.jpeg) |
| Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (BBC) |
A lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell yesterday says his client could clear the name of Donald Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein case. For good measure, the lawyer also claims Maxwell could clear Bill Clinton's name -- in an apparent effort to curry favor with sane people who are not blinded by devotion to MAGA. On first listen, the lawyer's words seemed to offer hope that truth might be injected into a seedy story that has been overrun with deceit, much of it driven by Trump, his political allies, and Epstein (due to his Trump-world connections that long predate the president's entry into the political world.)
Unfortunately, a second listen to the words of David Oscar Markus indicate the attorney is playing the public for fools. What kind of underhandedness surfaces upon further review of Markus' statement before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee? Democrats on the committee suggested Maxwell and her lawyer were more interested in getting a free pass from Trump than shining light on his behavior -- or that of anyone else.
Here are examples of issues that raise questions about the tactics of Markus and his client:
* Does Markus seriously expect us to believe Maxwell possesses knowledge that would "clear the name" of Trump? Wouldn't she have to be virtually omnipotent in Trump's life to be able to make any semi-believable claim that he never had engaged in untoward behavior with underage girls?
* Several instances of Clinton's inappropriate behavior toward adult women have been made public over the years, but we have seen no signs of him showing interest in women while they were underage. The Epstein case is about his convictions for sex trafficking of girls to business and political elites. Maxwell stated in a July 2025 interview with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that she had never witnessed wrongdoing by Clinton and that he never had visited Epstein's private island. Why, then, would she need to "clear his name"?
* As for Trump, Maxwell claimed she "never saw or heard of any inappropriate or criminal activity by Trump." But one must wonder what would a longtime Epstein associate consider "inappropriate activity"? And as a non-lawyer currently serving a prison sentence, how would Maxwell know what defines "criminal activity" -- especially regarding a man who has been convicted of, or found liable for, sex-related misconduct in the Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll cases. And let's not forget Trump was caught on video admitting to having sexually assaulted women. But we are to believe he always was a gentleman when Maxwell was around?
Let's take a look at a report on today's Maxwell-related activities before a congressional committee, per a jointly published report at CBS and Yahoo! News. Under the headline "Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer says she'll testify if Trump grants her clemency," CBS' Melissa Quinn writes:
Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions during a virtual appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Monday.
Her lawyer said she would be willing to cooperate with the panel's probe if President Trump grants her clemency, and would testify that the president is "innocent of any wrongdoing."
As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions. This obviously is very disappointing," chairman James Comer told reporters after the deposition. "We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed, as well as questions bout potential co-conspirators. We sincerely want to get to the truth for the American people and justice for survivors."
Comer said the committee has five more depositions scheduled as part of its investigation into Epstein. Among those set to testify are three members of Epstein's inner circle: Les Wexner, who was one of his clients and a longtime benefactor; Richard Kahn, his accountant; and Darren Indyke, his lawyer, Comer said.
Maxwell's lawyer seemed to make a show of stating that, if granted clemency, Maxwell would speak the "unfiltered truth" and proclaim Trump's innocence. As to what factual knowledge and legal qualification would allow Maxwell to state unequivocally that Trump had committed no Epstein-related crimes . . . well, her lawyer did not address that. Quinn writes:
David Markus, Maxwell's attorney, read a statement to the Oversight panel. He said his client had to remain silent because of a pending legal petition filed with the federal court in New York. But he said the committee could hear from Maxwell if she received clemency.
"If this committee and the American public truly want to hear the unfiltered truth about what happened, there is a straightforward path. Ms. Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump," Markus said. "Only she can provide the complete account. Some may not like what they hear, but the truth matters. For example, both President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing. Ms. Maxwell alone can explain why, and the public is entitled to that explanation."
Maxwell was asked several questions during the deposition, but repeatedly said "I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence." Video of the questioning was posted by the Oversight Committee on Monday evening.
"I would like to answer your question, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer this question and any related questions," she said, in response to the first question about whether she was a close friend and confidant of Epstein.
Maxwell's non-answers, and Markus' tactics did not appear to impress lawmakers, especially Democrats. From the CBS report:
Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, suggested Maxwell was trying to protect others by refusing to answer questions and said she was given "special treatment" by the Trump administration. Maxwell was transferred from a low-security correctional institute in Florida to a minimum security prison camp in Texas after meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last summer.
"After months of defying our subpoena, Ghislaine Maxwell finally appeared before the Oversight Committee and said nothing. She answered no questions and provided no information about the men who raped and trafficked women and girls," Garcia said in a statement.
Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, told reporters following the deposition that Maxwell's lawyer said she has no indication that either Mr. Trump or former President Bill Clinton are culpable for any wrongdoing.
But Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat from Virginia, said Maxwell's offer to speak on the record to absolve Mr. Trump and Clinton are part of an effort to drum up support from both parties for clemency.
"This is all strategy for her to try to get a pardon from President Trump, and she's never shown any remorse for the victims in this entire case," he told reporters, adding that Maxwell was "unrepentant" and "robotic" in her appearance before lawmakers.
In my view, Rep. Subramanyam nails it. His words provide a succinct summary of what really is happening with Ghislaine Maxwell 's non-testimony. It is a cynical effort by her attorney to get his client off the hook in what likely is the most abominable known sex-trafficking case in history. It once again uses the justice system as a political tool in the Age of Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment