Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination throughout a House Oversight Committee deposition Monday, refusing to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network while her attorney declared she would provide comprehensive testimony only if President Donald Trump grants clemency for her 20-year federal sentence.
David Oscar Markus, representing the former Epstein confidant and girlfriend, explained he counseled his client to remain silent given her ongoing appeal challenging the 2021 conviction. However, he simultaneously dangled the prospect of full cooperation conditional upon presidential intervention erasing her legal jeopardy.
“Only she can provide the complete account” of Epstein’s actions, Markus asserted in a statement following Maxwell’s brief virtual appearance before the panel, where she consistently declined to answer substantive inquiries. “Some may not like what they hear, but the truth matters. For example, both President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing. Ms. Maxwell alone can explain why, and the public is entitled to that explanation.”
The Monday deposition unfolded just days after the Justice Department released three million pages of documents from governmental Epstein investigative files, materials obtained through the Epstein Files Transparency Act that Congress enacted last year to compel disclosure following prolonged delays. Many documents consist of email exchanges between Epstein, Maxwell and third parties that may illuminate the scope of their sex trafficking operation.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who subpoenaed Maxwell, characterized her deposition as disappointing. Comer disclosed to The Independent that the committee considered offering immunity to secure her testimony but ultimately rejected that approach after consulting with survivors of Epstein’s abuse.
“This was something new today, obviously that’s not for me to decide, that’s for the president to decide,” Comer acknowledged regarding the clemency proposal, though he later clarified: “I don’t think she should be granted any type of immunity or clemency.”
Maxwell maintained silence when confronted with questions about her knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities but told lawmakers that both Trump and former President Bill Clinton were innocent of wrongdoing—assertions she claims to possess evidence supporting but refuses to share without clemency guarantees.
Markus had previously warned Comer that his client would invoke Fifth Amendment protections if subpoenaed, citing concerns that congressional testimony could jeopardize her current habeas corpus petition challenging the conviction’s legal foundation. The attorney characterized Maxwell’s trial as “fundamentally unfair” and suggested her testimony might undermine ongoing appellate arguments.
“If this Committee and the American public truly want to hear the unfiltered truth about what happened, there is a straightforward path. Ms. Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump,” Markus declared Monday, framing the clemency demand as the exclusive mechanism for obtaining Maxwell’s cooperation.
The clemency gambit represents a calculated legal and public relations strategy. By simultaneously claiming to possess exculpatory information about two presidents while demanding clemency as the price for disclosure, Maxwell and her attorney attempt to generate political pressure on Trump while avoiding testimony that could strengthen prosecution arguments in her ongoing appeals.
Trump has not publicly ruled out pardoning Maxwell, though he expressed minimal engagement with the question during a November exchange with reporters aboard Air Force One. “I haven’t thought about it for months. Maybe I haven’t thought about it at all,” Trump offered. “I don’t talk about that. I don’t rule it in or out.”
This noncommittal posture leaves open possibilities that Maxwell’s legal team appears intent on exploiting, though granting clemency to a convicted child sex trafficker would generate substantial political controversy regardless of what information she might provide in exchange.
Representative James Walkinshaw, a Democrat serving on the House Oversight Committee, confirmed that Maxwell provided no “substantive answers to questions that were asked that would advance” the investigation. Representative Suhas Subramanyam noted that “she, through her lawyer, explicitly stated that she wants to be out of prison through a clemency that this president would grant,” characterizing the deposition as a clemency solicitation rather than cooperative engagement.
Prior to Monday’s deposition, Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat on the oversight panel, requested clarification regarding which specific questions Maxwell intended to invoke Fifth Amendment protections against. Khanna inquired whether Maxwell would address her “four named co-conspirators” and 25 men who entered secret settlements; whether Epstein provided Trump access to underage girls during their friendship; or foreign governments with which Epstein maintained relationships.
Trump has not been charged with offenses connected to Epstein and has consistently denied wrongdoing. Clinton similarly denies impropriety and has never faced law enforcement accusations regarding Epstein associations.
Justice Department officials previously interviewed Maxwell about other individuals who may have committed crimes against Epstein’s victims. Following an interview spanning two days, Maxwell was abruptly transferred from a high-security Florida prison to a minimum-security Texas facility—a relocation that generated speculation about potential cooperation agreements or preferential treatment.
