Representative Jasmine Crockett faced immediate backlash after a statement on the House floor proved to be significantly flawed. The incident unfolded Tuesday night, quickly escalating into a public dispute over misattributed donations and a case of mistaken identity.
Crockett accused Republicans of hypocrisy, alleging they had accepted funds from Jeffrey Epstein, referencing figures like Mitt Romney, Lee Zeldin, John McCain, and George W. Bush. Her intention was to highlight a perceived double standard, but the accusation landed with a jarring inaccuracy.
The “Jeffrey Epstein” she referenced was not the infamous convicted sex offender, but rather a New York physician, Dr. Jeffrey Epstein – a neurosurgeon with no connection to the criminal activity associated with the other Epstein. Further complicating matters, some of the donations cited occurred *after* the death of the notorious financier.
When challenged about the error, Crockett defended her statement, claiming she had intentionally used the name “Jeffrey Epstein” without specifying *which* Jeffrey Epstein. She asserted her team had conducted a Google search and that identifying donors solely by name was insufficient.
However, Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings reveal detailed donor information, including city, state, ZIP code, occupation, and employer. This readily available data clearly distinguishes between the financier and the physician, a distinction that could have been made with minimal effort, she claimed even 20 minutes would have been enough.
Surprisingly, CNN White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins pressed Crockett on the inaccuracies, refusing to allow the misleading claims to stand unchallenged. This direct questioning added to the mounting pressure on the Representative.
Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, the neurosurgeon wrongly implicated, has now publicly responded. He proposed a pointedly ironic form of retribution: donating to Crockett’s campaign and then revealing that she, too, had received funds from a “Jeffrey Epstein.”
Dr. Epstein stated that he had rarely been confused for the convicted sex criminal prior to Crockett’s statement. The incident, he indicated, has brought unwanted attention and a desire to correct the record in a memorable way.
The situation highlights the importance of thorough verification, even in the fast-paced environment of political debate, and the potential consequences of relying on incomplete or inaccurate information.
