If anyone wonders why we so often cannot have the nice things when we thought we'd finally voted for, and won the chance to have, this is a shining example of it - the 'WHY' - right here.
For all the squawking mileage Democrats have gotten over that revolting, miserable creature who might - or might not - have un-alived himself in a Manhattan federal jail, for all the public smearing Democrats have done of the president, truthful or not, for any whisper of association they could glom onto, Democrats have been remarkably silent about their own associations with the skeevy, disgraced, and deceased convicted sex trafficker.
For all the sound and fury over Trump's association with Epstein, all we've heard is that Epstein really didn't like him very much, and some second-hand gossip about Trump and 'the girls.'
Which is sort of funny, as one of the actual 'girls,' the late Virginia Guiffre, testified that Donald Trump had never been anything but pleasant and had never touched her.
Her testimony could also lead one to believe that Epstein was perhaps shading his relationship with Trump to be more than it was.
...Q: What is the basis for your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey's?
Giuffre: Jeffrey told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.
Sadly for the young woman, Guiffre's autobiography is also her last word on the subject, but there's absolutely nothing in it that would cast Donald Trump as an Epstein villain.
...Giuffre’s posthumous memoir “Nobody’s Girl” contains a claim that Giuffre was introduced to Trump by her father, who was a maintenance worker at Mar-a-Lago. The book contains no allegations of any wrongdoing on the part of Trump, nor does it contain any claims that Giuffre was at Epstein’s home while Trump was there.
According to the book, Trump asked Giuffre, who was 16 or 17 at the time, if she babysat. Giuffre said Trump "couldn't have been friendlier."
All this does is add fuel to the fire that, when one steps back, if these files were potentially so deleterious and dangerous for Trump because of the secrets held within, why were they not released or at least leaked and weaponized during the four years of the worst administration ever for targeting American citizens? Especially when they had both branches of Congress?
Why wasn't evidence from these files of Trump's sins romping with underaged women blasted across the media and in print four years ago?
As Speaker Johnson said, the fact that there wasn't a peep out of Democrats over Epstein makes one pretty suspicious that there is no there there. Because you know damn well that, had there been one Trump photo à la Prince Andrew and Giuffre, it would have taken up your entire monitor on every major news website, with screaming headlines, for weeks.
As for 'justice,' Democrats never did a thing for Epstein's victims.
Washington Democrats oversaw the Epstein files for FOUR YEARS. They didn’t release them. They didn’t push Biden’s DOJ for action. They DIDN’T LIFT A FINGER for the victims.
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) November 18, 2025
So why now?
Because Democrats don’t have a platform or a principle left to defend — so they’ve defaulted… pic.twitter.com/JXIVw6xweF
...So why now?
Because Democrats don’t have a platform or a principle left to defend — so they’ve defaulted to the one thing they know how to do: attack President Trump.
The people who are being implicated and who have so far been definitively nailed in the files detailing this sexual predator's workings and dealings have been Democrats.
Distinguished Ivy League elites like Larry Summers, who bloviates and pontificates with the best Brahmins of Beacon Hill, but also quizzes his scummy buddy Epstein (his 'wing man,' mind you) on the 'best way to get horizontal.'
Isn't that the cutest guy-talk ever? And Summers was married, too. Sheesh. Rich Democrats are so different.
The woman Larry Summers asked for advice on how to get “horizontal” with in emails to Jeffrey Epstein is a high-flying economist, The Post can reveal.
The ex-Treasury Secretary was referring to Chinese macro-economist Keyu Jin, 43 — then a tenured London School of Economics professor and Harvard graduate — and daughter of a top Chinese associate of President Xi Jinping.
In several messages from 2018 and 2019, married former Harvard president Summers, 70, confided in his “wing man” Epstein about a woman he was chasing and delivered blow-by-blow updates of his pursuit.
I haven't yet seen any evidence of something of that ilk directly involving Trump with the predator.
You know what else they have in the files?
That delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands - Stacy Plaskett. Now, she's not one of my favorite people to begin with, but imagine my surprise that she's in the Epstein files.
Now imagine that her name and conversation between her and the convicted predator are documented more than once and even during a congressional hearing where they are quizzing Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen! Now, you certainly can't say that about President Trump, yet somehow Delegate Plaskett's documented continued interactions with a convicted sex offender don't seem to raise any Democratic concerns at all.
In 2018. Plaskett is nailed dead to rights, begging Epstein for money.
Plaskett met privately with Epstein at his New York apartment to solicit campaign donations, after he was already a convicted s*x offender.
— Spitfire (@DogRightGirl) November 18, 2025
Where is the Democrat outrage?! pic.twitter.com/EsUFHliwiK
Plaskett's behavior revealed in the Epstein files - being coached by texting with Epstein during her questioning at the Cohen hearing - was so egregious, the Washington Post (!) had to match the texts up to the hearing video, and guess what?
Perfect synchronicity.
