Newly surfaced emails are raising fresh questions for Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries after House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer revealed that Jeffrey Epstein — years before his final arrest — had been invited to attend a political fundraiser connected to Jeffries’ 2013 campaign. The revelation has quickly become the latest point of scrutiny in the ongoing congressional investigation into Epstein’s political ties and the network of influential people who once interacted with him.
Comer, a Kentucky Republican who leads the House Oversight Committee, said on Tuesday that the documents show Epstein was not only invited to a Democratic fundraising event but was pitched on an opportunity to “get to know” Jeffries during the party’s efforts to expand its congressional majority at the time.
According to Comer, the correspondence amounts to Jeffries’ political operation “soliciting money from Jeffrey Epstein,” though the emails do not indicate whether Epstein attended the event or contributed to the congressman’s campaign. What the emails do reveal, however, is that Epstein was seen as a desirable guest in at least some Democratic political circles — despite the fact that his reputation had already been tarnished years earlier by a 2008 sex-crime conviction in Florida.
“This idea that Epstein only associated with Republicans is a myth the Left has been pushing for years,” Comer said from the House floor. “These documents show Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to meet with Hakeem Jeffries or attend an event as part of their 2013 effort to win a majority.”
Comer added that the email invitation was uncovered as part of the Oversight Committee’s ongoing review of thousands of Epstein-related documents turned over by various agencies and individuals.
The Email Behind the Controversy
At the center of the dispute is a May 7, 2013 email sent by Lisa Rossi, a partner at Dynamic SRG, a New York City–based political consulting and fundraising firm. The subject line with which she contacted Epstein was simple and glowing:
“Rising Star.”
The full message, addressed directly to Epstein and later forwarded to him again by Lesley Groff — Epstein’s longtime executive assistant — highlighted the firm’s excitement over partnering with Jeffries during his early rise in Congress. Jeffries, then still a relatively new member of the House, had quickly become a favorite among Democratic strategists seeking fresh leadership and charismatic talent.
“Dear Jeffrey,” the message began. “We are thrilled to announce that we are working with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, one of the rising stars in the New York Congressional delegation.”
According to Comer’s summary on the House floor, the rest of the email invited Epstein to a Democratic Party dinner connected to Jeffries’ political operation. Rossi told Epstein that the event would be an excellent opportunity for supporters and potential donors to speak with Jeffries and support his work in Congress. Epstein was also given the option of requesting a private introductory meeting.
What remains unclear is how Rossi or Dynamic SRG identified Epstein as someone who should receive such an invitation. At the time, Epstein was known across New York’s political and philanthropic circles as a wealthy, well-connected figure with a reputation for writing large checks. However, his 2008 conviction for procuring a minor for prostitution was already public knowledge, making the outreach uncomfortable in hindsight.
What Jeffries’ Office Says
Jeffries’ congressional office has not denied the authenticity of the email, but it has strongly rejected Comer’s suggestion that the Democratic leader had any personal relationship with Epstein or solicited money from him.
According to Jeffries’ spokeswoman, the congressman had no knowledge of the 2013 outreach, did not authorize any meeting, and never met Epstein. They also emphasized that the message was sent by outside fundraising consultants, not by Jeffries or his congressional staff.
The spokeswoman described the accusation as “a gross distortion” and said there is no evidence Epstein ever attended the event or contributed funds.
Still, the political implications are obvious: an optics problem for Democrats who have long sought to portray Epstein’s political ties as being primarily connected to Republicans — even though Epstein spread money across both parties for decades.
Why the Revelation Matters
The Jeffries email is now one of several pieces of evidence lawmakers are analyzing as they investigate the extent of Epstein’s connections inside government and politics. Comer and other Republicans argue that Epstein’s name appears far more often on Democratic political documents than some narratives suggest, though both parties have had their share of uncomfortable associations with him.
The issue is not whether Epstein made donations — donors often give across ideological lines — but whether his access or influence was greater than political figures have publicly acknowledged. The Jeffries email is particularly noteworthy because it came after Epstein had already been convicted of sex-related crimes five years earlier.
For victims and their advocates, any evidence that politicians continued courting Epstein after 2008 represents a failure to take his history seriously. For political strategists, it raises uncomfortable questions about how thoroughly fundraising teams vet potential donors.
A Look Back at 2013
Understanding the political climate of 2013 helps explain why Jeffries’ name was being promoted so aggressively by party consultants.
At the time:
- Democrats were eager to build a new generation of leadership.
- Jeffries, then in his first term, was widely seen as a rising voice representing Brooklyn.
- New York donors — especially wealthy figures — were routinely approached by fundraising firms eager to support promising new lawmakers.
- Epstein, despite his criminal record, was still circulating in elite financial and philanthropic networks.
It isn’t hard to see why a firm unfamiliar with the details of Epstein’s past might have included him on a mass invitation list. But the problem, critics argue, is that Epstein was a high-profile name — and any political team working in New York should have known who he was.
That is one of the reasons Comer insists further investigation is necessary.
What the Oversight Committee Plans Next
Comer has said the committee will continue reviewing emails, financial records, internal communications, and visitor logs from organizations and individuals linked to Epstein’s vast social network. The goal, he says, is not to politicize the scandal but to uncover the full extent of Epstein’s relationships with government figures, donors, and institutions.
Democrats accuse Comer of stretching isolated incidents into partisan attacks. They argue that Epstein used his wealth and social influence to insert himself into both Republican and Democratic circles, and that one unsolicited invitation proves nothing about Jeffries’ conduct.
Republicans counter that transparency is essential — and that no political figure should be shielded from scrutiny.
Epstein and Political Access
History shows that Epstein frequently attended political, philanthropic, and social events across New York and Washington. His calendar and contact lists, revealed after his death, included business leaders, academics, journalists, diplomats, and politicians from both parties.
The newly revealed Jeffries email fits into that broader pattern: Epstein was invited into spaces where money, influence, and political networking overlapped.
What makes the email significant is the timing. Sending an invitation in 2013 — years after Epstein’s criminal conviction — raises questions about how seriously political institutions took his reputation and what systems were in place to block inappropriate outreach.
The Broader Implications
The resurfacing of the email comes at a time when Congress is under mounting pressure to release the full collection of Epstein-related records. Recent legislation passed both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support, signaling that lawmakers understand the public wants transparency.
As these documents emerge, it is likely that many individuals — in politics, business, and entertainment — will face renewed scrutiny, whether their interactions were substantial, superficial, or entirely innocent.
For Jeffries, the issue is not whether he did something wrong but how his campaign became entangled with a figure as notorious as Epstein. For Democrats, the episode complicates efforts to paint Epstein’s political influence as one-sided. And for Republicans, the email offers a new line of questioning for the man who could become the next Speaker of the House if Democrats retake the majority.
Conclusion
The email inviting Epstein to connect with Hakeem Jeffries does not prove a relationship, nor does it show that Epstein attended the event or donated money. But it does highlight how deeply Epstein’s name was woven into political and fundraising circles — and how little due diligence some organizations performed even after his first conviction.
As the Oversight Committee continues its deep dive into Epstein’s network, the Jeffries invitation is likely just one of many revelations still to come. The political fallout, however, may stretch far beyond a single email.