A bitter dispute erupted on Capitol Hill this week after House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer took to the House floor to defend himself against comments made by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who had publicly referred to Comer as a “stone-cold liar” while addressing questions about newly released documents related to the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.

The clash stems from what Comer described as a factual dispute over campaign correspondence from 2013 — more than a decade old — that appears in materials subpoenaed from the Epstein estate and subsequently made public.
According to Comer, those documents include an email from a fundraising consultant for Jeffries’ 2013 congressional campaign inviting Epstein to attend an event featuring then-President Barack Obama.

Jeffries has denied the allegation that his campaign solicited Epstein, dismissing Comer’s comments as false.
Comer, however, insists he accurately described what appears in the estate documents released earlier this year under subpoena from the Oversight Committee.

The disagreement has now escalated into a dramatic political confrontation, one heightened by the intense national spotlight surrounding the recently disclosed Epstein communications — more than 30,000 pages of records turned over to Congress.

Comer Responds: “I’ve Taken to the Floor Today…”

In a floor speech Thursday, Comer said he felt compelled to respond directly to Jeffries’ characterization of him.

“I’ve taken to the floor today to respond to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries calling me a ‘stone-cold liar’ during a press conference defending the recent discovery of Democrats’ communication with Jeffrey Epstein,” Comer said.

Comer then reviewed the Oversight Committee’s work regarding the Epstein estate documents, emphasizing that the materials were obtained through formal subpoenas and released publicly for the sake of transparency.

He noted that nothing in the documents revealed new or incriminating information about former President Donald Trump’s historical interactions with Epstein.

“But we did find two Democratic members of Congress had communication with Jeffrey Epstein,” Comer said. He referenced previously reported text exchanges involving Delegate Stacey Plaskett, which have been publicly covered by multiple outlets.

He then turned to the document at the center of the dispute with Jeffries.

The Email: Comer Says It Shows A 2013 Fundraising Invite

Comer presented what he described as a printed, enlarged version of the disputed email — a screenshot blown up on poster board beside him on the House floor.

According to Comer’s description, the email was addressed to Jeffrey Epstein directly and invited him to a 2013 fundraising dinner with Jeffries and then-President Barack Obama. Comer read excerpts aloud, including language offering “an opportunity to get to know Hakeem better.”

Comer stressed that the email was not referring to someone else with the same name — an important clarification because Rep. Jasmine Crockett had recently misattributed campaign donations received by former Congressman Lee Zeldin to the wrong Jeffrey Epstein.

“The email was sent to the real Jeffrey Epstein,” Comer said, distinguishing it from that earlier mix-up.

Comer did not accuse Jeffries of meeting Epstein, receiving money from him, or otherwise engaging in any improper activity. He stated only that the document shows a solicitation.

“That’s what we found in the last document batch,” Comer said.

Jeffries Rejects Claim: “I Have No Idea What James Comer Is Talking About”

Jeffries, speaking at a press availability earlier in the week, took strong issue with Comer’s allegations.

When a reporter asked whether his campaign had ever solicited donations from Epstein, Jeffries responded:

“I have no idea what James Comer is talking about in terms of anything any prior consultant may have sent.”

Jeffries then suggested that Comer had accused him of meeting Epstein or taking money from him — claims Comer had not made.

“He’s a stone-cold liar,” Jeffries said.

The minority leader did not directly address the specific 2013 email that Comer referenced.

Understanding the Discrepancy

The standoff between Comer and Jeffries appears to center on three main points:

1. Did the 2013 email exist?

Comer says the email is contained within the Epstein estate documents turned over to Congress.

Jeffries says he is unaware of such a solicitation and has denied wrongdoing, noting he does not control what third-party consultants may have sent during his early campaigns.

2. What does the email actually show?

Comer’s description suggests the message invited Epstein to an event and solicited financial support.
The content has not been disputed publicly line-by-line by Jeffries or his team, but Jeffries has not acknowledged it.

