Maxwell Invokes Fifth Amendment, Signals Willingness to Testify if Granted Clemency as Epstein Scrutiny Intensifies

BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA

Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate and former girlfriend of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, refused to answer questions from House lawmakers during a closed-door deposition on Monday, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, through her attorney, Maxwell indicated she would be willing to testify if President Donald Trump were to commute or end her 20-year prison sentence, and said she would assert that neither Trump nor former President Bill Clinton engaged in wrongdoing related to their past associations with Epstein.

The House Oversight Committee had sought to question Maxwell via a video link to the federal prison camp in Texas where she is serving her sentence for sex trafficking offenses connected to Epstein’s abuse of underage girls. Instead, the session was cut short as Maxwell declined to respond to substantive questions, citing ongoing legal efforts to challenge her conviction.

Maxwell’s refusal comes as Congress renews its investigation into how Epstein, a wealthy and well-connected figure, was able to exploit girls for years while cultivating relationships with powerful figures in politics, business, and international society. Lawmakers have said they are determined to understand whether individuals around Epstein enabled or ignored his crimes, even as no credible allegations of criminal conduct have been made against either Trump or Clinton.

In a statement submitted to the committee, Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, said his client was “prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump.” Markus added that both Trump and Clinton “are innocent of any wrongdoing,” arguing that Maxwell could provide details supporting that claim if she were no longer facing the risk of self-incrimination.

Democratic lawmakers reacted sharply, describing the offer as an overt attempt to trade testimony for a reduced sentence. Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico said Maxwell appeared to be openly campaigning for clemency, while Rep. Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia characterized Maxwell’s demeanor during the brief video appearance as robotic and unrepentant.

Trump has not ruled out the possibility of granting clemency to Maxwell, but her appeal prompted immediate backlash from Republicans as well. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida posted a blunt message on social media rejecting any leniency and condemning Maxwell for her role in Epstein’s crimes.

Maxwell continues to pursue legal avenues to overturn her conviction. The Supreme Court rejected her appeal last year, but in December her attorneys asked a federal judge in New York to consider what they described as substantial new evidence suggesting constitutional violations tainted her trial. Markus cited that pending petition as a reason Maxwell declined to answer lawmakers’ questions.

Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chair of the Oversight Committee, said he was disappointed by Maxwell’s refusal to cooperate, but acknowledged that her legal strategy had been made clear to the panel in advance. Comer has faced pressure from both parties to press forward with depositions as the committee seeks to enforce subpoenas against other high-profile figures connected to Epstein.

Family members of Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers, issued a letter to Maxwell following the deposition, rejecting any suggestion that she played a passive role in the abuse. The letter described Maxwell as a central and deliberate participant in a system designed to recruit, groom, and exploit children.

Maxwell was transferred last summer from a federal prison in Florida to the low-security facility in Texas after participating in two days of interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Although Comer had previously subpoenaed her, her attorneys consistently maintained that she would not answer questions while her conviction remained under challenge.

The committee’s renewed activity comes as Comer presses ahead with efforts to compel testimony from Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After threats of contempt of Congress, both agreed to sit for depositions later this month. Comer has insisted those sessions will be conducted behind closed doors, with transcripts and video released afterward, despite disagreements over whether the testimony should be public.

Separately, several lawmakers spent hours Monday reviewing unredacted Epstein-related files at a Justice Department office in Washington. The review follows the release of more than three million documents under a law passed by Congress last year. Access is tightly controlled, with lawmakers limited to handwritten notes and barred from bringing staff into the reading room.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the sheer volume of material would take months to review even under the most intensive effort. He accused the Justice Department of dragging its feet and attempting to minimize scrutiny of Epstein’s network.

Democrats are preparing for a contentious hearing later this week with Attorney General Pam Bondi, focusing on the handling of the document release. The department has faced criticism for failing to adequately protect victims’ identities while also redacting information lawmakers say should have been made public, including material that could shed light on Epstein’s associates.

Advocates for survivors said the release process caused further harm, citing the exposure of sensitive personal information. They accused the department of incompetence at best and intimidation at worst.

The fallout from the Epstein files has rippled beyond the United States, triggering political turmoil abroad, including in the United Kingdom, where revelations about past ties between Epstein and senior figures have intensified scrutiny of the government. Still, Democratic lawmakers expressed frustration that, so far, prominent American political figures appear largely untouched by the scandal.

Raskin warned that the normalization of political scandal may be dulling public outrage, even in the face of evidence documenting years of abuse and institutional failure.