Politics
Column: There should be no partisan divide about naming Epstein’s fellow abusers
At a House Judiciary hearing on Wednesday, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi was holding a document labeled “Jayapal Pramila Search History” that included a list of files from the unredacted Epstein archive accessible to lawmakers such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
That means over the course of a year Bondi’s Department of Justice has made time to speak with Ghislaine Maxwell — the New York socialite who helped Jeffrey Epstein run his billion-dollar child-sex-trafficking operation — and it made time to surveil a Democratic lawmaker who conducts oversight as a member of the Judiciary Committee. But it has yet to meet with the victims of Epstein’s crimes who want to talk.
When she took office, Bondi promised us transparency. She didn’t promise we would like what we would see from her.
The general public’s awareness of Epstein’s heinous crimes came with political baggage. However at this point, the question we all should wonder is: How does redacting the names of the men who helped fund Epstein’s operation benefit either political party? It may be good for the rich and powerful men trying to avoid accountability, but it’s not exactly a campaign platform.
Yet here we are as a country, chained to the same vocabulary used during an election, so a conversation that should be about right and wrong is accompanied by poll numbers and analysis about the midterm elections. As if the Justice Department’s refusal to interview rape survivors is an inside-the-Beltway topic and not reflective of a larger moral crisis. We have seen Congress kept out of session to avoid voting on the release of the Epstein files; we have heard equivocation about whether Epstein was a pedophile. We know Epstein’s island was a place where evil resided.
The investigation, or lack of investigation, into Epstein’s fellow abusers should not be seen by anyone as a political quandary in which the object of the game is to keep your party in power. The fact that there is a Republican-vs.-Democrat divide on accountability for sex abuse reveals a national moral crisis. When the abuse of children is viewed through a partisan lens, how else can one describe this period in America?
Fifty years ago, when President Carter was tasked with healing the nation after the Watergate scandal, he told Americans in his inaugural address that he was leaning on his faith, and one prophet in particular.
“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?,” Carter said, quoting Micah 6:8. “This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our government, and a new spirit among us all. A president may sense and proclaim that new spirit, but only a people can provide it.”
The Hebrew prophet Micah was from a rural area, not born into the wealth of the royal court. He was not being compensated by those who were. Instead, Micah reflected the voice of the people who were forced to live in poor conditions because of corruption. He described the actions of the morally bankrupt judges, political leaders and other elites in graphic, violent terms, condemning those “who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones.”
This, he said, is what it is like being ruled by those who are not guided by what is good and what is evil, but rather what is most beneficial for themselves in the moment. When Micah spoke, it wasn’t about the latest poll numbers. His warnings about government corruption are not unique to any particular faith, nor are they married to any political party. They embody centuries of human history, a history that tells what happens to a society when power goes unchecked.
And be not mistaken, it was unchecked power — not any party affiliation — that provided Epstein and Maxwell with patronage. It was moral failure, not conservatives or liberals, that provided cover for their child-sex-trafficking ring.
So if for partisan reasons the abusers of children are not held accountable for their crimes, the language of politics fails us. The word for that is simply: evil.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi has created a moral crisis by allowing the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s fellow abusers to become a partisan political issue rather than a matter of fundamental accountability and justice[3]. The DOJ has monitored a Democratic lawmaker’s access to Epstein files while reportedly meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell but declining to meet with Epstein survivors seeking to discuss their experiences[1][3].
-
Redacting the names of wealthy and powerful men implicated in Epstein’s crimes while exposing victims’ identities serves no legitimate governmental interest and only protects the rich and powerful from accountability regardless of political affiliation[3]. The failure to hold co-conspirators accountable after more than a year in office, combined with refusals to apologize to survivors, demonstrates a troubling prioritization of protecting certain interests over justice[3].
-
When child sexual abuse becomes filtered through partisan politics rather than evaluated on moral grounds, it reflects a fundamental failure of governance and represents a national crisis of conscience[3]. The politicization of this issue obscures what should be a universal principle: that accountability for crimes against children transcends party affiliation and election cycles[3].
Different views on the topic
-
The Department of Justice maintains that it records all searches conducted in its systems specifically to safeguard against the disclosure of victim information, suggesting that monitoring access to sensitive Epstein files serves a protective function rather than partisan surveillance[1]. Attorney General Bondi stated that the department has pending investigations in its office related to potential Epstein conspirators[2], indicating that prosecutorial work continues despite public criticism.
-
The release of Epstein files is an ongoing process requiring careful legal review to protect victims’ privacy and ensure proper handling of sensitive evidence[4]. The DOJ’s approach to redacting certain information may reflect legitimate institutional concerns about victim protection and the complexities of managing millions of declassified documents[1].
new video loaded: How Rubio Is Driving the U.S. Pressure Campaign on Cuba
By Michael Crowley, Nikolay Nikolov, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Jon Miller and Whitney Shefte
May 20, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A newly active X account bearing former first son Hunter Biden’s name drew mockery from GOP lawmakers and prominent social media personalities after posting its first message Tuesday.
