They call the summer the silly season for a reason, but perhaps this particular summer is sillier than others as politicians, the media, and political junkies on social media obsess over two very different issues while the American people enjoy their barbecues and vacations.
Over the past month, a man who died in 2019 has generated countless headlines, complete with the requisite angle that the news is so bad for President Donald Trump it could fracture his entire coalition and threaten the future of his presidency. The man in question, of course, is Jeffrey Epstein, whom President Trump himself was associated with as part of the elite society in New York City along with former President Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew, legal professor and celebrity Alan Dershowitz, and countless others in the late 1990s and early 2000s before he was charged in Florida with a state felony count of solicitation and prostitution. At the time, the local prosecutors referred the case to the FBI as well, who pursued more potential victims and expanded the number of criminal counts to 60. In July 2007, Mr. Epstein’s attorney met with the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta to negotiate a plea deal. Mr. Epstein would plead guilty to the two state charges, agree to a short prison term, register as a sex offender, and develop a means for his victims to seek financial damages. The deal, which was heavily criticized from the start, also included a secret non-prosecution agreement that granted Mr. Epstein, four co-conspirators, and any additional “potential conspirators” immunity that was filed under seal and was not disclosed to the victims. In June of the next year, Mr. Epstein formally pleaded guilty to these charges and was sentenced to 18 months in a minimum security facility, though he was released for twelve hours per day making it not much of a confinement. By 2009, Mr. Epstein was officially released after serving only 13 months, but at the same time, a judge ordered the immunity agreement made public and he was forced to settle multiple civil lawsuits initiated by his victims. Fast forward to 2018 when the Miami Herald published a series of reports into Mr. Epstein with a focus on the role of Mr. Acosta, now a part of the first Trump Administration as Labor Secretary, in the initial plea deal.
At this point, the insinuation that powerful people knew about and/or were involved in his actions begins to enter the public consciousness, especially after Harvey Weinstein launched the #MeToo movement when it was revealed that other powerful figures were well aware of his deplorable actions. On July 6 of the following year, Mr. Epstein was charged again, this time in the Southern District of New York, with one count of sex trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. Mr. Acosta resigned less than a week later and Mr. Epstein hung himself in prison barely a month later, a suspicious situation that prompted many to claim he was secretly killed. Though the defendant was dead, US District Judge Richard M. Berman proceeded with a hearing on whether to dismiss the charges on August 27, where he told the court he will hear “the testimony of victims here today” and that they could hide their identities using the name Jane Doe. “Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused me for years, robbing me of my innocence and mental health,” Courtney Wild, a woman who helped begin the first proceedings ten years earlier testified. “Jeffrey Epstein has done nothing but manipulate our justice system, where he has never been held accountable for his actions, even to this day.” Between Mr. Epstein’s mysterious death, the sense that there was a conspiracy of powerful people hiding and participating in his behavior, and the subsequent trial of Ghislaine Maxwell as a conspirator in the sex trafficking ring, a story that simply wouldn’t go away was born. To progressives, it was proof that President Trump in particular was somehow involved, sleeping with underage girls. To conservatives, it was proof that the government was covering up the truth, not revealing the details of the investigation or Mr. Epstein’s contacts, a set of documents that no one even knows really exists that became known as “The Epstein Files.”
As President Trump came into office for the second time, several members of his Administration promised transparency, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino, who variously claimed they would release the supposed files and re-investigate Mr. Epstein’s death. Ultimately, they failed to deliver for reasons that remain at least somewhat unclear, claiming Mr. Epstein died via suicide as the original medical examiner found and there were no actual files to speak of, prompting progressives and some conservatives to begin freaking out beyond all measure. President Trump’s political opponents immediately branded him a pedophile despite having no interest in releasing the supposed files the entire time Joe Biden was in office, some even claiming he admitted to pedophilia himself as a result of a highly suspect Wall Street Journal report on a birthday card he’d supposedly written twenty years ago but which they never actually possessed or authenticated. President Trump’s supporters, or at least a segment of them, began claiming he was implicit in the cover up and therefore, no better than any other politician in Washington, that he had come back to office to drain the swamp, only to have the swamp suck him in. While there was no concrete evidence of either position beyond speculation, the story, powered by a mainstream media eager to run anything potentially damaging to President Trump and social media eager for something to talk about, exploded – at least in the virtual world of both spheres. Finally, progressives believed they had something on President Trump that would stick and cause a fracture with his base, permanently damaging his second term. The Washington Post claimed “Trump survived many scandals, but the Epstein scandal poses a new test.” The Hill believed “Jeffrey Epstein is splitting MAGA. Will he sink Trump and Republicans?” noting, “For the first time, there is a very real threat to Trump’s perceived infallibility among the most devoted.” CNN framed it, “Trump’s Epstein nightmare worsens amid new revelations and a GOP revolt,” “The Jeffrey Epstein morass surrounding President Donald Trump is deepening amid growing defiance by some Republicans and despite the administration’s most inflammatory attempt yet at distraction.” Meanwhile, those like myself who shared some concerns about how the matter was handled and government transparency in general, wondered why anyone believed a presidency could be brought down by a man dead almost six years, whose relation to President Trump was already known, and when President Trump wasn’t implicated in anything improper? To us, this simply didn’t seem like a story average people cared about, and recent data indicates were were correct when CNN’s own analyst, Harry Enten, reported that public interest, while initially high by some measures, had completely collapsed. After noting that Google searches, not exactly a compelling metric to begin with, had fallen 89% over three weeks and referring to the story as a “nothingburger,” he concluded “I would say that this is, from at least a political point of view, quickly turning into a dud of a story,” on CNN News Central, prompting anchor Kate Bolduan to remark how “wild” it was that interest had fallen off, revealing her own bias in the process.