3. Is Comer mischaracterizing the document?

Jeffries accuses Comer of lying about his interactions with Epstein.
Comer maintains he has only reported what the document says — nothing more.

The full context of the email, including whether Epstein ever responded, whether he donated, or whether he attended any event, is not publicly known.

The Political Stakes: Epstein Documents Become a New Flashpoint

The newly released Epstein communications — a trove of emails, letters, schedules, and phone logs — were widely expected to generate political turbulence.
While Democrats hoped the materials might draw renewed scrutiny toward past associations involving former President Trump, the documents have instead created complications for figures across the political spectrum.

Many communications in the estate files are routine or inconsequential.
Others involve high-profile individuals in academia, philanthropy, media, and politics whose interactions with Epstein long predated his most serious legal troubles.

Still, the mere existence of any contact with Epstein can be politically damaging, especially for elected officials.

The Jeffries-Comer dispute now stands as the most visible example of how the document release has spilled into partisan conflict.

A Closer Look at the Historical Context

In 2013 — the year of the fundraising email — Jeffrey Epstein was already a registered sex offender, having pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008.
However, at the time, he still moved within certain philanthropic and political circles, a reality that has since drawn widespread criticism.

Many of Epstein’s communications from this era involve invitations, donor-related correspondence, networking requests, and introductions — the type of interactions political campaigns and consultants routinely pursue.

It remains unclear whether Epstein attended or contributed to any Jeffries-related events. No public campaign-finance filings list Epstein as a donor to Jeffries.

Crockett’s Earlier Misstatement Fuels the Broader Conversation

Part of the backdrop to this dispute is a separate controversy involving Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who mistakenly claimed earlier this month that former Congressman and current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had received donations from Epstein.
The names in question actually belonged to two unrelated individuals named Jeffrey Epstein — including one who is a physician.

Crockett later acknowledged the error.

Comer referenced this incident during his floor speech, saying:

“That’s the real Jeffrey Epstein — not Jasmine Crockett’s Jeffrey Epstein.”

His remark signaled an effort to distinguish the Jeffries email from the earlier mix-up, underscoring the need for caution when interpreting names in political donations or contact lists.

Where the Dispute Goes From Here

There is no indication that the House will launch any formal investigation into the 2013 email or into Jeffries’ campaign activities from that period.
Nothing in Comer’s remarks suggested that he intends to pursue further action beyond responding to Jeffries’ comments.

The disagreement is unlikely to have legal consequences — but politically, it may carry weight.

Jeffries is widely considered the likely future Democratic Speaker of the House if his party retakes the majority.
Comer remains a leading GOP figure on oversight and investigations.

Their public confrontation reflects both the pressure surrounding the Epstein document release and the broader political climate heading into 2026.

The Broader Takeaway: Epstein Communications Create Unexpected Political Crosswinds

Rather than producing a simple narrative, the Epstein estate documents have created a complex and unpredictable set of revelations.

For Republicans:
The documents have not meaningfully damaged Donald Trump, whom Comer described as having “nothing new and nothing scandalous” in the files.

For Democrats:
Uncomfortable details about Stacey Plaskett’s messages and the alleged 2013 solicitation linked to Jeffries’ campaign have prompted difficult questions.

For both parties:
The episode shows how past associations — even brief, tangential, or consultant-driven ones — can reignite in the modern media environment.

A Flashpoint With No Sign of Cooling Off

James Comer declares he has “brought the receipts.”
Hakeem Jeffries insists he is being smeared.
Both men are defending their reputations at a time when every reference to Epstein is politically combustible.

Whether the matter fades or continues to fuel partisan tension will depend on what — if anything — emerges in the coming weeks.
For now, the Jeffries-Comer exchange stands as one of the sharpest confrontations triggered by the latest batch of Epstein documents — a reminder that even events from more than a decade ago can spark fresh turmoil in Washington.