House Republicans move to censure Plaskett over text messages with Epstein

[Zorro]

Source: Washington Post

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina), who introduced the resolution, said it was “beyond comprehension” that Plaskett would communicate with Epstein during a hearing.

House Republicans introduced a resolution Tuesday to censure and strip a key committee assignment from Del. Stacey Plaskett (D), the nonvoting delegate representing the U.S. Virgin Islands, for texting with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing, an exchange that was included in the recently released trove of documents from Epstein’s estate.

A Washington Post analysis of the texts, matched up with time-stamps from the hearing, showed that Epstein appeared to be watching in real time as Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s formal personal attorney and fixer, was testifying before the House Oversight Committee about Trump. According to the documents released, Epstein and Plaskett texted throughout the day, and their messages indicate Epstein may have influenced what questions to ask Cohen.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina), who introduced the resolution to censure Plaskett, said it was “beyond comprehension” that Plaskett would coordinate with Epstein on official proceedings. If passed, the resolution would direct the House Ethics Committee to investigate the extent of Plaskett’s relationship with Epstein and remove her from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“The American people expect honesty, the American people expect integrity and judgment from their elected officials. They expect members of Congress to conduct themselves with one word — decency — not to seek advice from a predator who exploited minor children,” Norman said on the House floor Tuesday.

Read more: https://wapo.st/44dD0o7

[dlk]

1. If only Republicans were as eager to pursue Epstein's predator friends

n/t

[rampartd]

2. i agree with norman in general, but

norman does not "seek advice from a predator who exploited minor children,," he takes orders from trump.

“The American people expect honesty, the American people expect integrity and judgment from their elected officials. They expect members of Congress to conduct themselves with one word — decency — not to seek advice from a predator who exploited minor children,” Norman said on the House floor Tuesday.

just maybe plaskett was not "seeking advice from a predator who exploited minor children," but was being guided by a billionaire job creating constituent, which is kind of congress' job description.

[MichMan]

3. Epstein had been convicted as a sex offender of minors eleven years earlier

They shouldn't have been exchanging texts in the middle of a hearing

[rampartd]

4. i get it, but if court decisions are the standard.

trump has been found liable in e jean caroll vs trump

[MichMan]

5. Have no idea of what that has anything to do with Plaskett and Epstein texting each other in a congressional hearing

None of the released texts reference any financial advice, by the way

[slightlv]

8. I hadn't heard about any of this before now,

do you know what was being referenced in the emails? I still don't think it was a wise decision to be texting with a subject of a congressional hearing at the time a hearing is happening... but I'd still be interested in knowing what they were saying.

And I notice that the first to get seized upon is a Democrat... and a Democratic Woman, to boot. Could they be anymore stereotypical?

[MichMan]

10. Here is a clip from the Washington Post of some of it

The texts just surfaced with the batch of emails from the estate that were released by the Democrats in the House

[slightlv]

26. Thank you...

I was under the misunderstanding that Epstein was the subject of the hearing. This is a little more understandable under the auspices of trying to be prepared when it came her time to speak.

I think, understandable as it is, we've dropped to another level of politics. "Perception of..." used to be a large point in our understanding of politics and law. Something being perceived as wrongdoing, in the case of politicians, judges, etc., was to be avoided like the plague. Yet, as an example, look at SCOTUS! They absolutely don't care if anything they're doing could be perceived as greed, grift, etc. Instead they just make a law justifying it. This changing of the "perception" of events... of how the public might see and interpret an event... is what's happening here, IMO.

[SunSeeker]

13. Epstein was acting as an informant to Plaskett on Trump/Cohen for that 2019 hearing.

Plaskett was about to question Cohen about Trump. Here's a sample of the text exchange:

“Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,” Epstein texted Plaskett at 2:24 p.m., misspelling the first name of former Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff, whom Cohen had mentioned in his testimony.

“RONA??” Plaskett responded. “Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,” she added.

“Thats his assistant,” Epstein replied, two minutes before Plaskett began asking Cohen questions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/18/plaskett-epstein-censure/

[stopdiggin]

9. having a hard time following the defense here

Or, more to the point - why a defense is being mounted here .. ?

In either case - - 'tenuous' - would be about the most charitable ...

[stopdiggin]

6. Oops. Well that kinda' sucks. Well, okay - really, really blows?

And, yeah sure - some of the indignation here is posturing and performative.
But, also true - if I'm in the position of a constituent here ... My reaction is still, "WTF .. is wrong with you ?!!!"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[SunSeeker]

14. Plaskett did nothing wrong. She was using Epstein as an informant.

That's why every Dem in the House voted No on the motion, and Republicans' effort to censure Plaskett failed.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143567873

[stopdiggin]

19. believe that if you want to

- 'informant' - ...................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

to my eyes (and nose) - and I'd hazard to 98% of everyone else hearing this of this rather shocking 'exchange of information' - it stinks to high heaven! And, if she is my representative - she's going to be getting a hot load of 'opinion' in that regard from this direction!

Let us repeat - DURING the congressional hearing itself !!

[SunSeeker]

20. Yes, during the hearing, so she could get info on what Cohen was talking about.

So that she can be prepared when it was her turn to question Cohen. Which is what Epstein provided and what happened. Because of the info Epstein provided, she was able to get Cohen to describe on the record the relationship Rhona ("the keeper of secrets" ) had to Trump and the Trump organization. Plaskett was not texting Epstein while she was questioning Cohen, obviously.

100% of the Democrats in the House disagree with you. They all voted against the censure motion.

