Lawmakers seeking to force the release of files related to the sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein are predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for their bill and bucking the GOP leadership and Donald Trump, who for months have disparaged their effort.

The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted.

“There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.”

  • Tehbaz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    IF the midterms are free and fair (a big if, considering the efforts by the GOP to ratfuck every federal election since Biden won) then the Democrats need to make electoral reform a priority. Proportional representation in Congress and replacing the electoral college with ranked choice/runoff ballots is the only feasible way to save what’s left of US democracy besides a revolution.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re right, but just look at what happened to Biden’s “day 1 priority” Voting Rights Act. Dumpstered after 1 week in office.

      How do you propose we hold democrats’ feet to the fire and force them to work on passing such legislation?

    • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      That doesn’t solve campaign finance laws or any of the other issues stemming from Citizens United.

      Politicians have not represented their voters for a long time they represent their wealthy donors. Changing the mechanism for how we vote won’t change enough.

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        It does in an indirect way due to having more parties.

        Let’s say you have $1M to try to buy off some politicians with campaign funds. If there are only two viable candidates, you give $500k to both. Now you’ve bought both parties and can win no matter the outcome.

        If there are three or four or five parties, though, you have to guess who is going to win. You can’t split it up that many times and still have much influence on the politicians in question. Your funds can be easily swamped out by grassroots groups. Your guess based on polling can also end up being dead wrong when some party makes a sudden surge in the final weeks.

        That said, it’d still be better if we ditched Citizens United and publicly funded elections.