For anyone who needs a refresher, it involved Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett, who the Washington Post exposed for texting back and forth with Epstein in real time during a 2019 House hearing involving disgraced former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. According to the report, she was even adjusting her questions for the anti-Trump witness based on Epstein’s guidance

To absolutely no one’s surprise, most of the media has gone radio silent on Stacey Plaskett’s communications with Epstein — even though, in any sane world, that should be a political bombshell. After all, we’re talking about a delegate who not only traded messages with Epstein during a congressional hearing, but also took sizable donations from him and initially resisted returning the money. All of this happened the same year Epstein died in prison awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.

But while the press seems determined to memory-hole the whole episode, one determined reporter actually confronted Jeffries about it — and his reaction spoke volumes.

“Why should Americans trust you and House Democrats on the Jeffrey Epstein files when one of your own—Congresswoman Plaskett—was found to be texting with Jeffrey Epstein during a hearing, getting information from him, using that in her questioning during a congressional hearing, at one point he tells her ‘good job’?” the reporter asked.

The House Democratic leader’s non-answer should be a case study in deflection for political science courses.

“This is a bipartisan effort to make sure that, consistent with what the survivors have requested, that there’s full and complete transparency and every single predator that may be in those Justice Department files doesn’t escape accountability,” Jeffries stammered.

Not a single mention of Plaskett. Just the sputtering, halting cadence of a man desperately trying to assemble a thought on the fly. And when he couldn’t? He defaulted to the usual routine — smirking his way through a non-answer and pretending the question hadn’t been asked in the first place.

It’s hard to believe anyone ever compared this guy to Barack Obama — whatever else you think of Obama, at least he could string together a coherent sentence. Jeffries, by contrast, can barely manage a deflection without tripping over his own talking points.

And speaking of Obama, it’s no wonder Hakeem suddenly isn’t so eager to field Epstein questions. A newly uncovered email shows a Democrat fundraising group reaching out to Epstein back in 2013 about none other than “Brooklyn’s Barack” — Jeffries himself. You say “Brooklyn’s Barack,” I say “Temu Obama.” Or “Dollar Store Obama.” Take your pick.

The fundraising group urged Epstein — who by then had already been convicted in 2008 for procuring a minor for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute — to get in touch by email or phone so they could discuss how he might support Jeffries. They even described Jeffries as “an impressive guy” who would be “a progressive voice in New York politics for years to come.”

Somehow, I doubt Hakeem Jeffries is any more eager to talk about that email than he is to revisit the Plaskett–Epstein texting scandal. What a joke.