ll need some sort of plan, to say the least. I will not say I told you so.
9/18/2016
JE: do you think i should have a book signing party, ? it could change the narrative
MW: Yes, or at least something like that. By the way, I’m having lunch with Ailes tomorrow. If you’re still interested, I’ll suggest a get-together. Would be interesting.
JE: any idea of time tomrow?
MW: Time tomorrow?
JE: ailes
9/19/2016
MW: With Ailes? Oh no. I didn’t mean tomorrow. I’m going to his house upstate for lunch tomorrow. Thought I’d propose it to him. At the moment he’s still in hiding.
9/22/2016
MW: I was talking to an editor at New York Magazine who has worked closely with Connolly in the past who says that Connolly was famous for stories that could not be verified and so hence had to be closely legaled and invariably paired back. Hence, most of Connolly’s work ended up being merely other published sources repeated and his own reporting eliminated in the final work.
JE: nothing from hacette?
MW: I have a feeling Connolly may know that I know you and they may have gotten spooked.
9/23/2016
MW: Quick zip through this looks like super pulpy dramatic recreations, so more of same and not any new investigation.
JE: but the book must be available somewhere?
MW: Depends how tightly it’s embargoed. But it’s for sale the week after next--the 10th. I will try calling them again. Or try to get someone else to do it.
JE: thx , it is trash , they didn’t even get my eye color right. though it is on every docujment
MW: My immediate sense is that it is so bullshitty that it explains itself.
9/24/2016
JE: this bad book now gives us a reason. a review, with some of the basics . he even gets my eye color wrong. . though he said he wanted to interview me, he only asked AFTER the book was written not along the way. the girls police report transcripts were not under oath , and were taken as they were being threatened with a crime. the one young girl said she told everyone she was over 18. . it says each girl knew what to expect when they were brought to the house by their friends. it has a descipriotn of the garbage man, asked to go through my garbage. almost a chapter devoted to his life. i think if you can put this as the lead to your article, it now makes sense to come out thoughts?
MW: At this point, I think it’s worth waiting to see how the book does.
JE: you can also add , fresh political juice by stating that Clinton was never on the island. I never met Al gore. no diiners on the island with either , no matter how much detail has been in the press. in fact boies Gores attny, knows that byt continues to represent the fabricator. the girl who claimed prince Andrew had sex with her also accused Stephen hawking and marvin minsky, . ? ehud barak on a gulfstream with five security guards looking the other way. ? all ludcrous.
10/1/2016
JE: time to talk today, ? now that the book is a dud, no trump, clinton etc. I woudl like to move forward.
MW: I can chat now. [REDACTED] Or if not, when works?
10/2/2016
JE: can we do the 15th or 16th instead of the 10th?
MW: yes, either/or.
10/3/2016
JE: i did not like the woody tv show ATALL
MW: Yeah, he really phoned that one in.
10/13/2016
JE: You back?
MW: Yes. When would you like to get together?
10/14/2016
Simon van Zulen-Wood: [to Michael Wolff] Dear Michael, I hope you’re well. I’m writing a feature on Alan Dershowitz that delves in part into his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I gather you are or were friendly with Epstein. I’m curious if you ever spent time with the two of them or if you’ve got insight into their friendship. If so, [REDACTED] like to talk by phone in the coming days. Many thanks, Simon
MW: [forwards email to Epstein]
MW: [subject: “Get together?”]
JE: Sun 11v?
MW: Ok.
10/16/2016
MW: [subject: “See you at 11”]
JE: yes
10/21/2016
JE: did trump also ignore ailes? wild
MW: Ailes said he gave up trying to give advice, that Trump was the boy in pre-school who you just knew was going to throw a truck at another kid’s head.
10/26/2016
Wolff continues to push for a documentary of Epstein’s life
MW: The more I think about it, the more I like this documentary idea. You’d have to orchestrate the people willing to be involved, but if you created enough large events, people don’t have to take such individual responsibility for being there. And events like this with a wide variety of people give a quality of excitement and urgency to what you do and who you are, relegating the charges to significantly smaller places in your life.
10/29/2016
MW: [subject: “Now could be the time”]There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?
11/4/2016
JE: megan kelly is going to keep your boy roger in the news for a long time.
MW: I’ll say.
11/9/2016
MW: [subject: “What happens now?”]
MW: and are you around?
JE: Number
MW: [REDACTED]
11/10/2016
MW: What was behind this, do you know? Or just nutters?
JE: al taylor , pr former jerry springer. producer
MW: crazy
11/13/2016
JE: ehud barak coming at 430 . you are wlcome as always
MW: See you then
11/14/2016
MW: [subject: “What’s your schedule like this morning?”]
JE: free at 12 or 10:30 -11
MW: 12:00 is good.
JE: sorry 1 ? lesl says i have an out of office meeting at 1130
MW: let’s do 10:30 then.
JE: ok
11/28/2016
MW: Thought you might be interested in this--it’s suddenly made me the only liberal-media guy with access to Trump circle [Steve Bannon Trump Tower Interview] and...I have a bit of an idea for you re media and Saudi friends.
First indications of Wolff meeting with Saudi leadership
JE: im in palm beach is roger here?
MW: I think so.
JE: I’m here today flying to nw york tomow. if he is up to it iId love to sit with him , house or on plane if we wants a ride
MW: I will ask. How long in New York? Get together?
JE: wed and fri and yes, Ive set you up to see the right hand of the Dep Cr Prince
MW: cool. great.
JE: im happy to go to him. if he is shy
MW: He is not so much shy, as paranoid. I have to contact him through his wife on a burner phone, which they don’t reliably check. But have queried.
11/29/2016
MW: They came back to New York yesterday. He would like to meet you, tho wary of being seen, etc. I will work it out.
JE: would you like to ask him to dinner tomorrow night you me and woody my house
MW: My guess is that he will be too paranoid. He believes NYP photographers are following him. But will ask.
JE: if dick cavett comes will that influence rogers decision
MW: Have left words on the burner phone. (When I go to his house in Garrison, he sends the driver but I always have to be waiting at a different location—spy tradecraft!)
11/30/2016
MW: [subject: “This from RA“] Thanks for the kind invitation. It is very appealing But can’t make it right now... will call you tomorrow.”
JE: if dick cavett comes will that influence rogers decision
MW: Maybe. He’s...mulling. And probably Googling. But he seems very interested.
12/8/2016
MW: [subject: “Are you around?”
JE: Next week all week
MW: Great. Let me know when you have a minute.
12/13/2016
JE: Michael can you do today at 12 instead of tomorrow
MW: I can’t. With the Trump people today.
JE: no problem, im happy for you
12/25/2016
JE: new york or florida?
MW: New York. You?
JE: palm beach
12/27/2016
MW: What’s the take on that Saudi piece today in the Times? Whose agenda is driving?
JE: no one at thewheel
MW: I have been thinking about this Saudi thing. It is really the ultimate change-the-narrative gift. It instantly redefines you—in kind of a mind-boggling way. When its underway take me with you on one trip and I’ll do the story. Good for the Saudis, because the story gets out in a sympathetic fashion, and for you because it turns you into the Jew with the Middle East in the palm of his hand. m
2017
1/5/2017
JE: Im in palm beach, you? ailes?
MW: I’m in NYC. Ailes is in PB and I will try to set something up. How long are you there?
JE: mon
1/10/2017
MW: [subject: “Ailes”] Sorry, I was supposed to tell you that Ailes would like to organize something with you for the next time you’re down, he was in bad shape over his leg problems this weekend. But look forward to telling you about the six-hour dinner I had with Ailes and Bannon last week at my house. Are you...where?
JE: ny just landed 430pm
MW: If you’ve got time this week, let me know. m
JE: today 430?
MW: great. see you then
1/11/2017
JE: did you like my buddy deepak
MW: Very much. Can you give me his email? We’re going to hang out. Eager to hear about Saudi trip when you return. m
JE: i sent him your email address
MW: Thanks
1/12/2017
MW: [subject: “Tomorrow?”]
1/23/2017
JE: im in palm , if roger is here?
MW: Let me try to set it up. How long will you be there? Did you do the Saudi trip?
JE: They came to see me.and go to inauguration events instead just landed here in pb stay until thurs .
MW: I did three day inaugural slog. Somewhat interesting.
1/26/2017
MW: So Roger mentioned to his lawyer, Mark Mukasey, that he is getting an introduction to you and Mukasey (who I just got off the phone with) flipped out: “Ain’t gonna happen in this universe.” I am anticipating that Roger will shortly call you and want to do it anyway. But then he will call Mukasey to torture him and Mukasey will double flip out and get Rudy involved. This is generally how everything happens with Roger now, mostly, I think, a key indication that he has nothing to do except fan the flames of the much reduced around him. m
JE: Thx
2/15/2017
Wolff asks to be introduced to Tom Barrack, in order to get “an off-the-record perspective on White House procedures”
MW: [subject: “A few favors...”] So...I’m doing this Trump book for a pile of money and with so far quite a bit of cooperation from them (DT) called me the other day and spent 45 minutes on the phone ranting and raving about the media—alarming). I wonder if you could introduce me to Tom Barrack—just to say I’m a journalist who you know and trust, and that I’ll follow up with a description of the project that I’m doing. Also, I’d love a reintroduction to Kathy Ruemmler. I need some off-the-record perspective on White House procedures. Are you in NYC soon?
JE: of course ok to both. . .
JE: can you send me an email to forward to tom. hes in the middle o some of the mess at the moment. everyone lawyering up in the wash. .
MW: When in NYC?
JE: kathy agreed
MW: Thanks. Any time to get together today?
JE: 12?
MW: Dear Jeffrey, You mentioned you were friends with Tom Barrack and I wondered if you might introduce me to him. As discussed, I’m doing a book on the first 100 days of the Trump White House—POTUS and key staff know all about it and are cooperating—and would love to chat with Tom on or off the record. Thanks in advance and looking forward to seeing you soon. All best, Michael
JE: [Kathy Ruemmler enters the chat] Kathy - Michael Michael-Kathy
MW: Jeffrey, thanks. Kathy, would love to chat at your convenience, entirely on background of course. Thanks, m
2/22/2017
MW: [subject: “Tom Barrack”] Do you think getting together with him will happen this week?
2/24/2017
JE: Home
MW: Just coming back from DC. Do you have any time over the weekend?
JE: Dick cavett lunch?
MW: Sure.
MW: Saturday or Sunday?
JE: sat
MW: Great
2/25/2017
MW: [subject: “What time is lunch?”]
JE: 1230
MW: see you then
3/2/2017
JE: will you see tom tomorw
MW: he put it off till next week.
3/4/2017
JE: Im in palm beach, you? . if you get a chance see if you can gleam the name of the next us ambassador to INDIA
MW: NYC. Was at WH all week. What are some of the names being discussed and I will fish this week?
3/9/2017
MW: I’m in the WH all day today What names for the ambassador to India are you hearing so I can have some casual references?
JE: tellis was trying but too weak, in the face of pak and afgan,
MW: Ok, seeing Bannon today, so I will float. Also, there’s a Washington PR type named Juleanna Glover with whom you might want to chat. Elon Musk basically owns her now and I’m not sure she can take on other clients, but she will have a valuable perspective on how you get to where you want to be.
JE: ok, try to get some feedback on india. you can also bounce off bannon brock pierce who you met at my house. brock says they are close. have no idea.
MW: thanks. interesting.
JE: Indians prefer petrauus
JE: news?
MW: I mentioned Tillis to Bannon and got a not-too-enthusiastic “maybe.” On the dreary train back to NYC now. You?
JE: Be in sun
3/14/2017
JE: [REDACTED] TOM
MW: is that cell?
JE: Yes
3/15/2017
Wolff plans to discuss all he knows about White House operation “100% off the record” with the Saudis
MW: [subject: “saudis”] Do you think there’s any chance I can see them in NYC? Heading back tonight. Tom and I are fixed up by the way—thanks on that. m
JE: The std gun shy
MW: Understand. If it would help, 100% off the record, and I will share with them all I know about WH operation.
JE: Under close watch , very close. New York better
MW: Yes. Ok. I’m free tomorrow and Friday in NYC if it can work. I’ll offer value to them—can give a close in view.
JE: Ok.
3/19/2017
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC?”]
JE: Palm [REDACTED]
MW: Will call this afternoon
3/28/2017
JE: Barrack
MW: In DC supposed to see him.
JE: Great.
MW: Just did two hours with Bannon on who’s trying to kill whom. Tough place.
JE: Thorbjørn Jagland with me for two weeks starting April 6. GOID one for you
3/29/2017
JE: new york?
MW: Back on Fri.
3/31/2017
JE: free for achat?
MW: On the Acella in quiet car. Could move if urgent, or will be home at 4:00.
JE: 430 ok
MW: Great
MW: Whenever works for you. [REDACTED]
4/2/2017
JE: did you get the ffeeling that barrack has been sidelined”? cant tell if investigation or internal has sent him underground
MW: He was very responsive until last weekend, then silence. I heard that he’s been accused of being a leaker about WH battles. In conversation I had with him he strongly implied that personnel changes were coming, so could be the case. I don’t think he’s a Bannon or Preibus fan.
4/5/2017
JE: [Bannon Taken Off Trump National Security Council in Shake-Up]
MW: War between the Jews and the non-Jews. Jews presently winning.
