EFTA00828501: Email Chain About Reuters Inquiry and 1994 Civil Allegation
Snapshot
Document: EFTA00828501
Direct evidence link: View EFTA00828501
Date created: April 28, 2016
Date sent or filed: April 28, 2016
Date released: January 30, 2026
Author or creator: Michael Wolff, Jeffrey Epstein, Martin Weinberg, David Ingram, and an unidentified correspondent whose information is redacted
Sender: Michael Wolff
Recipient: Jeffrey Epstein
Custodian or producing source: United States Department of Justice, Epstein Files Transparency Act production, Data Set 9
Evidence type: Email chain, media inquiry, legal communications, and reputation management evidence
Length and format: Two page PDF. The substantive email chain appears on the first page. The second page contains the remainder of the sender information and Epstein’s standard confidentiality footer.
Case or investigation: Department of Justice records released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The media inquiry concerns Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, Case No. 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
People named: Michael Wolff, Jeffrey Epstein, Martin Weinberg, David Ingram, and Donald Trump
Organizations named: Reuters News and Thomson Reuters
Locations named: California federal court. The email does not identify a courthouse, district, or city.
Content warning: Allegation of rape, alleged sexual abuse of a child, legal and media response to an abuse allegation, and dismissive language concerning an accuser
Key takeaway: The record documents how a Reuters inquiry about a newly filed civil allegation moved from reporter David Ingram to Epstein attorney Martin Weinberg, then to Epstein, and finally to journalist Michael Wolff. Epstein wrote “here we go.” Wolff suggested that Donald Trump could make the matter disappear from public attention and offered to help. The email proves the participants discussed the inquiry. It does not prove the underlying allegation, establish that Reuters published the planned story, or show what assistance Wolff intended to provide.
What Is This Record?
EFTA00828501 is an April 28, 2016 email chain concerning a Reuters inquiry about a federal civil complaint filed in California against Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump.
Reuters correspondent David Ingram contacted Epstein attorney Martin Weinberg and requested comment before a planned story. Ingram wrote that the complaint alleged Epstein and Trump had raped the plaintiff in 1994.
An unidentified correspondent, whose address is redacted, forwarded the message and stated that the lawsuit was attached. Weinberg then forwarded the inquiry to Epstein with a short summary explaining that the reporter was asking about a 1994 claim in California federal court and expected to publish within several hours.
Epstein forwarded the chain to Michael Wolff with the message:
“here we go”
Wolff replied:
“Well, I guess if there’s anybody who can wave thus away, it’s Donald.”
He concluded:
“Let me know if there’s anything I can do.”
The word “thus” appears in the visible record. It may have been intended as “this,” but it should not be silently corrected when quoted.
The exchange is evidence of a media response and reputation management discussion. It is not a judicial finding concerning the allegation described by Reuters.
Source and Provenance
Primary Source
The primary source is the two page email record preserved as EFTA00828501.
Read EFTA00828501 through Epstein Data
Epstein Data Record
Epstein Data provides direct access through the document identifier:
Official or Court Source
The official file is hosted by the United States Department of Justice within Data Set 9:
Department of Justice PDF for EFTA00828501
The complete production can be reviewed through the Department’s Data Set 9 index.
The Department announced the larger production on January 30, 2026. It stated that more than three million additional pages had been published in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Department of Justice release announcement
The California lawsuit described in the email was filed on April 26, 2016:
Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, CourtListener docket
California federal docket summary
Archived Copy
A copy of the original California complaint is preserved through the Internet Archive:
Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, April 26, 2016 complaint
The broader email collection was also entered into the record of a November 20, 2025 House Judiciary Committee hearing:
House Judiciary Committee supplemental document
What the Record Contains
The chain begins with an email from David Ingram, identified in the signature as a Reuters News correspondent.
Ingram told Martin Weinberg that a lawsuit had been filed that week in federal court in California. He summarized the complaint as alleging that Epstein and “another man, Donald Trump,” raped the plaintiff in 1994.
Ingram stated that Reuters planned to publish a story that afternoon. He explained that Reuters wanted to ensure the story was fair and asked whether Epstein was available to speak or whether Weinberg wanted to provide a comment on Epstein’s behalf.
