Will Trump set Ghislaine Maxwell free?
Donald Trump, US President: You're making a very big thing over something that's not a big thing. You should be talking about, if you're going to talk about that, talk about Clinton. Talk about the former president of Harvard. Don't talk about Trump.
Sam Hawley: It's become rather a bother, hasn't it?
Jill Wine-Banks: It is something that is a self-inflicted problem because it was Donald Trump who yelled, conspiracy, conspiracy, you must release all this. And he promised he would. And now he's not. We know that his attorney general told him that he is in the Jeffrey Epstein files, and that would seem very suspicious as to why he is now not releasing it and looking for ways around it.
Sam Hawley: Well, Jill, in some of his latest comments, Donald Trump says he fell out with Jeffrey Epstein because he stole young women from his Mar-a-Lago club, including Australian Virginia Jeffrey, who died this year.
Donald Trump, US President: I think so. I think that was one of the people. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know.
Sam Hawley: And he says he never went to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean.
Donald Trump, US President: I never had the privilege of going to his island. And I did turn it down, but a lot of people in Palm Beach were invited to his island. And one of my very good moments, I turned it down. I didn't want to go to his island.
Sam Hawley: But look, what I really want to do with you is to dig a bit deeper into the role of it?in all of this, because she has, of course, been re-interviewed by the deputy attorney general, presumably at Trump's orders. Just remind me, first of all, who she is and why she's serving a 20-year jail sentence in America.
Jill Wine-Banks: Absolutely. So Ghislaine Maxwell is an accomplice to Jeffrey Epstein. She is not charged with his crimes. She is charged with basically procuring young girls, grooming them, and participating in sexual abuse of them. So it's not just that she was what we would call in America his pimp, where she went to colleges and other places to find young girls who would come to his Palm Beach estate. And then she groomed them as to how to handle the sexual acts and the massages, as they were called. She was convicted in 2021, sentenced in 2022, and is currently imprisoned. She is appealing. She has asked the Supreme Court to review her conviction. They are on their summer recess, but are expected to decide whether they will take the case this fall when they come back into session.
Sam Hawley: All right. So between 1994 and 2004, according to federal prosecutors, Maxwell helped Epstein groom and traffic girls as young as 14. Yes. She has maintained her innocence, of course, hence the appeal. Just a reminder, she's the only one serving time in relation to these awful offenses against young girls because Jeffrey Epstein died in jail in 2019.
Jill Wine-Banks: Correct. He was serving time in jail and died. The question was whether he committed suicide or was murdered, and that remains an open question. There can be no further criminal prosecutions because there's no trafficking subsequent to his death. And he died in 2019, and we have a statute of limitations in America that is five years, and it's six years since he died.
Sam Hawley: All right. So, Jill, Ghislaine Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida prison, but in the past week, the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, has gone knocking on her prison cell door. Just tell me about that. What's happened?
Jill Wine-Banks: Yes. Well, first, let me say how utterly remarkable it is that the Deputy Attorney General would interview a witness. Let me say how remarkable it is that the Deputy Attorney General would be the former private attorney of Donald Trump. Once you are someone's private attorney, you have a duty of loyalty and secrecy to that client forever. And so he cannot be acting on behalf of the American people when he already has a commitment to Donald Trump. That would be a conflict of interest. The other reason it's unusual is that he knows nothing about the prosecution. He has no experience in this case. The people who tried the Epstein and Maxwell cases are people who would be very appropriate to interview her, not someone with no experience. And Maxwell, we should be also adding, she's not a credible person that a jury would be likely to rely on. And we do not in America allow the revelation of secret grand jury testimony or anything else that would accuse someone of a crime unless you're charging them with a crime. And nothing, she says, is going to lead to a criminal prosecution. We don't release information because it would satisfy public interest or purient interest of the public. It has to be in connection with a judicial proceeding. And that's another reason why it would be wrong.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, Maxwell's lawyer, David Oscar Marcus, said that she answered every single question she was asked.
