Ghislaine Maxwell sat before the House Oversight Committee on Monday morning, invoked the Fifth Amendment, and answered nothing. Not a single question from lawmakers penetrated the convicted Epstein accomplice's wall of silence.
So what did Rep. Jasmine Crockett do next? She walked out to the cameras and started talking about Donald Trump.
The Texas Democrat delivered what she apparently considered a tough-guy moment for reporters, declaring of the president:
"We're gonna be on his a--."
That's the state of the Democratic minority on the Epstein investigation — a convicted sex trafficker's accomplice refuses to speak under oath, and the opposition party's takeaway is a vulgar six-word threat aimed at the White House.
Maxwell's appearance was a closed-door affair. She pleaded the Fifth and gave lawmakers nothing to work with. For a committee investigating one of the most grotesque criminal enterprises in modern American history, the session was a dead end — at least from Maxwell's chair.
But Crockett wasn't interested in Maxwell's silence, as Fox News reported. She was interested in leverage. Speaking to reporters afterward, she framed the entire investigation as a Republican cover-up operation:
"We have a 34-count convicted felon, and there are people that are still shielding him from any type of accountability as it relates to a child sex-trafficking ring."
Both Trump's and Bill Clinton's names appear in the Epstein files released by the committee and the DOJ. Neither is implicated in any wrongdoing related to Epstein. That's a rather important detail — one Crockett managed to glide past entirely.
Appearing in documents is not a crime. Being mentioned is not an indictment. But if you're a progressive congresswoman mounting a long-shot Senate bid in Texas, nuance is an obstacle, not a virtue.
Crockett attempted to paint Republicans as hypocrites for pursuing the Clintons while — in her telling — protecting Trump. She told reporters:
"Right now we know that they were willing to try to throw the Clintons in prison for not showing up yet."
Here's what actually happened. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially refused to appear in person for closed-door depositions. Chairman James Comer launched contempt proceedings. The full House was set to vote on referring the Clintons to the DOJ for criminal charges. Just days before that vote, the Clintons' attorneys wrote to Comer and agreed to appear under his terms. They are now slated for closed-door, videotaped depositions.
In other words, the committee applied pressure, and it worked. The Clintons stonewalled, got called on it, and caved. That's not a partisan hit job — it's oversight functioning as designed.
Crockett then offered this framing of her own position:
"Then we went through the hearing as it relates to the Clintons, I said, 'Listen, we know that Donald Trump's name is mentioned more. Bring him in, too.'… This, for the Democrats, this isn't partisanship. This is about right versus wrong."
It's always "right versus wrong" when Democrats want to haul a Republican president before a committee. Funny how the principle only crystallizes when the target is useful.
Crockett's other complaint was procedural. She objected to the closed-door format of the depositions, accusing Republicans of controlling the narrative:
"What they want to do is they want to go behind closed doors and then come out with whatever spin that they want to put on it and have it be a he said, she said."
This is the same party that conducted years of closed-door depositions during its own investigations when it held the gavel. Closed-door depositions are standard congressional practice — they prevent witnesses from coordinating testimony and allow members to ask detailed, sensitive questions without grandstanding for cameras. Democrats know this. They used this exact tool repeatedly.
But now it's sinister.
She followed up with the capstone:
"They are playing games right now. And again, this is all about shielding and distracting from the president of the United States, who is absolutely mentioned in those files."
"Mentioned in those files" is doing extraordinary heavy lifting in that sentence. Being mentioned in files that span decades of a socialite-predator's connections is not evidence of participation in crimes. If it were, half of Manhattan's elite would be under indictment.
The House Oversight Committee brought in Epstein's convicted accomplice. She refused to talk. The committee previously compelled the Clintons to agree to depositions after they tried to dodge. The DOJ and the committee have both released Epstein files. Neither Trump nor Clinton is implicated in wrongdoing.
That's the factual landscape. It doesn't support a cover-up theory. It supports an investigation moving through witnesses methodically — some of whom cooperate, some of whom plead the Fifth, and some of whom had to be dragged to the table.
Crockett is running for John Cornyn's Senate seat in Texas. That context matters. Every camera hit outside a deposition room doubles as a campaign reel. The vulgarity wasn't a slip — it was a clip, designed for the fundraising email that was probably drafted before Maxwell even sat down.
The Epstein case is a genuine horror. Children were exploited by powerful people who operated in plain sight for years. The investigation deserves members who treat it with the gravity it demands — not as raw material for a Senate campaign launch in a state where you're already trailing.
Maxwell pleaded the Fifth. The Clintons are coming in. The files are public. The work continues. If Democrats want to be part of it, they might try focusing on the convicted sex trafficker who refused to answer questions instead of the president, who wasn't in the room.