[stopdiggin]

22. you do you. Meanwhile, I am going to criticize Democrats when they make egregious ethical

pratfalls. This was an egregious ethical blunder.
You do not 'coordinate' with convicted felons while in the midst of official hearings and testimony.
The very concept is sleazy and revolting. Democrat or no !

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[SunSeeker]

23. There was nothing unethical about Plaskett getting info to prosecute Trump from his former best friend.

Prosecutors absolutely do, out of necessity, "coordinate" with felons to convict other felons, in hearings of all types, your pearlclutching notwithstanding.

Plaskett was serving her country, and doing it well.

[stopdiggin]

24. Disagree on the very strongest of terms

It was a near inexcusable pratfall - in both ethical and political terms.

Repeating - 'coordinating' with a convicted felon (and sexual predator) - DURING congressional hearings and testimony. Shame!

[SunSeeker]

25. You've made your opinion quite clear. I, and House Democrats, do not share it.

Repeating it serves no purpose.

[RedArkGuy]

28. Enough already

And I guess you'd also close the channels to Congress members that whistleblowers of all stripes use when the government is committing a wrong or making mistakes. Because that's what would happen if you're preference for Congress members to only communicate with saintly people were to be enforced as a rule.

[stopdiggin]

29. Don't be absurd. I advocate no such thing.

And still leaves plenty of room for NOT having a live feed with a convicted felon/sex predator - DURING congressional hearing and testimony!

And I hate to say it - but there are PLENTY of voices here on this very board - that would be literally screaming the house down - if the same sleazy scenario arose involving a Republican. Does anyone doubt me on that?

[Wiz Imp]

7. I support censuring her. You cannot be appearing to take

direction from a convicted sex offender during a Congressional hearing. That said, Norman's statement is the height of hypocrisy. And I'm still curious to hear Plaskett's explanation.

Keep in mind, though, that Plaskett has no voting rights in Congress. She is allowed to serve on committees and ask questions in hearings but she can't vote on legislation.

[SunSeeker]

15. I don't. She was not taking direction from Epstein, she was using him as an informant.

That is why every House Dem voted against the censure motion and it failed to pass. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143567873

Trump is a convicted sex offender. You want info on a guy like that, you have to talk to the people around him who were like him. Informants are usually criminals themselves. Law enforcement frequently uses criminals as informants because their position within the criminal world allows them to provide unique, actionable intelligence.

[RedArkGuy]

27. I'd also add that whistleblowers . . .

. . . some of which can be dubious characters rely on members of Congress to act on the information they're volunteering when the usual channels don't. That facet of the services Congress members provide should not be subject to censure, especially for cheap partisan points for scumbags like Ralph Norman who would not hesitate to use any information he got from any criminal to harm Democrats or their efforts.

[Deep State Witch]

11. Wasn't She One of the Impeachment Managers?

Rep. Plaskett was one of the managers for TACO's second impeachment. This sounds like payback to me.

[Wiz Imp]

16. Yes she was. But this is NOT payback

The emails released last week showed emails between Plaskett and Epstein and the time stamps showed they happened during a committee hearing. And at one point, Epstein texted a question to Plaskett, and very shortly after receiving that email, she asked that very same question to the person testifying at the hearing.

I'm sorry, but every Democrat should be calling on her to resign. She was effectively caught taking direction from a convicted sex offender. That is not remotely acceptable.

Norman's statement is ridiculously hypocritical bullshit, but Plaskett absolutely needs to pay for this completely unacceptable & unseemly behavior.

[SunSeeker]

21. It totally was payback for her prosecution of Trump.

Stop with the right wing talking points. There was nothing "unseemly" about her "behavior." That's why 100% of the Democrats voted against the censure motion.

She communicated with Epstein during the hearing, before it was her turn to ask questions of Cohen, so she could get info on what Cohen was talking about when he was answering others' questions. That way she was better prepared when it was her turn to question Cohen. Which is what Epstein provided and what happened. Because of the info Epstein provided, she was able to get Cohen to describe on the record the relationship Rhona Graff ("the keeper of secrets" ) had to Trump and the Trump organization. Plaskett was not texting Epstein while she was questioning Cohen, obviously.

[SunSeeker]

12. The motion FAILED. Plaskett did nothing wrong; she was talking to an scumbag informant to get info on Trump/Cohen.

Last edited Wed Nov 19, 2025, 12:43 AM - Edit history (2)

Unfortunately, that's what you must do to get info on Trump. Trump surrounds him with scumbags. She got info from Epstein, who happens to be her constituent since he resided in the Virgin Islands, to better question Cohen. Here's a sample exchange:

“Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets,” Epstein texted Plaskett at 2:24 p.m., misspelling the first name of former Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff, whom Cohen had mentioned in his testimony.

“RONA??” Plaskett responded. “Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,” she added.

“Thats his assistant,” Epstein replied, two minutes before Plaskett began asking Cohen questions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/18/plaskett-epstein-censure/

Pretty disappointing to see the piling on of Plaskett in this thread.

[mackdaddy]

17. Who knew more about Trump and his dirty dealings that Jeffrey Epstein?

Sure he was a scumbag, but Epstein had been Trump's closest buddy for decades.

Donald Trump is seriously more evil than even Jeffrey Epstein. Informants on evil are going to be where you find them.

[republianmushroom]

18. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina), is this lap puppy

going to censure trump ? His (trumo) name has shown up more than 16oo times in Epstein files.

[mahina]

30. Gosh I wonder what sets her apart in their minds

From all the others?


If she did something wrong, she needs to deal with it, of course. Just seems uncharacteristically and ethusiastically expeditious for some reason.