JE: Yup , tillerdon unhsppy with Jared in Iraq . Pence given health bill . Kelly conway in trouble . All fun barrack gone dark
MW: I got a message from Barrack—he’s in LA.
JE: soo many people in wash lawyering up. wild
MW: Tell me. What do you know? Are the lawyering up about Putingate? Or more?
JE: rice. Flynn manafort , staff. . aides. Im home in new york sat
MW: Great. Let’s catch up then.
4/8/2017
JE: I will be in soho with boris. what s your schedule?
MW: I’m around all day. You name it.
JE: 930 my house or 11 in soho
MW: 11 in Soho
JE: 11 at la duree again ?
MW: Great
4/9/2017
JE: you might suggest to ban non that he meet with terje Larson . Terje has negotiated with Assad and has the best understanding of the region.
JE: [To Charm Trump, Paul Manafort Sold Himself as an Affordable Outsider]
MW: How come everything you tell me is in the newspaper days later? Are you two-timing me with other reporters?
JE: never
4/10/2017
JE: focus on gary cohn, puppet master
4/20/2017
JE: around today/?
MW: In DC now (WH until 3AM). But should be back by early afternoon.
JE: count me in
MW: Coffee later this afternoon? 4ish?
JE: yes great
JE: 430 better
MW: Ok
4/21/2017
MW: [subject: FYI] “Perkins Coie represented John Kerry’s presidential campaign and the Presidential campaign of Barack Obama, and continues to represent President Obama. The firm also represents the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.”
4/23/2017
Epstein consults with Wolff about hiring a PR person to cover Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial in New York
JE: I want to hire a pr person to cover the ghislaine trial innew york may 15 for 5 weeks. suggestions they can shape the story
MW: Matthew Hiltzig or Judy Smith, off the top of my head. If I can help with inquires, let me know. I might also hire someone in London, where a lot of the coverage is going to come from. Oliver Lloyd in London.
JE: i want a person to sit in the courtroom
MW: Why? I mean, if that’s advantageous, they’ll have someone to do that--or maybe do that themselves. But not sure that’s the most direct root to shaping a story. But I don’t know. And you should just talk to them. There are two guys, I know, who have done a lot of trial stuff, Richard Schwartz and key Frydman--they were once partners and both were Mort Z‘s PR guys. And again, London piece is important.
JE: ill speak to anyone you suggest. . have you heard anything about guiliani?
MW: do you want me to set up some calls? What aspect of Guiliani?
JE: hes been said to be in cross hairs
MW: For Turkey thing?
JE: Yes
JE: yes, calls this week would be helpful, do you think it i s a good idea?
MW: Yes. Necessary.
MW: HE seems still pretty popular in the WH. My impression is that he may actually get his diplomatic plea bargaining to work for his client.
MW: [subject: “PR”] Just had a chat with Hiltzig. You should definitely speak to him. How would you like me to set it up?
JE: Tomorw
MW: Why don’t I put you or [REDACTED] directly with n touch with him?
4/26/2017
MW: You should speak to Oliver Lloyd in London, very good at running interference with the tabloids and shaping their coverage. And they will feed on this trial. I will set up details with Lesley. About to begin another long night in the WH...
4/27/2017
MW: [subject: “crown prince”] Was with Bannon last night who was saying how much Trump liked deputy crown prince: “Real guy’s guy, he loved him. Thinks they can do stuff together.”
JE: yes great
5/1/2017
MW: OK to reach out to Ollie Lloyd?
JE: yes
MW: [subject: “Juleanna Glover”] She can do lunch on Thursday. Possible?
JE: great are you joining?
MW: Yes. 12:30?
JE: perfect
5/3/2017
JE: can we do 12 instead of 1?
MW: Can we call it 12:30?
JE: yes
MW: 12:30 with Juleanna Glover... Also Ollie Lloyd told me you chatted. If you want to discuss, don’t hesitate. m
JE: [forwards email between Oliver Lloyd to Lesley Groff to Michael Wolff]
MW: You will like him. These are all smart people.
5/4/2017
JE: thanks alot
MW: My pleasure
5/5/2017
JE: I liked [REDACTED] idea. abramovitz? . could i use the fact that for ex I have bought the entire theatre tonight so that the diplomats would be invited free. to good effect , its been very quiet for year. peace not democracty however as its main thrust
MW: Not quite sure. I think if the idea appealed to you, then you should ask [REDACTED] to make the reach out and go from there. We need some more information to cook this.
JE: should we invite [REDACTED] to tonights performance. . 1
MW: I know she’s hosting event in DC tonight. But why not invite her anyway. [REDACTED]
JE: hope you guys had fun
MW: That was a treat (and I usually hate the theater). And really liked Tom Pritzker. Are you leaving or staying for a bit?
5/9/2017
MW: How’s your schedule?
JE: 8 am?
MW: Sure
5/10/2017
MW: Curious what you’re hearing. I was with Priebus a half hour before it broke and had strong impression he didn’t know it was happening. Many in WW openly deriding Clinton pretext.
JE: just landed in new york. number?
MW: [REDACTED]
5/17/2017
MW: [subject: “Can yo chat today?”]
JE: number?
MW: [REDACTED]
5/18/2017
JE: Ailes
MW: [Michael Wolff on Roger Ailes’ Final Days and a Complicated Murdoch Relationship]
MW: Death is a drag.
JE: Worse even than a sexual harassment charge.
5/19/2017
MW: [subject: “Today?”] How’s your schedule?
JE: 8 am?
MW: Sure
5/20/2017
JE: Call my cell
MW: What’s your cell #?
5/30/2017
MW: I’ve been cancelled on for today. Appears everybody gone to ground. Seems Priebus decision expected.
JE: New York tonight.
MW: Breakfast?
JE: Colonoscopy
MW: Who’s your colonoscopy man?
JE: Krumholtz
MW: His son was in my son’s class at Collegiate.
JE: [Close friend of Trump investigated over alleged €170m tax evasion]
MW: Do you think this means anything more than that it is Italy?
JE: call
6/3/2017
JE: [attachment: DKT_402_Govt_St_of_Undisputed_Facts_re_SJ_Motion.pdf] before plaintiffs lawyers made up stories
MW: This case of yours is inexplicable.
6/8/2017
JE: [forwards Matthew Hiltzik email about PR questions] Thoughts
MW: A bit tone deaf, but a reasonable basis for creating a brief. If there’s any issues you’d like me to clarify with him or explore, lemme know. It’s just a friendly lunch, with the prospect of some Trump info.
MW: Having lunch with him tomorrow. Can I be of any help there? m
JE: Christie back in
MW: As...?
6/12/2017
JE: now where?
MW: NYC going to DC tomorrow (I think). You?
JE: number to call?
MW: [REDACTED]
6/13/2017
MW: [subject: “Are you in DC?”]
JE: no meeeting in new york today
MW: By the way, just watched Session’s testimony with Bannon and Kushner
JE: what was the takaway
MW: Bannon in charge, happy, hunkered down, Jared quiescent. Both believing it’s all about the great left-wing media conspiracy, though Bannon also blaming “geniuses around here” for not understand it’s a “death match.”
6/17/2017
JE: any insight into the wh views on qatar
MW: Have heard Bannon say derogatory things about Qatarians including that we are going to move the base. But this said in a spouting off, fuck them, fashion, more than as policy, but then again who knows what’s policy with these guys
6/20/2017
MW: [subject: “Whereabouts?”]
6/29/2017
JE: are you in new york?
MW: In Majorca until the 4th. Giving a speech.
7/6/2017
MW: [subject: “in New York, by any chance?”]
JE: where today?
MW: I’m in NYC
JE: Paris Call my cell
7/7/2017
MW: [subject: “just tried you...”]
7/11/2017
MW: [subject: “Thursday?”]
JE: Call me if free
MW: Just called [REDACTED]
7/12/2017
MW: [subject: “Tomorrow?”]
JE: yes
MW: Just say when
7/19/2017
MW: [subject: “Are you around tomorrow or Friday?”]
JE: Tomorw late
MW: I’m having dinner at WH tomorrow now, so not back till fri.
JE: can do fri at 11 am
7/20/2017
MW: Any thing you’d like me to ask Bannon over dinner tonight?
JE: Qatar? Saudi
MW: ok
JE: Brock pierce the little bitcoin. Guy you met with summers at my house . Supposedly they are close . I’d like to meet Bannon. Talk markets
7/21/2017
JE: how did it go? what time do you get back?
MW: Four hours with Bannon. He ripped the sheets off. Yikes. At Penn Station at 2:00
JE: great. are you coming straight to me/?
MW: That’s the plan.
JE: great
MW: Train is running late. Still work for you?
JE: Yes
7/24/2017
JE: scaremmuci wants priebus job. . jared and steve , butting heads. priebus is dangling but has contributed money via committee of 25 m
MW: Yes. Butting heads hardly describes it. DT has “offered” CoS job to Powell, Mulveaney, Urban, and Mooch. So far.
7/28/2017
JE: mooch told everyone he had a billion dollars. hated fincial disclosure or less than 100 / Tillerson ready to jump
MW: I think this Mooch deal is in trouble
7/29/2017
JE: fun?
MW: Omg. Really, I’m finally convinced this can’t last.
JE: chat?
MW: In 45. What #?
JE: 5pm ?
MW: I meant 45 minute from now. But could do 5 also. What works best for you?
JE: Great. Look forward. You’ll call? 9178259659.
7/31/2017
JE: donald now down on Tillerson
MW: ...he’s trying to get Sessions to take Homeland Security. Do you know Sam Waksal?
JE: not well. martha stewarts old buddy
MW: Met him at dinner last night. He had some good Trump stories.
JE: Told you from the begiining donald views the white house like a country club, he replaces the people for the first year. sometimes each week. this is now different
MW: You did. But does he ultimately make it work? Or semi work? Or is just persistent chaos?
JE: wont know until oct
8/3/2017
JE: Grand jury - bad news
MW: Just getting back from WH. Talk is about firing him.
8/4/2017
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC, by any chance?”]
8/6/2017
JE: chat today?
MW: Late morning?
JE: ok
MW: [REDACTED]
JE: Call me again. Don’t have your #
8/14/2017
JE: are you buying the bannon on his way out story
MW: McMaster and Murdoch met on Friday. Murdoch on the phone all weekend briefing against SB. I’m texting with him now. He’s not letting on that he’s worried. On the other hand, he’s in open revolt against the other side.
JE: you coudlnt have chosen a better place or time
MW: Sheesh
8/15/2017
MW: Woody and soon Yi are coming for dinner on Friday. I’m trying to get Bannon to come. Probably won’t happen because he’s usually socially phobic, but if it does happen, would you be interested in coming?
JE: Yes
MW: Ok. Will let you know asap if it comes together.
8/18/2017
Epstein begins to press Michael Wolff to introduce him to Steve Bannon
JE: I assume no dinner
MW: Just spent two hours on the phone with Bannon. I saw Spicer and Priebus his week. I’d pretty much say that nearly 100% of the non-family senior staff of the first six months now believe that Trump can’t function in this job. I think they all became part of a Republican initiative to take him down. I hear Kelly trying to make Trump understand that Jared and Ivanka have to go.
JE: [REDACTED]
8/21/2017
JE: would you like to invite bannaon to one of the un dinners mogolia. qatar. kuwiat. saudi. etc at my house .
MW: will see him this week and discuss
8/24/2017
JE: im in wed -fri ,
MW: Great. I’m in DC on wed with Kushner. How about Thursday?
JE: [broken Huffington Post link]
8/30/2017
JE: do you come back tonight or tomorw
MW: tonight
JE: early enough to meet ?
MW: I can arrange. 5:00? Can possibly do earlier.
JE: Tonight?
MW: When works?
MW: Ill be back in nyc by 3:30.
JE: 4?
MW: Great. See you then.
9/3/2017
JE: Whit House this week?
MW: Probably won’t know until tomorrow. Waiting on both Jared and Trump. Can you chat? I have something to ask.
JE: sent you his book cover, he has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. on the short list.
9/12/2017
JE: like a divorce from mother nature — she got the house
MW: Jesus
JE: yup
9/18/2017
JE: Tillerson
MW: Chat?
9/21/2017
JE: he is trying to get rid of kelly now. wild
MW: Shit. I really need 60 days of relative stability.
9/30/2017
JE: around tomorrow?
MW: Yes
10/1/2017
JE: 9? 1130?
MW: What’s your afternoon like? I’m jammed on book edits thus morning.
10/6/2017
MW: [subject: “Bannon would like to meet”]
JE: Count me in. Tomorw I have president of UN. If you both would find it interesting
MW: For reasons I will explain, he wants a secret meet. I’m in transit. Let’s speak tomorrow.
JE: ok with me, can he do sat or sun?
MW: I will inquire.
10/7/2017
JE: any update?
MW: No, sorry. HE’s always like this. It’s some weird scheduling pot luck. I’ll query his scheduler who if possible is more disorganized than he is.
JE: thoughts?
MW: Tentatively Sunday at my house.
JE: Ok, Call me when awake
MW: Just tried you. [REDACTED]
JE: [broken link: www.linkedin.com/in/bonnietiar-hung]
MW: Or we can come to you if that’s more convenient.
