Maxwell brother: ‘New evidence' being prepared before DOJ meeting
Senior officials coordinated with Maxwell's attorney to arrange a meeting with the Epstein accomplice, who was convicted on sex-trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence. ABC News reported the meeting is expected to be held Thursday at the U.S. attorney's office in Florida.
'She will be putting before that court material new evidence that was not available to the defense at her 2021 trial, which would have had a significant impact on its outcome,' Ian Maxwell told The New York Post in an email.
Ghislaine Maxwell did not testify during her 2021 trial and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is set to meet with Maxwell, said earlier this week that no government official had attempted to contact Maxwell for information until the Trump administration.
'President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence. If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in a statement Monday.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Wednesday questioned whether Maxwell would be a credible witness. 'I mean, this is a person who's been sentenced to many, many years in prison for terrible, unspeakable, conspiratorial acts. Acts against innocent young people,' he said.
The public has been pushing for more information as it relates to Epstein's close friends and associates after a joint memo from the FBI and DOJ earlier this month said the government did not have any more documents to release tied to the deceased financier.
Supporters of the president, cheered by Democrats, have pushed for more information from the administration, even after officials have said there was no 'client list' and reaffirmed Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell in 2019.
The Wall Street Journal also reported Wednesday that Attorney General Pam Bondi alerted Trump that his name was listed in the 'truckload' of files reviewed by the DOJ and FBI, among numerous other names. The White House has brushed off the report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Wiley Nickel suspends NC Senate bid, endorses Cooper
Former Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) is ending his campaign for North Carolina's Senate seat and endorsing Roy Cooper, a day after the former governor launched his much-anticipated bid. Nickel said in a statement on X on Tuesday that working alongside Cooper while he served in the state Senate and in Congress was an 'honor,' and Cooper's 'steady, bipartisan leadership' has made a difference. 'And for many of us, including me, he's been an inspiration to step up and serve,' Nickel said. 'I proudly endorse Roy Cooper for US Senate and look forward to doing everything I can to help him flip this Senate seat from red to blue.' Nickel's decision was expected after Democrats notched a major recruitment win in getting their ideal candidate to run for the seat held by retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). Cooper brings a long background in North Carolina politics and a track record as a popular former two-term governor. Nickel entered the race months earlier, before Tillis announced he wouldn't seek another term in office, but Democrats' eyes had been on Cooper, seeing him as their best chance of flipping the seat. Cooper said in his announcement video that he 'never really' wanted to go to Washington, D.C., and only wanted to serve the people of North Carolina in his own state, but the times required him to run. Nickel served one term in the House before he decided against running for reelection after redistricting made his district much more conservative leaning. He said in his statement that he still has 'a lot of work left to do.' 'Public service is part of who I am and you'll hear more from me soon,' he said. Semafor reported that Nickel is considering a bid for district attorney in Wake County. The Republican primary to try to succeed Tillis is still forming, but Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley is expected to enter the race soon with backing from President Trump. This would come after Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, decided against running for the seat despite speculation that she would. With Trump's support and Whatley being one of the top GOP officials in the country, he would be a clear favorite for the Republican nomination. The race for the seat is also expected to be tight in the battleground state. Democrats haven't won a Senate seat in North Carolina since 2008, but they've had more success on the state level and are hoping Cooper is the right candidate to finally get over the hurdle.
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kevin McCarthy: 'Create Something That Outlives You'
With a staunchly divided Congress, it can be easy for politicians to focus on dominating the other side, rather than compromising, but is that the best way to create lasting change? Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is on the podcast today to examine the issues in the modern political landscape, from partisan infighting, the difficulty in electing moderate candidates, and the constant tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats that often leads us in circles, rather than forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why it matters that top Republicans are deferring to Trump on a possible Maxwell pardon
Plenty of Republicans are walking a tricky line right now on the Jeffrey Epstein files. But few have walked one as tricky as congressional leadership in recent days. Asked about President Donald Trump potentially pardoning Epstein's convicted sex-trafficking accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell – something Trump conspicuously left the door open to Friday and then again Monday – House Speaker Mike Johnson punted on Sunday. 'Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president,' he told NBC's 'Meet the Press,' adding: 'I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane.' When pressed, the Louisiana Republican relented a bit and said that the idea gave him 'great pause' because of her 'unspeakable crimes' – while again emphasizing that's 'not my decision.' Similarly on Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune would not say if Trump should rule out a pardon for Maxwell. 'Well, that's up to him,' the South Dakota Republican told CNN's Manu Raju. 