Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett Blasts Speaker Mike Johnson Over Epstein Files: “He’s Full of Sh*t”

In a fiery and candid interview that has captured national attention, Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett did not hold back in her criticism of House Speaker Mike Johnson, accusing him of violating the Constitution and shielding former President Donald Trump in relation to the Epstein files. Crockett’s remarks, made during a CNN segment with Jake Tapper, underscore the growing tension in Congress over the release of sensitive documents connected to the late Jeffrey Epstein and highlight a deepening partisan divide.

The confrontation began when Tapper referenced Johnson’s comments to CNN correspondent Manu Raju, in which the Speaker claimed he never attempted to block a discharge petition aimed at forcing a vote on the Epstein bill. Johnson also suggested that he shared Trump’s concerns that the bill might fail to adequately protect victims. Crockett, however, rejected these claims entirely, accusing Johnson of disingenuousness and outright obstruction.

“I would cuss but I’m not going to, I’m gonna just say he’s full of it. Number one—” Crockett began, before laughing at Tapper’s encouragement to swear on live television. Ultimately, she delivered the phrase with undeniable conviction: “But I am going to do it. He’s full of sh*t,” she said, her delivery mixing charm with unfiltered outrage.

Crockett’s critique focused on what she described as a consistent pattern of avoidance and constitutional violations. According to her, Johnson failed to bring the House back into session to allow Congress to address matters related to Epstein, deliberately stalling the process. “In fact, he would not even swear in a duly elected, now new member of Congress, depriving and having to be sued by her state and others because they literally did not have any representation,” Crockett explained. “He violated the Constitution to avoid this. So miss me on pretending that this is about the victims.”

Beyond the alleged procedural misconduct, Crockett highlighted the Republicans’ mishandling of sensitive information obtained from the Epstein estate. While the Democratic caucus had redacted the names of victims, she argued, some Republican leaders publicly speculated on the identities of those mentioned in the documents. The resulting outcry forced families of victims to come forward to defend their loved ones’ privacy. “They’re full of it,” Crockett said, reiterating her point.

The political stakes, according to Crockett, are enormous. She suggested that Johnson’s apparent willingness to shift his position was motivated less by concern for victims than by practical considerations: either the Republican-controlled Senate lacks the votes to block the bill, or the legislation is unlikely to advance. In her view, Johnson “never plans for this to actually go forward,” further highlighting what she frames as obstruction and political maneuvering.

Crockett’s remarks resonate against a backdrop of intense national scrutiny. If the Senate blocks the release of Epstein-related files to protect Trump, the political consequences could be severe for Republicans heading into upcoming elections. As Crockett noted, they are caught in a lose-lose scenario: releasing the documents would publicly confirm allegations against Trump, while blocking them would tacitly acknowledge the same truths. Either way, Crockett argued, Republican credibility is on the line, and their political future hangs in the balance.

This confrontation reflects a broader narrative of accountability and transparency in government. Crockett’s statements emphasize the need for elected officials to prioritize justice and victims’ rights over partisan loyalty. Her assertive language and willingness to call out perceived hypocrisy have quickly gone viral, resonating with activists, journalists, and citizens following the Epstein files story. Social media has exploded with discussions, retweets, and commentary, further amplifying her message.

The implications of Crockett’s accusations extend beyond the immediate debate over the Epstein bill. They raise questions about constitutional responsibilities, ethical governance, and the limits of political protectionism. As she points out, when elected officials manipulate legislative procedures or mishandle sensitive information, the consequences affect not only victims and their families but also the integrity of the democratic process itself.

For Democrats and many observers, Crockett’s outspokenness provides a model for holding leaders accountable without equivocation. For Republicans, it serves as a stark warning about the political and moral costs of shielding powerful figures. Regardless of party affiliation, her remarks force a reckoning with questions of transparency, justice, and responsibility at the highest levels of government.

In conclusion, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett’s blistering critique of Speaker Mike Johnson represents more than a single moment of political theater. It is a decisive statement about accountability, ethics, and the need for leaders to act in the interests of justice rather than partisan loyalty. As the Epstein files continue to dominate headlines, Crockett’s words — delivered with unfiltered honesty and pointed critique — ensure that public attention remains squarely on those who have the power to act and those who choose not to.

In her own words, summing up her criticism with both humor and force: Johnson is “full of sh*t,” and the consequences of that obstruction could define the future of his party.