During a pivotal 2019 Congressional hearing featuring Michael Cohen, former counsel to President Trump, a startling revelation has emerged: a Democratic member of the Oversight Committee was actively exchanging text messages with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, representing the US Virgin Islands, received guidance from Epstein while Cohen testified regarding Trump’s business dealings and alleged misconduct. The exchange occurred in real-time, as Cohen detailed potentially damaging information.
The texts, analyzed by multiple news outlets, reveal Epstein monitoring the proceedings and directly suggesting lines of questioning for Plaskett. He specifically referenced a former Trump aide, Rhona Graff, known as “RONA,” as a key figure.
“Cohen brought up RONA – keeper of the secrets,” Epstein texted Plaskett. Her immediate response, “RONA?? Quick I’m up next is that an acronym,” demonstrates her reliance on his input during the critical hearing.
Epstein continued, pointing Plaskett toward pursuing information about other individuals within the Trump Organization. He urged her to uncover the identities of those involved, effectively steering the direction of the questioning.
Following Epstein’s lead, Plaskett directly asked Cohen about additional individuals the committee should investigate. She pressed him for names, stating, “You’ve got to quickly give us as many names as you can so we can get to them.”
Footage from the hearing corroborates the timeline of the text exchange, showing Plaskett’s questions aligning closely with Epstein’s suggestions. This raises serious questions about the impartiality of the investigation and potential external influence.
Plaskett’s office acknowledged the texts but characterized them as part of a broader influx of communications received during the hearing, including advice and opinions from various sources. They emphasized her commitment to uncovering the truth and her past advocacy against sexual assault.
However, the specificity of Epstein’s guidance and the direct correlation between his texts and Plaskett’s questioning remain deeply concerning. The situation casts a shadow over the integrity of the Congressional proceedings and the pursuit of information during that time.
Michael Cohen himself had previously faced legal consequences for providing false statements to Congress, campaign finance violations, and tax evasion. His testimony was already under scrutiny, and this new information adds another layer of complexity to the narrative.
