Layers of Complicity

 Now that the information in the Epstein files is slowly coming out, many of us are still waiting to hear the names of more wealthy and powerful men believed to have had sex with underage girls.

But there is a whole layer underneath of people connected to Jeffrey Epstein who did not commit such crimes, or those related to them. First, there are individuals who knew very well what was going on with Epstein, even appearing to joke about it with him in emails or texts.

Then there were those who knew but continued their association with Epstein while saying nothing. After that, there were those in the circle who found out about Epstein’s activities, were genuinely shocked, and cut him off in disgust, but still said little or nothing, except in some cases, to authorities. All of these can be exposed to some level of shame as the files come out, but it’s really a question of what they knew and when they knew it.

 “Well, of course, I would have spoken up!” you might say. Really? Suppose you were a corporate CEO, a legislator, or a college president? To be honest, I can understand why some of those who cut Epstein off simply wanted to put as much space as possible between themselves and him without getting further involved. As this story unfolds, however, should everyone with ANY revealed connection to Epstein, be required to resign their positions and go directly to shame hell?

As for the names of all the possible sexual offenders in the Epstein case, we may not get them from the Justice Department directly, but instead from some members of Congress who see the unredacted files or even a few very courageous and fed-up survivors who, in spite of the potential consequences, come forward to publicly say, “When I was 14, I had sex with X and Y while Z watched.” In the post-MeToo era, who is not going to believe them?

But the Epstein saga is much bigger than a few wealthy, dirty old men. Epstein appears to have been at the center of an international sex trafficking operation, suspected to have involved co-conspirators supplying young women from around the world. But he also did things like helping prestigious universities connect to wealthy potential donors.

To me, it’s the biggest thing since the Catholic Church sex-abuse story, unveiled more than two decades ago -- maybe even bigger, since it has involved a wider variety of people. These scandals don’t say much for the human race, but we can take a little comfort in the fact that they still involve only a minority of us.

 

Rules of the Road

 

There’s absolutely no need for the federal government to “take over” the election system, certainly not the way President Trump wants to do it. Election fraud has been consistently shown not to be much of a problem. The Constitution leaves elections up to the states. All of that said, there are many bewildering differences among the states about how they administer them.

Just take the party primary system. It starts in January in Presidential election years with the counting of the first votes in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire. I don’t have a problem with this quaint tradition. But the primary season goes on for half the year. Iowa doesn’t even have primary elections, it has caucuses. Some states have ranked choice voting, but it is not widespread. Super Tuesday pressures candidates to choose which states they will focus their campaigns on. I believe it was President Ford who suggested creating four regional primary dates to shorten the season.

Then there are the internal election rules. Voter registration requirements vary, and while some states allow early voting, the length of time can also vary. Access to polling places is easier in some states than others -- remember the controversy over bringing water to voters standing in line on a hot day? Voting-by-mail regulations also differ.

When it comes to the election itself, even when counting the votes, some states don’t allow it until the polls close, while others do, which makes for the faster release of results.  In my own state, it used to be that your mailed ballot had to reach the election department by Election Day, but that was changed to postmark by Election Day, which means votes are still being tabulated well afterward.

TV election nights are not what they used to be. We need the Steve Kornacki types to explain what’s goibng on, and there’s a much better chance we will not see anything resembling a final result in one night. It’s the 21st century, this should all be faster, right?

We haven’t even discussed gerrymandering, almost as old as the republic itself. When it comes to setting Congressional and other election district boundaries, most states do this through their legislatures, while others use independent commissions.

I could go on, but it’s my feeling that election rules should be more like the rules of the road. We can drive across the country without having to do exhaustive research on traffic laws before crossing a state line. There are state-by-state differences, but they are minor.

While the states have the responsibility of running elections, Congress does have the authority to set some rules. The system could benefit from some tweaking. More uniformity would make elections more efficient, and, in my opinion, fairer too.