Ghislaine Maxwell: could talking about Epstein be her get out of jail free card?
'Ghislaine answered every single question asked of her over the last day and a half. She answered those questions honestly, truthfully, to the best of her ability,' attorney David Oscar Markus told reporters. 'She never invoked a privilege. She never refused to answer a question.'
Maxwell's highly unusual two-day sit-down with the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche – who served as Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney before working for his justice department – came as the US president tiptoes through a political minefield related to Epstein and his own social links to the disgraced former financier.
But Blanche's meeting – held amid rumors and denials of a pardon for Maxwell shortly before her sudden move on Friday to a Texas prison – did not just show Trump's flagging efforts at damage control over the Epstein scandal. Maxwell is simultaneously pursuing several other strategies to be freed from her 20-year federal prison sentence.
And, some experts believe, Maxwell's ultimate aim is probably not really revealing the whole truth and everything she knows about Epstein, Trump and other powerful figures. Instead, it is all about earning her freedom.
Maxwell's team is pushing the US supreme court to consider her appeal, which contends that she was shielded from prosecution in Epstein's controversial 2007 plea agreement – an argument that has been opposed by the same justice department that has now met with her.
Maxwell is also trying to make the most of a congressional subpoena, threatening to invoke her fifth amendment right against self-incrimination unless she is given immunity. Her legal team has also suggested clemency – which Trump could grant immediately.
This broad-spectrum approach, which several longtime defense attorneys said represented sound legal strategy, has prompted skepticism about whether any discussions reflect an actual desire to reveal truth. More, Maxwell's track record of alleged lying undermines whatever truths Trump officials claim they want to reveal in highly publicized meetings.
'If I were representing her, I would be doing exactly the same thing. The supreme court petition has virtually no chance of success. The issues raised are not novel or of general relevance to other cases,' said Ron Kuby, a longtime defense attorney whose practice focuses on civil rights.
Kuby told the Guardian that the supreme court agrees to take on 'only the smallest fraction' of petitions. 'Filing a supreme court petition is akin to playing the lotto, you can't win unless you play, but your likelihood of winning is slim, so it's a last-ditch effort that defendants use when they have enough money for full due process.'
The parallel strategy of actively pursuing clemency with the Trump administration is sound because Trump could commute her sentence or issue a pardon, Kuby said. 'Because these are all federal convictions, he can let her out of jail tomorrow,' he added.
As for why Maxwell would seem willing to shed light on Epstein despite a low likelihood of a positive outcome, 'she has nothing to lose.
'The question isn't 'why would she meet with them'? She'll do anything for people who can help with this,' Kuby said.
Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founding partner of the Colorado firm Varner Faddis, voiced similar sentiments about Maxwell's strategy.
'For anyone who's been sentenced to 20 years in prison, it would behoove them to explore all potential avenues to try and better their legal position, and it looks like that's what Maxwell is doing here,' Faddis said.
Other legal experts agree.
'Maxwell's attorneys are doing everything they can to keep her out of prison,' said John Day, a former prosecutor in New Mexico who founded the John Day Law Office.
The Epstein controversy swirling around Trump may prove an excellent opportunity that few could have foreseen.
'This is a moment in time that wasn't there before, where she suddenly has an opening to try to get a change in her situation,' Day said. 'Up until the Epstein case resurfaced and the Epstein-Trump issues came to the forefront of people's attention, Maxwell was just doing her time.
'Suddenly, she is trying to make the case that she has information, and she has information that's worth trading for, and she's hoping, her lawyers are hoping, that somehow someone is going to decide that it's worth giving her a break.'
Should Maxwell receive any favorable outcome, it might do little to promote truth and much to foment uncertainty.
'If there is some kind of a deal that came out of the nine hours that Todd Blanche met with her, then any information that comes out of that is always going to be seen in the context of 'what was the deal?'' Day said.
Indeed, Trump's handling of the Epstein files has done little but sow doubt. The Trump justice department released a memo insisting there was no Epstein client list, and decided not to release extensive case files, despite his campaign promise to do so.
This backtracking on releasing documents helped fan the flames of controversy that came after the publication of a Wall Street Journal article claiming that Trump contributed a 'bawdy' letter to a birthday present for Epstein – compiled by Maxwell.
Shortly after the story ran, Trump announced that he had directed his justice department to request the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in Epstein and Maxwell's criminal cases.
This purported push for transparency, vis-a-vis Bondi's request for unsealing, does not appear to have quelled backlash against Trump. The Wall Street Journal on 23 July reported that Bondi told Trump his name appeared in the Epstein files on multiple occasions.
Epstein, whom prosecutors stated abused girls as young as 14, had long enjoyed the company of numerous high-profile men in his circle – among them Trump and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein killed himself in jail awaiting trial six years ago.
