In an electrifying moment from a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-MT) questioned a witness about Jeffrey Epstein’s legal counsel, specifically mentioning Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett from the Virgin Islands, who had received massive campaign donations from the shadowy billionaire.
Despite her repeated claims to the contrary, many critics have drawn attention to the long-running relationship between Plaskett and Epstein. Additionally, some have acknowledged that Epstein may have laundered illegal donations through his associates in a straw-donor scheme
In any case, the Republican began the interaction by asking a probing question to the witness. ” believe that you might have been asked earlier about whether you had had an opportunity to visit with any of Epstein’s legal counsel. Were you asked that question earlier?” she inquired.
After the witness confirmed, Hageman continued to intensify the scrutiny of the Epstein scandal. She noted, “Okay, one of the legal counsels or legal fixtures for Mr. Epstein was Stacy Plaskett, the Democrat Delegate to Congress from the Virgin Islands.”
Concluding her comments, she buried the Democrats for their hypocrisy, saying, “So perhaps for those on the other side who are interested in talking to Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys, they can sure visit with one of their own colleagues.”
Reacting to the clip, one popular conservative noted the interaction. “During Q&A with @FBIDirectorKash, @RepHageman had good advice for Dems on Jeffrey Epstein: To talk to someone who knew him, did legal work for him & got campaign cash from him, they should talk to their own House Democrat colleague, Del. Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands,” the post read.
Watch the clip here:
"*" indicates required fields
However, this is far from the first connection between Plaskett and the Espstein scandal. In a deeply ironic 2019 statement, Rep. Stacey Plaskett said, “My litmus test for accepting campaign contributions has been based on whether the donor’s money was made legally or by ill-gotten means and that the contributor will not ask of me or my Congressional office for any special favors.”
Doubling down, she claimed, “All my contributions have passed that test. In this case, however, I am uncomfortable having received money from someone who has been accused of these egregious actions multiple times.”
Later, in 2019, she initially refused to return his campaign contributions after his egregious actions came to light. However, she later said she would donate the funds “to Virgin Islands organizations that work with women and children,” claiming, “I am uncomfortable having received money from someone who has been accused of these egregious actions multiple times.”
Additionally, Epstein was so closely involved with the donation that he offered the names of several associates who could also donate. Stuart McPhail, a lawyer for the government-ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility, suggested that this may be an example of a ‘straw-voter’ scheme where Epstein was using other people to bypass spending limits.
He noted, “There’s enough here to raise concern. And I think the questions should be asked if these individuals were actually the source, and if they weren’t — if this was actually Jeffrey Epstein’s money that was passed through them — then yes, that would be an unlawful straw-donor violation.”
Featured image from embedded video