Harvard
Larry Summers, the former Secretary of the Treasury and ex-President of Harvard, is stepping back from his “public roles”. He plans (hopes) to maintain his “private role” as a professor at Harvard, but even that’s a question for him right now. Summers maintained a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein until the last months of Epstein’s life, right before the once convicted pedophile was indicted again, imprisoned, and ultimately died in his prison cell.
There is no evidence that Summers was involved in sex acts with underage women. The issue is that, even though Summers knew what Epstein was involved with, he continued to take financial, political and personal advice from him. In one of their last emails, Summers asked Epstein for help with a new “girlfriend”. He clearly didn’t find Epstein’s personal actions rose to the level of cutting off their own private relationship.
Summers is guilty; guilty of bad judgment. It’s such bad judgment that it brings into question his ability to advise the “high and mighty” about his own area of expertise, finance. Senator Elizabeth Warren, herself a former Harvard faculty member, asks whether Summers should be educating the next generation of financial experts. That’s a good question.
Clinton
It’s the same question we need to ask of former President Bill Clinton. There is no current evidence that Clinton was engaged in inappropriate activities through Epstein. Clinton himself says that they shared a common interest in African economic development through the Clinton Foundation. But even at the time, the early 2000’s, Clinton should have known that Epstein was more than “shaky”. At least Clinton cut ties with Epstein after his first sex offense conviction in 2007.
Of course, we all know Bill Clinton’s own history of sexual exploits. Of anyone, he should have been hyper-aware of the “optics” of Jeffrey Epstein. So, to use an old phrase, there’s a lot of smoke, where’s the fire?
Dream Team
How important was Jeffrey Epstein? To round-out the circle, one of Epstein’s lawyers in the 2007 child-sex case was former Federal Judge and US Solicitor General Ken Starr. He was best known for prosecuting President Clinton, first for questionable Arkansas land deals, and ultimately for lying on a deposition about having sex with a White House intern. This led to Clinton’s impeachment by the House, and acquittal by the Senate. (And my having to explain that oral sex was really still sex to a bunch of high school seniors in my government class!)
Epstein had Starr, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, and noted defense attorney Roy Black on his 2007 defense team. No wonder the US Attorney (and future Trump Secretary of Labor) Alex Acosta cut Epstein an incredibly lenient deal. He was looking at a legal “dream team” across the table.
Revealed
Of course, Americans want to know what prominent Americans like Summers, Clinton, current informal Presidential advisor Steve Bannon, and others had to do with Epstein. Sure there’s the prurient interest; did these leaders actually abuse underage women (and men)? But there’s also the “Summers” question. How did these leaders, and seemingly so many other prominent men, have the bad judgment to “stick with Epstein”, even after his actions were publicly revealed?
Recent published emails suggest that Epstein thought he had “leverage” over many of these men. Maybe it’s the obvious: they participated in Epstein’s ongoing underage sex “business”. Or maybe just the bad judgment they showed in “using” Epstein for financial advice was enough to make them vulnerable. Either way, it’s not just a matter of punishing the “guilty”. We must also question their judgment.
Americans ask a simple question, one that President Trump has failed to answer as well. It’s unimaginable that all of these highly informed “gentlemen” didn’t know what was going on. Here in Central Ohio, back in the early 1990’s Epstein was a key part of the growth of Les Wexner’s Limited Corporation. Even then, there were rumors of sexual impropriety at Wexner’s New Albany mansion, involving both young women and men. If I heard them here in Pataskala, others must of heard them as well.
It may not be about depraved actions, the commission of crimes. It’s just as important to determine the depths of our leaders’ judgment. What “omissions” were they willing to tolerate? And perhaps just as important, what “kompromat”, if any, did Epstein use to control them? Because if he could do it then, and even now from beyond the grave; who else might have that same control?
We need to know.
