Ghislaine Maxwell stonewalled congressional investigators seeking the truth about Jeffrey Epstein’s elite connections, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights while her attorney dangled testimony in exchange for clemency from President Trump.
Story Snapshot
- Maxwell refused to answer questions during the February 9, 2026, House Oversight Committee deposition, citing Fifth Amendment protections
- Her attorney proposed full testimony only in exchange for presidential clemency, claiming she could exonerate Trump and Clinton
- The closed-door virtual deposition coincided with lawmakers accessing previously redacted Epstein files at the Department of Justice
- Chairman James Comer rejected clemency arguments, stating Maxwell squandered her opportunity to assist the investigation into Epstein’s powerful associates
Maxwell’s Constitutional Shield Blocks Testimony
Ghislaine Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment rights throughout a virtual deposition with the House Oversight Committee on February 9, 2026, refusing to provide any substantive answers about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking network.
The convicted sex offender appeared via video from a federal prison camp in Texas, where she is serving a 20-year sentence for recruiting underage girls for Epstein’s abuse. Attorney David Oscar Markus accompanied Maxwell during the closed-door session, immediately asserting her constitutional protections against self-incrimination and reiterating demands for clemency before any cooperation.
UPDATES: Depositions – Maxwell pled the fifth pic.twitter.com/a50EbIJ9v9
— Bruce Snyder (@realBruceSnyder) February 9, 2026
Clemency Bargaining Draws Bipartisan Skepticism
Markus argued that Maxwell alone holds the complete account of Epstein’s operations and claims she could vindicate both President Trump and former President Bill Clinton from allegations tied to the deceased financier. The attorney stated publicly that Maxwell deserves the opportunity to explain her knowledge in exchange for presidential mercy.
Chairman Comer dismissed this proposition entirely, expressing disappointment that Maxwell refused to aid the probe into Epstein’s connections across politics, business, and entertainment. Democrats on the committee characterized the deposition as a cynical clemency campaign rather than genuine cooperation with congressional oversight.
Investigation Timeline Reveals Strategic Delays
The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed Maxwell in July 2025 for an August deposition at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee, but proceedings stalled due to her failed Supreme Court appeal. After her transfer to the Texas facility, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Maxwell over two days, during which she denied witnessing criminal activity by Trump, Clinton, or other Epstein associates.
The February 9 deposition concluded within hours without producing useful testimony, frustrating Republican investigators seeking transparency about the sex trafficking network that operated for years before Epstein’s 2019 death by suicide in federal custody.
The committee’s investigation gained momentum after a 2025 law mandated the Justice Department release unredacted Epstein files to Congress. Representatives, including Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie, and others, accessed these previously sealed documents at the DOJ headquarters the same day Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment rights.
This file review represents a critical development for lawmakers determined to uncover the full scope of Epstein’s connections to powerful figures. Comer has also pressured Bill and Hillary Clinton with contempt threats, resulting in their scheduled depositions later this month as the probe intensifies.
Constitutional Rights Versus Accountability Demands
Maxwell’s reliance on Fifth Amendment protections reflects her ongoing legal battles beyond the congressional investigation. She maintains a petition in New York federal court seeking to overturn her 2021 conviction or reduce her sentence, making any testimony potentially damaging to those efforts.
While the Fifth Amendment rightfully protects Americans from compelled self-incrimination, Maxwell’s strategic invocation while simultaneously negotiating for clemency raises questions about her true willingness to expose Epstein’s network. Conservative Americans understand constitutional protections are vital, yet many recognize that Maxwell’s victims deserve answers about who enabled decades of abuse.
Chairman Comer’s firm stance against clemency aligns with principles of accountability that resonate with Americans frustrated by elite privilege. The Epstein case epitomizes how wealth and connections can shield predators from justice for years while victims suffer in silence.
Maxwell’s conviction represented rare accountability in a scandal touching Hollywood, Wall Street, and Washington’s corridors of power. Granting her clemency without genuine cooperation would signal that political connections matter more than justice for trafficking survivors, undermining public faith in equal application of the law regardless of social status or elite associations.
Sources:
Maxwell expected to invoke 5th Amendment in closed, virtual House Oversight deposition – ABC News
Maxwell pleads the Fifth – Politico