The public copy redacts Ingram’s telephone number. The number should remain private even though another version of the chain appears to contain less complete redactions.
An unidentified person then forwarded the inquiry with the statement:
“Sorry, the suit is attached to this email.”
The purported attachment is not included in EFTA00828501.
At 12:20 PM, Weinberg forwarded the chain to Epstein and wrote:
“Reporter said 1994 claim fed ct California”
He continued:
“Will go to press in several hrs”
Epstein forwarded the chain to Wolff with the words “here we go.”
At 7:00:45 PM UTC, which corresponds to approximately 3:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Wolff replied that Donald could “wave thus away” and invited Epstein to tell him if he could do anything.
A related three page record, EFTA00828503, preserves Epstein’s response to Wolff. Epstein described the accuser as “obviously somoene who is deranaged” and wrote that Reuters was supposedly going to release the story that afternoon. The misspellings appear in the original.
Key Evidence Points
Reuters Requested Comment Before Publication
David Ingram contacted Epstein’s attorney before the planned publication of a Reuters report. He asked whether Epstein would speak or whether Weinberg wanted to offer a statement.
This is direct evidence that Reuters provided an opportunity to respond to the allegation. It does not establish whether Weinberg or Epstein ultimately supplied a statement.
Weinberg Alerted Epstein
Weinberg forwarded the inquiry to Epstein six minutes after the displayed Reuters timestamp. His summary emphasized three facts:
- The allegation concerned conduct said to have occurred in 1994.
- The complaint had been filed in federal court in California.
- Reuters expected to publish within several hours.
The rapid forward documents Epstein’s legal counsel alerting him to an imminent press inquiry. The email does not preserve legal advice from Weinberg about how Epstein should respond.
Epstein Alerted Michael Wolff
Epstein forwarded the legal and media inquiry to Michael Wolff with the phrase “here we go.”
The decision to involve Wolff is significant because Wolff was a journalist, author, and longtime Epstein correspondent. Other released communications document Wolff discussing press strategy, internet reputation management, and media relationships with Epstein.
Wolff Referred to Donald Trump’s Ability to Make the Matter Disappear
Wolff wrote that Donald could “wave thus away.” Because the forwarded Reuters message explicitly names Donald Trump, “Donald” clearly refers to Trump in this exchange.
The wording suggests Wolff believed Trump had the ability to dismiss, deflect, or overcome the accusation in the public sphere. The email does not explain whether Wolff was referring to Trump’s political influence, media strategy, public persona, or willingness to deny allegations.
Wolff Offered Assistance
Wolff told Epstein to let him know if there was anything he could do.
That is a direct offer of assistance. The record does not define the contemplated assistance and does not prove that Epstein accepted the offer.
Epstein Responded in a Related Record
EFTA00828503 records Epstein calling the accuser deranged and saying Reuters was expected to release something that afternoon.
Epstein’s statement is evidence of his private response. It is not proof that the accuser was mentally ill, dishonest, or unreliable. It is a disparaging characterization by one of the people accused in the complaint.
What the Record Does and Does Not Prove
What It Establishes
The record establishes that:
- David Ingram of Reuters contacted Martin Weinberg on April 28, 2016.
- The inquiry concerned a civil complaint filed in California federal court.
- Ingram described the complaint as alleging that Epstein and Donald Trump raped the plaintiff in 1994.
- Reuters was planning to publish a report that afternoon.
- Ingram asked whether Epstein or his attorney wanted to comment.
- Weinberg promptly forwarded the inquiry to Epstein.
- Epstein forwarded the inquiry to Michael Wolff.
- Wolff said Donald could “wave thus away.”
- Wolff offered to help Epstein.
- Epstein later characterized the accuser as deranged in EFTA00828503.
- The underlying California complaint was filed on April 26, 2016.
- The plaintiff used the name Katie Johnson in the California filing.
What It Does Not Establish
The record does not establish:
- That the underlying civil allegations were true.
- That the underlying civil allegations were false.
- That Reuters independently verified the allegations.
- That Reuters published the planned story that afternoon.
- That Epstein or Weinberg supplied Reuters with a response.
- That Wolff contacted Reuters, Trump, or another person about the inquiry.