David Markus, Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney: There were a lot of questions and we went all day and she answered every one of them. She never just said, I'm not going to answer, never declined. You know, this is the first time the government has asked questions. So we were thankful that.
Sam Hawley: She was offered limited immunity for participating in this interview. Just explain what that is.
Jill Wine-Banks: Limited immunity is basically also called use immunity. It means that anything that she says cannot be used against her and that in any future prosecution, anything that is introduced in evidence against her would have to be shown to not be the result of something she said. That's considered fruit of the poison tree. So it gives her some protection and it is a completely legitimate thing to do. So that is not among the suspicious or wrong things that the Department of Justice is doing. The interview is the wrong thing. And although they are now saying that there are transcripts of it, I want to know who the person taking the notes was. And I want to know whether 100% of from hello until walking out on the second day, how much was maybe done what we call in camera, in secret, not as part of the recorded testimony. Because there is my suspicion shared by many that part of Todd Blanche's purpose in talking to her was to say, well, the president would certainly look favorably on your request for a pardon if you could say that he had nothing to do with this. And maybe in a more subtle way than I'm phrasing it, shape her testimony so that it was helpful to Donald Trump and hurtful to Democrats who might be on the list of people who she has evidence against. We've obviously heard the name Bill Clinton, former president Bill Clinton, as someone who might be involved in this. There's no evidence that there is. And being on the manifest for planes does not mean you committed a crime. It means you took a plane somewhere that Jeffrey Epstein flew you. It doesn't mean you engaged in trafficking or in illegal sex with a minor.
Sam Hawley: President Trump was asked whether he would pardon Maxwell. And he really hasn't closed the door on that.
Donald Trump, US President: Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell? It's something I haven't thought about. I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.
Sam Hawley: But would anyone believe, the public believe what she had to say, whatever that might be?
Jill Wine-Banks: I think they would not believe what she had to say. I think they would believe that any pardon was to protect himself. And he said about her, I wish her well. He has not said anything of sympathy toward any of the victims. He should be concerned about the young girls, as you said, starting at the age of 14.
Sam Hawley: Well, Jill, the President and the Department of Justice want to quell this criticism that they're hiding something, that they're hiding a list of Epstein's high profile clients. But is this all just the art of distraction, if you like? And is it working?
Jill Wine-Banks: Well, he's trying to distract by doing a lot of other things and saying, well, look at Obama. He's a traitor. He should be arrested for treason and a million other things that he is trying to distract the public from. For some reason, the Epstein files have captured the hearts and minds of many in America. And the distraction doesn't seem to be working. People are not giving up on this. As you said, it's overseas. The headlines in the Scottish papers were really harsh on him. And he's now the subject of cartoons. The South Park TV cartoon series has made fun of him. And people are now starting to think that this could really be the thing that takes him down.
Sam Hawley: You seem to be saying that you don't think he can wiggle his way out of this, but he's done it so many times with so many controversies, hasn't he?
Jill Wine-Banks: He has. I mean, I'm one who thought in his first campaign when the tape of him saying, I grab women's private parts and I can get away with it because when you're a star, you can do it. I thought that was the end of his campaign. I've thought a million other things were the end of his campaign or his career. And I was wrong. He has been a very lucky person to escape the responsibility for his bad acts. So I can't say for sure that he isn't going to get away with this, but he may lose his power if this continues. And if things aren't released, his supporters who believed he was going to do it are not going to forgive him for that. That's going to hurt the Republican Party, not just him.
Sam Hawley: And what about Ghislaine Maxwell? What are the chances in your view that Trump will simply let her out of jail? A move that would be simply devastating for Epstein's victims and hers.
Jill Wine-Banks: I don't think we can rule it out because I don't think he has empathy for any of the victims. I think he could commute her sentence to time served and let her out of jail without pardoning her for these horrendous crimes. I think, I don't know, I may be Pollyanna, but I still think that there has to be someone advising him who says you cannot pardon these kinds of crimes for which there was more than ample evidence. And yet he thinks he can get away with anything. He, of course, can pardon her and there's no consequences. That's totally up to his discretion.