Markus characterized that earlier Justice Department interview differently than Monday’s congressional appearance, asserting Maxwell answered “every single question… honestly, truthfully, to the best of her ability” during the federal session. The contrasting approaches suggest Maxwell and her legal team distinguish between cooperating with prosecutors pursuing additional defendants and testifying before congressional investigators whose findings carry different legal implications.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche questioned Maxwell in July under limited immunity granted by the Justice Department specifically for that interview. During that session, Maxwell denied allegations against her and claimed she never witnessed Epstein or associates acting inappropriately—assertions encompassing both Trump and Clinton, who each spent time with the politically connected financier before his initial 2006 criminal charges.
A senior administration official disclosed to NBC News in July that the limited immunity enabled Maxwell to answer Epstein-related questions without creating additional criminal exposure. Maxwell’s attorneys subsequently requested similar immunity from the House Oversight Committee but lawmakers rejected the proposal, likely recognizing that immunity grants would prevent any prosecution based on her congressional testimony.
Maxwell was convicted in 2021 on federal sex trafficking charges including conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sexual activity, participation in sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor. She is serving her sentence at a minimum-security prison camp in Texas following the controversial transfer from higher-security Florida confinement.
Epstein, a convicted sex offender with connections to political, business and academic elites, died in a New York jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Medical examiners ruled his death a suicide, though the circumstances generated persistent conspiracy theories that Trump himself amplified during his 2024 presidential campaign. Maxwell remains the only other person charged and convicted in connection with Epstein’s extensive criminal network.
Maxwell attempted appealing her conviction to the Supreme Court last year, but the high court declined to hear her case in October. She has since launched separate legal action challenging the conviction through habeas corpus petitions that remain pending—the basis for her attorney’s argument that congressional testimony could prejudice those proceedings.
Following Markus’ clemency statement, Khanna posted on social media: “Here is my conclusion after sitting through Maxwell’s deposition with her refusing to answer a single question about the men who raped underage girls, saying she would only do so for clemency. She must immediately be sent back to the maximum security prison where she belongs.”
Markus responded via X: “A sitting Congressman wants to punish someone for invoking a constitutional right. Sending someone to harsher confinement because they invoke a constitutional right is something we associate with authoritarian regimes, not the United States Congress. Sad.”
The exchange illustrates tensions between lawmakers seeking accountability for Epstein’s network and constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Khanna’s demand for harsher confinement based on Fifth Amendment invocation raises legitimate civil liberties concerns regardless of Maxwell’s culpability, while Maxwell’s strategic use of constitutional protections to leverage clemency negotiations frustrates investigative efforts.
The brother and sister-in-law of late Epstein survivor Virginia Roberts Giuffre condemned Maxwell’s refusal to answer questions in a letter obtained by NBC News. “Ghislaine Maxwell, you were not a bystander. You were not ‘misled.’ You were a central, deliberate actor in a system built to find children, isolate them, groom them, and deliver them to abuse,” they wrote. “You used trust as a weapon. You targeted vulnerability and turned it into access. That is not a mistake. That is not poor judgment. That is predation.”
The family members urged the oversight panel to investigate Maxwell’s prison transfer and examine potential inconsistencies in prior sworn testimony. They concluded by invoking Giuffre’s final wishes: “Ghislaine, you deserve to spend the rest of your life in a jail cell. Trapped in a cage forever just like you trapped your victims.”
The clemency-for-testimony proposition creates ethical dilemmas for investigators and policymakers. Granting clemency to obtain information about other potential offenders might advance justice for additional victims, but simultaneously rewarding a convicted sex trafficker with freedom undermines accountability principles and potentially incentivizes similar leverage attempts by other convicted defendants.
Maxwell’s assertion that she possesses exculpatory information regarding Trump and Clinton complicates the political calculus. If accurate, such information might clear both former presidents of longstanding suspicions regarding Epstein associations. However, Maxwell’s credibility remains questionable given her conviction for systematic deception and exploitation of minors, making her unsupported claims difficult to evaluate.
The Monday deposition underscores fundamental challenges in addressing Epstein’s criminal network posthumously. With Epstein dead and Maxwell convicted yet uncooperative, identifying and prosecuting additional participants requires piecing together fragmentary evidence from documents, victim testimony and reluctant witnesses rather than obtaining comprehensive insider accounts of the operation’s scope and participants.
