Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted associate of Jeffrey Epstein, has invoked her right to remain silent during a closed-door video deposition with the US House Oversight Committee, with her lawyer saying she would only answer questions if granted clemency by President Donald Trump.
Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence after being convicted for her role in recruiting and grooming underage girls for Epstein’s abuse, appeared remotely from prison on Monday as lawmakers continue a high-profile congressional inquiry linked to newly released Epstein-related documents.
The deposition ended without substantive testimony after Maxwell repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals in the US from being compelled to incriminate themselves. House Oversight chairman James Comer said the outcome was expected but “very disappointing”, arguing the panel had “many questions” about Epstein’s crimes and potential additional actors.
What happened in Maxwell’s deposition
According to reporting by multiple outlets, Maxwell declined to answer lawmakers’ questions throughout the session, following legal advice from her attorney, David Markus. Markus said Maxwell was not refusing outright forever, but was protecting herself while her legal avenues remain open.
In a statement posted by Markus, he said: “Ms Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump.” The remark immediately drew criticism from Democrats, who said it sounded like an attempt to trade cooperation for a pardon or commutation.
Democratic Congressman Suhas Subramanyam told reporters that Maxwell appeared to be “campaigning” for clemency, and suggested her refusal to testify was connected to that effort.
Why the Fifth Amendment matters here
Maxwell’s Fifth Amendment stance is not unusual in US investigations where someone faces legal risk, but it does blunt the immediate value of the deposition for Congress. Importantly, taking the Fifth is not an admission of guilt; it is a constitutional protection that can be invoked when answers might be used in criminal proceedings.
In Maxwell’s case, the calculus is complicated by the fact she has continued to pursue legal challenges connected to her conviction. That context helps explain why her lawyers would advise her not to answer questions on the record, even to lawmakers, without protections in place.
The clemency angle and political fallout
The most politically charged element of Monday’s deposition was the explicit link Maxwell’s legal team drew between testimony and presidential clemency. While US presidents have broad constitutional powers to grant pardons and commutations, suggesting a conditional exchange can create the appearance of “testimony for a pardon” – a dynamic lawmakers from both parties tend to treat as toxic.
The Oversight Committee’s inquiry has also widened beyond Maxwell. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to sit for depositions later this month, after a public standoff over subpoenas and potential contempt proceedings.
That broader context matters, because it places Maxwell’s silence inside an increasingly politicised battle over what Congress should do with Epstein-related material, who should be compelled to speak, and whether the investigation is seeking genuine accountability or partisan advantage.
What this means next
In practical terms, Maxwell’s refusal leaves the committee with limited new first-hand material from a central figure in the Epstein case – at least for now. Comer has indicated the panel still intends to pursue lines of questioning about the crimes committed and whether there were additional enablers or networks that have not been publicly exposed.
What happens next will likely turn on three questions.
First, whether the committee can obtain meaningful evidence elsewhere, including testimony from other witnesses and records that do not require Maxwell’s cooperation.
Second, whether prosecutors or federal authorities take any steps that would change Maxwell’s legal risk calculation, potentially affecting whether she would ever speak publicly.
Third, whether Trump signals anything concrete about clemency. Even an ambiguous posture can shape incentives, which is why lawmakers reacted so sharply to the clemency framing on Monday.
For UK readers, the episode is also a reminder of how US congressional investigations can collide with constitutional rights and presidential powers – and how quickly legal process becomes political theatre when high-profile names and salacious case files enter the mix.
You may also like: Trump threatens to sue Trevor Noah over Grammys joke referencing Epstein
Leave a Reply