Shortly after the Epstein story broke, however, the media and progressives found a new cause that no one really cares about, yet another where they could brand Trump a corrupt authoritarian: Redistricting and the idea that our current Congressional districts are overly and intentionally “gerrymandered” to favor one party or another. This particular story was prompted by efforts in Texas to take the unusual step of redoing their districts in a fashion more favorable to Republicans outside of the typical ten year cycle. Though many Democrat run states had maps with tortured districts specifically designed to limit Republicans chances – Massachusetts, for example, has zero Republican districts, and Illinois only has 3, despite having far more conservative voters – suddenly Texas and possibly other Republican states reducing Democrat influence was yet another assault on democracy. Incredibly, Politico claimed almost exactly that, although I’m not sure they intended to when they unironically reported how “Democrats try to separate their tactical use of redistricting from that of Republicans.” The story began when Texas lawmakers fled Austin for Chicago (located in one of the most gerrymandered states in the country) to prevent a vote on a new map that would essentially eliminate five safe Democrat seats, meaning refusing to vote is now democracy. As they saw it, “Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder are pushing back against the notion that Democrats’ gerrymandering efforts bear any resemblance to Republican plans to extract five new seats in Texas ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.” “What Greg Abbott is doing and what Donald Trump is attempting to do is to cheat mid-decade here. They’re attempting to change the map,” Governor Pritzker rationalized to NBC’s Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. “They know that they’re going to lose in 2026, the Congress, and so they’re trying to steal seats. And so that is what these Texas Democrats are trying to stand up against.” Fortunately, even Politico was honest enough to point out the mid-decade redistricting has been done before, although it’s rare, and the reality of gerrymandering in the billionaire governor’s own state. As they noted, “Trump won nearly 44 percent of the vote in Illinois last year, slightly more than the percentage that then-Vice President Kamala Harris won in Texas. But just three of Illinois’ 17 House seats are held by the GOP. Princeton University’s Redistricting Report Card gives the state’s map an F for partisan fairness.” “They have no capability. They’ve already gerrymandered their states in ways in which they don’t have hardly any Republican members of Congress,” explained Governor Abbott. “It’s a joke.”
In response, Governor Pritzker was left babbling about President Trump incoherently yet again, as is typical whatever the subject is at hand. “That’s how it’s done in this country,” he said. “You talked about how rare it is to do what he’s doing. Yes, it is. What’s even rarer is to do it at the behest of the president of the United States, who’s clearly attempting to and says that he deserves to have five more seats.” Former Attorney General Eric Holder even went so far as to claim it was the same as President Trump’s infamous 2020 phone call with the Georgia Secretary of State when he asked if they could find 12,000 more votes somehow. Also in response to the effort in Texas, California Governor Gavin Newsom promised to redistrict his state in something of a tit for tat, despite the recent polls suggesting that voters want to keep the current maps by a two to one margin, making his efforts seem rather undemocratic on the surface at least. Perhaps needless to say, Democrats and their progressive allies immediately claimed he was meeting the moment by making yet another Nazi reference. Whatever the case, it’s hard to see how the average person cares. In principle, I agree that most would prefer a fair allocation of Congressional seats, but in practice, most also think politicians are crooks and liars that will do anything for their own power. Not surprisingly the first instance of gerrymandering goes back to 1812, when Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts created a map favorable to his party that had some appearance to a salamander. The Weekly Messenger, based out of Boston, added claws, wings, fangs, and labelled it a “Gerry-Mander” making it an early instance of what today we would call a meme. Nothing has changed since, but ironically the same sentiment likely underpins the public’s lack of interest in Mr. Epstein beyond the more salacious aspects of the story: Everyone knows the establishment is corrupt and protects their own, whether through rigging the legal process or the electoral process. They’ve managed to get on with their lives for centuries with that knowledge and will continue to do so.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 