Imagine tuning into a high-stakes congressional hearing only to learn a lawmaker was texting a notorious figure like Jeffrey Epstein for real-time advice. That’s the bombshell dropped by newly released records from Epstein’s estate, exposing a curious exchange with Democratic Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett during a 2019 testimony by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. It’s a plot twist that raises eyebrows about influence and propriety in the halls of Congress.
These records, unveiled by the House Oversight Committee this month, paint a picture of Epstein messaging Plaskett as she sat on a panel grilling Cohen, with suggestions that appear to shape her line of questioning.
Let’s rewind to February 27, 2019, when Cohen’s testimony gripped the nation with revelations about the Trump Organization. Epstein, watching intently, fired off texts to someone on the panel—context and timestamps, as reviewed by The Washington Post, point squarely to Plaskett. It’s unsettling to think a figure with Epstein’s dark history had a direct line to a sitting delegate during such a pivotal moment.
In one exchange, Epstein nudged Plaskett to dig into “other henchmen” at the Trump Organization, as if scripting her next move. “Hes [sic] opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org,” he texted, per the released documents. That’s not just a casual chat—it’s a playbook suggestion from a man whose own scandals were about to explode.
Plaskett’s reply? “Yup. Very aware and waiting my turn,” she shot back, showing she was dialed in and ready to act, according to the records. It’s hard not to wonder if this was just friendly banter or something more coordinated.
When Cohen name-dropped Rhona Graff, a Trump aide, Epstein pounced, texting Plaskett to call her the “keeper of secrets.” Sure enough, Plaskett soon pressed Cohen on Graff by name, mirroring Epstein’s tip. That kind of synchronicity doesn’t exactly scream independent thought.
Beyond the professional nudges, Epstein’s messages veered into the personal, complimenting Plaskett’s outfit and even asking if she was chewing on camera. She clarified it was just a nervous habit, chewing the inside of her mouth since middle school. It’s a quirky detail, but one that underscores how familiar this exchange seemed for a public hearing.
Epstein also inquired how long Plaskett would stick around at the hearing, as if keeping tabs on her schedule. For a man with no official role in Congress, that level of interest feels like overreach. It’s a reminder of how blurred lines can get when powerful figures mingle with elected officials.
Epstein’s ties to the Virgin Islands, where he owned two private islands, add another layer of discomfort to this story. He donated to various politicians, Plaskett included, as reported by Business Insider. That financial link, even if legal, casts a shadow over these interactions.
After reports of these texts surfaced on a recent Friday evening, Plaskett’s office pushed back, claiming she received messages from “staff, constituents and the public at large,” Epstein among them, during the hearing. They framed it as routine communication, nothing out of the ordinary. But let’s be honest—Epstein wasn’t your average constituent dropping a friendly note.
Her team also leaned on her background as a former prosecutor, emphasizing her work on sexual assault and trafficking cases. They insisted she welcomes any information to uncover truth. That’s a noble stance, but it sidesteps why someone with Epstein’s baggage was a go-to source during a live hearing.
Then there’s the messy aftermath of Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges. Plaskett’s office initially resisted returning his campaign contributions, only relenting under public pressure. It’s a flip-flop that doesn’t inspire confidence in where her priorities lie.
In 2023, Plaskett found herself named in a lawsuit by six Epstein accusers, alleging Virgin Islands officials either benefited from or enabled his trafficking network. That suit was dismissed with prejudice earlier this year, closing the legal chapter. Still, the association lingers like a bad aftertaste.
What’s the takeaway from this tangled web? These texts reveal a troubling coziness between a lawmaker and a man whose crimes would soon shock the world, all while she questioned a key witness on national television. It’s not illegal, but it’s a stark reminder that optics matter in public service.
Conservative voices often rail against the progressive elite for questionable alliances, and this incident fuels that fire without needing to exaggerate. Plaskett may have had pure intentions, but leaning on Epstein’s input—however minor—during a hearing is a misstep that undermines trust. In an era where accountability is demanded, this is a story that deserves scrutiny, not a shrug.