- What Wolff meant by his offer to help.
- That Epstein and Trump coordinated a legal or public relations response.
- That Trump knew Epstein had forwarded the inquiry to Wolff.
- That Wolff possessed information about the truth of the allegation.
- That the complaint attachment referenced in the chain is included in EFTA00828501.
- That the dismissal of the California action resolved the factual merits of the accusation.
- That the court heard testimony, evaluated credibility, or entered a finding concerning whether an assault occurred.
Unresolved Questions
- Did Reuters publish the planned April 28, 2016 article?
- Did Weinberg provide Reuters with a statement?
- Did Epstein ask Wolff to contact anyone after Wolff offered assistance?
- Did Wolff communicate with Trump or anyone in Trump’s campaign about the lawsuit?
- What specific action did Wolff contemplate when he offered to help?
- Who sent the intermediate message stating that the complaint was attached?
- Is the missing attachment preserved under another EFTA identifier?
- Who else received copies of the Reuters inquiry?
- Why were some contact details redacted in EFTA00828501 but exposed in related copies?
- Are there additional messages between Reuters, Weinberg, Epstein, and Wolff that were not preserved with this chain?
- Did Reuters decide not to publish, or has the original report become unavailable?
- What steps, if any, did Reuters take to authenticate the plaintiff and investigate the complaint?
People and Entities Appearing in the Record
Jeffrey Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein was one of the two defendants named in the California civil complaint. Weinberg forwarded the Reuters inquiry to him, and Epstein passed it to Wolff.
Epstein had already pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to offenses involving prostitution and a minor. His prior conviction is relevant context, but it does not establish the truth of every later allegation made against him.
Michael Wolff
Michael Wolff was a journalist, author, and longtime Epstein correspondent.
In EFTA00828501, Wolff replied to Epstein’s forwarded inquiry, suggested Donald Trump could make the matter disappear from public attention, and offered assistance.
Ellie Leonard’s review of the larger correspondence places this exchange within a continuing relationship in which Wolff discussed media strategy, political reporting, access, reputation management, and responses to public scrutiny with Epstein.
Michael Wolff’s Emails to Jeffrey Epstein, Ellie Leonard
Martin Weinberg
Martin G. Weinberg was an attorney representing Epstein. In this record, he received the Reuters inquiry and promptly forwarded it to Epstein.
The header and confidentiality language suggest a legal communication. However, the document’s boilerplate assertion of attorney client privilege does not independently establish that every portion of the forwarded chain was legally privileged.
David Ingram
David Ingram was identified in the email signature as a correspondent for Reuters News.
His message sought comment from Epstein or his attorney before a planned article. The wording shows an effort to give the accused party an opportunity to respond.
Donald Trump
Donald Trump was identified by Reuters as the other man accused in the California complaint.
Trump denied the 2016 allegations. The claims were never adjudicated on their merits, and no criminal charges resulted from this complaint.
Katie Johnson
The Reuters inquiry does not identify the plaintiff by name. The related federal docket identifies the California plaintiff as Katie Johnson, a name presented as a pseudonym in later reporting.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was thirteen years old in 1994 and that Epstein and Trump sexually assaulted her at gatherings connected to Epstein.
The allegations remain unadjudicated. Responsible reporting must distinguish the filing of the complaint from proof of its claims.
See Katie Johnson: The 2016 Lawsuits Accusing Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
Reuters News
Reuters was the news organization seeking a response. The inquiry proves that a Reuters correspondent was investigating the lawsuit and planning a report. It does not prove that Reuters adopted the complaint’s claims as fact.
Thomson Reuters
Thomson Reuters appears in Ingram’s professional signature. Its appearance establishes the reporter’s organizational affiliation in the email.
Timeline Significance
April 26, 2016
Katie Johnson filed a civil complaint against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
The case was assigned No. 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS.
April 28, 2016 at 12:14 PM
David Ingram sent Weinberg the Reuters inquiry. He stated that Reuters planned to report on the lawsuit that afternoon and requested comment.
April 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM
Weinberg forwarded the inquiry to Epstein and warned that the story could be published within several hours.
April 28, 2016 before 3:00 PM
Epstein forwarded the chain to Wolff with the message “here we go.”
