A moment anticipated for years dissolved into frustration in less than 60 minutes on Monday morning, as Ghislaine Maxwell — Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accomplice and convicted sex trafficker — appeared virtually before the House Oversight Committee and refused to provide a single answer.
Dressed in a brown prison-issued shirt, seated at a conference table with only a bottle of water beside her, Maxwell stared into the camera from her minimum-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas, and delivered the same response to every question: “I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.”
The highly anticipated deposition, months in the making and preceded by legal battles over subpoenas and immunity requests, represented what many hoped would be a turning point in understanding one of the most disturbing criminal cases in modern American history. Instead, it became a masterclass in legal stonewalling — and potentially, political maneuvering.
The Setup: Months of Legal Chess
Maxwell’s appearance before Congress wasn’t voluntary. The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed her back in July 2025 as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the Epstein case — including the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement, the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death in 2019, and allegations that powerful figures were protected from scrutiny.
For months, Maxwell’s legal team fought the subpoena. Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, argued that forcing her to testify while her habeas petition remained pending in federal court would be “pure political theater” and a waste of taxpayer money. He predicted exactly what would happen: his client would invoke the Fifth Amendment repeatedly, providing no testimony, no answers, and no new facts.
But House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, insisted the American people deserved to hear from her. “We need to hear from Ghislaine Maxwell,” he declared in January. Even knowing she would likely plead the Fifth, he pushed forward, scheduling the virtual deposition for February 9, 2026.
The Deposition: A Brief, Tense Exchange
When the session began Monday morning, Markus spoke first, reading a prepared statement that set the tone for what would follow. He reminded the committee that Maxwell’s post-conviction litigation was ongoing and that testifying could jeopardize her constitutional claims and expose her to further criminal liability.
Then came the bombshell: Markus announced that his client would answer questions — fully and honestly — under one condition. She wanted clemency from President Donald Trump.
“Ms. Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump,” Markus stated. “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.”
The statement was extraordinary for multiple reasons. By asserting that both Trump and former President Bill Clinton were “innocent of any wrongdoing,” Maxwell’s legal team appeared to be making a calculated appeal to both sides of the political aisle — essentially offering to clear the names of powerful figures from both parties in exchange for her freedom.
After Markus finished, the questioning began. According to video released by the committee, Maxwell was asked whether she was a close friend and confidant of Jeffrey Epstein. Her response was polite but immovable.
“I would like to answer your question, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer this question and any related questions. My habeas petition is pending in the Southern District of New York. I therefore invoke my right to silence under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
She repeated variations of this phrase more than a dozen times, refusing to answer questions about her relationship with Epstein, whether she trafficked young women or girls, whether she coerced victims, whether she knew of Epstein’s abuse of minors, and whether she could name additional co-conspirators.
Less than an hour after it began, the deposition ended.
The Aftermath: Disappointment and Accusations
Chairman Comer emerged from the session visibly frustrated. “As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions. This obviously is very disappointing,” he told reporters. “We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed, as well as questions about potential co-conspirators. We sincerely want to get to the truth for the American people and justice for survivors.”
Democrats on the committee had a different interpretation of what transpired. Ranking Member Robert Garcia of California suggested Maxwell was using the deposition as leverage for a potential pardon.
“After months of defying our subpoena, Ghislaine Maxwell finally appeared before the Oversight Committee and said nothing,” Garcia said. “She answered no questions and provided no information about the men who raped and trafficked women and girls. What we did get was another episode in her long-running campaign for clemency from President Trump.”
Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, was even more direct in his criticism. “Here is my conclusion after sitting through Maxwell’s deposition with her refusing to answer a single question about the men who raped underage girls, saying she would only do so for clemency: She is protecting powerful people, and that’s exactly why she shouldn’t get clemency.”
Other lawmakers questioned why Maxwell had been willing to speak with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in July 2025 — a two-day interview in which she did answer questions — but refused to cooperate with Congress. That earlier interview, conducted with limited immunity, led to Maxwell being transferred from a low-security correctional facility in Florida to the minimum-security prison camp in Texas where she currently resides.
Democrats suggested the transfer, which the DOJ attributed to “numerous threats against her life,” was actually special treatment in exchange for political favors, particularly given that Blanche had previously served as Trump’s personal attorney.
The Survivors: Pain and Frustration
For survivors of Epstein’s abuse, Maxwell’s silence was particularly devastating. Many have waited decades for accountability that extends beyond Epstein himself and Maxwell.
