Ghislaine Maxwell's refusal to testify before Congress draws backlash.

Ghislaine Maxwell chose silence over answers during a closed-door congressional deposition, invoking her Fifth Amendment right. This move has drawn sharp criticism, with Democratic Representative Robert Garcia questioning, “Who is she protecting?”

Garcia, part of the oversight committee pushing to release Jeffrey Epstein’s investigative files, slammed Maxwell for providing no information about Epstein's network. He accused the Trump administration of giving her special treatment in a low-security prison, alleging a White House cover-up.

Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence for her involvement with Epstein, was advised by her attorney David Oscar Markus to remain silent. Markus stated that Maxwell's current habeas petition demonstrates her conviction was based on an unfair trial, hence her decision to invoke the Fifth.

According to Markus, Maxwell is willing to reveal everything if granted clemency by President Trump. "Only she can provide the complete account," he insisted, suggesting that both Trump and Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing related to Epstein.

The White House, approached for comment, reiterated previous statements that pardoning Maxwell was not under consideration.

Ro Khanna, another Democratic representative, pointed out inconsistencies in Maxwell’s stance. Previously, she willingly engaged in an interview with Trump’s Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche without invoking her rights.

Maxwell answered all questions without hesitation during that meeting, said her lawyer. This shift from openness to silence raises questions about her motivations and potential protections.

Khanna had prepared pointed questions for Maxwell, seeking clarity on co-conspirators and secret settlements she once acknowledged. The Department of Justice claims no list of names exists, despite suspicions fueled by released documents and legal claims.

Maxwell’s silence has intensified demands for transparency amid ongoing investigations. As her lawyer suggests the truth could emerge with clemency, the political and legal drama surrounding Epstein's network continues unabated.

Key Takeaways:

• Maxwell refused to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights.

• Her silence spurred allegations of a cover-up and raised questions.

• Calls for transparency in Epstein's investigation intensify.

  

Adapted by ASEAN Now from Source 2026-02.09

 

 

View full article

1 minute ago, ASEAN NOW News said:

Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence for her involvement with Epstein, was advised by her attorney David Oscar Markus to remain silent.

Is she protecting herself from other charges?

Of course she'd have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to lie, even if lying would get her clemency and released from her 20 year jail sentence.

I mean who could possibly be so cynical as to think a fine woman like her would stoop so low as to lie?

You can only reveal kompromat once. She has kompromat, she's already been moved to a cushy prison.

She wants a deal, immunity and freedom, then she'll reveal her kompromat.

There is only one person who is able to give her clemency and or pardon, that is The Trump. THAT is the person who she has to protect to have any chance for clemency. Any other person is not relevant to her.

1 minute ago, ardsong said:

There is only one person who is able to give her clemency and or pardon, that is The Trump. THAT is the person who she has to protect to have any chance for clemency. Any other person is not relevant to her.

Correct. It's hardly 'rocket science' to see that she's protecting Trump.

32 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

You can only reveal kompromat once. She has kompromat, she's already been moved to a cushy prison.

She wants a deal, immunity and freedom, then she'll reveal her kompromat.

Where she scurries off to if she’s given a pardon will be a guide to who or what it is she’s protecting.

My guess? Clinton...

A troll post of low value has been removed:

Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where she scurries off to if she’s given a pardon will be a guide to who or what it is she’s protecting.

No point in her going to Norfolk in that case (not VA), one of the newer residents there is already screwed. 😜

She’ll keep her mouth shut and get a pardon. Clemency to talk still risks her telling all about Trump!

1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

She wants a deal, immunity and freedom, then she'll reveal her kompromat.

I believe that if she gets immunity the kompromat will disappear forever.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

My guess? Clinton...

"Guess" is the word, based on ignorance/hatred, nothing to do with evidence. The Clintons have agreed to testify IF IT IS IN OPEN HEARINGS.... let American people decide... wisely don't trust any 'Republican summary' like distorted Bill Barr released prior to Mueller...

DOJ is footdragging on release to satisfy boss Trump and it is my guess he is beholden to many wealthy and powerful men with 'short eyes' who do not want info on their crimes to see the light of day

3 minutes ago, Emdog said:

"Guess" is the word, based on ignorance/hatred, nothing to do with evidence. The Clintons have agreed to testify IF IT IS IN OPEN HEARINGS.... let American people decide... wisely don't trust any 'Republican summary' like distorted Bill Barr released prior to Mueller...

DOJ is footdragging on release to satisfy boss Trump and it is my guess he is beholden to many wealthy and powerful men with 'short eyes' who do not want info on their crimes to see the light of day

Your political bias clouds your judgement.

She's not protecting anyone now, just trying to not add years to her sentence with added charges.

They haven't killed her, and everything is getting released, and surely most will assume the worse, even if all they see is a snap with epstein in it.

It's all a big nothing burger, distraction for the small minded. Simply shows many of the elite like having sex with younger woman, hassle free, and what they thought was away from prying eyes. There's a shocker.

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Simply shows many of the elite like having sex with younger woman, hassle free, and what they thought was away from prying eyes. There's a shocker.

The most amusing thing is the outrage coming from the sexpats who constantly ask what the age of majority is in Thailand, so they don't get banged up.