Newly released documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate show that he appeared to be texting a member of Congress during a congressional hearing investigating Donald Trump, and that those texts may have influenced the lawmaker’s questions. https://t.co/4yMKWBEi4X pic.twitter.com/o6LvpsUhDy
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 15, 2025
What an absolutely revolting display of treacherous venality.
But President Trump is the one being impugned for his behavior here?
As it should be, there was an immediate call to censure Plaskett and strip her of her committee assignment.
Democrats rushed to protect her in the ultimate display of their hypocrisy.
Hakeem Jeffries maintained his thousand-yard stare as Kaitlin Collins actually did some journalism.
Collins: "Were Stacey Plaskett's texts with Epstein appropriate?"
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 19, 2025
Jeffries: "She is not of violating any House rule."
Collins: "Do you think it was appropriate?"
Jeffries: "I have not had a conversation with Stacey Plaskett... That's the end of the story." pic.twitter.com/cCU4NOejf8
Jamie Raskin simply embarrassed himself, willfully displaying the sick, deluded tool we all know is the real Raskin
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., was ridiculed as "dishonest" and "sick" after arguing from the House floor that his former law school student and colleague was only "taking a phone call from her constituent" when she was texting disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 House hearing.
Republicans on Tuesday, led by Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., introduced a resolution to censure Plaskett for "inappropriate coordination with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein," which it says "reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives."
Plaskett was caught texting Epstein, whose primary residence was in the U.S. Virgin Islands, during a 2019 hearing when former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was testifying about his work with the president amid an ongoing probe into Trump's business dealings and matters tied to the 2016 election.
"They want to give them another headline! Which is, that 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 are any rules here against taking phone calls in a hearing," Raskin exclaimed on the House floor Tuesday afternoon amid Congress's efforts to pass a bill aimed at censuring Plaskett.
THERE'S NO RULE AGAINST AN EPSTEIN PHONE CALL IN CONGRESS
Jamie Raskin’s response to Stacey Plaskett colluding with Jeffrey Epstein against President Trump:
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 18, 2025
“I don’t think there’s any rule against taking a phone call from her constituent Jeffrey Epstein during a hearing.” pic.twitter.com/g9sVjg8Csl
For her part, Plaskett's just mad everyone's all up in her grill for taking a phone call 'from a constituent.'
That's her job, yo.
Stacey Plaskett wants you to know that SHE DOESN’T NEED ADVICE on how to question anyone…
— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) November 19, 2025
…except, in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein fed her questions to ask in a congressional committee hearing. And she listened.
Weird. pic.twitter.com/7Dc0sarNrf
But TRUMP!!!! on less than nothing, right?
Well, Republicans had a chance to hammer a message home and send this shameless operator packing.
And, once again, squishes blew it out of the water.
Every last Democrat was a 'no,' along with three Republicans who voted 'no,' and three more who voted 'present,' which left the despicable Plaskett in the catbird's seat.
Damn. I am so sick of this crap.
FYI🚨: The six Republicans who did not support the censure resolution against Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) were:
— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) November 19, 2025
**Voted "No" (3):**
- Rep. Lance Gooden (TX)
- Rep. Don Bacon (NE)
- Rep. David Joyce (OH)
**Voted "Present" (3):**
- Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA)
- Rep. Dan Meuser (PA)
-… pic.twitter.com/FKGzZJ20xj
...These six votes, combined with unified Democratic opposition, were decisive in defeating the resolution 213–214.
I am so sick of this crap.
There are reports that this was prearranged to protect Cory Mills. I can neither confirm nor deny that, but I know there has been running talk about him for a long time.
🚨SCOOP🚨
— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) November 19, 2025
Republican leadership wanted to save Congressman Cory Mills tonight, so they blocked Stacey Plaskett from being removed from the House Intelligence Committee.
If Plaskett was removed, Dems were expected to immediately bring a retaliatory resolution to censure Mills.… pic.twitter.com/M89GRowDC4
...One Congressional member telling me, “republican leadership sent three republicans on a kamakazee mission to save Cory mills.”
Dems were going to target Mills because of the restraining order that was granted by a judge last month for one of his ex-girlfriends.
Personally, if he's that much of a problem, is he worth saving? According to the count, they've lost two worthy censure votes now - Ilhan Omar and this one - because of maneuvers to protect Mills.
What's the cost versus return? If he's simply one of those lightning rods attracting spurious claims and vindictive women, then it'll sort itself out, right?
Why does a GOP Congress have to countenance actual misbehavior from Democrat members while IN chambers because of what happens to a GOP member outside of it?
Especially when Republicans will jettison their own in a heartbeat any other time.
It's handing Dems a license to do whatever they want.
God dang it, I'm so over this.
At HotAir, we’ve been dealing with real government suppression of free speech for YEARS. Despite the threats and consequences, we refuse to go silent and remain committed to delivering the truth.
But we can't do it without your support.
Please help Ed, David, John, and me continue fighting back against government censorship by joining our terrific HotAir VIP community today. Use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
And thank you so much again for being here with us at HotAir.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member