Lead Patriot

Right Leaning Commentary

Congresswoman's Comments Stir Debate
The Scoop

Congresswoman's Comments Stir Debate

Rep. Jasmine Crockett has once again gifted the internet with a moment so baffling, so confidently wrong, it nearly transcends parody. If political absurdity were an Olympic event, Crockett would be bringing home gold—and then accidentally blaming the podium for being made of Republican donations.

Here’s the story: In what looked like an attempt to land a gotcha moment, Crockett claimed Republicans took money from Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, that Jeffrey Epstein—the convicted sex offender, deep-pocketed donor to Democrats, and a man so politically radioactive even saying his name makes career strategists break out in hives.


There was just one problem: the Jeffrey Epstein in question wasn’t that Jeffrey Epstein at all.

Cue the collective facepalm.

Now, some observers—charitably, perhaps—have suggested that Crockett knew what she was doing. That this was a calculated ploy to mislead the less-informed by invoking a name guaranteed to detonate on social media. But the more generous explanation may actually be the more embarrassing one: that she didn’t know. That she, and her staff, failed to do the two seconds of due diligence it would take to discover that “Jeffrey Epstein” is a surprisingly common name, and the one referenced in the FEC filings wasn’t the Epstein, but a completely different person altogether.


So what’s worse: lying with a straight face to score cheap points, or being so deeply misinformed that you mistake a mundane donor for one of the most infamous criminals in recent memory?

Let’s be real—it’s probably a little of both. But we can’t help but laugh harder at the idea that Crockett earnestly believed there was only one Jeffrey Epstein in the entire known universe. As if the donor lists were a murder board from a true-crime documentary and she was the genius who cracked the code with a Sharpie and a hunch.


It’s not just sloppy. It’s hot mess theater. It’s the political equivalent of walking into a hearing with your shoe on your head and daring someone to call it fashion.

And while her defenders will likely insist this is just another example of “misspeaking” or “being taken out of context,” the damage is done. Once you play the Epstein card, you’d better be holding the real one—because if you’re not, the blowback writes itself.

Written by Arthur Higgens - November 19, 2025