In a series of public appearances, Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett (VI-At Large) has been attempting to justify her text exchanges with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing
The Washington Post had previously exposed that Plaskett was directing her questioning of an anti-Trump witness based on Epstein's real-time text instructions. Plaskett's defense, however, has been anything but conventional.
In a recent development, the Democrat party has rallied behind what's being referred to as the "constituity defense." As reported by RedState, Plaskett insists that her text exchanges with Epstein were nothing more than routine communication with a constituent.
"I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was my constituent," Plaskett stated on the House floor. "Who...was not public knowledge at that time, that he was under federal investigation, and who was sharing information with me."
However, this defense raises more questions than it answers. It's not common practice for members of Congress to engage in text exchanges with constituents during hearings. Moreover, referring to Epstein merely as a "constituent" seems to conveniently overlook his criminal history.
Plaskett continued to maintain her stance during a CNN interview, stating, "So Jeffrey Epstein was a constituent. He was a resident of the Virgin Islands, lived there, I guess, more than half of the year because he was registered there." She added, "But like many constituents, individuals get your phone number. They text you about issues. They speak with you."
This raises the question of how accessible congressional representatives are to their constituents. Is it common for constituents to have direct text access to their representatives? The answer is likely no. Yet, Epstein had a direct line to Plaskett. One can only imagine the uproar if text exchanges between Epstein and a Republican politician or the President were to surface. Would the 'meh, he's just a constituent' defense hold up then?
Plaskett's defense took a turn for the worse when she stated, "I believed that Jeffrey Epstein had information, and I was going to get information to get at the truth." She further suggested that despite Epstein's generous donations over the years, he was not a friend. However, the Washington Post reported that it was Plaskett who initiated the conversation with Epstein early in the morning before the hearing.
Plaskett's demand for the American people to "move forward" and stop focusing on her seemingly cozy relationship with Epstein is questionable at best. "If individuals are not involved in illegal activity, extending his criminal enterprise or his financial enterprise, or all of those things," Plaskett said, "I think that you need to look at what people arguing moving forward (sic)."
This statement is problematic, considering Epstein had already been convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. Dismissing Epstein as a squeaky-clean constituent is a clear attempt at gaslighting.
CNN's Pamela Brown interjected at this point, stating, "Wait, let me just try to understand that, what is that point? Because at the time he was a known sex offender. And it had been detailed, all the sexual ..." To which Plaskett responded, "There are a lot of people who have done a lot of crimes. And as a prosecutor, you get information from people where you can."
This defense is unlikely to hold water. It appears to be a desperate attempt to gloss over the relationship, hoping the American people will buy into it. The underlying assumption seems to be that the public is gullible enough to accept this narrative. This is a clear case of projection, and it remains to be seen how this will play out in the public sphere.
Login