Sam Hawley: Jill Wine-Banks was one of the prosecutors during the Watergate scandal. She's the author of The Watergate Girl and the host of the podcast, #Sisters In Law. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Australian
an hour ago
- The Australian
Moscow awaits 'important' Trump envoy visit before sanctions deadline
The Kremlin said Monday it was anticipating "important" talks with Donald Trump's special envoy later this week, ahead of the US president's looming deadline to impose fresh sanctions on Moscow if it does not make progress towards a peace deal with Ukraine. Trump confirmed a day earlier that Steve Witkoff will visit Russia, likely on "Wednesday or Thursday", where he is expected to meet President Vladimir Putin. Despite pressure from Washington, Russia has continued its onslaught against its pro-Western neighbour. Three rounds of peace talks in Istanbul have failed to make headway on a possible ceasefire, with the two sides appearing as far apart as ever. Moscow has demanded that Ukraine cede more territory and renounce Western support. Kyiv is calling for an immediate ceasefire and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last week urged his allies to push for "regime change" in Moscow. Trump's deadline is set to expire on Friday. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday it considered the talks with Witkoff to be "important, substantial and helpful" and valued US efforts to end the conflict. Putin has already met Witkoff multiple times in Moscow, before Trump's efforts to mend ties with the Kremlin came to a grinding halt. When reporters asked what Witkoff's message would be to Moscow, and if there was anything Russia could do to avoid the sanctions, Trump replied: "Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed." - Nuclear stand-off - The visit comes after Trump said that two nuclear submarines he deployed following an online row with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev were now "in the region". Trump has not said whether he meant nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. He also did not elaborate on the exact deployment locations, which are kept secret by the US military. Russia, in its first comments on the deployment, urged "caution". "Russia is very attentive to the topic of nuclear non-proliferation. And we believe that everyone should be very, very cautious with nuclear rhetoric," the Kremlin's Peskov said. The chief of staff to Zelensky on Monday backed Trump's actions. "The concept of peace through strength works," Andriy Yermak wrote on social media. "The moment American nuclear submarines appeared, one Russian drunk -- who had just been threatening nuclear war on X -- suddenly went silent," he added. Trump has previously threatened that new measures could mean "secondary tariffs" targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, such as China and India. This would further stifle Russia, but would risk significant international disruption. Putin, who has consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire, said Friday that he wants peace but that his demands, dismissed by Kyiv as "old ultimatums", for ending his nearly three-and-a-half-year offensive were "unchanged". Russia has frequently called on Ukraine to effectively cede control of four regions Moscow claims to have annexed, a demand Kyiv has called unacceptable. Putin also wants Ukraine to drop its ambitions to join NATO. - Zelensky visits troops - Russia fired a record number of drones at Ukraine last month, AFP analysis of Kyiv's air force data showed, escalating its attacks as peace talks stalled. Kyiv has also said it will intensify its air strikes against Russia in response. Both sides said Monday they had downed dozens of enemy drones overnight in the latest barrage. Separate Russian strikes on the southern Zaporizhzhia region, part of which it controls, killed four people, Ukrainian officials said Monday. One more was killed by Russian shelling in the southern Kherson region. Zelensky was visiting troops at the front in the Kharkiv region, he said, posting a video of him awarding soldiers with medals and walking through bunkers. Russia is seeking to establish what it calls a "buffer zone" inside the Kharkiv region along the Russian-Ukrainian border. Zelensky also said Sunday that the two sides were preparing a prisoner exchange that would see 1,200 Ukrainian troops return home, following the latest round of talks in Istanbul last month. burs/sbk

ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Why police couldn't stop the Harbour Bridge protest
