Writing about the Jeffrey Epstein saga feels akin to using an air horn. It’s meant to grab attention, create an unpredictable reaction, and should really be reserved for the most significant moments.
But then you come across something like this: “[Speaker Mike Johnson] I continued saying it.” [President Trump] He was an FBI informant trying to get things like this off.” It’s like opening that junk drawer in your kitchen, rummaging around for the air horn you stashed away last Christmas.
For speakers, he remarked, “Repeat what the victim’s lawyer said.” This discussion centers on how Trump interacted with investigators during his initial Epstein prosecution—not a commentary on how the president presents himself.
If the speaker had a reputation for dishonesty, that’d be one thing, but even his staunchest critics would have to concede that Johnson is regarded as quite honest. If he were lacking in intellect, it might be easier to believe he didn’t understand how police informants operate. However, Johnson, being a lawyer and law professor, has showcased considerable smarts, often outshining many in Washington. He continues to push legislation through, unlike his recent Republican predecessors, who have struggled in comparison.
The most straightforward yet unpleasant rationale for Johnson’s assertion—that Trump was infiltrating for the FBI to combat an international pedophile ring—is likely that someone told him so. Only a select few could provide that information, and it’s no surprise he would trust them enough to repeat it. Perhaps even someone like a long-named informant…
It’s uncomfortable to write or read about the Epstein case, largely due to its chaotic nature. Yet, that chaos is also a significant factor in why this story has lingered longer than others during Trump’s second term. The bizarre antics of the president and his family don’t seem as outrageous compared to, say, when he received a jet and hosted a party for foreign dignitaries. Still, sex appeal drives narratives, particularly when the topics are morally questionable.
Those from Gen X may recall L’Affaire du Lewinsky, but even sexual scandals can breathe new life into old, stale narratives. A century ago, the Teapot Dome scandal’s focus on oil leases was seen as less destructive than the various ongoing corrupt actions. The intrigues of Harding’s presidency were overshadowed by less sensational stories, which can’t sell papers as well.
Apart from the general reluctance to sensationalize sex, another reason Epstein’s tale resonates is how it highlights the Democrats’ role in this narrative. As Mark Leibovich pointed out, the situation exemplifies how Democrats struggle to dilute the seriousness of Trump’s behaviors while somehow trying to project a firm opposition.
Sure.
I’m all for partisans aiming to score political points. That’s their job. Yet I’m not keen on adding an air horn for either side of the argument. It feels more about how they wield power than how they push back against opponents. Like many enduring scandals, it’s less about a side doing something to one-up the other, and more about using the situation to fortify their own base.
If the Obama administration were caught quietly investigating the distribution of illegal abortion drugs in Mexico, Republicans would be outraged, while Democrats might shrug it off. However, since this scenario dealt with illegal arms crossing the border, enough Democrats rallied against the administration.
Several factors explain why the Epstein saga has resonated with Republicans. Unlike previous scandals that didn’t involve Trump directly, this one significantly alters the post-January 6th political landscape. With Trump’s electoral days behind him, how fellow Republicans respond will be pivotal not only for upcoming midterms but for the 2028 primaries as well.
Unlike Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearings, current Republican interests are deeply entwined with those aiming for future leadership. This tension in the Epstein case—which involves sensitive issues surrounding sex trafficking—is palpable.
Just as the Iran-Contra affair showcased vulnerabilities in Reagan’s administration, Trump’s dubious actions are scrutinized because of the cloud surrounding Epstein’s case.
Though I’m still hesitant to sound the Epstein air horn, I feel the need to stay attentive and observant.
