Comment on Gold’s reply of 2 August:

          This can hardly be called a triumph of the attorney’s art. Our original letter with enclosures took care to say that the attached articles were "representative" not exhaustive. And the Los Angeles Times essay is in any case a digest and summary of many earlier ones. The white-shoe artists at Cravath Swaine and Moore attempt to suggest that there is extra material concealed in the other named articles. But they wisely make no attempt at citation. (The extra articles appear below, though there’s nothing from The Flat Hat because I’ve never written for it.) Epstein’s statements were never "widely reported" and it wasn’t him to whom I was complaining. But does this mean that it was he on whom Kissinger was relying? If so, it looks as if a potentially beautiful friendship between them may be over.
          The "reading" of the Los Angeles Times essay is hilarious, as anyone who consults it can see at once. And the clumsy insinuation - that I may have once been a "denier" but now seem to have mended my ways - is not attended by a shred of quotation. One wonders what rates these people charge for their services.
     Mealy-mouthed and surly and grudging though it is, this does constitute a retraction, And one does not look for grace from Kissinger, or from the old firm of Craven, Swine and Boor. These people think that an allegation of such gravity can be picked up at random and, when it proves false, discarded without shame. A small but suggestive insult to the memory of the victims.

Minority Report, The Nation, October 3, 1994

"Hitler's Ghost", Vanity Fair June 1996