Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, offered a contentious defense of Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) on Tuesday as she faced a Republican-backed resolution seeking censure and her removal from the House Intelligence Committee. The resolution arises from Plaskett’s communications with Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing featuring former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
At the time, Epstein, already a convicted sex offender, provided guidance to Plaskett on how to question Cohen, drawing attention to the unusual and sensitive nature of the interaction. Despite this, Raskin argued that Plaskett’s actions amounted to nothing more than “taking a phone call from her constituent,” and he challenged the basis of the proposed censure.
Raskin’s remarks came shortly after the House voted to release the files related to Epstein, a vote widely regarded as a victory for transparency. Speaking on the House floor, Raskin contended that Democrats had proposed a measured approach that would involve referral to the Ethics Committee and a formal hearing, rather than a “rush to judgment” he characterized as politically motivated.
“Our minority whip introduced a perfectly reasonable amendment to say, let’s refer this to an Ethics Committee, let’s have a real hearing,” Raskin said. “They didn’t want to have a real hearing. They want a rush to judgment. Why? So there can be some headline that will please Donald Trump tomorrow, instead of a unanimous statement… that the American people want all the files open.”
He framed the Republican effort as part of a broader push for headlines rather than accountability, asserting that the public desire is for transparency and justice for survivors and victims of Epstein’s crimes. According to Raskin, the censure resolution sought to portray Plaskett as culpable for taking a call from Epstein in the middle of a congressional hearing.
“And of course, I don’t think there’s any rule here against taking phone calls in a hearing,” Raskin said. “Now, if you want to actually give her the chance to explain what happened, then we would take it to the Ethics Committee. I still don’t see what the charge is. Where is the ethical transgression? Where is legal transgression?”
He cautioned Republicans to consider the implications of setting a precedent for censure based on communications with Epstein. “Are you saying anybody on your side of the aisle who had a phone call with Jeffrey Epstein should be censured? Be careful your answer there, because there’s a lot more that’s about to come out,” Raskin said. He concluded by challenging the principle behind the “rush to judge,” framing the effort as politically opportunistic rather than grounded in clear rules or violations.
Raskin’s defense underscores the tension in the House as Democrats navigate allegations linked to Epstein while Republicans press for accountability from members with ties to the convicted sex offender. The dispute reflects both the partisan and procedural complexities involved when individual lawmakers’ conduct intersects with high-profile scandals, leaving the Ethics Committee and the broader House caucus to weigh transparency, principle, and political optics.
[READ MORE: House Democrats Splinter Over Resolution Condemning García’s Retirement Maneuver]