Trump's camp has insisted that a pardon is not in the works, with a senior administration official saying: 'No leniency is being given or discussed. That's just false. The president himself has said that clemency for Maxwell is not something he is even thinking about at this time.'
But at other times, Trump's comments on the issue have raised eyebrows, with him saying: 'I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.' He has also remarked: 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody's approached me with it. Nobody's asked me about it' and that 'Right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it.'
Top congressional Republicans are toeing the line when it comes to the idea of potential presidential relief, including the House speaker, Mike Johnson. 'Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president,' Johnson said on Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. 'I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane.'
The political benefit for Trump from a pardon – however unlikely – remains nearly nil, as it would do little to support his prior claims about wanting the truth revealed.
'The giant problem here – although what we have seen is that people are capable of believing all kinds of things if Trump says they are true – I don't think there's anything that Ghislaine Maxwell can say that will put any of this to rest,' Kuby said. 'Certainly, the optics of giving an actual convicted child [abuser] clemency does not easily align with the right wing's purported concern about child abuse.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
13 minutes ago
- The Sun
My boy was promised a new bike, then kidnapped – he was abused & thrown in the river by monster neighbour
WATCHING his son Jeffrey practicing his push-ups, Robert Curley couldn't help but smile. While Robert had split with Barbara, the mum of his three boys he lived just round the corner meaning he could see them every day. 8 8 8 'We were amicable and both focused on doing the best for our kids,' Robert, now 68, says. 'After we'd broken up, I'd moved just around the corner, so I was able to see them every day and keep a protective eye over them too.' But even with both of his parents furiously protective of their 10-year-old boy, nothing could be done to save Jeffrey from his appalling fate. On October 1st 1997, Jeffrey had been washing his grandmother's dog in Cambridge, Massachusetts when he was kidnapped by neighbours Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes. The pair had lured the schoolboy into the car with the promise of a new bike before suffocating him, abusing him and then tossing his body into a nearby river. 'Although it's been 28 years since Jeffrey walked out of home and into the clutches of his killers, losing him never gets any easier,' his dad says. 'What our son went through in his last moments will haunt me forever.' Robert says that he had his suspicions of Sicari but could never have imagined what he was capable of. 'I noticed Salvatore, who I knew was a troublemaker and an oddball, hanging around a lot and I became worried,' he says. 'The last thing I wanted was for him to befriend my boys.' Lag chillingly said 'that's for Sarah Payne' after knifing her evil killer in bloodbath 'revenge attack' in prison cell Robert asked his other son Bob whether he and Sicari were friends. 'He told me they weren't but explained that he and his friends had noticed Salvatore staring at them,' Robert says. 'It struck me as weird but I felt Bob had got the measure of him, so that eased my concerns slightly.' Then one afternoon, a couple of days later, Barbara rang Robert in a panic. Jeffrey was missing. 'It wasn't like Jeffrey to go somewhere without telling us and I instantly got a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach,' Robert recalls. Barbara had called the police and by the time Robert reached her home detectives had arrived to take down details. Jeffrey had been visiting his grandmother nearby and had been washing her dog outside when he had disappeared. 8 8 8 Robert says: 'I picked up the phone and called every hospital nearby, just in case he'd been hurt and someone had taken him there. But no luck.' As night fell, there was still no sign of Jeffrey and the next morning family, friends and neighbours set a search party to help look for the 10-year-old. 'Among them was Sal, who approached me and said that he wanted to help,' Robert says. 'I was still wary of him and then he said something so odd it knocked me for six. 'He told me that people thought he and his best friend Charles were gay but that he liked girls. 'I couldn't figure out why he was bringing up his sexuality at a time like this 'However, I had bigger things to worry about as the search came to nothing.' Days passed with no news. Then a week after his disappearance the police arrived at Barbara's with a devastating blow. Officers informed the parents that Jeffrey had been found dead. His body had been found by police divers in a cement-filled container in the river. His little 10-year-old frame had no chance against the 17 stone brute Robert Curley They explained that the 10-year-old had been kidnapped by Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes and they were being investigated on suspicion of murder. Robert says: 'I thought about Sal saying he wanted to help with the search just days earlier and felt completely sickened. 'Barbara couldn't bear to go, but I needed to see our boy one last time. 'As I looked down at him in the casket, I broke down. 'If he had any injuries, they were covered up, and he looked perfect. 'I vowed to make sure that his killers paid for what they had done to my boy. 'For the next year, we tried our best to get on with our lives, but it was like being in a nightmare.' In time, Salvatore Sicari, 21, appeared in court and denied kidnapping and murdering Jeffrey. During his trial, the court heard that after befriending the schoolboy, he and Charles Jaynes, 22, had then lured him into their car with the promise of a new bike. They then drove in the direction of the bike shop so as not to raise his suspicions. But after parking at the back of the shop Jaynes got into the back seat with Jeffrey, put his arm around him and held a petrol-soaked rag to his face until he suffocated. 