Trump just made a problematic Ghislaine Maxwell situation look even worse
But there were already all kinds of reasons to be skeptical of this move and what it could produce, given the motivations of the two sides involved.
And President Donald Trump epitomized all of them in a major way on Friday.
While taking questions on his way to Scotland, Trump repeatedly held open the possibility of pardoning Maxwell for her crimes.
'Well, I don't want to talk about that,' Trump said initially.
When pressed, he said, 'It's something I haven't thought about,' while conspicuously adding, 'I'm allowed to do it.'
This wouldn't be the first time Trump has appeared to dangle a pardon over someone providing evidence that could impact him personally and politically. (In this case, he has demonstrated past personal ties to Epstein, and his administration is scrambling to clean up its botched handling of the Epstein files after previously promising to release them.)
A similar situation played out during the Russia investigation, when Trump repeatedly left open the possibility of pardoning key witnesses like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen. Critics alleged this amounted to obstruction of justice.
Special counsel Robert Mueller's report didn't draw conclusions on possible obstruction, but it did cite Trump's pardon comments as 'evidence' that Trump's actions 'had the potential to influence Manafort's decision whether to cooperate with the government.'
Manafort indeed wound up being a decidedly uncooperative witness, with a bipartisan Senate report saying his repeated lies hamstrung its own investigation. And Trump later pardoned him in a move that could certainly be understood as a reward for his lack of cooperation.
That bit of history looms large here, given the parallels.
But Trump is really just exacerbating an already dubious situation. There were already plenty of reasons to be skeptical of this move to interview Maxwell, and nobody involved seems particularly bothered to address those problems or even combat the perception of them.
The first reason is the state of play in Maxwell's criminal case.
It might seem far-fetched that Trump would ever pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker like Maxwell (even though he did 'wish her well' after she was charged). But there are other things his administration could do to help her. Among them would be taking actions in her ongoing appeal of her 2021 conviction.
The Trump Justice Department has already taken highly suspect actions in another criminal case involving someone Trump wanted something politically from: New York Mayor Eric Adams. The administration earlier this year moved to dismiss the charges against Adams while suggestively citing its desire for the New York Democrat to assist in its crackdown on illegal immigration.
Multiple prosecutors resigned in protest, with one claiming it was a 'quid pro quo' in her resignation letter. And the judge in the case appeared to sympathize.
'Everything here smacks of a bargain: Dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions,' the judge said.
Maxwell's lawyer, David Oscar Markus, has also been remarkably solicitous of Trump and the administration.
Last week he called Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' while claiming that the Justice Department had violated a deal with Maxwell. This week, he praised the Trump administration's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case' and said he and Maxwell were 'grateful that the government is trying to uncover the truth.'
Markus on Friday also suggested an openness to a pardon.
'The president this morning said he had the power to do so,' Markus said, 'and we hope he exercises that power in a right and just way.'
Indeed, also relevant here are the lawyers involved.
Critics have cried foul that the DOJ official interviewing Maxwell was Blanche, rather than a non-political prosecutor who has been involved in the case who would have much more expertise. Not only is Blanche a top political appointee of Trump's; he's also his formal personal lawyer.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, right, leaves his hotel for the federal courthouse on Friday in Tallahassee, Florida.
Colin Hackley/AP
'The conflict of interest is glaring,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday on X. 'It stinks of high corruption.'
What's more, Blanche appeared on a podcast last year with Markus and labeled him a 'friend.'
'You are by far the best out there,' Blanche said.
But one of the biggest reasons to be skeptical is that Maxwell is someone the Trump Justice Department – the first one, at least – labeled a brazen liar.
Back in 2020, the DOJ charged Maxwell with two counts of perjury – on top of the more serious charges she faced – while citing a 2016 civil deposition she gave.
In the deposition, Maxwell claimed no knowledge of Epstein's 'scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages,' despite later being convicted of helping in the effort. She also claimed she didn't know about Epstein possessing sex toys, which was contradicted by witnesses at her trial.
Maxwell's lawyers at the time said 'the questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed.'
