Lawmakers Shocked as Delegate Stacey Plaskett Texted Jeffrey Epstein During Congressional Hearing
In the middle of a congressional hearing, most lawmakers are focused on questioning witnesses, reviewing documents, or following testimony closely.
Yet Democratic Delegate Stacey Plaskett (VI-At Large) reportedly spent part of that time texting convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — sparking outrage and confusion across the political spectrum.
According to reports, Plaskett’s messages with Epstein influenced her questioning of an anti-Trump witness, raising eyebrows about both judgment and propriety.
Her defense? What her team calls the “constituency defense.” Plaskett explained on the House floor:
“I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was my constituent. He was sharing information with me — which wasn’t public knowledge at that time.”
The justification struck many as implausible. While lawmakers do communicate with constituents, casual texting with a convicted sex offender in the middle of a hearing is highly unusual. Referring to Epstein merely as a “constituent” also seemed to downplay the severity of his crimes.
In a CNN interview, Plaskett elaborated, emphasizing that Epstein’s Virgin Islands property qualified him as a constituent. “Individuals get your phone number. They text you about issues. They speak with you,” she said. Critics noted that while Epstein owned property in the Virgin Islands, his primary residence was in New York, casting doubt on her claim.
Further reporting by The Washington Post revealed that Plaskett had initiated the messages at 7:55 a.m. on the day of the hearing, contradicting her suggestion that she was merely responding to unsolicited outreach. More concerning were details of the exchanges, including Epstein commenting on Plaskett’s appearance — interactions far beyond what is typical for constituent communication.
Plaskett maintained that Epstein was never a friend and that she was simply seeking information to “get at the truth.” Nevertheless, critics argue that repeated personal communication and past financial support suggest a far more complicated relationship.
Conclusion
The episode raises serious questions about ethics, transparency, and the boundaries lawmakers maintain with individuals under investigation for serious crimes. Plaskett’s explanation — framing Epstein as simply “another constituent” — underscores the potential disconnect between perception and reality in public service. Whether intended or not, texting a convicted sex offender during official proceedings has eroded trust and fueled skepticism about the ethical standards of government officials.