Amid a MAGA meltdown over President Donald Trump’s handling of the so-called Epstein files, the Justice Department is in talks to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for child sex trafficking and other crimes connected to her longtime partner.
Even if Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche does sit down with her “in coming days,” as he indicated Tuesday, to hear her account of who else may have participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, anything she says may be exceedingly difficult to corroborate. That challenge will be exacerbated by her obvious incentive to tell the Trump administration what it wants to hear, perhaps in a bid for clemency or a reduced sentence. And the administration would face tough choices about how, or whether, to offer some sort of deal.
The Justice Department has already accused Maxwell of being a pervasive liar. The prosecutors who brought charges against Maxwell repeatedly told the judge overseeing her 2021 trial that she was willing to “brazenly lie under oath about her conduct.” And they noted that her lies were the subject of two perjury counts, arguing that “they evidence her willingness to flout the law in order to protect herself.” (The counts, which were initially expected to be the subject of a second trial, were dropped after her conviction on the sex-trafficking charges.)
Here are four questions raised by the Justice Department’s surprising Maxwell move.
Why is DOJ reaching out to Maxwell now?
The Trump administration is struggling to escape the conspiracy vortex that its own leaders spent years fomenting. And now they’re casting about for ways to show the MAGA base that they’re pursuing new evidence in the Epstein case — even though they’ve already concluded there’s nothing new to learn and said so just two weeks ago.
Trump said Tuesday that he wasn’t consulted in advance about the outreach to Maxwell but added: “I think it would be something — sounds appropriate to do, yeah.”
The White House declined further comment, deferring instead to the Justice Department. DOJ declined to elaborate on Blanche’s statement.
Before her criminal case, Maxwell had already testified twice in civil lawsuits stemming from the allegations about her role in Epstein’s crimes — fiercely denying the existence of a criminal conspiracy or large-scale sex-trafficking operation. DOJ charged her with perjuring herself in those depositions.
Maxwell has apparently never given her version of events to federal prosecutors. During pretrial proceedings in her criminal case, government prosecutors and Maxwell’s defense attorneys acknowledged they never even broached the subject of plea negotiations where such an interview might have occurred.
“The government has not issued any plea offers to the defense and the defense has not requested any plea offers from the government,” then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe told Maxwell’s judge in November 2021.
Maxwell’s attorney, meanwhile, claimed at the time that “plea bargaining was not an issue” because her client maintained her innocence.
Maxwell declined to testify in her own defense at trial.
At the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which brought the criminal charges against Maxwell, any defendant who cooperates with prosecutors must disclose all wrongdoing or risk losing the benefits of the hypothetical plea deal. That standard may have discouraged Maxwell from speaking to prosecutors.
An attorney for Maxwell, David Oscar Markus, said Tuesday that Maxwell “will always testify truthfully” and confirmed that her legal team is in discussions with the government. In a letter to the court Tuesday, Markus indicated he had spoken directly to Blanche, who had no objection to Maxwell accessing some sealed materials connected to her criminal case.
What could Maxwell tell DOJ that it doesn’t already know?
If you listen to Maxwell herself: Not much. She argued in court papers ahead of her trial that the allegations against her and Epstein were so old — stretching back to the 1990s — that there’s little reliable information left to disclose. She contended that witnesses may have died or their memories faded, and corroborating documents she might be able to rely on to prove her version of events have long been destroyed.
That filing includes categories labeled “Dead witnesses and the lost testimony,” “Lost and missing witnesses,” “Witnesses whose memories have failed or corrupted” and “Lost or destroyed records.”
“Significant numbers of potential witnesses no longer remember when events may have occurred, who was present, and do not have documents to refresh their memories,” Maxwell’s lawyers contended.
While Maxwell’s own memory of events could add new details to the record, it’s hard to see how prosecutors can credit any belated revelations without corroboration.
What’s in it for Maxwell?
Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, so presumably any cooperation she might provide would come with a price. There are two main ways the Trump administration could repay her for information she offers, and they both have significant downsides for Trump.
First, the Justice Department could agree to file what’s known as a “Rule 35 motion,” which is a request for a federal judge to lower a prison sentence based on certain conduct by a defendant, including cooperation with the government.
The catch with that, however, is that it is up to the judge whether to grant such a request, and Maxwell’s case is now being overseen by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, an Obama appointee whom the Trump administration sees as a foe. Earlier this year, Engelmayer drew the wrath of Republicans after he temporarily blocked the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury Department payment systems. Trump called the decision “a disgrace.”
Second, Trump could simply pardon Maxwell or commute her sentence. Although he has virtually unchecked authority to do so, such a move could cause serious political blowback. Trump is already under fire for failing to appease his base on the Epstein issue. Giving a break to a convicted child sex trafficker like Maxwell would likely further enrage those who are already angry over his handling of the matter — unless Maxwell were to provide information so compelling to Trump’s base that it could accept her walking free.
How else might we hear from Maxwell or learn more about Epstein?
On Tuesday morning, hours after the Justice Department said it would seek to interview Maxwell, House Republicans indicated they intend to subpoena Maxwell.
“This deposition will help the American people understand how Jeffrey Epstein was able to carry out his evil actions for so long without being brought to justice,” said Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett, who put forth a motion seeking approval of the subpoena.
And last week, the Justice Department asked to make public a subset of grand jury records stemming from the prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell, but it’s unclear whether those would provide much insight beyond what’s already known about those cases. First, federal judges must approve those requests. Additionally, DOJ already indicated that it intends to withhold certain information, including “victim-related information and other personal identifying information prior to releasing the transcripts.”
On Tuesday, Engelmayer said he would rule on the request in the Maxwell case “expeditiously” but asked the government for additional information addressing several factors the judge must weigh, including “why disclosure is being sought” and “what specific information is being sought.” The judge also asked Maxwell to submit a letter stating her position on the potential disclosure, and he asked for any input from victims.
In the Epstein case, U.S. District Judge Richard Berman asked for similar information.
The post 4 key questions about DOJ’s move to interview Ghislaine Maxwell appeared first on Politico.
