Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland sparked a heated debate on the House floor by defending U.S. Virgin Islands Congressional Delegate Stacey Plaskett over her texting of Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing. Raskin’s remarks have drawn sharp rebukes, with critics labeling them as “dishonest” and “sick.”
The controversy erupted when Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina led the charge to censure Plaskett for her communications with Epstein, a convicted sex offender. The resolution claimed her actions discredited the House of Representatives. During the 2019 hearing, where former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified, Plaskett was seen texting Epstein, who resided in the Virgin Islands. Raskin attempted to downplay the situation, stating, “They want to give them another headline!” His argument suggested that Plaskett was merely “taking a phone call from her constituent,” implying there was nothing improper about her communication with Epstein.
These comments did not sit well with many, including the White House’s Rapid Response team, which quickly labeled Raskin’s defense as “sick.” They reinforced their criticism by emphasizing the potential impropriety of a member of Congress texting a person with Epstein’s background during a crucial legislative hearing. Raskin continued to argue for Plaskett’s defense, questioning whether contacting a constituent warranted such severe consequences, asking, “Have we gotten to that point? I mean, come on.”
However, independent journalist Lee Fang challenged Raskin’s assertions by revealing that Plaskett had much deeper connections with Epstein than a mere constituent relationship. Fang pointed out that Plaskett had previously worked to support Epstein’s business endeavors in the Virgin Islands, receiving campaign contributions from him and his associates. “Just incredibly dishonest,” Fang tweeted, criticizing Raskin’s narrative.
Conservative influencers and journalists also weighed in, with many echoing Fang’s sentiments. Comments invoked the absurdity of downplaying Plaskett’s communications with Epstein. For instance, conservative influencer CJ Pearson remarked on the outrageousness of Raskin’s defense. Others called for direct accountability, highlighting that Plaskett had not only received support from Epstein but had also been involved with organizations that facilitated his financial dealings.
Plaskett herself defended her actions, claiming she had no prior knowledge of Epstein’s legal troubles at the time of their exchange. “I began to get innumerable texts from friends, from foes, from constituents about what was happening in that hearing,” she explained during her address. She surprised many when she stated she “does not need to get advice on how to question anybody from any individual,” underscoring her experience as a lawyer for three decades.
Ultimately, the resolution to censure Plaskett failed in a House vote, which highlighted the divisive nature of the issue and the varying perspectives on accountability and communication within Congress. The entire episode illustrates the complex web of relationships and reputations that continue to play out in the public eye, particularly when high-profile figures are involved. As the debate rages on, the implications for both Raskin and Plaskett remain to be seen as more details surrounding their connections with Epstein unfold.
"*" indicates required fields
