Notice of Intention to Offer Resolution Raising A Question of the Privileges of the House

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. We are here today on the floor to support the complete disclosure of information related to Jeffrey Epstein and his billion-dollar, international child sex-trafficking ring. Our side of the aisle, at least, supports the release of information relating to anybody who had anything to do with it, whether they are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or what have you, period. We insist on complete, full disclosure.

This resolution has nothing to do with that. This seems to me to be one more pathetic effort to distract and divert attention from the fact that the President's name appeared more than 1,000 times already in the small fraction of material released on Epstein and from the failure of the majority to move to disclose this information.

It is this bipartisan group that we have had behind the discharge resolution, which has insisted on bringing this to the floor, and we have gotten nothing but obstruction, opposition, resistance, evasion, distraction, and diversion from the other side, and now we get one more resolution like this.

The resolution actually proposes a disciplinary censure against Representative Stacey Plaskett but, amazingly, alleges no misconduct. It does not allege a violation of the Constitution. It does not allege the violation of a Federal law or a State law or a local law. It does not even allege a violation of the ethics rules of the House of Representatives. Yet, they want to censure her and throw her off of her committee--this, a distinguished former Federal prosecutor, diligent public servant, and Representative of the people of the Virgin Islands.

Mr. Speaker, criminal justice has two parts to it. One is insisting upon legal accountability for people who do wrong. The other part of it is due process, which may be the two most beautiful words in the English language, certainly the two most beautiful words in the Constitution of the United States. It is due process that protects all of our freedoms and our rights against the arbitrary power of government and the will to just punish somebody without any process at all.

That is exactly what is going on here. Think about it. Ghislaine Maxwell had due process. She had a right to counsel. She had a right to hearings. She had a right to hear the evidence against her. She had a right to put on her case. She had a right to cross-examine. She had a right to a neutral, impartial tribunal. She had a right to a unanimous verdict of a jury.

All of that she had, and she was found guilty. That is why she was sentenced to jail for 20 years, even though Donald Trump has transferred her from a real prison to a prison camp, where she has gotten very special, pampered treatment, like she is in a Trump hotel. She gets room service to her cell. She gets gym privileges that other inmates don't get. She gets to use the warden as a go-between with people outside of the institution.

Mr. Speaker, she had due process. Donald Trump had due process. He was convicted on 34 felonies, but he had the right to counsel. He had the presumption of innocence. He had a unanimous jury trial. They had a right to cross-examine everybody and put their own witnesses on.

Mr. Speaker, now they want to take a former United States prosecutor, the Representative of the people of the Virgin Islands, and without even going to the Ethics Committee, much less a court, they want to arraign her on some charges based on a newspaper article that she did something lawful. However ill-advised it may have been, she took a phone call from one of her constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is the position of the very distinguished gentleman that, if we find Jeffrey Epstein on the phone with Donald Trump, he should be impeached for it, or is that his position? Is his position that anytime Jeffrey Epstein got somebody on the phone--and he got a lot of people on the phone--that person is suddenly guilty? That sounds like guilt by association. That sounds like collective guilt.

Our minority whip introduced a perfectly reasonable amendment to say: Let's refer this to an Ethics Committee. Let's have a real hearing. They didn't want to have a real hearing. They want to rush to judgment. Why? It is so there can be some headline that will please Donald Trump tomorrow instead of a unanimous statement--or forgive me, I think the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana may have dissented, but an otherwise unanimous verdict of the House of Representatives that the American people want all the files open.

We have had enough of the coverup. We want all of the truth. We want the survivors and the victims to have the possibility of accountability. Well, they want to give them another headline, which is that they have arraigned a Democratic Member for taking a phone call from her constituent, Jeffrey Epstein, in the middle of a hearing, and, of course, I don't think there is any rule here against taking phone calls in a hearing.

Now if you want to actually give her the chance to explain what happened, then we would take it to the Ethics Committee. I still don't see what the charge is. Where is the ethical transgression? Where is the legal transgression? Are you saying anybody on your side of the aisle who had a phone call with Jeffrey Epstein should be censured?

Be careful of your answer there because there is a lot more that is about to come out, right? You should think about what is the principle behind this rush to judgment.

Mr. Speaker, I will close just with this thought because I know there were a lot of people in the Chamber who were here when this happened and a lot who weren't.

There was a move to expel George Santos. He was a Republican Member of the House from New York. It was the same kind of rush to judgment, absolute political frenzy. I looked at it for about 60 seconds.

I was a professor of constitutional law, so call me a legal nerd, but I said, wait. This guy has not been convicted of anything. Well, he is a Republican. I know he is a Republican. He was not convicted in criminal court, to my knowledge. He had not been arraigned yet or convicted of anything in the Ethics disciplinary process. They just said, well, there is bad press. We want to get rid of him.

Beware of what you wish for. Is that the rule that you want here in the House of Representatives, that you can just draw up a Member of Congress in 24 hours or 48 hours because there is a bad newspaper article without asking any questions, without giving that person any due process at all? Is that what it has come to at this point?

All we are asking for in the Epstein files is, release the materials so we can check it out. They want to go ahead and censure and remove from a committee a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives with no due process at all.

Mr. Speaker, I reject this. I hope the whole body will reject this just like I voted and spoke against removing George Santos, a Republican on the other side of the aisle, because he had gotten no due process. I hope all our colleagues will reject this absurd rush to judgment in an attempt to change the subject.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear from my friend from Louisiana.

Both of the Republican speakers have said this demands an Ethics investigation. I think Mr. Higgins just said it should be investigated by Oversight and by Judiciary, as well as by Ethics and others.

This resolution censures her and punishes her before there has been one day of investigation. There has been no investigation at all. That was the whole burden of the minority whip's amendment. It was to say let's have an investigation, refer it to the Ethics Committee.

