When you’ve already dug the hole deep, the smartest move is usually to stop digging. But Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett (TX-30) has decided to keep going, even as her latest attempt to score political points has turned into a self-inflicted mess.
Her appearance on MS NOW’s The Weekend offered a rare opportunity to clear up the bizarre “Jeffrey Epstein” donation narrative she pushed before Thanksgiving—a claim that suggested Republicans had been taking money from the infamous sex offender. The problem was simple and glaring: the donations she referenced weren’t from that Jeffrey Epstein, but from unrelated individuals who merely shared the name. A basic FEC lookup would have told her that.
Crockett insisted Republicans brought the issue up in the context of efforts to remove Democratic Delegate Stacey Plaskett from her committees for accepting a donation from someone named Epstein. What she conveniently left out was the larger concern—Plaskett’s reported texts with Epstein during a congressional hearing, long after his crimes were widely known. That detail carries obvious weight for anyone concerned with ethical standards in government, but Crockett glossed over it while trying to redirect attention elsewhere.
“I had maybe 20 minutes. We researched the FEC and, because I like to speak with specificity — that’s kind of what comes with being an attorney — I made clear that there was a Jeffrey Epstein,” Crockett said. “They knew on the other side that I did not have time to actually pull up and actually research, especially since that particular one that Lee Zeldin got up in an uproar about was specifically out of the New York area. We know that he was out of that area and this obviously was not done post Jeffrey Epstein’s life, so I made sure that I said ‘a Jeffrey Epstein.’”
Her explanation unraveled quickly. The donation in question was made “post Jeffrey Epstein’s life.” It was given the year after the sex offender died. So her timeline wasn’t just fuzzy—it was flatly incorrect.
“But you were trying to insinuate that it was the Jeffrey Epstein,” host Jacqueline Alemany pressed.
“Oh, I absolutely was insinuating that it could be possible. That is true,” Crockett admitted. “But the point is, I never said that it was that specific one because I did not have the adequate time to do it. And so the Jeffrey Epstein has stepped forward and that’s not like, you know, a normal name. And I think that what would have been problematic is if I would have claimed that, say, that happened and it legitimately never happened. So ultimately, he cleared the record. I have not researched further. I’ve not talked to this doctor.”
She wrapped up by saying, “I can agree that Lee Zeldin has said that he’s not received money from the Jeffrey Epstein,” leaving the door open to the insinuation even after admitting her evidence didn’t support it.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin responded sharply and thoroughly, leaving no ambiguity about the facts.
“In her latest defense of the indefensible, Genius Jasmine Crockett, JD, now claims the donation I received from Dr. Jeffrey Epstein was BEFORE the other Jeffrey Epstein died. That is a LIE and she knows it, hoping there would be no push back from the TV host. The FEC record she has cited as her source shows the date of the donation I received as well AFTER the other Jeffrey Epstein was dead.
Also, note that at the end she says, ‘I can agree that Lee Zeldin has said that he didn’t receive money from THE Jeffrey Epstein’, implying that her lie could still be true even though it’s obviously not, even though she previously conceded that I ‘cleared the record’, AND even though the record she has referenced herself as her source says the donation I received was from a physician who donated to me AFTER the other Jeffrey Epstein was dead.”
The situation exposes more than a sloppy talking point—it reflects a pattern too common in today’s political climate, where inflammatory insinuations are deployed first and fact-checking comes later, if at all. Crockett effectively acknowledged she wasn’t concerned with accuracy, only with planting a narrative that might score partisan points. In the process, she dragged an innocent physician into the fray and attempted to saddle a political opponent with a stain that simply wasn’t true.
This entire dust-up originated as an effort to distract from Democrats’ own uncomfortable Epstein ties. Instead, it has highlighted the dangers of careless accusations and the willingness of some politicians to lean on theatrics rather than truth. For anyone who values accountability and clear standards in public office, Crockett’s conduct stands as a stark reminder of why those standards matter.
