Ghislaine Maxwell open to US congress interview if given immunity, say lawyers
A spokeswoman for the committee that wants to interview her responded with a terse statement saying it would not consider offering her immunity.
Advertisement
Maxwell's lawyers also asked that they be provided with any questions in advance and that any interview with her be scheduled after her petition to the US Supreme Court to take up her case has been resolved.
David Oscar Markus, a lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell, talks with the media outside the federal courthouse in Tallahassee, (Colin Hackley/AP)
The conditions were laid out in a letter sent by Maxwell's attorneys to representative James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee who last week issued a subpoena for her deposition at the Florida prison where she is serving a 20-year-prison sentence on a conviction of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls.
The request to interview her is part of a frenzied, renewed interest in the Epstein saga following the Justice Department's July statement that it would not be releasing any additional records from the investigation, an abrupt announcement that stunned online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of US President Donald Trump's base who had been hoping to find proof of a government coverup.
Since then, the Trump administration has sought to present itself as promoting transparency, with the department urging courts to unseal grand jury transcripts from the sex-trafficking investigation and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewing Maxwell over the course of two days at a Florida courthouse last week.
Advertisement
In a letter on Tuesday, Maxwell's lawyers said that though their initial instinct was for Maxwell to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, they are open to having her co-operate provided that legislators satisfy their request for immunity and other conditions.
But the Oversight Committee seemed to reject that offer outright.
'The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,' a spokesperson said.
Separately, Maxwell's lawyers have urged the Supreme Court to review her conviction, saying she dd not receive a fair trial.
Advertisement
They also say that one way she would give evidence 'openly and honestly, in public', is in the event of a pardon by Mr Trump, who has told reporters that such a move is within his rights but that he has not been not asked to make it.
'She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
28 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Voters hate Medicaid cuts. Now Republicans are backpedaling
But many of those same Republicans in Congress are now openly fretting about President Donald Trump's signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which he signed into law on July 4. Some worry that it slashes Medicaid funding for the working poor. Some think it doesn't cut enough federal funding. And it adds $4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Call this "Vote yes and second-guess." That's not exactly the vibe Trump was looking for from his political party for what he had hoped would be a summer victory tour to celebrate this and other early accomplishments in his second term. But here, Trump - and his party in next year's midterm elections - have a serious problem. Americans don't like his massive budget bill, which swaps short-term tax relief for some low-income working people for permanent tax cuts for America's wealthiest people. That's only going to get worse as Americans see what programs Trump and his Republican allies have defunded and where they are boosting federal spending. Trump is dumping money into immigration policies Americans don't like Consider immigration, a signature issue for Trump, which previously won him significant support among American voters in 2016 and 2024. He's seen a reversal of fortunes here. That's probably because so many of us are watching masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents indiscriminately grabbing people off the street to be deported with little or no due process under the law. What Trump touted as an effort to deport violent criminals who entered this country illegally has devolved into an oppressive spectacle as ICE agents snatch people who hold green cards or appear at immigration hearings. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Trump's new budget bill includes $170 billion for more of that over the next four years, with $76.5 billion going to ICE to detain people snatched off our streets and to add 10,000 new agents to a force that already has 20,000. How is that going to play across America? Gallup offered us a clue with a mid-July survey that showed a sizable shift in how Americans view immigration. Opinion: Trump's policies on immigration, economy and trade are unpopular with Americans In 2024, 55% of Americans told Gallup they thought immigration should be decreased. That dropped to 30% this year, after they saw Trump's approach on the issue. And a record high - 79% - of U.S. adults told Gallup that immigration is good for this country. That same survey found that 62% of Americans disapprove of Trump's immigration policies. And he's about to drive this country deep into debt to ramp up an approach Americans don't like. Now Republicans want you to believe they're saving Medicaid Then there is the Republican regret. You get the feeling Republicans in Congress want to increase funding either for a time machine to undo their vote or a device to make voters forget how those senators and representatives supported Trump's big, beautiful bill. This game of both sides is as desperate as it is hypocritical. U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri wrote an essay for The New York Times in May expressing concerns about how the bill will slash Medicaid for the working poor. Then he voted for Trump's budget. Now he says he's trying to undo some of the harm he supported with new legislation. U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska expressed concerns before folding to support Trump's budget. Murkowski's shameless bid to spread the blame, by urging Republicans in the U.S. House not to endorse the bill she had just endorsed, of course, fell on its face. U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado touted her vote for Trump's budget in May. By late July, she was denouncing the government for not reducing the national debt. Opinion: MAGA is coming for Trump over lost Epstein files. Bondi may pay the price. U.S. Rep. Ted Cruz of Texas is among the legislators now calling to roll back the provision in Trump's budget that changes tax deductions for gamblers. Cruz's explanation for backtracking, according to NBC News: "Most Republicans didn't even know this was in the bill when they voted to pass it." Republicans are still spending our tax dollars recklessly Trump has assumed control of the Republican Party in Congress, where legislative leaders are careful to never act as an independent and coequal branch of government. They sing a song about making America great by cracking down on federal spending, while piling up the nation's debt. They're not spending less of your tax dollars. They're just making sure the super rich in America don't have to pay at the same rates as middle-class people. They're spending much, much more, just as Americans discover they like Trump's policies less and less every day. There's a cure for all this. It's called the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans in Congress are afraid of Trump. They really should be afraid of voters tossing them out of office for backing his budget. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Ghislaine Maxwell moved to prison camp, Trump says no plea for pardon
Aug 1 (Reuters) - Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred from a Florida prison to a lower-security facility in Texas to continue serving her 20-year sentence for helping the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse underage girls, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons said on Friday. Maxwell's move from FCI Tallahassee, a low-security prison, to the Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, comes a week after she met with Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who said he wanted to speak with her about anyone else who may have been involved in Epstein's crimes. Maxwell's lawyer, David Markus, confirmed she was moved but said he had no other comment. Spokespeople for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Asked during a White House interview with Newsmax on Friday about the possibility of pardoning Maxwell, President Donald Trump said, "I'm allowed to do it, but nobody's asked me to do it." He added, "I know nothing about the case." Asked about what was discussed between Maxwell and the deputy attorney general last week, Trump said he believed Blanche "just wants to make sure that innocent people aren't hurt" should documents in the Epstein probe be released. The BOP classifies prison camps such as Bryan as minimum-security institutions, the lowest of five security levels in the federal system. Such facilities have limited or no perimeter fencing. Low-security facilities such as FCI Tallahassee have double-fenced perimeters and higher staff-to-inmate ratios than prison camps, according to the bureau. Asked why Maxwell was transferred, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said he could not comment on the specifics of any incarcerated individual's prison assignment, but that the BOP determines where inmates are sent based on such factors as "the level of security and supervision the inmate requires." Blanche's meeting with Maxwell came as Trump faces pressure from both his base of conservative supporters and congressional Democrats to release more information from the Justice Department's investigations of Maxwell and Epstein. The department is seeking court approval to release transcripts of law enforcement officers' testimony before the grand juries that indicted Maxwell and Epstein. Such transcripts are usually kept secret. Two federal judges in Manhattan are weighing the government's requests. Lawyers for Maxwell, Epstein, and their alleged victims are due to share their positions on the potential unsealing with the judges in filings on Tuesday. Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He had pleaded not guilty. Neither Markus nor Blanche has provided detailed accounts of what they discussed. Markus has said Maxwell would welcome relief from Trump. Maxwell was found guilty at a 2021 trial of recruiting and grooming girls for Epstein to abuse. She had pleaded not guilty and is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