Sam Hawley: It was a protest the New South Wales government and police tried to stop but couldn't. In the end, more than 100,000 protesters were permitted to walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, demanding an end to the war in Gaza. But should we be concerned that organisers had to fight for the right to hold the rally in the first place? Today, Associate Professor in Law at the University of South Australia, Sarah Moulds, on why it's becoming harder to protest. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. News report: It was the protest that brought Sydney to a standstill. Thousands marching across the Harbour Bridge. Despite the rain that come from all over the city and beyond. Protester: The starving children of Gaza cannot wait another day. End the violence. Protester: There's too many deaths of young children, too much starvation. Protester: It's a sign of the turning tide of the of the opinion in this country. And it's a sign that people aren't going to put up with it anymore. Sam Hawley: Sarah, when a pro-Palestinian group first proposed this march across the Harbour Bridge in Sydney about a week before it was to take place, the government and police were not happy, were they? Sarah Moulds: No, they were looking for a way to stop the protest or to see whether the protest could happen in a different place. Sam Hawley: Yeah. So the New South Wales Police Acting Deputy Commissioner, Peter McKenna, he was saying that he was concerned about public safety and the disruption to motorists. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: We understand there is some angst at the moment about what's happening overseas. We understand and are sympathetic to that. But the New South Wales Police decision around this has to be first and foremost about public and police safety. We will not be facilitating that protest. Sam Hawley: Chris Minns, the New South Wales Premier, he opposed the protest, saying he could not allow Sydney to descend into chaos. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: To close down the Harbour Bridge, which has happened maybe two or three times in a decade, is a logistical and communications Everest. It's incredibly difficult to do. And I understand that some people say, look, it's easy to shut down the bridge. It's not easy. Sam Hawley: Were they reasonable arguments at that time? Sarah Moulds: I think they were reasonable arguments. But one of the things that's important to hold in mind is this concept that we have a common law right to communicate about political matters in Australia that comes from our constitution. And the concept of the right of peaceful assembly is something we've signed up to at the international level. So while I think the arguments around safety, inconvenience and disruption are really powerful, particularly with something of this scale in this place, on the other side of the ledger, if you like, are these important principles that Australians also consider to be fundamental in our democracy? Sam Hawley: All right. Well, around this time, the protesters were predicting that around 50,000 people would turn up. So that's about a week before it actually happened. And the matter then went before the New South Wales Supreme Court and Judge Belinda Rigg, who would make the ultimate decision about whether or not this protest could happen on the Harbour Bridge. And she did that on Saturday morning. What did she say? Sarah Moulds: In the reasons that were shared from the justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, it's clear that that common law concept of peaceful assembly was an important consideration. So was the principle that just because something might be inconvenient or disruptive might not be enough to say it should be prohibited under the law. And also there was information to suggest that people were going to do this anyway. And so that was something that needed to be considered alongside the safety information that the police were putting before the court. Sam Hawley: And Justice Rigg, she noted that the march at this location on the Harbour Bridge was motivated by the belief that the horror and urgency of the situation in Gaza demands an urgent and extraordinary response from the people of the world. She also noted that it is in the nature of peaceful protests to cause disruption to others. Sarah Moulds: That's right. That was clear from the ruling that that concept of inconvenience and disruption is inherently connected to the idea of protest and communicating on a matter of political importance to the people of Australia. Sam Hawley: All right. So the judgment meant, of course, that the protest could go ahead and that the protesters would have immunity from being charged with what offences? Sarah Moulds: Yes. So the immunity is quite limited. So the ruling meant that somebody was not going to be charged with an offence relating to unlawful assembly, of obstructing a person, vehicle or public place. But it was conditional on the fact that the protesters stayed within the boundaries of the assembly that was described in this form one that was before the court. So the protest organisers had to put all that information together, share that with the police and the court. And if the communities involved stayed within the scope of that plan, they would be immune from those minor offences that I just described. However, it would not extend to somebody being prosecuted or charged with a violent offence. And the police retain powers to make orders with respect to individuals and ask them to do things or ask them to change what they're doing. And a failure to comply with those kind of orders made by police could also potentially result in liability. So important immunity, but also limited. Sam Hawley: Well, Sarah, as we said before, initially, the protest organisers thought that it attracted around 50,000 people. In the end, more than 100,000 people showed up despite the terrible weather. It was pouring with rain. That's huge, isn't it? Just put that into perspective. Have we seen such a large protest like this before? Sarah Moulds: I'm sure we have back in history, but in recent