It’s obvious who’s shes protecting,that’s Donald jhon trump absolutely no doubt about it.I like how the Clintons are handling this ,sure we will testify but only in public so the trump syncopates can’t lie about what’s said.Theres also another thing to consider in my view she has dirt on some very powerful pedos if she starts singing I doubt she would be around very long so there’s that as well.

1 minute ago, Tug said:

I like how the Clintons are handling this ,sure we will testify but only in public so the trump syncopates can’t lie about what’s said.

So you don't figure they finally agreed when they were threatened with the Bannon / Navarro option? It's that "nobody's above the law" thingy. I'll bet the Dems never thought that one would come around and bite them in the butt.

Dollars to donut holes they plead the 5th as well.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

My guess? Clinton...

Why would Maxwell protect the Clintons now? Purely out of friendship?

In any event, given that the Clintons have agreed to testify, surely any protection that Maxwell might offer is no longer needed.

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

So you don't figure they finally agreed when they were threatened with the Bannon / Navarro option? It's that "nobody's above the law" thingy. I'll bet the Dems never thought that one would come around and bite them in the butt.

Dollars to donut holes they plead the 5th as well.

Naa doubt that they will be careful in their answers in a factual sense but I doubt bill was raping kids.That simple in public just like we’re the files should be.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

Why would Maxwell protect the Clintons now? Purely out of friendship?

In any event, given that the Clintons have agreed to testify, surely any protection that Maxwell might offer is no longer needed.

Agreed? 😄

Forced to testify under the threat of criminal prosecution.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

Why would Maxwell protect the Clintons now? Purely out of friendship?

In any event, given that the Clintons have agreed to testify, surely any protection that Maxwell might offer is no longer needed.

Ask Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Mary Mahoney, Luther Parks, William Colby, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, or 28 bodyguards, escorts, and Secret Service agents, along with more than a dozen other witnesses and former friends, rivals, journalists, and investigators.

Oh, wait...

https://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/clinton-body-count/

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

The most amusing thing is the outrage coming from the sexpats who constantly ask what the age of majority is in Thailand, so they don't get banged up.

Almost added that myself, but I've made note of the hypocrisy more than a few times. The elite have done nothing more or less than the sexpats (self included) or sex tourist here, unless breaking that legal age barrier here in TH, which is about the same world wide, 18+/-.

Even when I first got here, at 45 yrs old, I couldn't see myself having sex with someone younger than 20. First 1st Thai wife was 22 when I met her, and divorced already. Younger than 20, especially Asian, seem too young for me, and in my mind, even at my 45, still someone's child. At mind age now (71), I'd be embarrassed to be seen with someone younger than 30. My daughter is 27, nah, that age doesn't work for me. That's grandkids age for me.

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

Ask Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Mary Mahoney, Luther Parks, William Colby, Kevin Ives, Don Henry, or 28 bodyguards, escorts, and Secret Service agents, along with more than a dozen other witnesses and former friends, rivals, journalists, and investigators.

Oh, wait...

https://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/clinton-body-count/

Even if there is any truth to the conspiracy theory espoused in that 2013 article, I'm struggling to see the relevance of it.

If there is any evidence to tie these deaths to Clinton's dealings with Epstein, then surely other related information would have come to light over the past 12 years.

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Agreed? 😄

Forced to testify under the threat of criminal prosecution.

Pedantic. They will testify.

My original questions to you stand i.e. Why would Maxwell protect the Clintons now? Purely out of friendship?

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

Even if there is any truth to the conspiracy theory espoused in that 2013 article, I'm struggling to see the relevance of it.

If there is any evidence to tie these deaths to Clinton's dealings with Epstein, then surely other related information would have come to light over the past 12 years.

You can call me a wingnut conspiracy nut, but I certainly wouldn't want to be sitting on any evidence against Bill and Hill.

2 hours ago, Brettoj said:

She’ll keep her mouth shut and get a pardon. Clemency to talk still risks her telling all about Trump!

If she gets immunity to talk she'll be beside epstein quickly.

Getting a pardon only gets her out of current jail\charges while new charges can be brought again but keeping her mouth shut at least for now

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

Pedantic. They will testify.

Not pedantic at all. They didn't agree, they went out of their way to avoid it until they were forced to do it under threat of criminal prosecution.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

My original questions to you stand i.e. Why would Maxwell protect the Clintons now? Purely out of friendship?

The Clintons have a long history of bribery allegations. Perhaps they have more dirt on Maxwell just as she has dirt on them.

Just now, JonnyF said:

Not pedantic at all. They didn't agree, they went out of their way to avoid it until they were forced to do it under threat of criminal prosecution.

Yes, pedantic. What is the practical difference between being forced to testify and doing so voluntarily? They will be asked questions to which they will be expected to provide answers

Just now, JonnyF said:

The Clintons have a long history of bribery allegations. Perhaps they have more dirt on Maxwell just as she has dirt on them.

Any dirt that the Clintons have on Maxwell can hardly cause her much more harm. She is serving a 20-year jail sentence. She won't be released until she is 80.

If anything, if Maxwell does have anything on the Clintons, she has a strong bargaining tool.

22 minutes ago, impulse said:

You can call me a wingnut conspiracy nut, but I certainly wouldn't want to be sitting on any evidence against Bill and Hill.

Don't want to be Epsteined.