Steve Bannon: we will meet
MW: Cool [forwards thread to Epstein]
10/8/2017
MW: [subject: “How’s it looking...?] lemme know
Steve Bannon: I’m in CT w/ donors to my revolution now all day...can we meet tomorrow?
MW: Sure. Give me a target window?
Steve Bannon: Did you see prince in nyt and djt tweets on corker???
MW: Yes!
MW: JE leaves for Paris tomorrow at 9:30AM. Could meet before or tonight.
Steve Bannon: Can’t make tomorrow Can we resked for when he returns
MW: [forwards thread to Epstein]
JE: Of course you are both welcome at me .
MW: [subject: “On the job”] But nothing yet to report.
JE: thx. what do you think happens re harvey., i would guess he is going to get sued and sued. especially since his lawyer said he engaged in illegal behavior
MW: This is just tip of the iceberg stuff. Beyond the settlements there are scores of “development dals” instead of settlements. Plus there’s tons of freaky stuff. His only saving grace is that unlike Cosby and O’Reilly he’s not really famous. On the other hand he’s an obsession among media people. I keep hearing about other people who are running very scared.
MW: He wants to know if tomorrow is possible?
JE: id aprrecitate if if you would try hard for me today air traffic control issue in paris starting tomorrow evening
MW: Trying. But always a struggle. He’s v spectrumy and can’t move beyond whatever gets his focus. I will keep you posted.
JE: thx
MW: He said he can do it then in NYC
JE: great
JE: ??
MW: Nothing. This is how it always goes. My impression though is that he does very much want to meet. But there’s a randomness to everything. Infuriating.
JE: no worry, i can do tonite if he surfaces
MW: I will make it happen and it’s worth it when it does.
10/9/2017
JE: harveys troubles have just begun now that he is fired civil suit time
10/13/2017
JE: jared within four months .oy , chat?
MW: definitely. 917-825-9659
10/14/2017
JE: jared attny , stuck in jersey on menedez trial
10/16/2017
JE: is your boy around Friday or over the weekend?
MW: I will see. NYC or DC?
JE: nyc
10/17/2017
JE: [Sends screen shot]
MW: Ha! Should I put it in the book?
MW: details to come.
10/19/2017
JE: schedule?
MW: on it
JE: Saturday even better. or Friday night now also open. Im returning from paris
MW: He says 11:00 on Sunday. Can that work?
JE: yes
10/20/2017
JE: ?? any news?
MW: Have pressed. But figure 11AM Sunday at my house, your house, or his hotel. More to come.
JE: Ok
10/21/2017
MW: Meeting will probably be at Brant Park Hotel, but have told him I consider your house “safe.” Also remember he could blow us off at a moment’s notice.
JE: i m aware. hotel not perfect , but im agreeable. . I can send a car for him if that helps
MW: Understood
10/22/2017
Wolff introduces Epstein to Steve Bannon, a friendship that will last until his death
MW: Gramercy Park Hotel. 11:00.
JE: Ok
JE: ill be there at 10 45 lobby
MW: In my experience, he’ll be running late. But see you then.
JE: how long do you expect we will be thre?
MW: An hour? But he’s all over the place. I’ve done 20 minutes. I’ve done 4 hours.
MW: They are running behind. Now suggest 11:15. Shall we meet 11:10 in lobby?
JE: yes
MW: 11:30 “locked.” See you at 11:20.
JE: ok
MW: I’m here.
JE: Where
MW: In Bryant Park Hotel lobby.
MW: You?
MW: 40 W 40
JE: To sent me gramercy
MW: Gramercy? Bryant Park hotel!
MW: Call me [REDACTED]
MW: My fault. Sheesh.
MW: But of course they’re running late
JE: great fun
MW: I heard enthusiastically from him. Ping me when you’re back and let’s think about W&S, seems precarious and that there needs to be a plan. I fear they are ostriches.
10/23/2017
JE: lets speak; . I agree on w s
MW: Ok. Will call later.
MW: 11:15?
JE: I tried to find the baboon the last 600 Meters. Could not find —/ anytime wed good
MW: I think SYP should perhaps go public about Ronan’s threat. Certainly that would be better than letting him spring it and letting him control the story. This would also be away of getting Woody out of the story. Soon Yi should just make it about her—and make it seem like Ronan’s attack is on her, rather than Woody.
JE: Woody prefers quiet
MW: nice to see a brilliant pr mind at work.
10/24/2017
JE: Any update(
MW: Flake just quit. So now it looks like he’s not coming to NYC.
JE: you might also suggest to SB that my meeting with him is just he and me. better to have total privacy on certain issues.
MW: I have suggested as much.
10/25/2017
JE: soon yi and woody thought good idea to hire harder. . you can follow up. . you can tell SB , I have some ideas for him
MW: will do
10/27/2017
JE: ?
MW: Haven’t heard anything. But Victoria saw Soon Yi yesterday and they seem worried and, it appears, more open to ideas.
11/1/2017
JE: Chat?
MW: 30 min.
11/2/2017
A curious statement about Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, former chairman of the New York Times
JE: if bannon outted Charlie and pinch Sulzberger, then what ?
MW: the end of the establishment as we know it
JE: that s the way i see it. . “ pinch “ sulz your silver bullet
11/4/2017
JE: Im back wed -sun. will SB be around?
MW: On it
JE: saudi fun today
11/5/2017
MW: Just spoke to SB, he’s all hepped up on Saudi stuff. He’s going to give me his Signal contacts, so you can be directly in touch. HE may be here during wed-sun period, not sure yet.
JE: asd you know im quite well informed about it. fun. and just the begiing
MW: I told him you were the man. He seemed to know that and to believe they need you to keep from financial meltdown.
JE: and only for your info. !!! IT IS NOT SECURE
MW: It is not secure? Then what is the point? FYI, just had Abbe Lowell on the phone for an hour defending Kushner.
JE: he is still caught in the menemdez trial , . it takes targeting to break . . and not difficult. don’t ask me , you and i never use it with each other. nsa put out the story that wickerman, confide , signal. are all unbreakable. . its like in the movies when they say re the gangster , shame he didn’t stay on the line long enough to track him as all numbers begin with 555
MW: He’s very anti Qatar
MW: Ok, but I’d like to find a way for you to have direct connection to SB. He’s disorganized as it is, and when you add another person in the loop, nothing will ever happen.
JE: signal is fine . i just wanted to tell you to be careful. i always am. I look forward to connecting with him. there are many issues he will find amusing.
JE: the paradise papers show the kremlin funneling money to Kushner by using uri milner. whoops
MW: I know Milner pretty well. Been waiting for him to be attached to Russian social media stuff.
11/8/2017
JE: any word on SB?
MW: Not a peep. I’ll pursue. VA a bit of a problem, I’m sure. He was confident there. You have insight on TW/Att?
JE: justice doesnt like it. anti trust voices loud
11/11/2017
JE: all good?
MW: Yup. Just rushing to close this book, final revision this weekend. Are you here next week?
JE: im here this weekend and maybe mondy. did you add “ volume 1 “
MW: Ha! No. But I suggested it. Publisher felt that would commit them to publish volume 2 (about which they will hedge their bets until they see how the first book does, of course). I am urging Bannon to fight this Moore thing. I think it’s an interesting test to see if the populist core feels radically different about this sex stuff.
JE: good idea,
11/12/2017
JE: chat?
MW: Sure. You’re around? You want to get together. I’m free after 11:30.
JE: 3?
MW: Sure. Yours?
JE: 230 me?
MW: See you then.
11/15/2017
JE: can yo ask SB if he plans to come to florida ?
MW: Will do... [Scoop: Hot book by constant West Wing visitor Michael Wolff]
11/17/2017
JE: Tell your buddy that Ken Starr will be with me and has great insight into special prosecutor
MW: when?
JE: Tuesrhru fri
MW: in NYC?
JE: palm bech
11/21/2017
JE: europe?
MW: Yup.
11/22/2017
JE: imagine if the clinton monica ,cigar insertion story, had come out now
MW: Imagine!
11/26/2017
JE: I spent many days now with Ken Starr, you might want to suggest to SB that it is crazy that no one on his side has spoken to the person who knows more about independent counsel investigations than anyone else by far. boundaries. tactics. procedures.
MW: I’m not sure which side SB is on. And sounds like more of the WH incompetence which is going to take them down. Just arriving in Venice.
11/29/2017
JE: [NBC Fires Matt Lauer, the Face of ‘Today’]
MW: I think Matt will be bigger than Harvey. Matt must have had a knot in his stomach when he had to report about Harvey and Charlie, et al. Andy Lack must have had a knot in his stomach when he fired Matt. It’s extraordinary. And annoying: Matt had just agreed to an exclusive interview with me about the book on publication day.
JE: yup
MW: I think Harvey, Matt, Charlie, Kevin, and Brett should just start a media company together.
JE: name?
MW: ManUp
JE: Sulzberger? sports guys? wall street. ? silicon valley guys said that they are few and far between as on one has any fun or creates jealousies.
MW: Snap Chat rife.
12/3/2017
JE: having fun? now we know the “ opera “ guy,
MW: What do you think? What’s going to happen in the next 5 weeks before my book comes out? And handicap me out 90 days. BTW, in Paris from 8th to 17th, if you are there.
JE: very possible that i will. Tillerson leaves to get replaced by haley, . don jr. may have an issue. invnaka gets an official job that requires her to be in new york
12/7/2017
JE: some journalists working a lead on a Melania boyfriend OY
MW: If so, I’ll be sorry to have missed that! But makes sense. Arriving in Paris tomorrow. You?
JE: sun
MW: We’ll be there all week.
JE: GREAT where ? have you heard from your boy?
MW: An apartment in the 6th. I got a note from him that he was in UK when I was there. Was going to get together with him and Boris Johnson. But they are both equally flakey to tenth power so of course did not happen.
12/10/2017
JE: are you here in paris?
12/11/2017
Wolff and Epstein discuss dodging Me Too
MW: Yes. Are you?
JE: Come visit . 3?today 22 Foch?
MW: 3:30?
JE: [REDACTED]. or give me a number to call.
MW: 9178259659. At lunch until 3:00.
JE: [Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS used Jeffrey Epstein in Donald Trump smear campaign]
MW: Looks like I can’t get away. But will be back in NYC on Sunday. Let me know when you’re back too. I have a bad feeling about this new Woody round. It could pull him into the general Harvey pool of the despised and shunned. Clearly what Ronan and company are hoping for. I think Bannon may be right. This is not going to end until Trump goes down.
JE: Strange time I have two more friends up to bat
MW: And they won’t be the last. My buddy, Lorin Stein, who runs the Paris Review--the Paris Review for god’s sake--just went down. The 80-year-old father of my friend Rachel Horovitz--the playright Israel Horovitz--whacked. Big names on the horizon: Michael Douglas, Larry Gagosian, and still my favorite, Arthur Sulzberger.
JE: you and i are old news? :) .
MW: Cross your fingers.
JE: believe you me, i do
JE: buzz feed, going wild trying to find wrongdoers. who are they . very ugly
MW: It’s a big media sweepstakes. Who can you get?
12/13/2017
JE: you were right about moore
MW: This of course makes the harassment pursuit all the more intense.
JE: Yup
12/15/2017
JE: questions about Jamie Dimon. whoops
MW: Oh man
JE: how did your boy handle the loss?
MW: He doesn’t give an inch.
12/19/2017
JE: NYtimes digging Jamie
MW: Also Leslie Moonves.
12/21/2017
JE: can you ask if SB will be in palm beach at all
MW: Will do
MW: [to Steve Bannon] JE wants to know if perchance you will be in Palm Beach anytime over the holidays
Steve Bannon: Coming in from north africa to palm beach late tonight...thre for 1 day tomorrow then gone
MW: If you have time JE would like to chat. cell [REDACTED]
MW: [to Jeffrey Epstein] He’ll be there for one day tomorrow. how does he contact you? best number?
JE: cell [REDACTED] or [REDACTED] 358 el brillo. it will be fun
12/22/2017
JE: have you heard from SB
MW: Not since that mail I copied you on.
12/26/2017
JE: what date for book release? when are you back?
MW: Jan 9. I am back.
JE: sorry, does that mean you are back now?
MW: yes
JE: [REDACTED]
12/31/2017
JE: Fun tonight?
MW: Too cold for fun. What about you?
JE: Palm
2018
1/2/2018
JE: [subject: “Book Launch”] is it out?
MW: Jan 9
1/3/2018
JE: holy shit
MW: Yes, yikes.
JE: donalds statement is even goofier than usual. you could have pushed him over the edge.
DONALD TRUMP’S STATEMENT ABOUT STEVE BANNON
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.”
JE: is it out?
MW: Jan 9
JE: when do i get my copy “:)
MW: No copies released until the 9th. I don’t even have any. They don’t want DT to start shouting until books are in the stores!
JE: fun. whos next in the sex suit. some law firms are really under the microscope. . some very wild stories
1/4/2018
MW: [subject: “Good god”]
JE: Any surprise s
MW: Just the storm level so far
JE: My insiders said the bald spot drove him mad ! And he was concerned that the next shoe would be his lack of real money . Revenue of golf courses listed as income , and total direct and entity debt undisclosed. Bald and poor Oy
MW: Ha! Wish I had said that. Anyway,#1 book in the country and no one has even read it yet.
JE: hes blaming everyone in the WH. livid. wild.
