Ghislaine Maxwell Invokes Fifth Amendment in Congressional Deposition, Signals Willingness to Testify Only If Granted Clemency

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell invoked her constitutional right against self‑incrimination and declined to answer questions during a closed‑door deposition before the U.S. House Oversight Committee on Monday, unexpectedly framing her silence in the context of seeking clemency from former President Donald Trump. 

The deposition, conducted virtually from the federal prison camp in Texas where Maxwell is serving a 20‑year sentence, was part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal network and how the federal government handled his case. Committee members had hoped Maxwell would shed light on her role in Epstein’s operations, possible co‑conspirators, and connections to prominent figures. 

Invocation of the Fifth Amendment

Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 on multiple counts tied to sex trafficking and transporting minors for illegal activity, invoked the Fifth Amendment when lawmakers attempted to question her Monday morning. Citing her constitutional right not to answer questions that could incriminate her, she refused to respond to every substantive question from committee members. 

House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R‑Ky.) described the outcome as “disappointing,” noting that lawmakers had assembled a slate of detailed questions about Epstein’s crimes and enablers. Comer reaffirmed that the committee would continue its probe and had additional depositions scheduled with other individuals connected to Epstein’s network. 

A Clemency Conditional Offer

What set Monday’s session apart from routine Fifth Amendment invocations was the statement delivered to lawmakers by Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus. According to official accounts and multiple news reports, Markus told the committee that Maxwell would be “prepared to speak fully and honestly” about Epstein’s activities, co‑conspirators, and related matters if first granted clemency by President Trump. 

Markus’s statement — delivered in the deposition and later shared publicly — contended that Maxwell could provide critical information to the American public if she were granted a form of executive clemency, such as a commutation of sentence or pardon. He argued that her testimony could clarify issues surrounding not only Epstein but also allegations involving major public figures. 

Maxwell’s attorney even asserted that she could “explain why” former Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were “innocent of any wrongdoing” related to Epstein — a suggestion he positioned as part of the “truth” she would share under clemency. 

While the precise language of the attorney’s remarks to the committee remains under review, multiple congressional officials and reporters confirmed that her legal representation framed cooperation as contingent on clemency. 

Bipartisan Reaction and Criticism

The reaction from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle was swift and sharply critical.

Some Republicans — including Comer — rejected the notion of granting Maxwell clemency, emphasizing that she had already had legal opportunities to speak about Epstein’s activities in prior interviews. Comer noted that Maxwell did not invoke the Fifth Amendment during a previous July interview with the Justice Department’s Deputy Attorney General, during which she answered questions without similar conditions. 

Democratic members of the Oversight Committee also blasted the deposition. Rep. Robert Garcia (D‑Calif.) said Maxwell’s refusal to answer any questions left lawmakers with “nothing” to advance the investigation. Rep. Ro Khanna (D‑Calif.), a co‑sponsor of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, called out what he described as an inconsistent legal strategy — pointing to the earlier interview without a Fifth Amendment claim — and questioned whether Maxwell’s clemency appeal was an attempt to leverage political connections rather than pursue accountability. 

Similarly, other Democrats described the conditional offer as tantamount to a campaign for political intervention, decrying the suggestion that her silence could be “bought” through executive action. 

Context in the Broader Epstein Investigation

Maxwell’s deposition unfolded against a backdrop of intensified congressional focus on Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and the federal government’s response over time. In recent weeks, lawmakers were granted access to millions of unredacted Justice Department records related to Epstein, fueling new questions about potential gaps in prosecution and redactions that may have masked critical details. 

Maxwell’s current appeal of her conviction — including a habeas corpus petition challenging aspects of her trial — factored into her legal team’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Attorneys argued that answering questions now could jeopardize her appeal rights. 

Her conviction and sentence have made her one of the few individuals held criminally responsible in connection with Epstein’s extensive network of abuse. Epstein himself died in federal custody in 2019, a development that remains controversial. 

Legal and Political Implications

Experts say Maxwell’s refusal to speak under oath — and the linkage of her cooperation to executive clemency — raises thorny questions about the limits of congressional investigative power, constitutional protections, and the role of the presidency in criminal justice.

Legal scholars note that while the Fifth Amendment is a bedrock constitutional right, invoking it in this context effectively shuts down investigative oversight and leaves lawmakers without key testimony. Additionally, the use of clemency as a condition for cooperation, though not without historical precedent, is unusual in high‑profile criminal investigations. Analysts argue it underscores the unique intersection of law and politics in cases tied to widely known figures and national scandals.

Looking Ahead

No indication has emerged that President Trump plans to grant clemency to Maxwell, and both the executive branch and Maxwell’s defense team have made no formal announcements regarding such a request. Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee has said it will continue its scheduled depositions and pursue additional avenues to gather information.

Upcoming testimony from several individuals connected to Epstein’s orbit — including alleged associates and executives tied to his operations — is expected to test the committee’s ability to assemble a fuller picture of the abuse network and government response.

For now, Maxwell’s decision to plead the Fifth and outline clemency as a precondition for cooperation leaves many questions unanswered — and highlights ongoing tensions between congressional oversight, constitutional rights, and political strategy in one of the most enduring and controversial federal investigations of recent decades.