By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a deposition, former Ohio State University athletic director Andy Geiger stated his opinion that Rep. Jim Jordan “probably knew” about alleged abuse by Dr. Richard Strauss more than two decades ago. Geiger testified that discussions about Strauss and athlete unhappiness with showering situations were “active and loud,” making it “not credible” for someone involved in the program to be unaware. Jordan has consistently denied any knowledge of the abuse. This testimony is part of over 200 lawsuits filed by former students alleging abuse by Strauss.
Read the original article here
The notion that former Ohio State official Jim Lombardo’s testimony implies Rep. Jim Jordan “probably knew” about campus abuse isn’t particularly surprising to many observers. It seems to fall into a category of information that, while significant, feels like it confirms long-held suspicions. The idea of a politician allegedly turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse of young people, especially to protect their own standing, isn’t a new narrative in political circles. If there were truly functional professionals in Congress, one might expect them to vigorously confront Jordan on these matters, perhaps pushing for his resignation.
Jordan’s lack of cooperation with investigations is often cited as telling, suggesting he has something to hide. Lombardo, who worked for the university from 1990 to 2004 and supervised Strauss for a portion of that time, stated in his deposition that he became aware in the early 1990s that Strauss was showering with athletes at Larkins Hall and instructed him to cease such behavior. Lombardo also mentioned he wasn’t aware at the time that these allegations should have been reported to law enforcement, citing that such matters weren’t openly discussed in the 1990s.
However, the suggestion that reporting such an incident wouldn’t have been considered reportable even in the 1990s is met with skepticism. The very act of telling Strauss to stop indicates an understanding that something was amiss, something inappropriate. The current sentiment is that there’s little room for doubt that knowledge of misconduct existed. Some even darkly speculate about the potential for Jordan to have recorded such events if the technology were available then, reflecting a deep distrust.
The characterization of Jordan as someone who covered up for a “pedophile rapist” is a strong accusation, but it resonates with those who see this as a predictable outcome given the current Republican political landscape. The admission of complicity in abuse, combined with the certainty that Jordan would still win his heavily gerrymandered district by a landslide, highlights a perceived disconnect between accountability and electoral success. The existence of contemporary confirmations that Jordan was previously notified during the initial investigation, yet seemingly nothing has transpired, points to a belief that the system operates with a double standard.
The fact that Jordan continues to chair the House Judiciary Committee is considered particularly striking by many, adding another layer of oversight questions surrounding his leadership. At a minimum, proponents of accountability argue, Congress should be led by individuals who take such serious matters seriously. The phrasing of “probably knew” is seen by some as an understatement, with many convinced that Jordan possessed actual knowledge and failed to act to protect those being abused. This is further conflated with accusations of complicity in covering up other alleged wrongdoings, painting a picture of a political party perceived as supportive of individuals accused of abusive behavior.
The phrase “probably” is indeed doing a significant amount of work in this context, especially considering Jordan’s public persona. He has built a career investigating others, targeting figures like the Bidens, the FBI, and the intelligence community. Yet, when it comes to the actions of his former superior, the wrestling coach, and the alleged abuse of athletes under that coach, Jordan’s memory is suddenly unclear. This selective amnesia is viewed by critics as hypocrisy, and they express dismay at the continued electoral success of such politicians, attributing it to a lack of informed or discerning voters.
The assertion that people who were abused have stated Jordan knew is a powerful counterpoint to the “probably knew” framing. The idea of Ohio repeatedly electing individuals perceived as “pedo protectors” is deeply unsettling to many, creating a sense of sickness and disbelief. Some even entertain the extreme notion that Jordan may have orchestrated the abuse himself, reflecting the depth of suspicion directed towards him. The nickname “Gym Jordan” has been around for a long time, precisely because this issue of covering up child sex abuse has been a recurring theme. The comparison to figures like Hastert, who led the House as Speaker for an extended period, is used to illustrate how leadership can be compromised.
The perceived complicity of political figures in hiding sensitive information, such as the Epstein files, leads some to believe that Jordan could have been involved in orchestrating abuse. The consistent re-election of Jordan by the people of Ohio is seen as astonishing, and the argument is made that if voters were less beholden to party loyalty, such outcomes would be different. The Republican party’s perceived penchant for unethical behavior, rather than opposition to it, is also highlighted, with the breakdown of oversight mechanisms being a major concern. Leadership roles, it’s argued, should come with genuine accountability.
Jordan’s refusal to cooperate with investigations is seen as a significant red flag in itself, making it difficult to trust oversight from someone who actively avoids it. The situation is even compared to the Penn State scandal, suggesting a pattern of institutional failures. Gerrymandering is identified as a key factor that shields politicians from accountability, often preventing stories like this from impacting electoral outcomes. The “probably knew” phrasing is specifically criticized for feeling too weak, especially when individuals were raising concerns at the time. The fact that Jordan has been in Congress since 2007, holding senior roles without significant legislative achievements, further fuels criticism regarding his effectiveness and priorities.