MW: I wish he would tweet something already.
Kathy Ruemmler: [to Epstein] Now being reported that Trump’s lawyers sent a letter to MW’s publisher demanding they not publish the book.
JE: [forwards to Wolff] ?
MW: Yes
JE: am i mentioned in the book? .
MW: Just passing reference that you, Tom Barrack, and Trump were once friends. One mention. No inference.
1/5/2018
JE: ok, barrack keeps texting me. good luck this morning. the next question is who will do YOUR biography now that you are world famous :)/ have fun today
MW: [“Steve Can Be Kind of Delusional:” Did Steve Bannon Talk Himself Out of His Own Movement?] Might be useful for me if in your chat with SB you suggest that I might have tapes of our discussion. I do—pretty near 100% of our discussions. So he should not deny.
JE: great. thanks.
JE: just saw your nbc , good work
MW: I wish I were handsomer—like you. Steve Bannon, who we will probably never hear from again, was obsessed with how handsome you are.
JE: thx, but i thought you looked and sounded great. ! i would suggest a little less defensive re your credibility . and more steady eye contact with host. . no hes ok he texted me right back today. 10 seconds
MW: Really? What did he say?
1/6/2018
JE: Im told bannon just sat with the wash post
MW: That could complicate things for the Jews
JE: Yes
JE: I think it ok , just now another received s text from m him confirming his trip to New York Monday I’m on cell if you want to war game
MW: I’m in quiet car
JE: I’m off the air in one hour , on line again at 6 am returning late tonight
MW: Ok
JE: If I get a read on post I will send early early
JE: how does it feel to have the president of the united states. at camp david. focus on you.. ! .
MW: I feel he truly must be off his rocker. Could there be a strategy here?
Another info-dump about Donald Trump
JE: It looks to me as you might have driven him over the edge. DJT: ‘I do things proper !!/ “ im really, like . smart. !! sounds like elizas father- donald dolittle. . . or dopey donald or demented donald. as I told you his statement from camp david was laced with “he has made billions and billions of dollars. he is reportedly petrified that his bluff will be called. . His 100 million dollar plane he said be bought from paul allen , is really a 1991 boeing 757 previously used by a Mexican airline. repainted . His- ladder capital finance llc, - ladder capital 1 finance llc , deutsche bank trust co americas . chicago unit acquisition .( it says “springing loan” over 50m -I never even heard of the term . as part of june 17 disclosure form he owes each more than 50 m apiece. but of course, not disclosed just -how much more. . declared the revenue of his real estate as INCOME without deducting expenses or taxes. all a sham
1/7/2018
JE: ruemmler suggests you focus on th three things you want to get across . . try to be measured. and little sarcasm. hyperbole etc as it wil be dissected internationally. . they will bring up your statement “ i said what i had to say to get the story “ . . . you want the public to have the opportunity to have a seat on the bench in the west wing as people they read about passby, stop , chat , vent . disclose. thier excitement. or frustration.. their views and their fears. . just so happens that most of it was frustration and fear. . “)/ he ran on the platform of telling it like it is. pakistan. freeing the mitlary for isis. and regulations. but seems frenzied if people tell the brutal truth about him. . :) have fun
MW: Good advice
JE: exciting . i would also stay away from questions re movie rights. seems to sensationalistic. / if you suggest you have been asked to do an expose of his true wealth. . tax returns release was a red herring. doesnt show anything at all. only how much taxbale income. the real question is how much money he owes and to whom . HAVE FUN
JE: how was the feedback?
MW: Quite good. NBC seems to think I have the knack. Bannon thing working in my favor.
MW: 855,000 now sold
JE: Wow I
MW: No, incorrect, that is just Amazon!
JE: I didn’t offer him a time yet . As I need my marching orders;)
Wolff mentions his taped interviews, using them for leverage
MW: Just his plan. Trump is going to go down—why doesn’t use this opportunity to strike out on his own? Also, gently imply I have tapes. I wonder, btw, if he isn’t interested in talking to you about in fact bringing down Trump. Can’t wait to hear?
JE: 212 772 9416
1/8/2018
MW: Up?
JE: Yes On conference finish in 10 min
JE: The rich and powerful ALWAYS send lawyers letters . A book about any one of them takes more time to publish as I must be -and I am , meticulous about documentation and back up
JE: he in keeping with past tradtion said he would confirm a time around 11 . no word since. . the example you might use, was when john mccain was grilling comey, and made some really weird statements everone looked at each other , with a “ what is going on: “ look. it turned out to be a brain tumor. . eveyone looks now with the same , WTF , look, at trump but has no idea what the future holds.
MW: Perfect. You should ping SB. He has some weird ADD thing. You remind him tho and he sometimes clicks back into plan.
1/9/2018
JE: Suggest that the stable genius release his transcripts so the world can see
1/10/2018
JE: he continues to reach out ?! . im careful
MW: I can’t see the downside.
JE: SB “no worry, still strong”
JE: how you doin? im surprised a bit , re the tone of your detractors. . I think DT , is so flustered his meeting yesterday was typical of someone who knows he has mental problem. . “let them decide” , (its too complex ). the guy in the street will understand the college transcript. bull .
1/11/2018
Epstein cryptically mentions the “Melania story” without explanation
JE: holding up? . his shithole countries comment. his i will sign whatever is put in front of me, clearly shows cracks in his mental state. . transcripts. could drive him over the edge if the Melania story doesnt come out
1/12/2018
MW: All good. It’s apparently the bestselling book in the world right now. Have sold a million dollars in translation rights advances in the past 48 hours. Also, Ari Emanuel was hustling me to be the movie/tv agent on the book, but then he decided just to buy the rights himself for a million bucks and do a series.
JE: Great!! I’m in palm with some of the retinue
MW: can’t wait to hear
JE: And sb reached out , my view -he will have to make some calculus before senate hearing
MW: You mean a calculus as to his position vis a vis DT?
JE: And base
MW: yes, very interesting.
1/15/2018
JE: sb said he is coming to new york later this week
MW: I don’t suppose he’d like to come to the book party.
JE: would be funny . - or I could have a birthday party on sat for myself. and have the theatre version of fire and fury. woody barrack. bannon. ruemmler. :)
MW: Let’s do it!
1/18/2018
By 2018, Epstein knows he’s under surveillance
JE: how was it.? why dont you stop by today so we can script tomorrow. - assuming no change. . prefer no details on email
MW: All good. I am everybody’s darling. Have to keep reminding people that I am actually quite unpopular. Apparently thing of the past--for now (excepting among a small circle of journalists). Ira Rosen, a 60 Minutes producer and a friend of Bannon’s, came with a message from SB: “You own [sic] me a few million.” Rosen also says he believes SB now weighing the strategy of making a formal and public break with Trump. I can’t get together today because I have to leave for DC at 11AM to speak to 800 book buyers (not to mention pre-signing 800 books). Then tomorrow AM to LA to do Bill Maher show. Making money is hard work.
JE: Great. I m thrilled for you . At the moment he’s coming tomorrow night
MW: Bannon’s “nationalist-populist” platform is coherent, rational, and, apparently appealing to a great many people. I can’t see why at this point he would want to use his world-stage stature to make an argument for it and to claim leadership of it. What does he have to lose? What else is there, except to suck up to Trump, and get the chance to be manhandled by him again?
JE: im off sat to europe mid east etc. return around the 30
MW: don’t forget I want to go with you to the mid east sometime....
JE: why don’t we also ask harvey weinstein to join to make sure we dont get any press :)
MW: Ha! On another note, this Woody thing is going south very quickly. Planning to speak to them this morning.
JE: yes, he is having what he refers to as his” brain trust”this weekend. but it appears the group needs a name change. They are all old thinkers. no social media strategy. no links to Connecticut report. . the jackals now lying in wait for the next movie release. which I believe cannot happen at all now. but they tell him what he wants to hear. wonder wheel grossed 7m at the box office. the new movie is young ditz, prostitutes. . drunken journalism student chasing an older guy. . The Connecticut ( hired by the state ) report front page. — WE interviewed dylan Nine times . two professionals AT THE TIME. we conclude that the story is fantasy. . NOTHING ELSE is relevant. mia. ronan. motives, policeman views. etc.
MW: HE has to turn this into a love story with Soon-Yi. She’s the only one who can save him.
JE: not intellectually capable. . and frankly -untiling. my shrink says .........
MW: Yes, yes, that’s their continuing resistance speaking. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is their ONLY option. AND it’s a slam-dunk one. She would turn it around. If Dylan is coming out to speak publicly, Soon-Yi also has to. If Dylan is allowed to be the center of this story, Woody is cooked. If Soon-Yi claims it--and she is actually the center of the story—everything shifts and they can make it their own.
JE: you and i as usual agree. - tell you more face to face. I am going to ask SB to sign your book
1/19/2018
JE: 2 hours of fun with SB
MW: Tell me tell me
JE: [REDACTED]
1/20/2018
JE: which coast
MW: Just back in NYC
1/21/2018
JE: achlles heal , Melania, transcript. Melania also focused on dates of porn star, before birth of baron or after. they also now have two army people escorting her to kids school :)
1/24/2018
JE: the emir, the crown prince. the sultan . the sheik. the prime minister, from different countries have asked for a signed copy :)
ME: You bet
JE: wed night , dinner with president of UN if you like , just us
MW: 31st?
JE: yes
MW: cool
1/28/2018
MW: [subject: “What are we to make of Simpson?”]
JE: do you have any specific questions re simpson
MW: I will. I’ve just read through it once. But immediately wondering about it’s impact—and who picks up the ball.
1/30/2018
JE: the lawyers think you should reach out to Simpson through fusion, but be aware that you make you a fusion/Simpson target if inquiry. . he cant help investigating the questioners. , and he is good and determined.
MW: ok. let’s discuss tomorrow. what time?
JE: 7
MW: Great
2/4/2018
JE: Did they buy your soon yi idea
MW: Sorry, next Saturday! I Cant get anything straight these days. When back?
JE: 12th
2/9/2018
Wolff discusses the $13 million “windfall” he’s made on his best-selling book, Fire and Fury
JE: scheduled for Tuesday in new york with your boy
MW: Fascinating. On another note, I need some financial advice. I’m taking a windfall this year—probably more than $10 million—and all I have is a nice lady accountant in a little office on Broadway. Everybody’s yelling at me to leave the state and convert to this or that type entity, blah blah. Who do I call?
JE: 561 655 7626 me
2/11/2018
MW: [subject: “WA and SY”] Good dinner with them. They both seem to understand the importance and power of SY speaking out. And they were both filled with devastating stories about Mia (did you know that when she was with Frank she had an affair with Polanski?). But today Woody seemed to have cold feet and said he didn’t want to take down Mia. So a bit more work to do. But interesting news is that they really do seem to have enough to take her down.
2/12/2018
JE: my idea is to have an independent investigation. funded by an amazon type. run by a female lawyer or former judgeetc. so woody can say after two months , they concluded such and such...
MW: My concern is that this would be seen as just relitigating—a new investigation rehashing the same investigation that have already taken place. What’s more, it is unlikely the Farrow family would participate, so it’s illegitimate from the get-go. If it came out in his favor it would be judged as bias in his favor. On the other hand, this would be no worse than the current situation and might be a little better. But ultimately it doesn’t change the narrative: He ran off with his daughter and therefore he is capable and likely guilty of anything.
JE: agreed, and amazing, told him to DO nothing. so he now has to follow their lead. sad.
2/14/2018
MW: Did it happen?
JE: No , he said he stayed as things had gotten hot
MW: as per always
2/20/2018
MW: [subject: “I’m in Paris. You?”]
2/21/2018
JE: Caribbean
MW: #1 in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, U.K.
JE: Yayy
Juleanna Glover: [to Michael Wolff] For some reason BBC is asking If I would put them in touch w you re Jeffrey. Do you want me to do this?
MW: [forwards to Epstein]
JE: Yes
MW: So you want me to speak to them? Do you know what it is about?
JE: No , get info?
MW: On the job.
JE: Yes!!
2/22/2018
JE: I had an hour on the phone today with sb
MW: Does he want to talk to me? And see attached.
JE: any specific quetsions for SB besides wanting to talk?
MW: Interested in Trumps key points of vulnerability—who does he fear the most—and in Bannon’s personal strategy? Kelly? Jared? Do you want me to further press BBC?
JE: Ok
2/23/2018
JE: [subject: “happy to sit with you at my house”]
JE: 561-655-7626 for downloand , nothing urgent
MW: Ok. In London and off to do an event in front of 1500 people
JE: great , hve fun
2/25/2018
JE: When are you back ? Steve going to uk Hungary Italy
MW: Back on Thursday. London now. Headed to Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne.
JE: Are you talking tonight?
MW: #?
JE: [REDACTED]
3/1/2018
JE: I think hicks will be indicted
MW: Back tonight. Will call tomorrow.
3/4/2018
JE: i thought you might prefer a meeting wtih ehud and I at around 2. instead of breakfast , but your choice
MW: That works. See you at 2.
3/5/2018
JE: remind me re hiltzig
MW: ok
JE: [linking in Terje Rød-Larsen] Michael terje, terje Michael
MW: Terje, at your convenience. Wonderful seeing you. m
Terje Rød-Larsen: Dear Michael, Great seeing you yesterday! Would lunch on the 12th or 16th work for you? Best, Terje
3/6/2018
MW: Love those guys. Also...having trouble getting a response from Simpson. Any ideas?