Before the deposition, a group of survivors sent a letter to the committee urging lawmakers to “approach Ms. Maxwell’s testimony with the utmost skepticism, to rigorously scrutinize any claims she makes, and to ensure that this process does not become another vehicle through which survivors are harmed or silenced.”
The letter, signed by multiple Jane Does and family members of Virginia Giuffre — one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers who died recently — emphasized that Maxwell has never shown genuine remorse for her crimes.
Sky and Amanda Roberts, the brother and sister-in-law of Giuffre, sent their own letter directly addressing Maxwell. “Ghislaine, you deserve to spend the rest of your life in a jail cell. Trapped in a cage forever just like you trapped your victims,” they wrote, adding that ensuring justice for Maxwell was among Giuffre’s last wishes.
During the Super Bowl on Sunday — just one day before Maxwell’s deposition — survivors released an emotional advertisement calling for full transparency in the ongoing release of Epstein-related files. The video, produced with the advocacy group World Without Exploitation, featured survivors holding photos of themselves as children.
The Clemency Question: A Calculated Gamble?
Maxwell’s offer to testify in exchange for clemency raises profound questions about her strategy and motivations. Legal experts note that her decision to plead the Fifth was legally sound given her ongoing appeals, but the public offer to exonerate Trump and Clinton in exchange for freedom is highly unusual.
Some observers believe it’s a calculated attempt to generate bipartisan support for a pardon or commutation of her sentence. By explicitly stating that both Trump and Clinton are “innocent of any wrongdoing,” Maxwell’s legal team may be trying to appeal to powerful figures across the political spectrum.
However, both Chairman Comer and House Speaker Mike Johnson quickly shut down the idea. “I do not think she should be granted any type of immunity or clemency,” Comer said. Johnson added that “it’s unconscionable that she’s pleading the Fifth or trying to make deals.”
When asked about the possibility of a pardon, the White House pointed to previous remarks from President Trump that indicated clemency for Maxwell was not on his radar. In July 2025, Trump had not ruled out the possibility, but has not publicly addressed the issue since.
What Comes Next: More Depositions Scheduled
Despite the disappointing outcome of Maxwell’s appearance, the House Oversight Committee’s investigation continues. Comer announced that five additional depositions are scheduled in the coming weeks:

Leslie Wexner (February 18): The retail billionaire and former Victoria’s Secret CEO was Epstein’s largest financial client and gave him power of attorney over his fortune, a decision that has long puzzled observers.
Hillary Clinton (February 26): The former Secretary of State initially refused to appear but agreed after facing contempt of Congress proceedings.
Bill Clinton (February 27): The former president also initially defied the subpoena before agreeing to testify under threat of contempt charges.
Richard Kahn (March 11): Epstein’s accountant, who managed the financier’s complex web of financial affairs.
Darren Indyke (March 19): Epstein’s attorney, who handled legal matters for the deceased sex offender.

The Bigger Picture: Justice Delayed?
Maxwell’s refusal to cooperate highlights a fundamental tension in the Epstein case: the pursuit of truth versus the protection of the powerful. For years, prosecutors described Maxwell not merely as an accessory to Epstein’s crimes but as the architect — the recruiter, the enabler, the woman who helped build and protect a system that preyed on vulnerable girls.
Her 2021 conviction and 20-year prison sentence represented a rare moment of accountability in a scandal filled with powerful names and missing consequences. Yet with Epstein dead and Maxwell refusing to speak, many questions remain unanswered.
Who else was involved in the trafficking ring? How did Epstein avoid meaningful punishment for so long? Why did the 2007 non-prosecution agreement give him such lenient treatment? What role did powerful individuals — politicians, business leaders, celebrities — play in enabling or participating in the abuse?
Maxwell claims she alone knows the answers. But as Monday’s deposition made clear, those answers come with a price: her freedom.
Whether Congress, the Justice Department, or the American public will ever get the full truth remains uncertain. What is certain is that Maxwell’s silence — calculated, strategic, and legally protected — speaks louder than any testimony she might have given.
As lawmakers left the Capitol on Monday afternoon, one question echoed through the halls: If Ghislaine Maxwell’s silence is this powerful, what truths could her words unleash?
For now, those secrets remain locked behind prison walls and legal protections, leaving survivors still searching for justice and the public still demanding answers that may never come.