‘No Rule…’: House Erupts As Raskin Shields Dem Lawmaker Over ‘Colluding Texts’ With Epstein

.
.

House Floor Explodes in Bitter Battle Over Censure: Raskin Defends Democrat Plaskett Against Charges of ‘Colluding Texts’ with Jeffrey Epstein, Citing Due Process Violations

Washington, D.C.— The floor of the House of Representatives erupted into a fierce constitutional and political debate this week, as lawmakers clashed over a controversial resolution seeking to censure and strip committee assignments from Representative Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands) based on her alleged contact and financial relationship with the late financier and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.

At the heart of the conflict is a profound disagreement over procedure: whether Congress can—or should—discipline a member for seemingly lawful, albeit “ill-advised,” conduct, before any formal investigation by the House Ethics Committee has been completed.

Leading the charge in defense of his Democratic colleague, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) delivered an impassioned, often fiery, address, framing the censure motion not as a matter of justice, but as a “pathetic effort to distract and divert” from politically damaging information about the majority party. He cast the resolution as a dangerous “rush to judgment” and a direct assault on the fundamental principles of due process.

The Accusation: Money, Texts, and ‘Irrational Judgment’

The Republican proponents of the resolution, led by Representative Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina) and Representative Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana), focused their arguments on two core accusations against Rep. Plaskett: the acceptance of money from Jeffrey Epstein and the highly unusual timing and nature of their communication.

Rep. Norman, in his initial rebuttal to Raskin, insisted on moving beyond political rhetoric to the established facts. “You need to be careful with your facts,” Norman admonished Raskin. He pointed out that Plaskett is an “11-year veteran of this body who took money… It was a fact. She took money from Jeffrey Epstein.”

Norman argued that this financial acceptance alone demonstrated a “loss of her willingness or lost her ability to serve,” because she displayed “irrational judgment by taking a taking money from a convicted ped ped pedophile of young children.” For Norman, the public trust was already irrevocably broken by this undisputed transaction, regardless of any further legal or ethical findings.

Representative Higgins then deepened the severity of the alleged misconduct by focusing on the “colluding texts.” He detailed the “alarming” nature of the text messages, which Plaskett allegedly received and responded to while physically present in a congressional hearing.

“I didn’t believe it,” Higgins confessed, describing his initial reaction as disbelief, thinking the report must have been from a “satirical site.” He continued, meticulously drawing the chamber’s attention to the perceived intimacy and impropriety of the exchange. “A text message, a text exchange is is rather intimate in the realm of communications,” Higgins stated. “And to pierce into an actual congressional hearing for a member of Congress to receive and respond to a text message during a hearing… is quite familiar, is it not?”

Higgins further contextualized the impropriety by noting the exchange occurred in 2019, a time when Epstein was actively facing renewed federal prosecution. He brought up Plaskett’s history, noting that she represents the Virgin Islands—where Epstein maintained his base of operations—and raised questions about her service in the Department of Justice (DOJ) during a time when Epstein previously “received some nature of a sweetheart deal back in 2007.”

The implication was clear: the relationship was potentially deeper, long-running, and more problematic than a simple constituent phone call. Higgins concluded that the “good lady from the Virgin Islands has crossed the threshold of reasonable suspicion,” which, in his view, immediately disqualified her from sensitive roles. He specifically demanded that she “absolutely be removed from the House Select Committee on Intel” while a full investigation by Ethics, DOJ, and Judiciary committees proceeded.

The Defense: Due Process, the “Two Most Beautiful Words”

Representative Raskin, a former professor of constitutional law, mounted a ferocious defense centered on the procedural overreach of the resolution. He argued that the motion, which sought to censure and remove Plaskett from a committee, was a punishment levied “before there’s been one day of investigation. There’s been no investigation at all.”

Raskin highlighted the staggering absence of specific charges in the censure resolution itself. “The resolution actually proposes disciplinary censure against Representative Stacy Plaskett, but amazingly alleges no misconduct,” he noted. “It does not allege the violation of the Constitution. It does not allege the violation of a federal law or a state law or local law. It does not even allege a violation of the ethics rules of the House of Representatives. And yet they want to censure her and throw her off of her committee.”

His argument escalated into a constitutional lecture, stressing the essential nature of fairness. He defined the two components of criminal justice as “insisting upon legal accountability for people who do wrong” and due process, which he called “the two most beautiful words in the English language. Certainly the two most beautiful words in the Constitution of the United States.”