JE: ruemmler
MW: Great. Thanks. m
3/10/2018
JE: im in paris. [REDACTED]. coming tomorw
MW: Just tried you. [REDACTED]
3/11/2018
JE: please note
JE: 7 hiours
3/12/2018
MW: I will call you tomorrow
JE: ok
MW: are you back in nyc or still in Paris? what’s the best number?
3/15/2018
MW: [subject: “chat this afternoon?”] [Steve Bannon Says He Doesn’t Deny Anything That Michael Wolff Wrote About Trump In “Fire And Fury”]
JE: now?
JE: yes good
MW: 2:30 would be better. can that work?
JE: yes
3/16/2018
MW: Are you around this afternoon? 3:00ish? I’m having a 1:30 lunch with Terje at the Pierre. Could come by afterwards.
JE: no heading out at 1230
MW: Have fun
JE: call me 212 772 9416
MW: 20 min
3/19/2018
JE: loved your SNL character
MW: crazy, hey?
JE: Great
3/22/2018
MW: would be interested in anything you hear about Dowd resignation and what is to come.
JE: new york [REDACTED]
3/23/2018
MW: [subject: “SB”] I reached out and I’m seeing him at 6:00 today.
JE: i passed on your newsweek message yesterday. i think he is a bit lost no wins and donald off the rails
MW: I think his FT performance yesterday was quite a hit (btw, he reiterated that my book was all true—helpful!). Curiously, the liberals maybe more fascinated by him than the Trump base is.
3/24/2018
MW: Three hours with SB who believes DJT won’t last to the mid terms. Also saw Brad Karp who is super menchy and offering much help on next book.
4/1/2018
JE: in paris. not sure what woody has decided. russia focus was clever diversion for donald. .
MW: Woody and Soon-Yi coming for dinner this week. Who do you think was pushing him on Russia? Was out in LA this week on F&F series, seems like a go project—goal to get on the air this year.
JE: wow great
4/3/2018
MW: [subject: “When are you back in NYC?”]
JE: next week I think
MW: Between 4-6 today or 4-6 tomorrow...
JE: ny tine or paris time?
MW: that wasn’t meant for you--a delivery of 300 books in foreign languages. But I was in fact going to ask...when’s good for a chat?
JE: now? [REDACTED]
4/5/2018
MW: [subject: “We could go together”] [forwards the Women of the World Summit email from Tina Brown]
4/11/2018
JE: [REDACTED] if you have a moment . re woody
MW: On train in quiet car. Will call at about 11:30
JE: k
4/16/2018
JE: [subject: “Woody’s thoughts on a jeffrey profile”] “A very interesting profile could be done because the story is so colorful. Starting with the school teaching background with a few anecdotes that project a teacher’s salary into billions is amazing to begin with. Then the high profile work with major international figures. The Florida scandal giving your side of it-or-if that’s too touchy then throwing it away as a set back to a career that continued in spite of it to the current life style which is fascinating. The properties and elaborate houses, the major charity work and patron to cutting edge science, the dinners at the New York mansion with you sitting around the dinner table in sweat suit hosting utterly weird combinations for dinner-a scientist, a politician, a representative from a foreign government, a magician,Broadway comics-all mixed together with any number of come and go guests of all types. Then off on a private plane the next day (with ex girl friend as pilot maybe) to advise some newly emerging nation on their economy. All this paints a fabulously interesting picture of an amazing and totally unique life. I can’t imagine any journalist or writer of any sort passing up a chance to chronicle this. If s friendly, on your side about the scandal issue-could be relied on then a fabulous documentary is also there.”
MW: Hey...wait a minute...didn’t I already write exactly this?!
JE: :)
4/17/2018
MW: I had lunch today with Barry Diller who said that in his recent interview with Maureen Dowd, very prominently played, he voiced his full support for Woody—but the Times dropped that from the published interview. Have relayed this to Woody and Soon-Yi. He further said that Amazon will drop Woody. I didn’t tell them that.
MW: [subject: “speak?”]
4/21/2018
MW: Are you in nyc?
JE: yes free today
MW: 3:00? 3:30?
JE: 330
MW: See you then
JE: im going to flower market on 26 , sholud i meet you closer to you
MW: Sure. Whatever is convenient for you. But I can do anything.
JE: which coffe shop near you. soho? i know zero
MW: Marleton Hotel 8th St btw 5/6th? Very quiet. In the back. What time?
JE: 315
MW: Ok
MW: In bar area...walk toward back
MW: I just bumped into John Connolly.
4/22/2018
MW: Just remembered I have to give a luncheon talk tomorrow. So if, by any chance, you got an opening tomorrow AM that would be terrific.
JE: 18 usc 981
MW: You’re killing me
JE: [att: Trump-Financial-Disclosure-2017]
5/4/2018
JE: Are you with Steve
MW: No. Where are you? Speak later?
JE: Florida yes
5/5/2018
JE: hey, Im in florida flying to harvard for an all day, crypto, ai math quantum computing meetings ending with a dinner at my office with larry summers. you are invited.
MW: When? Today?
JE: sorry - tomrow
JE: nyt says trump talking directly to steve
MW: I can’t get to Boston tomorrow—but thanks for inviting. Where in NYT did you see this--can’t find.
JE: [Trump Talking to Steve Bannon Again Amid Multiple Investigations: Report]
5/9/2018
MW: [subject: “Can you chat?”]
JE: Im thinking if you shoudl interview a bunch of characters for a later publication of an article . when me too has calmed down. Chomsky watson ehud terje.woody . etc. ?
ME: yes...I think it is a good idea. might be interesting to get them on video. we might be able to use that for interesting purposes later.
JE: ok, lets do it
5/19/2018
JE: woody allen. noam chomsky, ehudl barak james watson. ariane Rothschild. [REDACTED]? masha drokova ( women Ruemm;ler _. ? . leon black. tom Pritzker larry summers. joi ito. terje . sultan , thorbjrn . Jagland. gromov, deepak, Jacques lang. martin novak mark tramo,
MW: All v good. More women. An Arab. Bannon. Brad Karp.
JE: bill gates. Nathan mhyvold. ?
MW: Absolutely
JE: ken is totally off the record , of course unless you get his express permission. he is the smartest of the smart
MW: Totally.
MW: Ken would be good for JE doc too.
JE: great he will im sure
JE: you around? Im in paris .
MW: Yup. Best #?
JE: i told him the crypto currency is the deplor rubles
MW: Ha!
JE: One particular report they have singled out dates back to March from the conservative Daily Caller, which described how Stefan Halper, a U.S. professor from Cambridge University who served in three Republican administration and also had ties to the CIA, met with Page and Papadopoulos.
JE: [to Kenn Starr and Michael Wolff] Ken - Michael , Michael/ Ken
MW: Ken, delighted to meet. Jeffrey has long told me about your friendship and the respect he has for you. If you send me your mailing address, it would be my pleasure to send you my recent book about the Trump White House. I’m now at work on a sequel focusing on the legal case against Trump and Trump’s response to it. Any counsel and background you might provide would aid me enormously and enrich the book. I, of course, would be willing to talk with you on an entirely off-the-record basis or under any arrangement that suits. Thanks in advance and I look forward to the chance to chat. All best, Michael
Ken Starr: Michael: Excellent. With thanks to Jeffrey, I’m delighted to come into your orbit, and look forward to our conversation. My mailing address is: [REDACTED] Warm regards, Ken
5/26/2018
MW: [subject: “Ehud”] I’m at a literary festival in Wales where I’m speaking tomorrow. Ehud speaking too. Can you email him and tell him I’m here and that he might want to come to the VIP dinner tomorrow night, which is more fun than he might think.
JE: [forwards email to Ehud Barak]
Ehud Barak: Hi Jeff, Thx. I’ll try to check with Nili when I’m back in London. Glad to meet tomorrow the new self-made millionaire. His Atlantic or NYT(?) recent interview was translated and drew a lot of attention in IL yesterday. (we’re the only country on earth where DJT is so highly appreciated) See Me tomorrow. Best, EB
Epstein and Wolff make plans for documentary interviews
JE: [to Michael Wolff] chomsky , watson, even zagat, all eighties and above shoudl be spoken to sooner rather than later. same with terje Larson and thorborn Jagland.
MW: I’m back from London on Monday and will start to organize. Where are you next week?
JE: next week in palm
6/5/2018
JE: congragulations
MW: Thanks. Waiting at City Hall...
JE: oy
6/6/2018
MW: Understand Brad is coming to your house at 10 on Friday with KR. Might you have a corner where Brad and I can talk just after? I don’t want to be seen with him (i.e. not go to his office) but want to give him an idea what his article will be about. Also he doesn’t want KR to know anything about this.
JE: whatever you want . before after ok with me. anytime fine
MW: Fantastic. Will arrange. How long do you think meeting with Kathy will last?
JE: i can tell her i have a meeting at 11? if you like. saw your boy today
6/7/2018
MW: Great. 11 would be perfect. Is boy around?
JE: Went to dc
MW: Did you go to that weird place he lives?
JE: No he was in ny
MW: [subject: “Brad“] So...planning to meet him at your house tomorrow, if that still works for you. And thanks. m
JE: Yes
6/8/2018
MW: [subject: “Will be there at 11:05”]
6/9/2018
JE: call my cell when awke i have an idea
MW: what is your cell #?
JE: Afternoon on plane now
MW: going to Florida?
JE: Santa Fe
MW: Best # in Santa Fe?
JE: [REDACTED]
JE: Time?
MW: Any time [REDACTED]
JE: Now, or send me number
MW: Just called. [REDACTED]
6/12/2018
JE: i think you must lead anyone to think you’ve gotten this from white house concern. and quotes from the doc .cannot happen. !
MW: I agree. Right now no quotes from the docs.
JE: i spoke to kathy , lots to discuss , morning good
MW: Yes
JE: did you craft a solution?
MW: Can you talk? #?
JE: 561 655 7626
6/13/2018
MW: [to Ken Starr] Don’t hesitate to say no if it’s at all uncomfortable. “Might such an expansive claim win, yes. Should it win, no. But everyone knows the reality: weak president’s lose cases, strong president’s win them,” said Ken Starr, the former independent prosecutor who might know more about the legal pursuit of the president than anyone else on earth.” And thanks so much for chatting the other day. I look forward, if you are game, to much more. m
Ken Starr: [forwards email to Jeffrey Epstein] Jeffrey: FYI. I gave Michael the all clear. We’re going to continue the chat. The “expansive claim” is the prosecutorial view that various presidential actions, eg firing Comey, may have constituted obstruction of justice. Bad theory. Hugs, Ken
JE: [to Wolff] Can you talk? #
MW: always for you [REDACTED]
6/15/2018
MW: [att: “Indictment_Draft_6-15“] Can you pass this to brad. Hope to speak with him first thing. Thanks
6/18/2018
MW: [subject: “Can you pass this?”] Because of various deadlines this would have to go forward probably tomorrow, latest Wednesday. So what’s need: a) Based on this draft, an assessment if this is just too risky to do; b) or, if it is possible to isolate them, the specific passages which might still be problematic, and then I can turn them around asap. But again, it is easy enough not to do the piece. So if it can’t be easily tweaked, we shouldn’t do it.
MW: You got this, right?
JE: im awake call when free
MW: #?
6/20/2018
MW: We’ve tabled story until B feels docs have reached distribution wide enough to protect us both.
JE: The mooch ? Has lots to say . 2,im sure we did the right thing 3. Chomsky?
MW: Have you spoken to Mooch? Yes, let’s get some dates from Chomsky. Where is he based?
JE: Never met before accidentally yesterday. He cslled my name and gave me a 30 min on bannon . His sworn enermy
MW: Ha, yes. I don’t think he is so fond of me either. Where did you encounter him?
JE: Office building elevator
MW: Funny. He’s a weird combination of reasonableness and hyperventilation, and hostility and brown nosing.
JE: Saw eah except the reasonable
6/21/2018
JE: chat?
MW: Yes [REDACTED]
6/22/2018
JE: [How Did Trump and Clinton Pal Jeffrey Epstein Escape #MeToo?]
MW: So...a couple times a year somebody can cull the Internet and write an article about you that recycles every other article. That’s a reason to try to create a new story. But, on the other hand, by not offering new news the old seems just ho-hum.
6/26/2018
JE: chomsky ready when you are? tucscon. . we shoudl do watson. harvard , asap
MW: He’s in Tucson?
JE: yes, watson, in new york. . . sept the un people. July 19 20 . jacques lang in new york
6/27/2018
MW: [subject: “chat?”] had breakfast with SB this morning.
7/5/2018
JE: Will you go to Europe?
MW: Trying to work this out with SB now. He’s squirrelly or disorganized as usual. But I’m on the job.
JE: Usual
MW: Where are you?
JE: Palm 561-655-7626
7/9/2018
JE: Staying or going?
MW: Typical SB. Was with him this morning and he was going to tell me plan by 3. Silence. So now I have to decide whether to jump on a plane. This journalism has a lot of inefficiencies.
MW: This just in: he’s staying tomorrow for SCOTUS pick.
JE: not surprised. kavanaugh
MW: If I’m still here would love to meet Starr.
