Jasmine Crockett Badly Misfires in Factually Challenged Attack on Lee Zeldin over ‘Jeffrey Epstein’

In a moment that perfectly captured Washington’s habit of rushing to score political points before checking basic facts, Rep. Jasmine Crockett tried to attack EPA head Lee Zeldin by accusing him of taking money from “Jeffrey Epstein.” What she didn’t realize—until the internet corrected her within minutes—is that the donor was a completely different Jeffrey Epstein, a New York physician, not the infamous billionaire sex offender whose name continues to haunt Democratic circles.

During a heated debate over a resolution to censure Virgin Islands delegate Stacey Plaskett for her past relationship with the real Epstein, Crockett confidently declared that Zeldin had also taken Epstein’s money. But FEC records told a different story. Zeldin immediately responded on X: “Yes Crockett, a physician named Dr. Jeffrey Epstein (who is a totally different person than the other Jeffrey Epstein) donated to a prior campaign of mine. NO FREAKIN RELATION, YOU GENIUS!” Screenshots from the FEC confirmed it, leaving Crockett’s attack not only baseless but a reminder of how easily political theatrics can replace simple due diligence.

The irony of Crockett’s misfire is hard to ignore given the latest batch of Epstein estate files released by the House Oversight Committee, which revealed explicit communication between the convicted predator and Plaskett as she prepared to question Michael Cohen in 2019. The documents included thousands of pages of emails, texts, and other records—material that continues to raise uncomfortable questions about who Epstein had access to, and why.

The messages showed Epstein texting Plaskett in real time during the hearing, offering personal compliments and strategic cues. He wrote that she looked “great” and fed her details from Cohen’s testimony, including Cohen’s reference to Trump’s former assistant, Rhona Graff. The tone of the exchange, and Plaskett’s friendly responses, painted a picture of an unusual closeness between a sitting member of Congress and a man already convicted of crimes against minors. The friendship was cordial enough that Epstein even sent her “Good work” just one minute after her questioning ended.

Those revelations prompted the House Freedom Caucus to push for Plaskett’s censure and removal from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence—an assignment that carries access to classified national security briefings. The resolution noted that Intelligence Committee members must be held to the highest standard, not merely because of optics but because of the sensitive information they receive. Fox News summarized the concern plainly: the committee oversees the FBI and CIA and routinely handles critical national security matters.

Rep. Ralph Norman, who introduced the censure, stated, “The House of Representatives has a responsibility and a duty to protect the integrity of this institution. And what we learn from the documents released by Jeffrey Epstein’s estate is nothing short of alarming.” He added, “Those documents show that Delegate Stacey Plaskett, a sitting member of Congress, coordinated her questioning during an official Oversight hearing, with a man who was a convicted sex offender, a man whose crimes against minors shocked this entire nation.”

Despite the severity of the findings, every Democrat voted against the censure, joined by three Republicans, while another three voted present. The measure failed 209–214—an outcome that reflected the deep partisan divide over accountability, even when the facts point to conduct that would be considered unacceptable anywhere outside Washington.

Democrats countered with a familiar defensive turn. Rep. Jamie Raskin argued the censure was “one more pathetic effort to distract and divert attention from the fact that the president’s name appeared more than a thousand times already in the small fraction of material released on Epstein,” insisting that Epstein was simply a “constituent” of Plaskett due to his residence in the Virgin Islands. Raskin continued, “Without even going to the Ethics Committee, much less a court, they want to arraign her on some charges based on a newspaper article, that she did something lawful — however ill-advised — it may have been. She took a phone call from one of her constituents. Where is the ethical transgression? Where is the legal transgression? Are you saying anybody on your side of the aisle who had a phone call with Jeffrey Epstein should be censured?”

The clash over Plaskett, layered with Crockett’s embarrassing mistake, revealed a deeper problem: when political narratives take priority over truth, accountability takes a back seat. That kind of instinct may play well on social media, but it does little to reassure Americans who expect their elected officials—especially those with national security access—to exercise basic judgment.