The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), faced intense criticism from President Donald Trump and the White House on Tuesday after he characterized a colleague’s communications with convicted financier Jeffrey Epstein as merely “taking a phone call from her constituent.” Raskin’s remarks came during debate over a resolution to censure Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-U.S. Virgin Islands), who had coordinated with Epstein ahead of a February 27, 2019, House Oversight Committee hearing that featured testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. By downplaying Plaskett’s interactions, Raskin positioned himself against Republican censure efforts while emphasizing procedural fairness and the lack of explicit House rules prohibiting constituent communications during hearings.
During floor debate, Raskin framed the issue as one of context rather than misconduct, saying, “They’ve arraigned a Democratic member for taking a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, in the middle of a hearing. And of course, I don’t think there’s any rule here against taking phone calls in a hearing.” He challenged Republicans to identify any ethical or legal violation and cautioned against establishing a precedent that could punish lawmakers for routine professional interactions. His comments underscored the broader debate about the boundaries of congressional oversight, constituent engagement, and accountability in cases involving politically sensitive figures like Epstein.
The White House responded forcefully, condemning Raskin and describing Plaskett’s interaction with Epstein as collusion with a convicted sex offender. Deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson accused Raskin of minimizing the severity of Plaskett’s communications and highlighted other reports of Democrats’ historical connections to Epstein. President Trump personally criticized Raskin, labeling him “one of the worst to ever disgrace the halls of Congress.” These statements amplified partisan tensions and framed the debate as part of broader disputes over ethical standards, political accountability, and the interpretation of lawmakers’ interactions with controversial figures.
Social media commentary mirrored the intensity of official responses, with users condemning Raskin for defending Plaskett. Many highlighted what they perceived as hypocrisy, pointing to Raskin’s past remarks linking Donald Trump to Epstein. Independent journalist Lee Fang called Raskin’s characterization “incredibly dishonest,” citing Plaskett’s prior involvement with Epstein-linked networks and political support derived from those associations. The online discourse reflected a larger public scrutiny of congressional members’ past interactions with Epstein and the ongoing partisan framing of those connections in current political debates.
The House ultimately voted on the resolution to censure Plaskett and remove her from the House Intelligence Committee, but the motion failed narrowly, 214–209. Earlier on the same day, the House overwhelmingly approved a separate measure, 427–1, requiring the Justice Department to release all files related to Epstein. Plaskett’s communications with Epstein were included among the 20,000 documents from his estate released by the House Oversight Committee on November 12. The juxtaposition of these votes highlighted the complex interplay between individual accountability, transparency in government, and partisan maneuvering in high-profile investigations.
The substance of the communications raised significant ethical questions. In the released texts, Epstein advised Plaskett on how to frame her questioning of Michael Cohen, including guidance regarding other figures at the Trump Organization. Plaskett responded, “Yup. Very aware and waiting my turn,” according to reporting by the New York Post. These exchanges, while framed by Raskin as routine constituent interactions, demonstrated a level of coordination that critics argue crosses a line between professional protocol and undue influence. The incident underscores the enduring controversies surrounding Epstein’s network, the responsibilities of lawmakers interacting with high-profile figures, and the challenges of navigating transparency and accountability in the political arena.