JE: of course
7/10/2018
JE: Still here?
MW: Yes, but have almost decided to go. But...who knows.
JE: I’m going. A full Bannon schedule tomorrow. Give my best to Mr. Starr. I will catch up with him soon.
MW: Great have fun.
JE: wed 230 ken starr if you like
MW: Thanks. Will let you know later today if I’m still here.
JE: Hopefully you mean geographically
MW: Ha
7/12/2018
MW: 1) I saw SB in London yesterday and he seemed especially paranoid about any reporters seeing me with him. My guess is that he is working hard on his relationship with Trump who he sees as newly ascendent and being seen with me might queer that. 2) He went on Hannity last night and will be on Piers Morgan tomorrow and that seemed with an eye toward an audience of one. 3) He was having a meeting yesterday with the French right wingers, including Le Pen’s husband, about refinancing the National Front Party because apparently a good part of their money comes from Russia. Two thoughts here, these guys seem like idiots, pure Ruritania, and Bannon, surrounded by his own thuggish-looking security people and whacky-bloggers advisors, thrives precisely because the world of populism is so unprofessional (if not farcical). more later...
JE: yes, and Hannity and he seemed jet lagged and sloppy . it had bit of air of desperation. .
7/16/2018
JE: Back?
MW: In DC today. NYC tomorrow.
JE: How was it?
MW: It was pretty crazy. SB certainly believes he’s coordinating a worldwide revolution, at the same time without a lot of evident faith in his revolutionary partners. Including Boris Johnson. I was carrying messages between them. SB annoyed that BJ isn’t stepping up to toppling Teresa May. Fun.
7/17/2018
JE: Chat?
MW: yup. [REDACTED]
7/18/2018
JE: I win - his tucker interview. “in the real estate biz they didn’t pay their rent”.!!
MW: This is all hilarious.
JE: [sends YouTube video]
MW: Haven’t watched this yet. But was with him for a few hours last night and got the full download: he think trump has lost his stuff, and as well, to boot, is an idiot. Putin, tho, he thinks is a genius.
7/25/2018
JE: all good?
MW: Yes. I’m in LA working on F&F TV show. Was with SB on Saturday and Sunday. Do you have a minute to chat? Also, I have my guy putting together a plan for you on filming Chomsky.
7/30/2018
JE: ?
MW: Back in NYC tomorrow. Speak Wed?
7/31/2018
JE: ill be in palm but phone ok
8/1/2018
Wolff contacts a videographer to discuss making Epstein’s documentary
Steven Keane [videographer]: [to Michael Wolff] Hi Michael, We can do a single camera talking head shoot that would meet Netflix broadcast standards for 8k per day minimum based on a spec for local shoots (as far as Boston). I can break that down for you if you like. I can shoot to regular HD standard for less than that but I think we ought to be aiming higher given the archive potential of shooting chaps who are no longer quite in the prime of youth. If we want to go crazy and have a second camera, dollies and the full cinematic experience it would be about 15K. I’m heading to Amsterdam for ten days from Monday 6th so maybe we could think about Boston for the end of the month? Cheers! S
MW: [forwards email to Epstein] This is videographer/documentarian who I’ve worked with extensively. Total pro. Great work. Absolutely trustworthy.
JE: ill ask noam if he is comoing to boston. maybe institute people . larry summers.? james watson woody?
8/7/2018
JE: around?
MW: Yes. [REDACTED]
Emily Smiths (Page Six): I am working on a story about Mr Epstein meeting with Steve Bannon in New York. I am trying to reach out to a spokesperson for Mr. Epstein - can you help or comment?
JE: [forwards to Michael Wolff]
MW: Don’t respond. Steve shouldn’t respond either. It’s not much of a story if nobody confirms.
8/11/2018
Wolff recommends paying off Epstein’s doorman to keep him quiet
JE: [Steve Bannon trying to get on disgraced Jeffrey Epstein’s good side]
MW: Harmless. Do you think Bannon spilled?
JE: doorman
MW: you should pay him off.
8/16/2018
JE: ny times all over me re elon musk, . stewart wants a deep backround interview. thoughts?
MW: What’s in it for you?
JE: landon Thomas. my guy at times is conflicted from any story re me as i have helped his charity in the past. do we want to start to recruit stewart to help you. when the time comes. ?
MW: I like Stewart and he seems to like me. I would help him if no risk to you.
JE: do i invite him over , ?
MW: Yes, if absolutely no mention of you or anything else’s that might ID you.
MW: Tell him you were talking to me and I said what good writer he is. That makes these guys hot. Plus its guest you know everybody, which you do.
8/17/2018
MW: [subject: “Are you in town?”]
JE: till 6
MW: Ok. If you’re back next week—or whenever you’re back—let’s connect. m
JE wed?
MW: perfect
8/20/2018
JE: Sb concerned about heat re me
MW: In a meeting now. Speak later?
JE: Yes
MW: #?
JE: 212-533-3739
8/22/2018
JE: tried to- call
8/23/2018
MW: Are you available?
8/24/2018
JE: State investigation s right on time
MW: So many shoes to drop. Let me know if you have time for a tea this afternoon.
JE: Yes 3?
MW: perfect. see you then.
8/28/2018
MW: [subject: “How was the Mooch?”]
JE: Dumb
8/31/2018
Lorin Stein (The Paris Review): [to Michael Wolff] Dear Michael, The writer Stephen Elliott got in touch yesterday. He was on the Shitty Media Men List and is looking for legal representation. He’s not at all dumb or crazy. His pitch letter is below. I’d be grateful if you had any ideas I could pass along. (He is correct that Donegan has sold a book proposal.) [Stephen Elliott Wikipedia] If you’re moved to ask around, I’d ask that you please leave my name out of it. I hope this finds you very well - Lorin
MW: [forwards to Epstein] Below email is mostly self-explanatory. Just to add that Lorin Stein, a friend of mine, was the well-regarded editor of the Paris Review who also appeared on the “Shitty Men in Media List” and who lost his job as a result. I don’t know Stephen Elliot but I have always thought that the way back from this climate is through specific instances of individuals successfully challenging their persecution. If this story is solid he might be worth supporting. Thoughts?
JE: tough
MW: Give it some further thought, if you would. I think there is an opening here. What you need is an excuse—or opportunity—to make the public argument.
JE: ill help anyway i can. if you like
9/6/2018
JE: gQ man?
MW: Yes, indeed. An evening that featured Michael Wolff, Prince Charles, Sasha Baron Cohen, and Rose McGowan. Just getting back now.
JE: lets have a sasha woody dinner
MW: Sounds great! Let’s.
9/8/2018
JE: Un week 24th - can you find out when sasha in New York
MW: on the case
9/10/2018
JE: monves . hopefully he fights back
MW: I’d say he’s thrown in the towel. I’m due to speak to him later today.
JE: they will hold his severance over his head .
MW: Interesting thing to me is how badly written the Ronan stuff is, like a moot court brief instead of a New Yorker article, just a digest of depositions.
JE: from 1985, ? ! can you believe someone asked a massgage girl to “ touch his penis;? horrors
9/11/2018
JE: soon yi piece out next week - ? not sure best timing? but . recall week of 23 unga it will be fun
MW: Is it the cover, do you know?
JE: dont know , free to speak?
MW: Yup [REDACTED]
9/12/2018
MW: [subject: “Your friend, the man of the year”]
JE: can i call you?
9/19/2018
JE: unga week should be fun any response for sbcohen
MW: Didn’t think he was going to be in NYC.
JE: john connaly starting again . cant help himslef
MW: What’s he got up his sleeve?
JE: why do people still talk to me ? he had dersh on the phone . and like usual dersh couldnt stay quiet
MW: What’s the issue
JE: how did i get so rich . ? years ago peple would have shunned me. . no one is willing to say i made them money, . all silly but .. he is calling around
MW: Who is he calling? And who does he say he is doing this for? It is not as though he has a lot of outlets for his work.
9/21/2018
JE: tuesday president WEF . are you around?
MW: yes
10/4/2018
JE: are we having fun yet?
MW: 4 hours of SB Monday night
JE: ha
Rosa Flores (CNN): Hi! Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Rosa Fores and I’m a Correspondent at CNN. I learned about the settlement Mr. Epstein reached with Mr. Edwards this morning and wanted to reach out to see if you are issuing a statement. Also, could you email me a copy of the settlement? Thanks, Rosa
Scott Link (Litigation): [forwards to Epstein] What are your thoughts on scripted statement to each of the reporters? “Mr. Epstein is pleased that he and Mr. Edwards were able to talk and to negotiate a reasonable settlement”
JE: [forwards to Kathy Ruemmler and Michael Wolff] definitely not pleased . but i am open to a statement.
Kathy Ruemmler: After many years of distracting litigation with Mr. Edwards, Mr. Epstein believes that a negotiated resolution was an appropriate outcome to this matter.
MW: After many years of distracting litigation between Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards, Mr. Epstein believes that a negotiated settlement with Mr. Edwards was an appropriate outcome to this matter.
JE: language?
MW: After many years of a distracting dispute between Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards, Mr. Epstein believes that a negotiated settlement with Mr. Edwards and payment to him was an appropriate resolution of this matter.
10/13/2018
MW: [subject: “Chat?”]
10/21/2018
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC?”]
JE: pb
MW: chat? #?
J: [REDACTED]
J: ?
10/24/2018
JE: [tweet]
MW: Seeing him at noon.
JE: [REDACTED] as i said something odd, he appears on a shooting star track
10/25/2018
JE: did steve recognize the vulnerabilities?
MW: No. The opposite.
10/26/2018
JE: i want to make sure that kathy is not easily recognizable in any book. . bad for everyone.
MW: No worries.
MW: By the way, I really like the coat she was wearing, which, I understood you had something to do with.
11/2/2018
MW: [subject: “Are you in NYC?”]
JE: Paris on cell
11/5/2018
JE: if the republicans pull this off , steve would deserve most of the credit. . he was way out in front on this way out. . . execution not to his liking but..... on another note , what were you thinking about me in the book, with what moniker
MW: I was thinking of opening with you and Bannon talking about Trump. Would let you sound smart and offer what I think would be crowd-pleasing perspective, and make you seem like a credible player—former friend of Trump, advisor to World leaders, sought after person, etc—without having to too much rehash old stuff. Doesn’t seem like they can win...but who knows. I’m meeting Bannon had 3 tomorrow and will stay with him until the end.
JE: take photos
JE: thnks for letting me sound smart :)
MW: I haven’t done that party yet...
11/6/2018
MW: [sends image]
11/7/2018
JE: how was it?
11/8/2018
MW: He was in good form. Thinks Trump is fucked. But likely that the Dems will screw it up too.
11/9/2018
JE: a whole lot of pain headed donalds way. house counsel. impeachment counsel. cummings counsel. . our friend need to get to high ground, pittsburg seen to be his doing. not good at all.
MW: When are you guys in nyc?
JE: either sun or mon
MW: Great. Slot me in. Much to discuss.
11/10/2018
JE: sasha baron cohem ? is he in new york
MW: Not to my knowledge. I think London.
11/12/2018
MW: [subject: “time to catch up in NYC?”]
JE: Now? I leave at 430
MW: [REDACTED]
11/26/2018
JE: you around thurs fri? have we heard from sasha cohen? lots to discuss
MW: I am around. They are in London.
JE: woudl be fun to have him and you with woody. . whats new?
MW: I will work on it. Trying to push through to first draft by next week.
11/28/2018
MW: Miamiherald story is really going around. Are you getting a lot of incoming? Let me know if there’s anything I can do.
JE: no , what do you think I should say if anytning
MW: I didn’t read it closely. But how about...This is a rehash of a rehash, the details supplied by lawyers and litigants to credulous reports for whom decades old claims seem new, all In an effort to support cases that have been unsuccessful litigated before ...something like that...but probably shouldn’t come directly from you.
11/29/2018
JE: lets talk when you get up. have you spoken to brad recently?
MW: Call me 917-825-9659
MW: MH has been fed a story by lawyers trying to Influence a court case. These lawyers have curated, molded, and made up facts for the MH story. The MH has been used. This is not investigative journalism it is take-dictation journalism.
Ken Starr: [to Epstein] Belated report: My firm’s pr guy has talked extensively with the reporter who ran today’s story. She has my statement, but wants to follow up with an interview. Happy to do whatever might be helpful. Hugs, Ken
11/30/2018
JE: [forwards Starr’s email to Michael Wolff]
MW: Might not be bad if Ken gave an interview. But I think you shouldn’t do this piecemeal. Needs to be an overall strategy.
JE: saw charlie rose at haircutters/ shell shocked
MW: At least he can still get a haircut appointment.
JE: hair dye appt
12/1/2018
KR: [to Epstein] He’s right. Needs an overall strategy designed around the question of what you want to accomplish. We have to answer the question first.
JE: does . sex for money. prostitution. state crimes. . in new york 2005.
JE: [to Michael Wolff] kathy thought the piece is being lauded as great investigative journalism so does your suggested pr group have the better contacts to place a story. on why it is not. . however to you point. to what end?