'His little 10-year-old frame had no chance against the 17 stone brute,' Robert says. 'The vile duo had then put Jeffrey's body in the boot and driven him back to Jaynes' flat in Manchester, NH, where Sicari had abused him. 'After that, they'd put his body in the storage container and dumped it in the river.' Sicari's lawyer placed the blame with Jaynes, saying Sicari witnessed the killing and helped cover up the crime, but that didn't make him a killer. But on November 13 1998 he was found guilty and jailed for life without parole for first-degree murder, with a concurrent sentence of 19 to 20 years for kidnapping. 'We wept with relief,' remembers Robert. 'But months later, we had to go through it all again at Jaynes' trial.' Who are the UK's worst serial killers? THE UK's most prolific serial killer was actually a doctor. Here's a rundown of the worst offenders in the UK. British GP Harold Shipman is one of the most prolific serial killers in recorded history. He was found guilty of murdering 15 patients in 2000, but the Shipman Inquiry examined his crimes and identified 218 victims, 80 per cent of whom were elderly women. After his death Jonathan Balls was accused of poisoning at least 22 people between 1824 and 1845. Mary Ann Cotton is suspected of murdering up to 21 people, including husbands, lovers and children. She is Britain's most prolific female serial killer. Her crimes were committed between 1852 and 1872, and she was hanged in March 1873. Amelia Sach and Annie Walters became known as the Finchley Baby Farmers after killing at least 20 babies between 1900 and 1902. The pair became the first women to be hanged at Holloway Prison on February 3, 1903. William Burke and William Hare killed 16 people and sold their bodies. Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe was found guilty in 1981 of murdering 13 women and attempting to kill seven others between 1975 and 1980. Dennis Nilsen was caged for life in 1983 after murdering up to 15 men when he picked them up from the streets. He was found guilty of six counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to life in jail. Fred West was found guilty of killing 12 but it's believed he was responsible for many more deaths. Janynes too denied murder and kidnapping, blaming Sicari. His lawyer claimed he was at most an accessory to murder, despite the police finding the football shirt Jeffrey had been wearing the day he disappeared in Jaynes' flat, along with a receipt for a storage container and concrete. On December 11 1998 the jury found Jaynes guilty of second-degree murder and kidnapping and he was jailed for life, with parole. 'We got 'em, I thought, remembering my vow to Jeffrey,' Robert says. 'But while I was glad justice had been done, our hearts were broken. 'While we tried to get on with our lives, Jeffrey was never far from our thoughts and the ache of loss never dimmed.' Then, 23 years after Jeffrey's murder, aged 44 Jaynes applied for parole and admitted publicly for the first time that he had kidnapped and murdered Jeffrey Curley to a parole board. 'He claimed Sicari had put him up to the idea of having sex with Jeffrey and then killing him,' Robert says. 'Together, they'd groomed Jeffrey. 'It broke my heart to hear Jaynes say that when our little boy had got into their car he'd told these monsters, 'You guys are my best friends.'' In his parole hearing Jaynes claimed he'd gone through with the murder to impress Sicari. He also added, 'I wanted to see if I could get away with it like on TV and the movies.' He told the parole board he had kept Jeffrey's shirt 'as something to remember him by'. 'Barbara and I went to the hearing to demand he be kept behind bars,' Robert says. 'His admissions didn't make what he'd done any less despicable and I told the board, 'The real Charles Jaynes is the devil. That's the devil right there.' 'Thankfully, his parole was denied.' Now, five years on, Jaynes has made another parole application, and Barbara and Robert are gearing up to oppose it once more. 'While I still have breath in my body, I will fight to keep the monster who took him from us behind bars,' says Robert. 'That's the promise I made my funny, cheeky, beautiful little boy, and I'm determined to keep it.' 8 8
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
OPEC+ agrees in principle another large oil output hike, sources say
LONDON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - OPEC+ agreed in principle to boost oil output by 548,000 barrels per day in September, two OPEC+ sources said on Sunday as the group finishes unwinding its biggest tranche of production cuts amid fears of further supply disruptions from Russia. A decision is expected at a meeting scheduled to begin at 1100 GMT, amid fresh U.S. demands for India to stop buying Russian oil as Washington seeks ways to push Moscow for a peace deal with Ukraine. Fresh EU sanctions have also pushed Indian state refiners to suspend Russian oil purchases. OPEC+, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support the market. But it reversed course this year to regain market share, and as U.S. President Donald Trump demanded OPEC pump more oil. OPEC+ began output increases in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July and 548,000 bpd in August. If the group agrees to the 548,000-bpd September increase, it will have fully unwound its previous production cut of 2.2 million bpd, while allowing the United Arab Emirates to raise output by 300,000 bpd. OPEC+ still has in place a separate, voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from eight members and a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which expire at the end of 2026. Sources have said previously the group had no plans to discuss other tranches of cuts on Sunday.