Raskin sarcastically compared the lack of process afforded to Plaskett to the extensive legal protections given to some of the world’s most notorious criminals. “Think about it. Ghislaine Maxwell had due process… a right to counsel… a right to hearing… a right to cross-examine… Even though Donald Trump has transferred her from a real prison to a prison camp where she’s gotten very special pampered treatment like she’s in a Trump hotel.” He also noted that Donald Trump himself “was convicted on 34 felonies, but he had the right to counsel. He had the presumption of innocence.”

In stark contrast, Raskin argued, the Republican majority sought to take a “distinguished former United States prosecutor” and “without even going to the ethics committee, much less a court,” arraign her on charges based only on a “newspaper article” about her taking a phone call—a lawful, if “ill-advised,” action.

He reiterated the fundamental question to the opposition: “Is that the rule that you want here in the House of Representatives that you can just draw up a member of Congress in 24 hours or 48 hours ‘cuz there’s a bad newspaper article without asking any questions, without giving that person any due process at all. Is that what it’s come to at this point?”

The Political Firestorm: Hypocrisy and Distraction

Raskin explicitly charged that the resolution was a politically motivated distraction. He claimed the majority’s sudden fervor to discipline a Democrat over Epstein ties was designed to draw attention away from the “failure of the majority to move to disclose this information” related to the complete release of the Epstein files.

He delivered a sharp political counter-punch: “The president’s name appeared more than a thousand times already in the small fraction of material released on Epstein.” Raskin argued that his side of the aisle has consistently supported “the complete disclosure of information relating to anybody who had anything to do with it, whether they’re a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or what have you. Period.”

This accusation set the stage for Raskin’s two powerful ‘tu quoque’ challenges:

The Trump Challenge: Raskin asked the Republican floor managers: “I don’t think it is the position of the very distinguished gentleman that if we find Jeffrey Epstein on the phone with Donald Trump, he should be impeached for it. Or is that his position?” He challenged the validity of “guilt by association” and “collective guilt” as a standard for congressional discipline.

The January 6th Challenge: Raskin then raised the issue of political violence, asking if the new standard of “just to be on a phone call with somebody establishes guilt” should apply to Republican members of Congress who were on the phone with “January 6th insurrectionists and President Trump and his associates who were trying to block the certification of the election.”

The Santos Parallel: A Warning Against Precedent

To reinforce the danger of denying due process, Raskin reminded his colleagues of a recent, politically charged precedent: the move to expel then-Representative George Santos (R-New York).

“I also defended George Santos on this floor and opposed the means by which he was expelled. I think it was beyond the pale,” stated Representative Higgins, surprisingly agreeing with Raskin on the Santos procedural issue, though not on Plaskett.

Raskin detailed his own dissent in the Santos matter, despite Santos being a member of the opposition party. “There was a move to expel George Santos… and it was the same kind of rush to judgment, absolute political frenzy,” Raskin recalled. “I said wait, this guy’s not been convicted of anything… To my knowledge, he had not been arraigned yet or convicted of anything in the ethics disciplinary process. They just said, ‘Well, there’s bad press. We want to get rid of him. Beware of what you wish for. Is that the rule that you want here in the House of Representatives… without giving that person any due process at all.’”

He insisted that the House should, as the Minority Whip had proposed, simply refer the matter to the Ethics Committee to “have a real hearing.” The Republican majority’s refusal to allow an investigation before punishment, Raskin concluded, confirmed the entire exercise was a cynical effort to grab a political “headline that will please Donald Trump tomorrow.”

Conclusion: The Stakes of Congressional Conduct

The debate concluded with both sides remaining firmly entrenched. The Republican argument, summarized by Norman, maintained that the non-disputed fact of accepting money from a convicted child sex offender was sufficient evidence of “irrational judgment” to warrant immediate action, especially removal from the sensitive Intelligence Committee.

The Democratic counter-argument, powerfully articulated by Raskin, transcended the specific allegations against Plaskett to focus on the institutional integrity of the House. By circumventing established ethics procedures and rushing to censure a member based on a “bad newspaper article,” the majority risked establishing a dangerous precedent—a precedent where political opponents could be punished without the due process that even convicted felons like Ghislaine Maxwell and the recently convicted President Donald Trump were afforded.

The final vote on the resolution will not only determine Representative Plaskett’s standing in the House, but will also set a crucial, and potentially long-lasting, standard for the means by which the United States House of Representatives chooses to discipline its members. The conflict, ostensibly about a single phone call and financial donation, has exposed deep fissures in the body regarding the rule of law versus the dictates of political warfare.

.