Usually when a controversial figure wants to “tell my side of the story,” it is the role of journalists to put that story into context — in other words, to balance the subject’s desire to rewrite history or present themselves in a positive light by presenting facts and context so that the reader can decide whether the figure is being genuine and truthful.

In this case, Kathy Ruemmler, the top lawyer at Goldman Sachs and former White House counsel under President Barack Obama, was given a wide birth in the New York Times Thursday to explain her role in associating with Jeffrey Epstein and advising him how to handle the public fallout of his sex trafficking scandal.

There is nothing illegal in what Ruemmler did, and she is not accused of participating in any crime.

The NYT opinion piece indeed raises valid questions about how much she should be punished for being part a legal culture that encourages lawyers to wine and dine and accept lavish gifts from wealthy prospective clients knowing that it means holding your nose when a client’s history is legally, morally or ethically corrupt.

But the piece doesn’t offer important context into Epstein’s crimes — or even make an attempt to ask Epstein’s survivors what they think about Ruemmler’s various justifications for overlooking his criminal conduct with underage girls and taking part in a PR campaign to help him continue to escape public scrutiny.

To Epstein’s victims it was powerful and politically connected people like Ruemmler who enabled Epstein over the years, thereby allowing him to continue to prey on more victims.

But many of her justifications deserve more scrutiny.