years, particularly in the years since these legal processes for handling process have been involved in this way. This is a very, very significant number of people. And I think that speaks to the significance of the issue that people were protesting about on the bridge, as well as the challenge faced by police and other authorities in facilitating this type of event to happen safely. So, yeah, throughout history, we've had really big protests before in Australia. But definitely in recent years, the numbers of this one are really significant. Sam Hawley: The acting assistant commissioner, Adam Johnson, he described the situation on the bridge as intense and one of the most perilous he's ever been involved in. Acting Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson, NSW Police: I can honestly say in my 35 years of policing, that was a perilous situation. I've never seen a more perilous situation. I was honestly worried that we were going to have a a major incident with a potential loss of life. Sam Hawley: But it was peaceful, wasn't it? Sarah Moulds: I think one thing to keep in mind on the legal side of it is that the reason we have this process of being able to put forward an application detailing a public assembly and then have the opportunity for the police to respond and ultimately the courts is to try and make sure that this can happen safely, that we get the right balance between freedom of speech and association and our right to communicate on political matters and safety. And so I think that it is really important to continue to encourage organisers of community events and public assemblies to put that information in the application and give the authorities time to respond. It was clear from the ruling in this case that this was important to get right. If there was a prohibition, there was a risk that people would protest anyway and then you would lose that opportunity to create safety or have control over what might happen in and around the protest. With the oversight of the court, you can do this in a safe way. And it appears that it did have a safe result in this particular case, which is pretty extraordinary. Not many places around the world could have a protest of 90,000 people and result in safety for everybody. So that's something pretty significant as well. Sam Hawley: So, Sarah, we know protesting is a democratic right, but as you've mentioned, it has become harder to protest in Australia. There are more barriers now than ever before, right? Sarah Moulds: Yeah, that's correct. So we've made a commitment at the international level to protect everybody's right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. But what we don't have is anything clear in our constitution or in any other piece of legislation saying we have a right to protest in Australia. Instead, we have this implied constitutional freedom to communicate on political matters in our representative democracy. But what you definitely can have and what we see in a number of states in Australia are laws that prohibit any disruptive action on the streets, any disruptive action on the roads or around businesses or workplaces. So in South Australia, for example, we've got offences for obstructing public place. In Queensland and New South Wales, they've got offences for attaching yourself to roads or major thoroughfares. In Tasmania, we had laws around logging areas, prohibiting people from protesting there. One of the things that's obvious is that these laws are different in different places, and it's quite complex and confusing for people to know what they are. And that's why we see people having to get legal advice and barristers to help them work this out. So if we were able to get together and streamline these processes across Australia so it was clear about how important it is to value peaceful assembly, but also how important it is to put people on notice about what things are going to look like so we can do this safely. I think that would be great. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, police have said they can't allow a protest like this to happen again. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: So this operation, from our point of view, was a success in that no one was hurt. No people were hurt. No police were hurt. But gee whiz, I wouldn't like to try and do this every Sunday at that short notice. There's a reason we need time to plan these things out. And I think going forward into the future, that has to be taken into consideration. Sam Hawley: And the Premier, Chris Minns, says the government will look at whether that Supreme Court judgment actually sets a precedent. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: I have to examine all of this. I'm not ruling anything out. And I think most reasonable people would expect that, yes, you do have from time to time massive demonstrations, even if it's on the bridge. But knocking it out every week is just it's not something that we can consider forever. Sarah Moulds: Well, I think that at the moment, the summary offences process that was followed in this case, it gives discretion for police commissioners to make decisions, and it gives discretion for the courts to make decisions. If the New South Wales Parliament attempted to pass a different law about protest, they've done this in other areas or use different powers, then ultimately it might go to the High Court to see whether the Parliament has unduly infringed that constitutional freedom. So I think there are tweaks that the Parliament could make to the process of applying for authorisation for protests. But they'd have to be careful because there's a tipping point where the High Court would say you are now prohibiting that implied freedom of political communication. And that's such an important concept of a representative democracy that we can communicate about things that we feel passionately about as voters and citizens in the country. Sam Hawley: The point, of course, of a protest, Sarah, is to bring about change. Do you think this will do that in any way, given the magnitude of it? Sarah Moulds: Well, I think Australia's ability to influence what's happening on the ground in the Middle East is limited. However, we have a powerful voice in international forums and in forums with our allies. And so I think that action like this empowers and emboldens our political leaders to do things like look to international forums, international law, humanitarian law, and say Australian people support those concepts of dignity and human rights and that they can then go and express that position on the world stage. So I think the protesters would feel that they've done something historic in organising this event, sent a message across the world about what the people of Australia think, supported the elected representatives who are articulating their perspective on the world stage. And I think we should also be proud of our police and authorities, as I said, that have been able to organise a protest like this is probably an excellent sign of a healthy democracy that we can facilitate this kind of democratic expression in this way. Sam Hawley: Sarah Moulds is an associate professor in law at the University of South Australia. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Cinnamon Nippard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Russia downplays Trump's nuclear submarine move after Medvedev comments
The Kremlin has downplayed the significance of US President Donald Trump's order to move nuclear submarines, while issuing a warning that everyone should be "very, very careful" about nuclear rhetoric. Mr Trump ordered two of the US Navy's submarines to reposition after former Russian president and current deputy chairperson of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, made comments online about a nuclear exchange. In the first public comments on Mr Trump's move, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters it was "obvious that American submarines are already on combat duty". "But in general, of course, we would not want to get involved in such a controversy and would not want to comment on it in any way," he added. "Of course, we believe that everyone should be very, very careful with nuclear rhetoric." Mr Medvedev's comments last week and Mr Trump's response were the latest in a string of back-and-forth exchanges between the two men. When Mr Trump imposed a deadline on Moscow to end the war in Ukraine or face further sanctions, including on buyers of its exports, Mr Medvedev accused him of playing a "game of ultimatums" and moving a step closer to war between Russia and the US. Mr Trump retorted: "Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!" Mr Medvedev waded in again last Thursday, saying the US president had had a "nervous reaction" which showed Russia was on the right course, before referring again to Moscow's nuclear capabilities. Mr Trump delivered his statement the following day on posting US nuclear submarines in "the appropriate regions", since when Mr Medvedev has not posted again. Russian opposition figures have dismissed the former Russian president's outpourings as sad, impotent rants, according to Reuters. However, some Western diplomats say they give a flavour of the thinking in Kremlin policy-making circles. Until now, they have rarely provoked a direct response from Western leaders. Mr Peskov declined to answer directly when asked whether the Kremlin had tried to warn Medvedev to tone down his online statements. "The main thing, of course, is the position of President Putin," he said. The episode comes at a delicate moment, with Mr Trump threatening to impose new sanctions on Russia and buyers of its oil, including India and China, unless President Vladimir Putin agrees by Friday to end the war in Ukraine. Mr Trump, who frequently promised to end the war within 24 hours while campaigning for the US presidency last year, has spoken admiringly of Mr Putin in the past but voiced increasing frustration with him of late. The Russian president said last week that peace talks had made some positive progress but that Russia had the momentum in the war, signalling no shift in his position despite the looming deadline. Mr Trump has said he may send his envoy Steve Witkoff to Russia on Wednesday or Thursday. Witkoff has held long conversations with Putin on several previous visits but failed to persuade him to agree to a ceasefire. The Kremlin declined to say if his latest proposed trip was taking place at Moscow's request, and did not say what it hoped might emerge from it. "We are always happy to see Mr Witkoff in Moscow and we are always happy to have contacts with Mr Witkoff. We consider them important, meaningful and very useful," Mr Peskov said. Reuters