Imagine sitting in a congressional hearing, grilling a witness about a former president, only to be caught texting a notorious convicted criminal for tips. That’s the unenviable position Stacey Plaskett, the non-voting delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, finds herself in after revelations of her 2019 communications with Jeffrey Epstein surfaced.
According to the Daily Mail, this controversy centers on Plaskett’s secret texts with Epstein during a hearing featuring testimony from Michael Cohen, a former attorney for Donald Trump, which has now erupted into a full-blown political firestorm.
Back in 2019, while Cohen testified against Trump, Plaskett, a 59-year-old member of the House Intelligence Committee, was exchanging messages with Epstein, a Virgin Islands resident and known sex offender who had pleaded guilty to prostitution charges over a decade earlier.
The texts, recently uncovered by The Washington Post after being initially redacted in emails from Epstein’s estate, showed the disgraced financier tipping off Plaskett about one of Trump’s former executive assistants during the hearing.
Plaskett’s office confirmed the authenticity of the report, leaving little room for denial, though the timing—just months before Epstein’s death in a Manhattan cell—adds a grim layer to the scandal.
One has to wonder: with dozens of women accusing Epstein of horrific abuses, why would a public official risk such contact? It’s a question that cuts to the heart of trust in our representatives.
Fast forward to this week, and Plaskett narrowly dodged a formal reprimand in the House with a razor-thin vote of 214-209 against censure, a sign of just how divisive this issue has become.
Appearing on CNN the following day, she faced tough questions from hosts Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown, who pressed her on why she engaged with such a tainted figure.
“I had 'lots of people' texting me that day and that I had been chatting with Epstein, one of my constituents, to obtain information,” Plaskett said, attempting to frame the exchange as routine constituent outreach.
Let’s unpack that: reaching out to a convicted predator for dirt during a high-stakes hearing isn’t exactly the kind of constituent service most taxpayers expect. If anything, it raises red flags about judgment, especially for someone on the House Intelligence Committee.
Plaskett doubled down, insisting her goal was truth-seeking, not friendship. “I believe that Jeffrey Epstein had information, and I was gonna get information to get at the truth,” she told CNN, distancing herself from any personal connection.
Yet, when asked if she’d have pursued the same line of questioning without Epstein’s input, her response—“Probably not”—suggests his influence was more significant than she’d like to admit. That’s a tough pill to swallow for those who value integrity over political point-scoring.
While Plaskett’s defenders might argue she was just doing her job, the optics of cozying up to a figure as reviled as Epstein are disastrous, especially in an era where public trust in institutions hangs by a thread.
Even acknowledging the complexities—yes, investigators often deal with unsavory sources—this situation feels less like gritty detective work and more like a reckless misstep. For conservatives wary of progressive overreach, it’s yet another example of questionable ethics excused under the banner of “getting to the truth.”