April 28, 2016 at 3:00 PM
Wolff replied that Donald could “wave thus away” and offered to help.
April 28, 2016 at 3:03 PM
In EFTA00828503, Epstein responded by disparaging the accuser and referring to the expected Reuters publication.
May 2, 2016
Judge Dolly M. Gee denied Johnson’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and dismissed the California case for failure to state a valid federal civil rights claim under the statutes invoked.
The dismissal did not decide whether the alleged assaults occurred.
June 20, 2016
A plaintiff proceeding as Jane Doe filed another action in the Southern District of New York, Doe v. Trump, Case No. 1:16-cv-04642.
Doe v. Trump, June 2016 docket
September 16, 2016
The June New York action was terminated following voluntary dismissal.
September 30, 2016
A related complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York as Doe v. Trump, Case No. 1:16-cv-07673.
Doe v. Trump, September 2016 docket
November 4, 2016
The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the September action. No court adjudicated the factual merits of the allegations.
Guardian report on the voluntary dismissal
January 30, 2026
The Department of Justice published the larger production containing Data Set 9 under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Related Evidence
EFTA00828503
EFTA00828503 contains the same chain together with Epstein’s response to Wolff.
The related record shows that Epstein dismissed the accuser as deranged and expected Reuters to release its report that afternoon. It does not independently establish the accuser’s credibility or mental health.
California Civil Complaint
The April 26, 2016 complaint identifies Katie Johnson as the plaintiff and Trump and Epstein as defendants.
A complaint records allegations presented by a plaintiff. It is not a judicial finding.
California Dismissal
The federal docket records that Judge Gee dismissed the case on May 2, 2016 after concluding that the complaint failed to state a federal civil rights claim under the statutes invoked.
The dismissal was a legal ruling about the sufficiency of the federal claim. It was not a trial verdict deciding whether the alleged conduct occurred.
Later New York Actions
Related versions of the allegations were filed in New York during June and September 2016. Both actions ended without an adjudication on the merits.
September 2016 New York docket
Ellie Leonard’s Michael Wolff Email Archive
Ellie Leonard transcribed and organized the broader correspondence between Wolff and Epstein. Her April 2026 article includes the Reuters exchange, Epstein’s response, and later messages about the dismissal.
Michael Wolff’s Emails to Jeffrey Epstein
The archive provides valuable chronology and relationship context. The original EFTA documents remain the controlling evidence.
EpsteinWiki Michael Wolff Research
EpsteinWiki’s reporting examines the wider relationship between Wolff and Epstein, including discussions about media strategy and attempts to reshape Epstein’s public image.
Sleuth Report: Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein Emails
Michael Wolff, Jeffrey Epstein, and the Filthy Rich Emails
Reliability and Limitations
EFTA00828501 has strong provenance because it appears in an official Department of Justice production and carries a unique EFTA identifier.
The visible original was compared with extracted text. Several automated extraction errors were corrected through visual review. The visible document confirms that the sender is Michael Wolff, the subject concerns the Reuters lawsuit inquiry, and the final message was sent on April 28, 2016 at 19:00:45 UTC.
The PDF contains two pages and is 91,480 bytes. It uses PDF version 1.5 and has no embedded JavaScript, encryption, attachments, or interactive forms.
The reviewed file has SHA256 value 162829ec1d364313a87cc0a283c0f877d6a690439870c642183d6b281043635f.
Important limitations include:
- The complaint described as attached is absent from EFTA00828501.
- An intermediate sender and recipient are redacted.
- The email does not identify the plaintiff by name.
- The email does not state the plaintiff’s alleged age.
- The reporter summarized the allegation rather than reproducing the complaint.
- The record does not include a response sent to Reuters.
- The record does not establish that Reuters published the planned report.
- Wolff’s intended assistance is undefined.
- Epstein’s characterization of the accuser is opinion from an accused party, not an independent assessment.
- The California dismissal did not resolve the allegation’s factual merits.
- Related copies contain personal contact information that was redacted in EFTA00828501. That information should not be republished.
- Later copies and transcriptions reproduce the same underlying correspondence and should not be counted as independent corroboration.