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump is wrong to pick a fight with Powell – but is right about interest rates
Visiting Scotland last week, Donald Trump used a joint press conference to mock Keir Starmer. He castigated Labour's policies on immigration, energy and much else. The Prime Minister sat awkwardly, sporting his trademark rictus grin. Trump has lately dished out plenty of public humiliation – not least aimed at Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve. The president has put huge pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates, to boost US growth and ease interest payments on America's massive $36trn (£27.6trn) national debt. This jars badly with the conventional wisdom that central banks should be independent, allowing technocrat economists to set interest rates to bear down on inflation. That's far better for the economy in the long-run, but this precious independence is jeopardised when vote-hungry politicians seek to keep borrowing costs too low. Such independence has become an almost sacred policy concept over the last half century. And no central bank matters more than the Fed, which sets the course for monetary policy across the globe. Yet Trump, astonishingly, has lately called Powell a 'numbskull', a 'stubborn mule' and worse. On a recent Fed visit, he rebuked him over the cost of a refurbishment project – a potential pretext to sack Powell, which may not be legally possible, but which Trump often floats regardless. Between September and December last year, the Fed's committee of twelve rate-setters voted to lower the US benchmark interest rate three times from its post-Covid-peak of 5.25pc-5.5pc, in increments down to 4.25pc-4.5pc. But much to the president's frustration, rates have since stayed put. The Bank of England, meanwhile, has cut rates four times since last summer, including as recently as May, while the European Central Bank has enacted no less than eight eurozone rate reductions over the same period, the latest in June. Having held rates since the start of 2025, the Fed just did so again when governors met last Wednesday (although two Trump-appointees voted against, the biggest intra-Fed rate disagreement in thirty years). Fed policymakers are rightly worried about price pressures, with headline inflation hitting 3.7pc during the year to June, up from 2.4pc the previous month and well above the 2pc target. And Trump's era-defining slew of tariffs – taxes on imports into the US – means we could see a lot more inflation yet. With the President's three-month moratorium expiring this weekend, and tariffs now set to bite on some of America's largest trading partners, the Fed is understandably concerned. Powell insists the US economy is strong enough for the Fed to wait before further rate cuts, as we see if Trump's tariffs really do aggravate inflation. And last week's GDP numbers – a 3pc expansion from April to June – was certainly way above consensus forecasts, reversing a 0.5pc contraction during the first three months of the year, the worst quarterly performance since early 2022. This January to March shrinkage, though, was largely due to the huge rise in US imports as buyers sought to get ahead of Trump's expected tariff onslaught. And since 'liberation day' in April, when the President unveiled his tariffs on the White House lawn, imports into the US have plunged. This artificially boosted April to June GDP growth as the first-quarter trend unwound. Yes, consumer spending rose 1.4pc during the second quarter, outpacing the 0.5pc increase over the previous three months, supporting Powell's argument the economy is coping without further rate cuts. But 'final sales to private domestic purchasers', a key demand metric that the Fed watches closely, grew just 1.2pc over the latest quarter, slower than the 1.9pc increase between January and March. High mortgage rates are also holding back the housing market and related construction, as Trump relentlessly points out, with residential investment down 4.6pc during the second quarter. But that's part of a broader investment slump as business leaders look to see how the president's tariffs play out. For now, the market consensus is that the US economy is showing resilience, but more rate cuts may be justified as long as inflation isn't further provoked. So Trump's attacks on Powell are based on legitimate economic analysis. Yet his language is way over the top. Some say the president is picking headline-grabbing fights with the Fed chair to detract from mounting criticism over his handling of the Epstein files. I suspect he simply wants lower rates and, for now at least, Powell stands in his way. Ironically, it was Trump who appointed Powell in 2017. But having repeatedly called for him to resign, the president seems certain to replace him when Powell's term expires next May. In the meantime, Trump's ceaseless undermining of central bank independence is deeply damaging. Yes, the Fed has a 'dual mandate' to pursue both price stability and full employment, unlike the solely inflation-focussed aims of most other central banks. But while Trump's arguments may be technically valid, it should absolutely not be him making them, nor anyone else near the top of government. Given the tone he has set, though, Powell's successor will be seen as the president's lackey. And with US and global inflation far from tamed, that could end up being a serious problem. My general view is that central bank independence is far more important than any individual central banker. Andrew Bailey, for instance, has shown seriously bad judgement at the Bank of England – endlessly insisting post-Covid inflation would be 'transitory', for instance, while deriding those of us who correctly predicted otherwise. His appointment was a mistake, but he should stay, free from the threat politicians might remove him, until his term expires in March 2028. The same applies to Powell and far more so – he should serve his full term.