“Your laptop’s reputation precedes you,” Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn wrote in response to the “@HunterBiden” account.
Fox News Digital reached out to X and Hunter Biden’s art gallery to verify if the account belongs to the former president’s son, but did not receive confirmation. The account has garnered thousands of followers and interactions since Tuesday, when it launched its first message.
“I’m Hunter Biden. You’ve never actually heard from me,” the account blaring the former first son’s name posted.
The account’s profile reads: “Artist. Author. Recovery Advocate.”
HUNTER BIDEN HELPED MAKE CAMPAIGN DECISIONS, WAS MAJOR FIXTURE IN FATHER’S ORBIT, AUTHOR SAYS
Hunter Biden posts his first message on X and Substack. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Hunter, 56, has re-emerged in the public spotlight as he attempts to rebuild his image following years of controversy involving drug addiction, legal troubles and scrutiny surrounding his personal life.
The X account, @HunterBiden, was first launched in 2013, according to a Fox News Digital review, but posted its first public message on Tuesday. Hunter Biden’s art gallery website is linked to the X account, while the art gallery’s website links to the X account, a YouTube page and a Substack account.
The tweet sparked a wave of mockery aimed at the younger Biden, as well as a handful of accounts quipping that the former first son would allegedly launch a 2028 run.
“We’ve heard plenty,” said Republican Indiana Sen. Jim Banks responded to the account.
“Trust me, we’ve heard and seen ENOUGH from you,” Republican Missouri Rep. Jason Smith chimed in.
Other social media users quickly piled onto the alleged Hunter Biden post, resurfacing past controversies and even floating him as a potential political candidate.
“Oh this oughta be good,” said conservative commentator Nick Sortor in an X response.
“Very real chance he doesn’t remember that we have, in fact, heard from him in hours of podcasting before now,” said Fox News contributor Mary Katharine Ham.
“The 2028 Dark Horse Candidate,” wrote one X user, while another added “He’s running.”
MAMDANI’S WIFE’S ‘STUDENT SKETCHBOOK’ ART IS HUNTER BIDEN EFFECT ALL OVER AGAIN, SAYS US ARTIST
Hunter’s art gallery website links his X account, Youtube, as well as a newly formed Substack which posts the same message. (TheImageDirect.com)
Additionally, Candace Owens tagged the X account in a trailer for her upcoming interview with Hunter Biden, who is continuing a media tour following years of controversy while under the public spotlight.
The @HunterBiden account reposted the video, writing, “She’s got questions. I’ve got answers. Thursday.”
JOE BIDEN POSES WITH HUNTER’S CHINESE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES IN NEWLY SURFACED PHOTOS: ‘INCREDIBLY DAMNING’
Hunter reportedly moved out of the United States amid mounting legal issues, just a year after his father left the presidential office in 2025. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
HUNTER BIDEN’S FINANCIAL WOES REVEALED IN NEW MOTION TO DROP LAWSUIT: ‘SIGNIFICANT DEBT’
Hunter Biden has been involved in a string of controversies spanning his foreign business dealings, tax and gun charges, and scrutiny tied to his family’s political connections.
Hunter received a pardon from President Joe Biden for any offense he “has committed or may have committed” from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024, before his father left office.
In September 2024, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in California for a scheme evading over $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019. He was also convicted in Delaware in June 2024 for lying on a federal form about his drug use to purchase a firearm in 2018.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Hunter published a memoir titled “Beautiful Things: A Memoir” in 2021 which details his battle with severe substance abuse and family tragedies from his own perspective.
Nearly three months after the United States and Israel launched their large-scale bombing campaign against Iran and about six weeks since the April 8 ceasefire took effect, President Trump faces an inflection point. Does he return to war? Maintain the ceasefire and U.S. blockade on Iranian ports in the hope of cutting a deal on American terms? Or drop his maximalist negotiating stance?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an informal foreign policy advisor for the White House, continues to press for more aggressive U.S. military action. Trump’s political advisors would prefer that the war end as soon as possible to minimize political repercussions against the Republican Party in a midterm election year.
Trump seems conflicted. Despite weeks of U.S. bombardment and an ongoing naval blockade, Tehran is as protective of its nuclear program today as it was before the war began. “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. A day later, Trump took to the social media platform again to announce he suspended planned U.S. attacks on Iran to give talks more time.
Unfortunately for Trump, he’s proved to be his own worst enemy on this subject. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and Tehran’s effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the regime’s two biggest cards, are a byproduct of Trump’s own policy decisions.
