Skip to content 
The offer arrived in the shape of a bargain: Ghislaine Maxwell would talk, her lawyer suggested, if Donald Trump used the extraordinary power of clemency to cut her sentence.
Instead, when lawmakers finally had her before them, Maxwell largely did not speak at all.
On February 9, 2026, Maxwell appeared for a closed-door deposition requested by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability as part of Congress’s widening inquiry into how Jeffrey Epstein was able to abuse underage girls for years while moving inside elite circles.
According to multiple accounts from members who attended, Maxwell declined to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Outside the deposition room, the committee’s frustration was blunt. Rep. James Comer, the committee’s Republican chair, called it “very disappointing” that Maxwell declined to participate.
A Deal Framed as “Truth,” Tied to Clemency
View this post on Instagram
The headline-making detail came from what lawmakers say Maxwell’s attorney told them: that she would be willing to testify that neither Trump nor Bill Clinton were culpable for wrongdoing connected to their relationships with Epstein.
Democratic members described the statement as a campaign for clemency, not a public-spirited break with a notorious past. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico Democrat, summed up what others said privately: the overture read as a direct appeal to Trump to end Maxwell’s prison sentence.
That transaction, testimony in exchange for mercy, is not illegal to propose. It is also the kind of offer that can warp incentives. It turns a witness into a petitioner, and “cooperation” into a sales pitch whose value cannot be verified until after the government pays.
According The Washington Post, Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, has argued she is boxed in by ongoing litigation and that speaking freely could expose her to legal risk while she continues to fight her conviction.
Appeals Narrowed, Collateral Attacks Still Live
Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. In October 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to take up her appeal, leaving in place a Second Circuit decision rejecting her argument that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement tied to Epstein should have shielded her from prosecution in New York.
The legal question, in simplified terms, was about reach: when an agreement uses language like “the United States” or “the government,” does it bind federal prosecutors nationwide, or only the office that signed it? Maxwell argued the former. The Second Circuit took the narrower view, and the Supreme Court passed on reviewing it.
Her team has continued to pursue other routes. As AP reported from the deposition, Maxwell has asked a federal judge in New York to consider what her attorneys describe as “substantial new evidence,” arguing her trial was tainted by constitutional violations.
That posture explains part of the silence. A witness trying to overturn a conviction has little to gain by creating fresh sworn testimony that prosecutors can later compare against prior statements and evidence.
Why Congress Deposed Her Anyway
There was never much mystery about what would happen in the room. Several outlets reported in advance that Maxwell was expected to invoke the Fifth.
So why do it?
Because the deposition was less about immediate answers than about leverage and record-building.
The committee is operating in an environment where the Epstein case has become both a criminal-history question and a political weapon, with lawmakers arguing over what the government is still holding back.
AP reported that, on the same day as Maxwell’s deposition, the United States Department of Justice began allowing members of Congress to review more than 3 million Epstein-related files without redactions under strict conditions, no staff in the room, notes allowed, no electronic copies.
That creates a feedback loop:
- lawmakers want Maxwell to confirm names, patterns, and alleged enablers,
- Maxwell sees lawmakers hunting for names and tries to turn that demand into a clemency bid,
- the White House gets asked, repeatedly, whether it will intervene.
The White House Response: “Not on His Radar”
The White House has not signaled interest in clemency.
AP reported that when asked about Maxwell’s offer, the White House pointed reporters to earlier remarks indicating a pardon was not under active consideration. AP cited Trump saying in November that he had not thought about a pardon for Maxwell, and cited press secretary Karoline Leavitt describing it as “not something he’s talking about or even thinking about at this moment.”
That is a carefully limited denial, and it leaves room for the one thing Washington never fully closes the door on: a future change of mind.
DOJ’s Own Maxwell Interview Record
Complicating the political narrative is the existence of a separate official record of Maxwell’s answers to federal investigators in a different setting.
In August 2025, DOJ published a “Maxwell Interview” page with redacted transcripts and audio files for a two-day interview dated July 24 to 25, 2025.
The release does not settle what Maxwell would say under congressional questioning in 2026, but it undercuts a simplistic claim that she has never spoken on the record since her conviction.
The materials show that federal officials already preserved substantial interview content, even if the public versions are heavily redacted.
What Is Known, and What Is Being Insinuated
A lot of the public heat around Maxwell’s latest move is built on implication rather than proof.
Known, on the record:
- Maxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not answer lawmakers’ questions in the deposition.
- Lawmakers say her attorney offered that she would testify to absolve Trump and Clinton if granted clemency.
- The Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal in October 2025.
- DOJ has opened a tightly controlled review process for millions of Epstein-related files for members of Congress.
Not established by public evidence in the reporting:
- that Maxwell possesses uniquely exculpatory or incriminating information that would materially change what is already known about any specific public figure.
- that clemency would produce “the full truth,” rather than testimony tailored to the outcome she wants.
The most important question is also the least answerable right now: whether her offer reflects real knowledge that can be corroborated, or a calibrated story designed to appeal to a decision-maker with unilateral power.
The Stakes for Victims and for the Record
Every new headline about Maxwell risks turning the Epstein story into a game of famous names, traded like currency. But the underlying case is not a parlor mystery. It is a history of exploitation, and for survivors, the cost of public spectacle is real.
Congress’s file-review fight and Maxwell’s clemency pitch are converging at a moment when the government’s handling of sensitive material is itself under scrutiny. How records are released, what gets redacted, and whether victims’ privacy is protected will shape what accountability looks like in practice, not just in rhetoric.