MW: This thing as model journalism is one more element that could give it legs—so another danger. I don’t think it’s a question now of directly debunking this. That’s going against virtue itself. What I’d like to do is game out everything, creating a structure for thinking this through. Definitely not a piecemeal response. Figure out where we want to be and where we can reasonably get and work backwards. Maybe we do agree to a big interview with you—Landon Thomas or something like that. But this has to be war gamed out. Obviously I can contribute, Kathy can, would be great to get SB input, but this needs a structure, that’s why I think Hiltzig or somebody assembling a plan would be helpful. Even if in the end you decide to do nothing, at least you’ve come up with a structured way to think about it.
JE: [EMPTY]
MW: don’t tweet this
JE: ok
JE: thanks for your help/ steve thought we need an experienced crisis team. i know none that are real.
Wolff advises Epstein on how to respond to sexual accusations
MW: I agree with SB. And I wouldn’t worry so much about the person, the goal is the process. You need someone to coordinate the decision matrix. It’s a running analysis--a war room. And you need people who interact with media on a transactional level. Hiltzig would be fine for this. He’s no genius, but he’s strategic and he’s thorough. You want to take the view of the people who you trust and then plug them into a coordinated plan. I can get names of some other people.
JE: understtod
JE: do you think we highlight , that at the end of the day it was prostitution . sex for money. . a state crime. with state laws.
MW: At this point I don’t think you can go legalistic. They’ve won the high ground—young, vulnerable, poor girls.
JE: im aware. im thinking what would trump do
MW: He never tries to explain. He denies, blames media, denigrates someone else.
JE: Claims are ludicrous and self-serving, media is working with the other side’s lawyers, this is all about Donald Trump.
MW: ...all about Donald Trump, the real villain.
JE: all girls got paid. most worked at strip clubs,. re the miami heral.dd. the girl interviewed was according to the govt, not a real victim as she brought and got paid for bringing her friends. Epstein engaged in sex for money . ie prostitution. he plead guilty to prsotituion the state grandjury forund prostituion , the federal govt required a plea to prostituion in the state as it is not a federal crime.
MW: You don’t have to convince me. But they’ve waved that away: you may have plead to the prostitution charge, but these aren’t (really) prostitutes. Reality has been rewritten.
JE: ok i m reaching but having fun doing it
12/4/2018
JE: do you think the press would react to the fact that all the settlement money is going to the attorney and none of the girls.? react to the fact that the case was settled but the lawyers want to trumpet their success.
MW: I think it’s a useful point, potentially a powerful one. But I don’t think anything is going to get attention now. I would look for some reporter to do a more nuanced post-mortem on the case—with Trump’s overtones, legal joustings, #metoo-isms, and profit-motives. WSJ is probably right place.
JE: should i , or you reach out to matt. or sean . or ?
MW: I think you should reach out to Matt. Moonves’ guy, who I had lunch with yesterday, says he would probably use Hiltzig.
12/5/2018
JE: What do you think about me asking an independent group. Judge fbi etc to do an investigation so as to separate truth from fiction?
MW: I’d prefer to have an overview of all options and strategies. But, yes, something like that could work. Maybe better a big law firm, since they’ve become sexual matters arbiters. But again, total strategy. Everybody in these situations makes mistakes--and makes things worse--when they just throw stuff against the wall. You need something that you can execute against on an ongoing basis.
12/6/2018
JE: now on moring joe
MW: Oy. Can you chat at about 10?
JE: yes, as sb said no way to turn this cycle. around mid and long game sstragey , happy to hire hiltzif for your six months. . really wild. dems thinik i have the silver bullet. rep also so some would prefer to make me not credilble. Im a demoractic deplorable of the repunlican elite. ? wow
MW: See NYT story today about Harvey efforts
12/7/2018
JE: interesting data point for you. free to speak?
MW: Yup [REDACTED]
12/15/2018
JE (12/13/2018 email forwarded to MW): thoughts
Ken Starr: Here goes: “Sweetheart deal! “ So goes the critique of the resolution of a long-ago case involving our former client -- and now-friend -- Jeffrey Epstein. The critique is profoundly misplaced, supported neither by the law or the facts, nor by the structure of our constitutional republic. To the contrary, Jeffrey, Jeffrey was subjected to an unprecedented federal intrusion into a quintessentially local criminal matter in south Florida. His offense to the social order -- involving sex for hire -- was entirely a matter entrusted to laws of the several States, not the federal government. His conduct -- a classic state offense --was being treated exactly that way by able, honest prosecutors in Palm Beach County, but the overweening federal government intruded where it did not belong. And now, over ten years after the fact, the current assault on federal decision-makers at the time, including now-Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta (then the United States Attorney in south Florida), condemns the federal authorities for not going far enough.
The critics are entirely wrong. Neither the facts nor the law support the misguided criticisms being leveled by journalists and politicians at federal offices from over a decade ago -- including the highest levels of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. .
Here are the key facts: Jeffrey Epstein, a successful self-made businessman with no prior criminal history whatever, engaged in illegal conduct that amounts to solicitation of prostitution. That was wrong, and it was reasonably viewed as a violation of Florida state law. Although no coercion, violence, alcohol, drugs and the like were involved, the unsavory facts were carefully assessed by experienced state prosecutors who aggressively enforce state criminal laws. No one turned a blind eye to potential offenses in the public order. To the contrary, the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office conducted an extensive 15-month investigation, led by the chief of the Sex Crimes Division. Mr. Epstein was then indicted by a state grand jury on a single felony count of solicitation of prostitution.
During that intense investigation, the state prosecutors extensively gathered and analyzed the evidence, met face-to-face with many of the asserted victims, considered their credibility -- or lack thereof -- and considered the extent of exculpatory evidence. Then, after months of elaborate negotiations, the state prosecutors believed they had reached a reasoned resolution of the matter that vindicated the public interest -- a resolution entirely consistent with that of cases involving other similarly-situated defendants,
Then, in came the feds. The United States Attorney’s Office tried, to no avail, to fit Mr. Epstein’s situation into its vision of what it viewed as a commercial trafficking ring targeting minors. This was anything but. At long last, the federal authorities acknowledged that stark reality and grudgingly agreed to defer prosecution to the state. But there was a huge catch. In the face of our arguments sharply condemning their overreach, the federal prosecutors insisted on many unorthodox requirements that tugged at fundamental values of due process. For example, the agreement required Mr. Epstein to pay an undisclosed list of asserted victims $150,000 each. Even more, the feds insisted that Jeffrey pay for an attorney to represent such unidentified victims if any chose to filed civil litigation against him. When asked what possible legal authority supported this extravagant exercise of national power, the feds lamely cited a wildly inapposite case from Alaska involving cocaine and forced on-the-street prostitution. Apples and oranges.
Under the federally-forced deal, Jefrey was sentenced to jail. That would not have been the case under the agreed-upon state disposition of this non-violent, consensual commercial arrangement. Jeffrey complied, served that sentence, and in the process was treated exactly the same as other state-incarcerated individuals. His conduct was exemplary, and so characterized by the state custodial authorities. He continued to work, including his many philanthropic efforts.
Our friend Jeffrey Epstein has paid his debt to society. He has also paid out millions of dollars to the asserted victims and their highly-creative lawyers. For over ten years, he has lived an exemplary life, including carrying on his wide-ranging philanthropies. Those of us who represented him in the Florida proceedings -- for customary professional fees -- now count him as a trusted friend.
Our nation faces vitally important challenges, many involving the treatment of women and basic human dignity. Voices are rightly being raised speaking truth to power, especially about women in the workplace. But Jeffrey, an exemplary employer, has long been called to account by the criminal justice system for his misdeeds of yesteryear. In the spirit of the bedrock American belief in second chances, that unhappy chapter in Jeffrey’s otherwise-magnificent life should be allowed to close once and for all.
MW: Seems very good. Is there reason or opportunity here to evoke JE’s Clinton connection? He had been publicly connected to the former President and became a proxy for the considerable anger at high levels of the Federal government that still surrounded Clinton. Likewise now, one reason to revive the story is that it is a way to tar a Trump administration official, who, in the normal course of his duties, happened to deal with the case.
MW: [subject: “Chat?”]
12/17/2018
JE: [forwards Starr’s letter again to Michael Wolff, subject: “draft op ed”]
MW: Where do you think this will be placed?
JE: wash post
MW: Strong
No op-ed was ever published
12/20/2018
JE: Can you speak?
MW: Can’t until 4:00. Does that work?
JE: yes
MW: at your convenience [REDACTED]
2019
1/2/2019
JE: free to speak?
MW: Yup. [REDACTED]
1/14/2019
MW: [subject: “Can you chat?”]
JE: [sends deed to Maison de L’Amitie]
MW: [subject: “Madeleine Westerhout”] She was originally the elevator girl at Trump Tower.
1/15/2019
Another Epstein brain-dump of Trump information
JE: [to Kathy Ruemmler] it would go something like this. ............ 1. Donald doesn’t really own very much, he rents out his name. he puts it on buildings pojects etc. for a royalty or piece of the upside. he then claims the asset is “ his” . its very much like hyatt hotels. Hyatt receives 3 percent per year of revenue and a piece of the profits sometimes if the hotel is sold at a profit. . money launderers. need a name to purchase trophy properties. why? there is little suspicion if a famous wealthy person buys a property that is likely to show in the press. , it cant be jojo my driver. up front , so they approach wealthy people and tell them for 2 -5 million dollars for doing nothing at all. - just lend us your name . - and the person gets the positive press. so and so bought the most expensive painting. sold the most expensive painting, house., diamond. etc. -ex the GANZ art collection was bought and sold by Joe Lewis. . all the publicity was the ganz family estate. selling etc. hypothetically, . someone approached trump and said can you buy the palm beach house. in your name. ( it was trump properties llc ) , not sure who actually owns the llc. ? Donald can get a loan from a bank , but it is guaranteed by , an entity controlled by R R has a bvi co. xitrans. that is owned by a family trust. ( cyprus ). R wife settles in oct after trump announces candidacy . the llc agreement or the loan agreement allows Donald to get a few million for his name. . R in essence is the “ owner. “. he was part of the panama papers release. he also sold the da vinci to mbs. . ? if you are a gangster , where and how you can invest your money. answer not through the front door. Donald’s financial disclosures are the same , he represents his “ income “ as the GROSS receipts of his clubs. “ , means nothing at all ZERO. no income as we no it. he lists his “ assets” ,and their VALUE - but not the corresponding loans. against it. so no net number , hence meaningless
JE: [forwards same email to Wolff]
1/18/2019
JE: awfully quiet. report out soon
MW: Call? [REDACTED]
1/21/2019
JE: did you get any better sense from steve of the future?
MW: Call me if you’re free.
MW: [REDACTED]
1/24/2019
Hakimah Shah: [to Michael Wolff] Hello Mr. Wolff, My name is Kahimah Shah. I’m a producer with Radical Media. We are developing a series about wealth and justice in America - part of which focuses on Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. It is our understanding that your relationship with Mr. Epstein dates back to the 90’s. We are looking to paint a complete portrait of Mr. Epstein and hope that you can shed light on him as a businessman, philanthropist, and beyond. We believe that your input is integral to our story...We hope that you will consider participating. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Hakimah Shah 212-462-1667
MW: [forwards to Epstein]
JE: [forwards to Steve Bannon]
1/31/2019
JE: Im here today. in ny. as i said 4 weeks ago. steve seems to be becoming more and more irrelevant . somthing not right.
MW: I’m seeing him this evening. Do you have any time today?
JE: yes / what s good for your ?
MW: 5ish? But could make anything work.
JE: thats perfect.
MW: Ok, see you then.
JE: [REDACTED] worked at mar a lago. . she was the one that accused pince Andrew. . trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. . of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop
2/1/2019
Wolff sends a draft of his next book, Siege, to Epstein for edits
MW: [Forwards early draft of Siege, published June, 2019]
JE: first edit
2/2/2019
MW: [subject: “SB tomorrow”] He wants me to join you guys for breakfast tomorrow. Are you okay with that?
JE: better. we can double team him and get him to watch out for him self
MW: 7:30? Yes?
2/3/2019
JE: surprised , he didn’t seem involved in the “ national emergency decsion” as he took your view ?
MW: As I read it, he’s just waiting for the end. My impression is that this is true of everybody.
2/18/2019
MW: [subject: “Chat?”]
2/23/2019
JE: I’d really appreciate your input on how I respond ,or , if I respond ,to this new wave of putrid press. My concern is that the crazy ruling provides fuel to the haters. and in this environment it has become dangerous. Its diffucult to portray the alllegations as tabloid as it is now come from a federal judge. ! . The idea that I trafficked in young girls and gave them to others is soo nuts , but now ,part of the story. Do you think instead of the position that , this will blow over. it is time to try to balance , counter . or mediate the story. ( too late ) 1 Letter to Sasse. 2 op ed to miami herald. . 3 one of the lawyers out in front.( which one ) making the tv morning rounds explaining the case and resolution.? . (much more complicated since the Judge said he believed there was fed jurisdiction ). What steps do you suggest .? Im stymied.
JE: [to Larry Summers] I thought appropriate that I provide some citations for what appears to you may be mere bias. [broken link: www.quora.com “Is it considered a loss of face to apologize in the Chinese culture?”
Larry Summers: It is hard to give good advice since I don’t know facts. I will call. I’d be very surprised if your writing anything or appearing is good. A lawyer maybe but not sure of the argument that would be made.