That is why the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana and I both voted against, and we got a majority to vote against censuring, or expelling even, George Santos without any ruling by our Ethics disciplinary body.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? I don't get it. I wish one of you could explain that to us why we should censure her before there has been one day of actual investigation. If being on the phone with one of our constituents, even an evil sinister force like Jeffrey Epstein--and, of course, he has said that he considered Donald Trump the most evil person he ever met, without a redeeming bone in his body.

I agree people can say different things, but Jeffrey Epstein, to me, disgraced himself. In any event, people want to know what were the contents of that conversation. Why was Ms. Plaskett doing that? I am sure she has a good explanation. We are talking about a distinguished lawyer and Federal prosecutor who was in the middle of a hearing, which is something that Members do all the time is to talk to people in hearings about different things.

Let me ask, if it is now the standard that just to be on a phone call with somebody establishes guilt by association, what about all of the Members of this body or of the U.S. Senate who were on the phone with January 6 insurrectionists and President Trump and his associates who were trying to block the certification of the election as people were chanting, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' There were a lot of phone calls, a lot of traffic going on.

In fact, that is why our Republican colleagues dealt themselves a million-dollar cash payoff bonanza provision in the most recent Republican spending bill.

They put that in there because their phone records had been subpoenaed lawfully by a grand jury. They were treated like every other American citizen because their names came up as potentially being involved in that conspiracy to somehow shut down proceedings in the House and the Senate.

Now, are we saying just because they were on a phone call that they are guilty of something, that we should strip them of their committee assignments, that we should censure them? Have we gotten to that point? I mean, come on. This is the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Let's stick by the Constitution. Let's stick by due process. Let's go through the rules.

I thank my friend from Texas for those remarks. I am afraid all of them dance around the central issue, which is the good Congressman knows how due process works in America. There are facts that are adduced first. There is an opportunity to be heard on both sides. There is due process. There is consideration. Then there is judgment.

The gentleman has flipped the whole thing on its head. He has said we are going to judge her guilty before anybody has an opportunity even to hear what the charges are, much less answer the charges, much less do any kind of analysis.

I am sorry to hear that the text exchange that seems to be at the heart of people's consternation here took place during the distinguished gentleman's questioning, but that is not a Federal offense nor is it an ethical violation in the House of Representatives. You don't get to have the undivided attention of all of your colleagues.

The gentleman says that he thinks that our position is that any association with Jeffrey Epstein is a dispositive moment of judgment for people. That is not the position we have advanced.

We have taken the position with the survivors that we want to end the coverup of what happened and then let the chips fall where they may. If there are people who were actually engaged in crime, as Ghislaine Maxwell was, as Epstein was, then they should be charged with every element of due process.

If they happen to be a waiter or a waitress who worked at an event, they are not guilty of anything. That is what due process is, we are able to sift through and figure it out.

However, your rush to judgment isn't even giving anybody a chance to know what the charges are here. It is the most extraordinary thing I have ever seen.

Crockett).

Mr. Speaker, I want to remark that yet one more Member says we should go ahead and censure her and we then should do a complete investigation. I think any fifth grader in America knows that is the exact opposite of what due process means in America. We don't punish people before we have an investigation and an opportunity to be heard.

Plaskett).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Clarke).

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress, in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is a blatantly partisan, shameless attack.

As we sit here today, Donald Trump is still the single person in this country with the authority and the ability to deliver justice to survivors and truth to the American people by just releasing the files. So instead of answering why Donald Trump chooses every single day not to release the Epstein files, they are pointing fingers at this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the President, Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has committed no crime, violated no rule, and broken no promises.

There has been no investigation, no due process, no inquiry into whether the Congresswoman had any connection whatsoever to Epstein's despicable and disgusting criminal conduct.

This resolution would have us remove a capable and hardworking member of one of the most serious working committees in this body on the basis of a conversation from more than 6 years ago, which broke no rules, broke no laws, and has no connection to any criminal activity.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan resolution, this sham.

I want to start by addressing the young people who appear to be in the audience this evening because I am afraid some of my arguments are lost on some of our colleagues across the aisle suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. It seems to have completely warped their minds today, and they are not thinking clearly about the Constitution or the rule of law.

The young people here will recognize, if they read this resolution, immediately what is wrong with it because it is replete with phrases like this, that this one incident that they are referring to raises serious questions about the judgment and the integrity and the fitness to serve. Well, I think that is absurd, but in any event, if you think it raises serious questions, presumably you would want the answers to those questions. You don't get answers by rushing to judgment and turning the whole process upside down.

This resolution starts by saying that we censure her, that we remove her from committee. The very next component of it says that we direct the Committee on Ethics to conduct an investigation. That is the opposite of due process, and I hope at least future generations will understand that is not how we hold people accountable, whether it is under criminal law, under civil law, or under an ethics process, which they purport to want to be launching here.

Again, go back to the George Santos standard. The reason we voted against just hanging him out to dry, censuring him, and expelling him is because the process hadn't happened yet. Democrats and Republicans together did it, but they are thinking in solely partisan terms.

Even Matt Gaetz, accused of having sex with a 17-year-old, was never censured by the House of Representatives. Even with Speaker McCarthy and others condemning him for what he did, we did not censure him.

Think about what you are doing to the precedents of this body by trying to attack Ms. Plaskett.

Let me just close with a personal thought. I wasn't going to bring it up because I didn't want to embarrass her, but she was one of the three finest students I ever had in constitutional law. She was a straight-A student in the early 1990s. She is a straight-A student in the 21st century. I am proud not only that she was my student but that she is my friend and that she is my colleague. She doesn't disgrace us in any way. She goes to work every day for the people of the Virgin Islands, and we are proud of her.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source