Survivor Safety and Privacy Review
The plaintiff’s allegations concern sexual violence experienced at age thirteen. Any summary must avoid unnecessary graphic detail and must clearly distinguish allegations from findings.
The name Katie Johnson was used in a public court filing, but it has been described as a pseudonym. Researchers should not attempt to identify the plaintiff through addresses, telephone numbers, metadata, family information, or other personal records.
The plaintiff’s allegations were never adjudicated on their merits. That means the archive should neither present them as proven facts nor declare them false based solely on dismissal.
The dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a valid federal claim is not the same as a factual finding that an alleged survivor lied.
Epstein’s statement calling the accuser deranged must be attributed directly to Epstein. It should never be repeated as an objective description of the plaintiff.
The record contains redacted telephone and email information. Related versions may reveal information hidden in this copy. EpsteinWiki should preserve the stronger privacy protection and should not republish personal contact details.
Why This Record Matters
EFTA00828501 documents the movement of a serious allegation through Epstein’s legal and media network.
A Reuters reporter sought comment from Epstein’s attorney. The attorney warned Epstein. Epstein immediately brought Michael Wolff into the discussion. Wolff responded by referring to Trump’s ability to make the controversy disappear and offered his help.
That sequence matters because Wolff was not simply receiving information as an uninvolved observer. His response contained an offer of assistance to a convicted sex offender facing a new allegation involving a child.
The record does not explain whether Wolff intended to provide reporting advice, public relations advice, political information, introductions, or simple emotional support. It does show that Epstein considered Wolff someone worth contacting during an urgent media inquiry.
The email also provides a contemporaneous record of Epstein’s awareness of the California complaint. EFTA00828503 shows that Epstein privately disparaged the accuser while monitoring whether Reuters would report the claim.
The broader significance lies in the relationship between legal response, media access, and reputation management. The evidence shows how quickly information traveled from a reporter to Epstein’s lawyer, from the lawyer to Epstein, and from Epstein to a journalist who had previously discussed rebuilding Epstein’s public image.
The record must still be used carefully. It proves the communication and the participants’ reactions. It does not prove the civil allegation, establish a coordinated coverup, or show that Wolff performed any action on Epstein’s behalf.
Fact Check
Document identifier verified: Yes
Official Department of Justice copy located: Yes
Epstein Data link verified: Yes
Visible pages reviewed against extracted text: Yes
Number of PDF pages: Two
Substantive email pages: One
Top level sender verified: Michael Wolff
Top level recipient verified: Jeffrey Epstein
Date verified: April 28, 2016
Reuters correspondent verified: David Ingram
Epstein attorney verified in the chain: Martin Weinberg
Donald Trump named in the inquiry: Yes
Plaintiff named in EFTA00828501: No
Complaint attachment included: No
Related California docket identified: Yes, Case No. 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS
California complaint filed: April 26, 2016
California case dismissed: May 2, 2016
Factual merits adjudicated: No
Later related email located: Yes, EFTA00828503
Reuters publication confirmed by this record: No
Wolff assistance confirmed beyond the offer: No
Verification status: Verified primary communication record concerning an unadjudicated civil allegation and an imminent media inquiry
Last checked: September 11, 2026
Related EpsteinWiki Pages
Katie Johnson: The 2016 Lawsuits Accusing Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein
Michael Wolff, Jeffrey Epstein, and the Filthy Rich Emails
Sleuth Report: Michael Wolff and Jeffrey Epstein Emails
The Beginning of the End of Co Conspirator Michael Wolff
Sexual Accusations Against Donald Trump
Epstein Files Guide: Evidence Framework, What Counts as Evidence Versus Noise
Epstein Email Communications Index
Source List
- EFTA00828501, Epstein Data
- EFTA00828501, United States Department of Justice PDF
- EFTA00828503, Epstein’s response to Wolff
- Department of Justice Data Set 9 index
- Department of Justice release announcement, January 30, 2026
- Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, California docket
- Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, Justia docket summary
- California complaint filed April 26, 2016
- Doe v. Trump, June 2016 New York docket
- Doe v. Trump, September 2016 New York docket
- Guardian report on the November 2016 voluntary dismissal
- Michael Wolff’s Emails to Jeffrey Epstein, Ellie Leonard
- House Judiciary Committee supplemental document