But wait, there's more: Julie K. Brown's growing credibility problem
My article yesterday on Julie K. Brown, hailed as our nation’s foremost journalistic expert on everything Jeffrey Epstein, was getting way too long, so I left out quite a few other incredible tidbits. Thankfully, I can now produce them here for your edification and pleasure. The standout finding, which I emphasized in the previous article, is that in her 2021 book Perversion of Justice, Brown extensively quoted from, repackaged, paraphrased, and even invented brand new quotes based on an unpublished memoir manuscript authored by the late Virginia Giuffre — despite Giuffre’s own lawyers acknowledging that this manuscript represented a “fictionalized account” of Giuffre’s purported life experiences. And yet, Brown represented the manuscript as a verified, credible, factual recitation of the relevant events described therein.
A lot of people keep asking me why it would even matter if Giuffre is a serial fabulist. Isn’t she only just one of Epstein’s countless alleged victims? What’s the difference if this single person might have had fatal credibility issues?
For anyone who still needs a refresher, Giuffre is singularly responsible for the lavish Epstein-related theories that continue to wildly proliferate to this day. That is, when people claim to believe that a massive pedophilic sex-trafficking network is being covered up — because it would implicate so many prominent individuals whom Epstein lured into compromising sexual situations and blackmailed — they are relying almost exclusively on the fantastical claims of Giuffre.
Here is what Giuffre, then still being referred to as a “Jane Doe,” had her lawyers allege on her behalf in a December 30, 2014 court filing that was strategically disseminated to the media, and created a predictable shit-storm:
Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful people. Epstein’s purposes in “lending” Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
It was in this Motion for Joinder that Giuffre and her lawyers, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, introduced her sordid accusations against Alan Dershowitz — which she’d subsequently go on to elucidate in graphic detail, before finally retracting eight years later:
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-known criminal defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida but also on private planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Giuffre’s infamous accusations against Prince Andrew are also introduced in this filing. (I guess I’ll discuss that one in greater detail some other time). The point is, if you extinguish Giuffre’s credibility, you’re also extinguishing the core basis for what people claim to so confidently believe has been “covered up” in regards to the entire Epstein saga. Whether by concealment of “Epstein Files,” or similar perceived malfeasance.
So yes, it’s highly consequential that Julie K. Brown centrally relies on this person for her exceptionally acclaimed Epstein reporting and commentary.
I’m sure somewhere in the comments, somebody is already getting ready to ask me why I won’t engage with Whitney Webb — reputedly some kind of oracle who could enlighten me about why I’m so diametrically wrong about Epstein. Well, first off, I have repeatedly tried to contact Whitney Webb, and I’ve gotten no response. I am happy to write something more comprehensive about Whitney Webb as a future installment of this unplanned ongoing series. But I will note that it’s extremely odd how so many people seem to chant “Whitney Webb, Whitney Webb” like it’s some magical incantation, while also being incapable of synthesizing what it is they take to be the decisively convincing argument or evidence that’s been furnished by Whitney Webb — which would supposedly blow my mind, and cause me to reverse course, if only I could see it or understand it.
I’ll further note that the podcast-type people who so aggressively emphasize the “intelligence asset” aspect of their claimed Epstein theories seem totally uninterested in grappling with the underlying factual weakness of the “child sex-trafficking ring” component. I have never seen any of them honestly reckon with the demonstrable, undeniable fabulism of Giuffre — the person who spawned all their most fevered theories.
Seriously: why don’t the people who endlessly rant and rave about a “Mossad honeypot” ever seem to acknowledge that Giuffre, who launched the sprawling pedo-trafficking claims in the first place, was a serial fabulist? I’ll tell you why: because it would collapse the very basis for their “honeypot” fantasies — which they apparently have some weird psychic attachment to, as an all-encompassing explanatory heuristic for how power is distributed in modern society. Yes, I’m well aware that Epstein had a documented association with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister. Beyond that, there’s no credible evidence anywhere of a “Mossad honeypot.” Sorry. If you have such evidence, feel free to provide it. Podcast people who harp on this angle simply don’t want to deal with the transparent absurdity of the overwrought pedo-trafficking claims germinated by Giuffre, so they’d rather spend their time frantically dot-connecting about “intelligence” connections, and insisting “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire!” — like that means anything. Regardless, yes, I will get to Whitney Webb eventually, whether or not she ever gets back to me.
Now, returning to Julie Brown. Some of this additional stuff is approximately as shocking as what I wrote about yesterday: