Imagine sitting in a congressional hearing, only to learn a lawmaker is texting a convicted criminal for advice on questioning a witness.
That’s the jaw-dropping scenario unfolding as the Trump White House and conservative voices call out Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) for defending Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-USVI) over her 2019 communications with Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious figure in a sex trafficking scandal.
The New York Post reported that the controversy stems from Plaskett’s interactions with Epstein during a House Oversight Committee hearing on Feb. 27, 2019, compounded by Raskin’s dismissive remarks, a failed censure motion against Plaskett, and the recent release of damning Epstein files by the House.
Let’s rewind to that February 2019 hearing, where Michael Cohen, then-fixer for President Trump, was testifying under intense scrutiny.
Plaskett, a delegate from the Virgin Islands, was caught exchanging messages with Epstein, who was advising her on how to direct her questions about Trump Organization figures.
Epstein’s texts weren’t just casual chats; they included specific suggestions on probing Cohen for names tied to Trump’s business dealings.
Plaskett’s reply, “Yup. Very aware and waiting my turn,” shows she was actively engaging with his input during the hearing, raising serious questions about ethical boundaries.
Just one minute after her questioning ended, Epstein texted her, “Good work,” as if grading her performance. If this doesn’t scream inappropriate coordination, what does?
Fast forward to the aftermath: Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in July 2019, less than six months after these exchanges. His death in a Manhattan jail cell on Aug. 10, 2019, while awaiting trial, only deepened the public’s unease about his influence over powerful figures.
Enter Rep. Jamie Raskin, who recently stepped into the fray during a floor debate over a resolution to censure Plaskett for her Epstein ties. His attempt to brush off the incident as a mere constituent call has drawn sharp criticism from the Trump White House.
“Jamie Raskin — one of the worst to ever disgrace the halls of Congress — says @StaceyPlaskett was just ‘taking a phone call from her constituent’ when she colluded with a convicted sex offender during a committee hearing,” blasted the White House rapid response X account. Talk about missing the forest for the trees—defending such behavior as routine is a stretch even for the most lenient ethical standards.
The censure motion against Plaskett, which also sought her removal from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, ultimately failed by a narrow vote of 214-209. Yet, the close margin signals that many in Congress aren’t buying the excuse that this was just business as usual.
Adding fuel to the fire, the House voted 427-1 on a recent Tuesday to compel the Justice Department to release all its files on Epstein.
Among the 20,000 documents from Epstein’s estate, released by the House Oversight Committee on Nov. 12, were copies of the exchanges between him and Plaskett, confirming the disturbing extent of their communication.
Independent journalist Lee Fang has also highlighted Plaskett’s past ties to Epstein, noting her role in securing tax credits for him while serving in the Virgin Islands government. Add to that her work for Epstein’s fixer and campaign support from him and his aides during her 2014 election win, and the picture becomes even murkier.
Critics argue this isn’t just about one hearing—it’s about a pattern of questionable associations that demands accountability. How can the public trust officials who cozy up to figures like Epstein while wielding influence over policy and investigations?
The Trump White House isn’t alone in questioning the judgment here; many Americans are likely wondering why progressive defenders seem so quick to downplay these interactions. It’s not about witch hunts—it’s about ensuring those in power aren’t compromised by ties to criminal figures.