'But it looks to me like she's going to spend a good long time in jail.' Maxwell, who's serving 20 years, is a convicted sex trafficker. Of children. Leadership's message to Trump seemed to be: Please don't do it. But also, just in case you do pardon a sex trafficker of children, I need to cover myself and emphasize that you have the full right to do it. And they weren't the only Republicans to curiously avoid rejecting such a pardon. 'I don't know enough about Maxwell or the conversation to even weigh in on that,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday. So why on earth are Republicans treating this seemingly unthinkable maneuver so gently? Would Trump actually do such a thing? And how on earth would that not blow up in his face? It's difficult to see how. And indeed, this prospect seems to work better as a carrot for Maxwell, who met last week with the deputy attorney general, than as a legitimate possibility. You could certainly be forgiven for thinking Trump wants Maxwell to believe she might get a pardon – or other help in her ongoing appeals – even if that's not realistic. The conventional wisdom among some on the left has been that Trump has indeed cued up a Maxwell pardon, ever since his administration made interviewing her its first big move to allay concerns about its handling of the Epstein files. The idea would be that Maxwell will say the things the Trump administration wants – such as clearing the president and/or implicating others – and he rewards her with a pardon. Trump certainly hasn't shied away from controversial pardons before. He has gone to historic lengths to pardon allies. He has granted clemency to virtually all January 6, 2021, defendants – including hundreds who were convicted of assaulting police. But even against that backdrop, pardoning a convicted sex trafficker is on another level. Let's say Trump does it. The idea would apparently be that Maxwell provides Trump and his team enough information that they can change the subject by focusing the conversation on other people she might implicate. (It's worth noting that Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.) But what happens then? Maxwell clearly has a credibility issues and reason to say what helps her in this moment. And that's not just me saying it; it's Trump's own Justice Department, circa 2020, which called her a brazen liar. A pardon would only reinforce the idea that this was some kind of corrupt bargain. About the only way to combat that would be if she gave information that actually panned out. But justice takes a long time to be served. The Justice Department needs time to build cases, and those cases might or might not succeed. Are you really going to pardon her before any of that happens? What happens if the end result is that the only Epstein associate to actually be convicted walks free? It also seems likely that a pardon would only add new fuel to a subject that Trump badly wants to move on from. If other people were implicated, that would create all kinds of threads to be pulled moving forward. That would also inject new life into theories about a possible cover-up. The question would become whether these people were subjects in the various investigations, and whether those leads were followed up. It would also lead to questions about whether other people could be brought to justice, which would make withholding the Epstein files even more difficult for the Trump administration. And that's a very big risk here. Polls show huge numbers of Americans already believe there is some form of a cover-up at play. A Reuters-Ipsos poll this month showed Americans agreed 60-12% that the federal government was 'hiding information' about Epstein's death, and 69-6% that it was hiding information about his clients. That latter belief was overwhelmingly bipartisan, with 82% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans agreeing. These people would have their fears confirmed – and probably would want to know more. And then there is just the 'yuck' factor. Trump's January 6 pardons were highly unpopular; a February Washington Post-Ipsos poll showed Americans opposed the pardons of violent offenders 83-14%. At the same time, the president doesn't seem to have paid much of a price. Those pardons during his first week back in office quickly faded amid a barrage of early Trump maneuvers that competed for the attention of the media and news consumers. But the attack on the US Capitol was also years in the past by that point. People were probably unfamiliar with the many hundreds of defendants, and many Trump supporters had been convinced over many months that these people were railroaded. It just wasn't as much of a political hot potato, even as it was unseemly in most Americans' eyes. It's difficult to see how a Maxwell pardon wouldn't instantly be news for days and weeks, because of how people feel about her crimes and the entire Epstein saga, and because of questions about whether this was some kind of corrupt trade. It would also force GOP lawmakers into some very uncomfortable interviews. (A president indeed has the power to pardon whomever he wants to. That doesn't mean every pardon is morally just.) For all of the MAGA movement's seeming willingness to go along with whatever Trump says, it's hard to see how even much of the base would be okay with all that. The question of whether Trump pardons Maxwell might not even be the right one. A better one might be whether Trump's Justice Department could do something else to help her – such as in her ongoing appeals. Maxwell's legal team has based its appeal around the idea that the 2008 non-prosecution agreement Epstein secured in Florida should have covered Maxwell. To this point, the Trump administration has rejected that argument, saying earlier this month that Maxwell was 'not a party to the relevant agreement.' Perhaps it could change its tune? Even that seems pretty far-fetched, though. While this would be a more limited step, it would still look pretty bad and would lead to all kinds of questions about quid pro quos with a convicted sex trafficker. In the end, this debate seems a whole lot more valuable to Trump in the abstract than in reality. Maxwell didn't just talk to a top Trump appointee in the Justice Department last week, she could soon be testifying to Congress. What better way to guide what she says than to have her believe maybe the administration could do her a solid. Or perhaps this is just another example of Trump's strange commentary about Maxwell – remember 'I wish her well' – and never wanting to rule things out. He loves to keep his options open, even when one of those options seems to be ridiculous. But at least for now, it's apparently significant enough for Republicans to treat it as a real possibility. And that, in and of itself, is shocking.