She was never actually tried for perjury. After her conviction on the more serious charges, prosecutors agreed to dismiss the perjury charges if her conviction stood, citing a desire to avoid further emotional trauma for the victims.
But the Trump Justice Department in 2020 still called her credibility into question.
In a 2020 filing, it said Maxwell's lies 'should give the Court serious pause' about trusting her. It also said Maxwell's 'willingness to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct … strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable for her crimes.'
All of that would seem relevant to today, especially given Trump's demonstrated willingness to wield his power to help people who help him – whether using pardons or anything else. Maxwell, who has years left in her 20-year prison sentence, clearly has motivation to say things Trump wants.
That doesn't mean the interviews of Maxwell couldn't glean something important. Even witnesses with credibility problems can provide important information, if it's corroborated with other evidence.
But right now, Trump and Co. aren't trying very hard to make this situation look kosher. And Trump's pardon comments take that to another level.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
See - Sada Elbalad
4 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
Trump Threatens to Raise Pharma Tariffs to 250%
Taarek Refaat President Donald Trump told Squackbox on Tuesday that planned pharmaceutical tariffs imported into the United States could eventually reach 250%, the highest threat to date, according to CNBC. He added that he would initially impose "small tariffs" on medicines, then raise them to 150%, then to 250%, within a year or a year and a half maximum. The president has repeatedly threatened, then changed course on tariff proposals, so there is no guarantee that he will eventually set tariffs on drugs at 250%. In early July, Trump threatened to impose tariffs of 200% on drugs. In April, the Trump administration launched a so-called Article 232 investigation on pharmaceutical products, a legal authority that allows the Commerce Secretary to investigate the impact of imports on national security. The tariffs are an attempt by the president to motivate pharmaceutical companies to move manufacturing operations to the United States at a time when the manufacture of drugs locally has seen a sharp contraction over the past few decades. Over the past six months, companies such as Ellie Lily and Johnson & Johnson have announced new U.S. investments to strengthen their ties with the president. 'We want the pharmaceutical industry in our country,' Trump told CNBC. The planned tariffs will deal a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry, which has warned that tariffs could raise costs, hinder investments in the United States, and disrupt the drug supply chain, putting patients at risk. Pharmaceutical companies are already facing the repercussions of Trump's drug pricing policies, which they argue threaten their profits and their ability to invest in research and development. That includes Trump's executive order in May that revives a controversial plan, a 'most-preferred-country' policy, which aims to reduce drug costs by peging the prices of some drugs in the United States to prices much lower abroad. On Tuesday, Trump told CNBC that he "did" the "most-favoured nation" policy, and that this would have a "huge impact on drug prices." However, Trump has not officially implemented any changes to the executive order. Last week, Trump sent letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies calling on them to commit to taking steps to reduce the prices of US drugs by September 29. This includes agreeing to provide their entire range of existing drugs at the lowest price provided in other developed countries for each patient benefiting from the Medicaid program, among other steps, while some pharmaceutical companies have announced that they are reviewing messages. read more CBE: Deposits in Local Currency Hit EGP 5.25 Trillion Morocco Plans to Spend $1 Billion to Mitigate Drought Effect Gov't Approves Final Version of State Ownership Policy Document Egypt's Economy Expected to Grow 5% by the end of 2022/23- Minister Qatar Agrees to Supply Germany with LNG for 15 Years Business Oil Prices Descend amid Anticipation of Additional US Strategic Petroleum Reserves Business Suez Canal Records $704 Million, Historically Highest Monthly Revenue Business Egypt's Stock Exchange Earns EGP 4.9 Billion on Tuesday Business Wheat delivery season commences on April 15 News Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters Arts & Culture "Jurassic World Rebirth" Gets Streaming Date News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier News Ayat Khaddoura's Final Video Captures Bombardment of Beit Lahia Business Egyptian Pound Undervalued by 30%, Says Goldman Sachs Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Arts & Culture South Korean Actress Kang Seo-ha Dies at 31 after Cancer Battle Arts & Culture Lebanese Media: Fayrouz Collapses after Death of Ziad Rahbani Sports Get to Know 2025 WWE Evolution Results
Al-Ahram Weekly
5 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Trump says incoming pharma tariff may go as high as 250% - Economy
US President Donald Trump said Tuesday that upcoming tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals could reach 250 percent, after starting at a lower level, while adding he plans to also unveil fresh duties on foreign semiconductors. "We'll be putting (an) initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals, but in one year, one-and-a-half years, maximum, it's going to go to 150 percent," Trump said in an interview on CNBC. "And then it's going to go to 250 percent because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country," he added. In the same interview, Trump said he expects to raise the US tariff on Indian imports "very substantially over the next 24 hours" due to the country's purchases of Russian oil. While Trump has taken aim at products from different countries with varying tariff rates after imposing a 10-percent levy on almost all trading partners in April, these have excluded certain products he planned to target separately. These sector-specific tariffs have generally come after government investigations that look into the national security concerns surrounding certain imports. After earlier embarking on probes on imported semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, the Trump administration has signaled plans to wrap up these studies which could lead to new tariffs. Already, Trump has slapped steep tariffs of 50 percent on imported steel and aluminum, and also rolled out a separate but lower duty on autos and parts. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Egypt Independent
7 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Crisis in Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution
Even as someone who helped negotiate the only two ceasefires of the terrible war in Gaza, including the release of nearly 150 hostages, the situation today seems hopeless and destined to simply continue with no clear end in sight. That is not acceptable. This war must end. The hostages must come home. Humanitarian aid must surge. Gaza needs a multiyear recovery without Hamas in charge. This all needs to start now. So, how? To answer, let's review what happened over the last two weeks, some of the options that are now being proposed, and what might work to finally bring this to an end. Two weeks: cascading crises Only two weeks ago, there was hope that Israel and Hamas — through US, Qatari, and Egyptian mediation — were on the brink of a 60-day ceasefire. That deal entailed the release of half the living hostages Hamas still holds, thought to be ten people, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, including more than one hundred now serving life sentences, together with a 60-day ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas, daily surges of humanitarian aid, and a commitment by Israel, backed by Trump, to negotiate over those 60 days the conditions to end the war. A charity organization distributed food to Palestinians facing severe difficulties accessing basic necessities due to Israel's ongoing blockade and military operations in the Gaza Strip on July 24, 2025. Crowds gathered during the distribution in Gaza City, highlighting the growing humanitarian crisis. Ali Jadallah/Anadolu/Getty Images These promising talks reportedly broke down after Hamas leaders living comfortably in Qatar accepted its terms, but Hamas terrorists holding the keys to the hostages inside Gaza said no or demanded new terms. Israel and the US walked out of the talks, leading to their collapse. In the days that followed, reports emerged of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza — due largely, it appears, to Israel's decision in March to blockade Gaza and allow no assistance to enter at all over nearly 80 days. Israel now faces a crisis of its own making with the world's attention focused on its misguided humanitarian decisions, as opposed to focusing on Hamas as the obstacle to a ceasefire. Meanwhile, France responded with an initiative to recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state next month without demanding anything up front from Hamas or explaining how such an initiative might help end the Gaza crisis anytime soon. The UK went a step further and said it will also recognize a Palestinian state next month unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza, thereby guaranteeing that Hamas will not accept one. Hamas in turn welcomed these initiatives and released images of an emaciated hostage digging his own grave, thereby making clear that it now has no intent to cut a deal. Proposed ways forward Before discussing ways out of this impasse, let's stipulate that the delivery of assistance to the people of Gaza is non-negotiable and must continue no matter what. This is not only moral, but strategic, because Hamas views civilian suffering as a component of its strategy. Israel's blockade, a tactic the Biden administration never allowed, was a trap for itself, allowing Hamas to turn the tables even as the group obstructs the ceasefire needed to bring immediate and sustained relief to the population it purports to represent. Israel has since declared humanitarian pauses in fighting and restored delivery of UN aid, even with risk of some diversion to Hamas. This is the right move, and it must continue no matter what option is chosen going forward to secure the release of hostages. Demonstrators gather outside the Israeli Defence Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv on July 5, 2025 during an anti-government protest calling for action to secure the release of Israeli hostages held captive in Gaza. Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images The options now being discussed can broadly be categorized into five outlines: 1. Military Victory: Proponents of this option, including inside the Israeli government, claim that Hamas's leaders inside Gaza will never accept a deal. Therefore, Israel has no choice but to further intensify its military campaign, including to find and eliminate those few remaining leaders of Hamas inside Gaza. The hope is that Hamas' control in Gaza will crack, and Israel can then establish a new Palestinian entity to secure and govern the strip, one that is not Hamas or the existing Palestinian Authority. But Israel has been doing precisely this since May, intensifying its military campaign with five divisions deployed into Gaza. This operation, called Gideon's Chariots, did help eliminate Mohammed Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza at the time, and seize 70% of the strip. but Israel also lost over forty soldiers, tragically killed civilians, and did not fundamentally change the equation or lead to a deal. An Israeli army infantry fighting vehicle along the border with the Gaza Strip and southern Israel on July 29, 2025. Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images There is no reason to believe that more of the same will deliver a different result, and to further intensify the war now as international support reaches its nadir carries strategic risks to Israel far greater than any potential tactical military gain. 2. Comprehensive Deal: Proponents of this option claim the obstacle to the 60-day ceasefire deal is its phasing since Hamas demands a permanent end to the war upfront. Thus, Israel should now propose the return of all hostages living and dead in exchange for a full withdrawal from Gaza, the establishment of a new governance structure that is not Hamas, and a large-scale release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. I call this the 'have it all' option because it suggests there is a magic key to free all hostages, end the war, and remove Hamas from any significant role in Gaza. In my experience negotiating with Hamas, however, this proposal likely leads to an even more intractable negotiation upfront. Hamas will haggle over every name on a proposed governing council, demand guarantees such as a UN Security Council resolution against future Israeli operations, refuse under any circumstances to disarm or relinquish security control, and demand the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. So, this is unlikely a faster path to a deal that brings a ceasefire or returns hostages than the phased deal that was nearly agreed to only two weeks ago. No doubt, Israel and the US missed an opportunity earlier this year to maintain the deal it inherited from the Biden administration, a deal backed by the UN Security Council and one that could have been extended through talks on these issues with a ceasefire in place. The point of this essay is not to argue what might have been, but rather what to do now — and the fastest path to stopping the war and freeing hostages. Opening an entirely new negotiation on a new deal would not achieve either, anytime soon. 3. Stick to a 60-day Proposal: Proponents of this option, and I have been one, believe the fastest path to stop the war and ultimately end it altogether remains the existing phased proposal. Hamas is divided within its ranks and the US could press the three countries with influence — Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey — to demand that Hamas take the deal, release ten hostages, and begin the 60-day pause. The 'or else' for Hamas and its leaders might include exile from Doha, together with requests for extradition to the United States for their role in killing Americans, and new sanctions to ensure they do not set up shop elsewhere, other than perhaps Iran, where they would be less effective and vulnerable to Israeli targeting. This pressure together with international support for the deal would help influence the holdouts inside Hamas. In my experience negotiating these deals, international pressure matters to Hamas as much as military pressure. The problem with this option now is that the French and UK initiatives have removed any such pressure or incentive from Hamas to close any deal, as a Palestinian state has been promised in September no matter what happens with the hostages. Hamas views creation of a Palestinian state not as an end goal but as a stepping stone to ending Israel's existence. Its leaders have deemed the French initiative 'one of the fruits of October 7,' and Hamas has since shown no readiness to renew talks on the 60-day deal, a point brought home with its grotesque displays of hostages starving in tunnels. 