Matthew Hiltzik: Where can I call u later... I wrote out an answer, but it may send a little harsh in describing the current realit and I would prefer to explain it on phone than in an email
JE: 561 655 7626
JE: [to Wolff] no worry about harsh, It amazes me that I rarely go out of my house . -virtually no interactions with the public . no public co face or presence , but...
MW: Can you speak at about 11:00?
JE: yes [REDACTED] I understand staying low very low. , . so far doesnt seem to work :)
JE: its amazing that i have no interactions with the public at all. and have such public animosity. odd
2/24/2019
JE: 9 am ? see you then Ive invited ehud barak t join at 930
MW: So not 8:30? 9:00?
JE: yes
MW: See you then
2/26/2019
JE: free to speak for a minute?
MW: [REDACTED]
2/27/2019
Discussing Woody Allen’s thoughts on the documentary
MW: This is done very quickly. Don’t have the facts here. Trying to get a tone and strategy that you can start to discuss. What did Woody say?
JE: woody thought it should be in an interview format with you as the interviewer , his views
MW: I’d disagree. If you have an interviewer you have to submit to a tough interview, otherwise it really looks canned. But, more importantly, I think Woody doesn’t understand the social media thing. It isn’t a substitute television. It’s power is really from one person looking into the camera and talking, computer to computer (or phone to phone), directly to another person. You don’t want to disintermediate. It has to look like you are really there, all in, and exposed.
JE: i agree with you , his take was to tell everyone how iv e been mistreated. if that gives you the idea of his strategy :)
MW: he is totally out of touch
MJ: Yeah, that needle’s gonna require some finer thread
JE: thought donald is with kim we is focused on cohens letters regarding his transcrpts// told you so
2/28/2019
MW: [subject: “YouTube”] I showed SB some of that draft script. He had interesting and helpful thoughts.
3/1/2019
MW: [subject: “Chat?”]
JE: 30 min
MW: Great
3/2/2019
JE: [subject: “Sent by a friend”]
MW: My interest is new book. Would you be willing? And thanks.
JE: This was my friend that sent it that he is referring to . Ill ask
MW: Thanks
JE: we can do it when i return to new york :) . not sure when yet. . still searching for a pr coordinator. etc.
JE: [EMPTY]
MW: This is good. Who is signing it?
3/3/2019
MW: [subject: “Crisis management”] I just spoke to my friend Oliver Lloyd who runs the London based PR group, Brown, Lloyd, James. I believe I had you speak to him once before when Maxwell things seemed to be coming to trial. They are, to my mind, superior crisis management people. The drawback is that, while they have a New York office, most of their resources are concentrated in London. On the other hand, that might be an advantage too: they aren’t scared off like many US firms will be. Anyway, he believes they could staff up and handle an assignment that might be largely based in New York. I’m set to speak further to him and one of his partners this afternoon just to supply more background, if that’s okay with you. And, if that seems promising, would propose that you, with or without me, have a call tomorrow and judge whether you’d like him to come to New York to meet. m
JE: ok, didn’t they have some trouble. ? Im interviewing bill gates commmin director . tues all day
MW: No, not them. That’s another Brit firm with Middle East clients—Bell, Pottinger, you’re probably thinking of. Brown, Lloyd has gotten some blowback. I think they represented Gaddafi back when. But in a way that’s the good part: they don’t get spooked and have experiencing manning eye-of-the-storm situations. From a technical management and strategic point I think they are one of the best.
3/7/2019
JE: doesnt stop. . ~! thoughts. my instincts are too much incoming to deal with. stay low low low ? small response from lawyers. .
MW: Talk at 11?
JE: ok
MW: [REDACTED]
3/8/2019
Epstein and Wolff appear to discuss the results of the Mueller Report, prior to its release
MW: [subject: “Mueller”] Do you have any update about timing?
JE: Im in New York Saturday
MW: great. I’m available. m
JE: its finished
MW: Ball park me
JE: its barrs decision, its ready to send . i have no further info. but only a guess within two weeks. not sure a leak re not asking for it. would be helpful
3/9/2019
JE: chat when awake?
MW: yup [REDACTED] your convenience
3/10/2019
A weird reference to Jussie Smolett
JE: she is jane doe 1 in the cvra case. she sued with the help of the govt and said that her lawyer was paid for by me , so the govt ( marie ) got her a new lawyer , brad Edwards... . as we are now in the land of the jussie smolette . what do you think , it could be used to push back the me too movement. !!! there is nothing like it . it’s not jusssie two nigerians , it is a sworn statement made by an adult . under oath to the FBI and the ass us atny . that they chose to ignore. in order to prosecute the rich guy.
MW: I feel I’ve entered in mid-convo. Who’s is this Jane Doe? And what is cvra?
JE: this is the girls that sued saying their victim rights were ignored. this is her testimony BEFORE meeting plaintiffs attnys supplied by govt. . NUTS!!! , it is not been published. anywhere . she is the major plaintiff having recievd over a million dollars as the govt demanded.
MW: do you have the testimony?
JE: [empty email - probable missing attachment]
MW: So she recents or changes her story?
JE: yes, after the government decide to convince her she is a vicimt and organizies for her to get her plaintiff attny?
MW: Do you have her new testimony?
JE: she is the one that says her rights were violated by the govt . abused. changes her age. her friends age. her whole story and gets money for doing it
3/11/2019
Wolff reads a passage from his upcoming book, Siege
MW: [subject: “FYI”] This is what I’m now going with—what do you think? “In the White House, the President, to general surprise, announced that he would not accompany his family to Mar-a-Lago over the holidays—a confounding, even alarming, turn for anyone who knew how much he valued a gold-and-warm-weather opportunity over any presidential business. Melania certainly had no intention of staying behind. Among other issues, friends suggested that she was still furious about his fireside Christmas Eve chat with a seven-year-old boy, during which Trump asked the boy if he still believed in Santa. ‘Melania didn’t think that was funny’ said one aide. Trump was ‘clearly a guy who had never dealt with a seven-year-old.
“In an empty White House, Trump’s personal security, 28-year-old Madeleine Westerhout, brought his papers and call sheets from the West Wing up to the residence, finding him, she told her friends, in his underwear. And herein, suddenly, was another subplot.
“Westerhout had been the elevator girl in Trump Tower during the transition. The comely young woman ferrying dignitaries and job-seekers up to the President-elect soon became something of a meme herself. Bannon recalled noting that Trump took a particular interest in her. A leering Trump kept repeating, ‘She’s got a way about her,’ his signature, and creepy, stamp of approval for young women.
“Now the president was telling friends that he wasn’t staying at the White House because of the shutdown—he was staying because he was “banging” Madeleine.
“Shutdown bravado? Locker room talk? Or all part of a new alternative reality that only he seemed to be living in?”
3/18/2019
Martin Weinberg: Zach, how about emailing the details regarding Mr Epstein that you want me to review, thanks, Marty Weinberg
Zach Helfand (New Yorker): Thanks, Marty. Our policy is to conduct fact-checking over the phone, whenever possible. Would you be available for a phone call?
JE: [forwards thread to Michael Wolff]
MW: Insist on email. You’re totally willing to fact check, but you need specificity. The policy of our firm is to take all queries in writing. This involves complicated legal issues. Also...would be good now to have a full packet to send.
MW: Also complete bullshit. They will fact check as it is possible to fact check.
3/23/2019
MW: [subject: “Chat?”]
3/25/2019
MW: [subject: “can you chat?”]
4/4/2019
JE: call today? with oliver?
MW: I’m pushing. Will let you know.
MW: He can do tomorrow anytime from 12-4 GMT. How about 8 or 9AM ET?
JE: either ok thx
MW: 8AM ET tomorrow. Details to come.
MW: [subject: “8AM Friday conference call with Oliver Lloyd”]
4/5/2019
MW: You’re lined up and have details for 8:00 call? All good?
JE: are you going to be on the call?
MW: Yes, if you want me to be. Was planning on it.
JE: yes please
JE: im on line
MW: me too
4/6/2019
JE: I agree that any push back seems to leads to trouble- so- what about some act of contrition ( brad ) . with an apology alongside clearly setting the facts straight.! No pedohile no traffficking . And then cvra girls drop their case . I.e. I establish a mental health center for sex workers . Courtney wilde center ?
MW: Broken record here: Contrition has to be coordinated with all other aspects of the response. And this sounds like an apology that’s not an apology which would like make matters worse. The problem is that people don’t want you to apologize for frequenting prostitutes, they want you to apologize for being a pedophile and for sex trafficking—and they don’t want you to apologize for that, they want you to be crucified for that. A simple apology doesn’t change the other side’s narrative; I actually think it propels it. A proper apology is not an apology, it’s a ritual act of public mortification and confession. You have to be naked and through yourself on the mercy of the media. To say the very least, the stage has to be set for this.
JE: Allowing julie brown to interview me?
MW: In our hypothetical documentary we interview her.
4/8/2019
JE: i hear ny times sniffing around . do i reach out to james stewart , ?
MW: Again, need a structured approach.
MW: Have just left SB. We both feel that this DOC idea is a certain game changer. Instead of narrowing the JE story down to a few issues that now define you, it has the ability to enlarge to story at an exponential scale. It shouldn’t pull any punches, it should just lay our your story with all its details and, even, contradictions. No one will think of you the same way again, which is the point. I’ll be in Paris from April 18-25. Would be great to get SB to come over and firm there. Also to get Ollie Lloyd to come over and get you set up.
JE: [forwards thread to Sean Bannon]
JE: [sends unknown attachment to Michael Wolff]
Wolff writes a thorough response to Julie K. Brown’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein at the Miami Herald
MW: [sent to Epstein, Bannon CC’d] I think the tone should be shifted from umbrage to just the facts. Don’t get into a debate. If the Herald’s assertion is wrong deny in absolute but not hostile terms; if other facts contradict the assertions, just state them. Try to be succinct rather than expansive. For instance, on the issue of being a government informant, rather than quoting from another journalist, merely state, in categorical terms, that you have never knowing aided U.S. law enforcement or other agencies in any official or unofficial way. Again, don’t attack the Herald or its reporting, let the strength of your denials and the list of inaccuracies do that. Instead of, “This is a basic error which even the most superficial research would have revealed...” say “HIs business and activities as a financial advisor neither resemble nor intersect with the functions of a hedge fund manager. A hedge fund manager is not an accurate catch-all for financial professionals and significantly misrepresents Epstein’s career.”
In the bullet “The MH’s sensationalized portrayal...” better to be expressed... “The Herald’s portrait careful selects and cherry picks details to create a picture at dramatic odds with the greater circumstance, and their financial interest in the legal cases against Mr. Epstein. All extenuating or exculpatory evidence was ignored in the Herald’s report.” I might say: “The Herald paints a portrait of coercion, threats, and exploitation. But significant aspects of the sworn evidence presents a vastly different and more complicated picture, once again wholly ignored by the Herald.” Then go into a point-by-point list showing both the agency and complicity of the girls.
Also: “The central factor in the Herald’s portrait of the case is the age of the women who Epstein paid for massages and, sometimes, sex. Here the Herald has succeeded in giving the impression that under-age girls were the focus of Epstein’s interest and activities. And yet significant evidence, nowhere referenced in the Herald account, strongly suggests otherwise...” Then point by point. I would group unreliable and conflicted sources under one header. In general, this is all strong stuff, but the tone takes away from the strength of the individual points, and the overall argument is scattershot rather than tightly organized.
Steve Bannon: Agree 100%
4/9/2019
JE: [quoting email received] “I am a former government minister and MP here in Britain. I am presently writing a book about the British royal family and as part of that will be covering the activities of Prince Andrew. I believe Jeffrey Epstein is or has been your client. I wonder if it might be possible to speak to Mr Epstein about connected matters, either on or off the record. Would it be possible for you to forward this request? Many thanks for any help you are abl to give. Yours sincerely, Re Hon Norman Baker
MW: Safe to ignore. Strictly a gadfly.
5/2/2019
MW: [subject: “SB tomorrow”] He wants me to join you guys for breakfast tomorrow. Are you okay with that?
JE: always
JE: better. we can double team him and get him to watch out for him self
MW: 7:30? Yes?
JE: Ok
5/22/2019
JE: Why had no one interviewed some of trump classmates at Wharton ? Deutsh bank papers very bery bad
MW: Where are you tomorrow?
JE: Home
JE: Free afternoon
5/23/2019
MW: Lunch tomorrow? Or after? I have 4:00 appt. anytime before works.
JE: Great.
There are inevitably more emails between Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein, spanning much earlier than 2009, right up until his arrest in July, 2019, and potentially after. I will continue to search for more communication between the two men.
Ellie is an author, editor, and owner of Red Pencil Transcripts, and works with filmmakers, podcasts, and journalists all over the world. She lives with her family just outside of New York City.
Ellie —
I don’t say this lightly: what you did with those 1,800 pages is the kind of work that actually matters.
While others were waiting for someone else to read them, you sat down and did it. Every page. Every exchange. You didn’t look away, and you didn’t rush it. You treated the survivors’ story with the seriousness it deserved — and you handed the rest of us a roadmap we couldn’t have built without you.
That’s not just good journalism. That’s moral courage dressed up as research.
Thank you for staying with it. The people whose names we don’t yet know are better off because you did.
Ellie, your intestinal fortitude in going through all these is amazing, and the information is now available for everyone to see. We — all of us — owe you a lot more than a coffee.