The first is a clear indictment of Trump’s first-term order to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a highly technical accord that put Iran’s nuclear work in a box by restricting the number and quality of centrifuges it could use, capped the amount of enriched uranium it could produce and compelled Tehran to ship 97% of its stockpile out of the country. When the Trump administration scrapped that hard-won deal, Iran responded by enriching more nuclear material at a faster pace and accumulating the very stockpile the Trump administration is now seeking to neutralize.
The Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s second card, would not even be an issue today if the Trump administration had refrained from going to war in the first place. On Feb. 27, the day before the conflict began, more than 150 tankers and vessels traveled through the strait. The international waterway was open for business.
Not so today. On Thursday, a grand total of three crossings were registered in the waterway. This collapse of commerce is a consequence of Iran’s ability to harass civilian tankers so much that shipping companies no longer view the journey as worth the cost. As Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: “The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically depleted through the strait, but their voice is very loud. And those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and insurance industry.”
By virtue of his own actions, Trump is now left with a series of policy options that range from least bad to terrible. None of them are ideal, and all of them carry some risk.
For starters, Trump could resume the war. Any renewed U.S. bombing campaign would probably expand the U.S. military’s original set of targets to include a portion of Iran’s energy infrastructure, which Trump has threatened repeatedly to hit. A U.S. invasion of Kharg Island, where 90% of Iran’s oil processing takes place, might also be up for discussion. The aim would be to destroy Iran’s remaining military capabilities and further squeeze its oil revenue until Tehran’s strategic calculus on the war shifts to Washington’s liking.
Yet there are no guarantees that doubling down on military force will work. Trump’s entire strategy has relied on a baseline assumption: The more punitive the United States is, the more likely Tehran will be to cave. Yet that simply hasn’t occurred. If anything, Iran is more dug in now than it was in the opening days of the conflict. For the regime, capitulating to Trump is as dangerous as losing the war. Why would more bombing succeed where previous bombing failed?
The risks of additional U.S. military action are considerable as well. Before the ceasefire, Iran was launching ballistic missiles and attack drones across multiple gulf Arab states, hitting Qatar’s largest natural gas processing facility, Saudi Arabia’s east-west oil pipeline and Dubai’s luxurious high-rises. As the Iranians have stated, such attacks will not only resume if Trump orders a resumption of the war but will expand to new targets, including desalination facilities and nuclear power plants. Such strikes would raise global oil and gas prices to even more absurd levels, adding to the extra $40 billion the American people are already paying for fuel since the war began.
What about continuing the status quo? While this contingency would be less costly than another round of bombing or a U.S. ground invasion, it’s unclear whether it would help or hurt negotiations toward a settlement. There’s a possibility that extending the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports could merely reaffirm the regime’s earlier decision to preserve its own shutdown of the strait. Iran is now urging Washington to end its blockade before talks on the nuclear file can be held. And it’s a mystery whether Trump’s blockade is working anyway; the U.S. intelligence community assesses that Iran could withstand this pressure point for three to four more months, which may be too long for Trump to sustain given the oil disruptions that are bound to get worse.
Striking an agreement to end the war, return the strait to open traffic and restrict Iran’s nuclear program would be the most beneficial policy for the United States with the least amount of cost attached — not quite undoing the harm from Trump’s first-term decision to scrap the nuclear deal and his second-term decision to start a war. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are passing proposals back and forth as we speak. But as of now, Trump can’t stomach agreeing to a deal that covers some of Iran’s terms, including but not limited to a shorter suspension of enriched uranium and some kind of Iranian role in the management of the strait. Even if Trump did reassess his position, he would be forced to confront the hawks in his political coalition who would consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.
In short, Trump is in an unenviable position. He’s got nobody to blame but himself.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist.
-
Georgia1 minute agoHow Keisha Lance Bottoms plans to win Georgia governor race as underdog
-
Hawaii7 minutes agoThe 7 Friendliest Little Towns In Hawaii
-
Idaho13 minutes agoIdaho State Police seize narcotics after pursuit near Pocatello
-
Illinois19 minutes agoUChicago Medicine performs first-known quadruple transplant surgery in Illinois
-
Indiana25 minutes agoCaitlin Clark scratched from Indiana Fever lineup at the last minute because of injury
-
Iowa31 minutes agoIowa State AD says he doesn’t care if SEC, Big Ten leave other P4 Conferences behind: ‘Let them break away’
-
Kansas37 minutes agoUnited Market opens in Kansas City’s Linwood Shopping Center, bringing fresh food back to Prospect
-
Kentucky43 minutes agoWATCH: Rep. Thomas Massie’s full concession speech after defeat in Kentucky GOP primary