4. Unilateral Humanitarian Pause: An outlier option could see Israel declare a 30-day pause on major combat operations to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Israel would not withdraw its forces from present positions, and retain the right to respond in self-defense, but it would immediately shift international focus back on Hamas while also allowing the Israeli military forces to rest and refit. True, this would also allow Hamas to rest and refit with no hope of a near-term hostage release, but by alleviating the aid situation, Israel might benefit strategically by taking this card away from Hamas and demonstrating that Israel is now correcting for its own mistakes. It might also demand International Red Cross access to the hostages as a condition for the pause, an issue of urgency given the horrific images Hamas released of hostages in recent days. Palestinians gather as they carry aid supplies that entered Gaza through Israel, amid a hunger crisis, in Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip July 20, 2025. Dawoud Abu Alkas/Reuters The problem with this option is that it says nothing about what happens after the pause, further removes pressure from Hamas, and would be extremely unpopular in Israel, both within the rightwing Israeli government but also the broader population, to include most hostage families that rightly demand a process leading to a deal – not a unilateral move by Israel that might benefit Hamas with nothing in return. 5. US Breaks with Israel: Proponents of this option believe the United States should announce a halt on all further arms sales to Israel and demand that Israel end the war unilaterally even with Hamas remaining in control of Gaza. Some go further and claim this should happen even without hostages being freed. Their argument is that the overwhelming priority is to stop the war and only the United States has leverage against Israel to force it into doing so. As for the hostages, proponents of this argument claim that Netanyahu, not Hamas, is the primary obstacle to a deal and that by halting US military support, the Israelis might make concessions needed to conclude a deal. These arguments are appealing to those appalled by the images from Gaza and wishing for a quick fix. But they would do nothing to stop, let alone end, the war. Hamas has shown no serious indication that it will release all the hostages if Israel simply gives up, and if Hamas remains in charge of Gaza there is no chance whatsoever for longer-term peace or an internationally backed relief plan that the strip so badly requires. In any case, this is a politically motivated and not realistic option for those who truly aim to stop the war. It's also highly unlikely to ever happen. Trump is unlikely to break with Israel, and Israel is unlikely to simply withdraw from Gaza without all the Israeli hostages and a deal that helps to ensure Hamas cannot retain its control there. In total, that is a depressing summary — it suggests that every broad option now being discussed is either unlikely to succeed or might make the situation even worse. Putting it all together So, what would I recommend? Senior officials do not have the luxury of admiring a problem or analyzing impractical or politically motivated options. They must think seriously about the best of the bad, or meld options together to chart a new path. That is what I might propose: Because, combining options two, three, and four offers an immediate path to alleviating the humanitarian crisis, returning the focus squarely on Hamas, and parlaying the unconstructive proposals coming from Paris, London, and other capitals. This new path — call it Option 6 — would combine a unilateral 30-day pause in Israeli military operations to alleviate the humanitarian situation with an ultimatum that by the end of the 30 days, Hamas must free half the living hostages to extend the ceasefire by 60 days under the existing proposal. From there, you could proceed with a firm, US-backed commitment to negotiate over those 60-days a comprehensive deal to end the war with a new governance structure in Gaza and the release of all remaining hostages. If Hamas refuses to release half the remaining hostages after 30 days, then Israel's unilateral pause would end. Israel could return to military operations but after its military has refit and with the legitimacy for its objectives somewhat restored internationally. Families of hostages protest, demanding their release from Hamas captivity in the Gaza Strip, at the plaza known as the hostages square in Tel Aviv, Israel, Saturday, Aug. 2, 2025. Ariel Schalit/AP This might also parry the French initiative to recognize Palestinian statehood at the UN general assembly next month: If, following Israel's unilateral pause, Hamas has not released ten hostages, then the obstacle to peace would clearly be Hamas. On the other hand, if Hamas does release the ten hostages and we are entering a 60-day window for negotiations to end the war, then it would not make sense to declare Palestinian statehood at the start of that process, as opposed to an incentive towards its conclusion. Flip the script At bottom, this is an opportunity for Israel and the United States to flip the script entirely, urgently address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and place the onus for ending the crisis more squarely on Hamas where it belongs. Trump and Netanyahu may not favor such an option as it takes pressure off Hamas on the front end, but it would dramatically increase such pressure — strategic pressure, not just tactical pressure — on the back end. It's also the only viable option at this moment that is likely to achieve what we all want to see: assistance distributed throughout Gaza, hostages coming out of Gaza, and an end to the war with Hamas no longer governing or in control of Gaza. The alternatives might score rhetorical points, but they won't help anyone in Gaza, not the civilians trapped in this awful war, nor the hostages now in tunnels for over 600 days. It's time indeed to flip the script. That means Option 6.
