THE CRAIG BUSHON SHOW — INVESTIGATIVE BREAKDOWN
Jeffries vs. Comer. Epstein’s Name Resurfaces. And Someone Isn’t Telling the Truth.
On The Craig Bushon Show, we don’t just follow the headlines… we read between the lines to get to the bottom line of what’s really going on.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries didn’t just deny the explosive accusation leveled by Oversight Chair James Comer. He went straight for the jugular and called Comer a “stone cold liar.” When a congressional leader escalates that fast, that aggressively, it signals pressure behind the scenes — and the facts deserve a closer look.
Here’s what’s known, what’s missing, and what both sides don’t want examined too closely.
WHAT STARTED THIS
Comer claims Jeffries’ campaign — via an outside fundraising firm — solicited contributions from Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, Epstein. Even years after his death, the name alone detonates a political firestorm.
Comer says he has an email from Jeffries’ fundraising vendor reaching out to Epstein.
Jeffries immediately blasted the claim as fabricated, calling Comer dishonest and unhinged.
But the story doesn’t die there.
ABC News confirmed the email is real, and it did come from a firm that works for Jeffries’ campaign. The firm now claims the email was triggered by an old, outdated list.
That raises the question Jeffries refuses to answer:
Why was Jeffrey Epstein on any solicitation list in 2023 or 2024?
WHAT JEFFRIES IS SAYING
Jeffries is avoiding the details. Instead of discussing donor data, system oversight, or vendor management, he’s attacking Comer personally.
He has not explained:
• why Epstein was in the system
• when the data was created
• how donor lists are maintained
• whether anyone inside the campaign reviewed or approved these lists
His tactic is to dismiss the entire story as illegitimate. Politically savvy.
But it avoids the core problem.
WHAT COMER IS CLAIMING
Comer says the email proves Jeffries’ operation used sloppy or unethical data practices. But while he revealed the email’s existence, he hasn’t released everything behind it.
No metadata.
No full donor universe.
No timeline.
Comer might be right on the facts he does have — but he’s holding back evidence that would verify the claim beyond headlines. That creates a vacuum where speculation takes over.
THE BIGGER PROBLEM BOTH SIDES IGNORE
Modern political fundraising runs on enormous, recycled data files. Many vendors repurpose old donor pools from other candidates. Some entries are decades old. Dead donors stay in the system. Controversial names stay in the system. And no one wants to audit the lists because big numbers look good on reports.
This is the part both sides hope the public never focuses on.
The issue isn’t whether Jeffries personally targeted Epstein.
The issue is the shadowy world of political data — bloated, outdated, unmonitored.
The Epstein email is just the first one that blew up.
THE CRAIG BUSHON SHOW MEDIA TEAM WANTS TO KNOW
-
How many deceased, disqualified, or controversial individuals remain buried inside these donor databases.
-
Who signed off on the vendor, data management protocols, and list maintenance within Jeffries’ operation.
-
When Epstein’s information was originally entered, and why it was never scrubbed after his death or years of public scandal.
-
Whether this vendor reused donor lists from previous clients or PACs without review.
-
What other names appear on that outdated list — and what happens if those names surface next.
THE REAL POLITICAL RISK
For Jeffries
He risks looking evasive, especially as Democrats try to brand him as a disciplined, credible national leader.
For Comer
If he over hypes the story without releasing full proof, he could undermine his own credibility as Oversight Chair.
Both are playing politics. Neither wants full sunlight.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The accusation is real.
The email is real.
The explanations are incomplete.
And both sides are racing to weaponize the narrative before all the facts come out.
At The Craig Bushon Show, we don’t stop at the surface.
We don’t follow the headlines — we read between the lines to get to the bottom line.
And the bottom line here is simple:
This story exposes serious problems with political fundraising systems, consultant oversight, and the hidden machinery behind modern campaign data.
The truth is in the donor files — and neither Jeffries nor Comer seems eager to open them.
SHOW DISCLAIMER
This investigative report reflects analysis and commentary produced by The Craig Bushon Show Media Team. It is based on publicly available information, credible reporting, and independently verified details at the time of publication. All individuals are presumed innocent of wrongdoing unless proven otherwise. The analysis presented is for informational and journalistic purposes and should not be interpreted as a legal conclusion or definitive finding of fact.
