Imagine a convicted sex offender coaching a sitting lawmaker in real time during a high-stakes congressional hearing. That’s the unsettling picture painted by newly released documents tying Delegate Stacey Plaskett, a House Democrat from the U.S. Virgin Islands, to Jeffrey Epstein, a man whose criminal past was already well-known by early 2019.
According to Just the News, these records reveal that during a February 2019 House Oversight Committee hearing featuring testimony from Michael Cohen against then-President Donald Trump, Plaskett exchanged text messages with Epstein, who offered strategic advice on how to tarnish Trump’s image.
Epstein, already a convicted offender who had served time in Florida, was no stranger to controversy even before his later federal sex-trafficking charges. Yet, somehow, he found himself in direct communication with a member of Congress during a pivotal moment of political theater. It’s a connection that raises eyebrows, to say the least, about the influences shaping public discourse.
During the hearing, Epstein texted Plaskett with specific pointers, including references to Trump associates like Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant, whom he called “RONA — keeper of the secrets,” despite a spelling slip.
Plaskett, seemingly unaware of the reference, responded with, “RONA?? Quick I’m up next is that an acronym.” This exchange, straight from the disclosed messages, hints at a dynamic where Epstein was guiding her questioning on the fly. Epstein clarified, “That’s his assistant,” and continued to egg her on, suggesting the testimony had “opened the door” to probing other figures at the Trump Organization. It’s hard not to wonder how much of Plaskett’s line of inquiry was her own versus a script from a deeply problematic source.
Sure enough, during the hearing, Plaskett pressed Cohen on names like Graff and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s CFO—individuals Epstein had flagged in his texts. The alignment between his advice and her actions is, at best, a curious coincidence.
Plaskett’s office has since confirmed she did communicate with Epstein via text during this period, though they frame it as part of a “broad range of input” she received. That explanation might sound reasonable to some, but accepting counsel from a figure like Epstein hardly seems like standard congressional practice.
Her team also insisted she welcomes “information that helps her get at the truth.” Fair enough, but when that information comes from someone with Epstein’s baggage, one has to question the cost of such truth-seeking.
This isn’t just about one lawmaker or one hearing; it’s about the integrity of the process itself. When external voices—especially those with criminal histories—can seemingly sway a public official’s approach in real time, it erodes trust in our institutions.
Plaskett’s name was initially redacted in the released files, but the timing and content of the messages matched her behavior during the hearing. That correlation alone demands a deeper look into how such interactions are allowed to happen.
Epstein’s influence, however minor or major it may have been, points to a vulnerability in how lawmakers engage with outside sources. It’s not “woke” to demand accountability; it’s common sense for those who value transparent governance over political gamesmanship.
While Plaskett’s defenders might argue she was simply gathering input, the optics of texting with a convicted offender during a live hearing are tough to justify. Conservatives and moderates alike should agree that elected officials must hold themselves to a higher standard than this.
The progressive agenda often champions inclusivity of voices, but surely that shouldn’t extend to figures whose moral and legal standing is as compromised as Epstein’s was. This incident serves as a reminder that principles must guide policy, not questionable alliances, no matter the political target.
Ultimately, this story isn’t about partisan point-scoring but about ensuring our representatives operate above reproach. The Epstein-Plaskett texts are a wake-up call to tighten the boundaries of who gets to whisper in a lawmaker’s ear—especially when the stakes are as high as a congressional hearing targeting a sitting president.