House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY-8) could barely muster a coherent answer when pressed by a reporter on why anyone should trust Democrats on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal — especially given that one of his own caucus members was caught texting with Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing. Jeffries stumbled over the question, offering little more than deflection, and in the process reminded everyone why Democrats have zero credibility on this issue.
For anyone who needs a refresher, it involved Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett, who the Washington Post exposed for texting back and forth with Epstein in real time during a 2019 House hearing involving disgraced former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. According to the report, she was even adjusting her questions for the anti-Trump witness based on Epstein’s guidance
To absolutely no one’s surprise, most of the media has gone radio silent on Stacey Plaskett’s communications with Epstein — even though, in any sane world, that should be a political bombshell. After all, we’re talking about a delegate who not only traded messages with Epstein during a congressional hearing, but also took sizable donations from him and initially resisted returning the money. All of this happened the same year Epstein died in prison awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.
But while the press seems determined to memory-hole the whole episode, one determined reporter actually confronted Jeffries about it — and his reaction spoke volumes.
“Why should Americans trust you and House Democrats on the Jeffrey Epstein files when one of your own—Congresswoman Plaskett—was found to be texting with Jeffrey Epstein during a hearing, getting information from him, using that in her questioning during a congressional hearing, at one point he tells her ‘good job’?” the reporter asked.
The House Democratic leader’s non-answer should be a case study in deflection for political science courses.
“This is a bipartisan effort to make sure that, consistent with what the survivors have requested, that there’s full and complete transparency and every single predator that may be in those Justice Department files doesn’t escape accountability,” Jeffries stammered.
Not a single mention of Plaskett. Just the sputtering, halting cadence of a man desperately trying to assemble a thought on the fly. And when he couldn’t? He defaulted to the usual routine — smirking his way through a non-answer and pretending the question hadn’t been asked in the first place.
It’s hard to believe anyone ever compared this guy to Barack Obama — whatever else you think of Obama, at least he could string together a coherent sentence. Jeffries, by contrast, can barely manage a deflection without tripping over his own talking points.
And speaking of Obama, it’s no wonder Hakeem suddenly isn’t so eager to field Epstein questions. A newly uncovered email shows a Democrat fundraising group reaching out to Epstein back in 2013 about none other than “Brooklyn’s Barack” — Jeffries himself. You say “Brooklyn’s Barack,” I say “Temu Obama.” Or “Dollar Store Obama.” Take your pick.
While the Ethics Committee found no evidence that Ocasio-Cortez intentionally underpaid for the items, it attributed part of the mishandling to her former staffers, including ex-campaign manager
Rodriguez reportedly attempted to negotiate the cost of the dress down from $1,300 to $300 and left a $477 hairstylist bill unpaid for nearly six months, prompting the hairstylist to threaten reporting the campaign to the
The House Ethics Committee concluded that no formal punishment would be necessary provided AOC takes corrective actions: she must
AOC’s chief of staff, Mike Casca, issued a statement in response:
“The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House. She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she’s done at each step in this process.”
Members of Congress are generally barred from accepting gifts, with limited exceptions. These include tickets to charity events if extended directly by the hosting organization
.
In this instance, Ocasio-Cortez and her boyfriend were personally invited by Vogue editor Anna Wintour, not by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which officially hosts the gala. Wintour instructed the designer at Brother Vellies to custom-make the dress — a request the designer described as “insane,” as her work typically focuses on shoes and handbags.
Despite instructions to keep costs low, AOC’s team was repeatedly told that Met Gala attendees typically do not pay for such items, according to her lawyer.
Shoes: Retail value $635, rented for $160
Handbag: Retail $995, rented for $157
Jewelry: Rented for $78
Paper hibiscus hairpiece: $35
In May 2022, a year after the event, the campaign received an additional
The committee noted that there was no clear explanation for why the designer did not request
“No one appeared to be thinking about the cost of anything, despite the fact that they were told to keep the costs down by the Congresswoman’s staff because the Congresswoman had and has limited financial means.”
The Ethics Committee concluded that Ocasio-Cortez’s actions violated House rules, laws, and standards of conduct, both in accepting gifts and in delaying repayment. The matter will be considered