Epstein case: 'Ex-girlfriend' Ghislaine Maxwell interviewd by DOJ deputy; 'answered all the questions truthfully, honestly, says her lawyer
Ghislaine Maxwell
and her lawyer in Tallahassee, as pressure mounts on the justice department to disclose more about its handling of the
Jeffrey Epstein
case.
The meeting lasted several hours, with Blanche posing extensive questions and Maxwell responding to each of them, according to her lawyer David Oscar Markus.
'Productive day today with the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell,' he said, as quoted by CNN.
'She never invoked a privilege. She never declined to answer. She answered all the questions truthfully, honestly and to the best of her ability,' Markus added, though he declined to reveal the content of the conversation.
Blanche later confirmed he would return tomorrow to continue the interview. 'The Department of Justice will share additional information about what we learned at the appropriate time,' he posted on X.
The meeting comes just weeks before Maxwell is due to testify before the US Congress under subpoena. The House Oversight Committee has ordered her to appear on 11 August, calling her testimony 'crucial' to understanding the federal government's failings in the Epstein case, including controversial plea deals and prosecution gaps.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
Maxwell, a British socialite and former girlfriend of Epstein, is serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted in 2022 for grooming and trafficking underage girls in partnership with the disgraced financier. She has since filed an appeal.
Blanche had earlier acknowledged that Maxwell was never before approached by federal investigators willing to hear her out.
'That changes now,' he said, signalling a shift in the justice department's posture under President Donald Trump's directive to release all 'credible evidence' related to Epstein's crimes.
Her lawyer also said that past prosecutors had avoided direct talks and welcomed the administration's new approach.
'The truth should not be feared or ignored,' Markus said. 'We're grateful someone is finally listening.'
Maxwell's possible testimony before Congress could mark a turning point in the saga, depending on whether she decides to fully cooperate. 'She's taking this one step at a time,' Markus said. 'If she chooses to testify before Congress, and not plead the Fifth, she will speak the truth—as she always said she would,' he added
The renewed attention to Maxwell's case comes amid mounting scrutiny over the handling of Epstein-related investigations and growing calls for transparency. A federal judge in Florida last week refused to unseal grand jury records from the early 2000s, rejecting a request by the Trump administration to make them public.
Meanwhile, political tensions continue to rise following a Wall Street Journal report highlighting past links between Trump and Epstein. The US president filed a defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and the newspaper.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump sees emergencies everywhere. Judges are considering whether to rein him in
WASHINGTON : Across the U.S. landscape, Donald Trump sees one emergency after another, and that is posing a host of challenges for the federal courts. Since beginning his second term, Trump has declared in dozens of presidential documents that the U.S. faces emergencies requiring him to take extraordinary actions that circumvent normal government processes. That gambit offers him a path of unilateral action instead of the uncertain route of enacting legislation through Congress. On Inauguration Day, Trump declared national emergencies involving energy production, border crossings from Mexico and transnational cartels. In the months since, he has proclaimed that the actions of the International Criminal Court, California water regulations and protests against his immigration policies all constitute emergencies of one form or another. The moves have spurred many lawsuits. While the details vary, the cases share common core questions: When does the law allow Trump to claim power this way? And are the emergencies he is claiming real ones? The president's strategy faces perhaps its biggest test yet on Thursday, when his use of tariffs to address a range of commercial, political and diplomatic issues he has labeled emergencies goes before a federal appeals court in Washington. The case is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court; if Trump wins, legal experts say he could claim broad unilateral power to regulate the economy. Almost all presidents are aggressive in their use of executive power, but Trump 'has gone further with declaring emergencies than other presidents have," says Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Trump early in his second term has built a mixed record in court. Several courts have rejected his proclamation under a 1798 statute, the Alien Enemies Act, that Venezuela is attempting a 'predatory incursion" of U.S. territory through the unauthorized immigration of members of a criminal gang. The president has argued that the law gives him the authority to apprehend Venezuelans and remove them without the typical due process given to immigrants who are residing in the U.S. without permission. In June, a federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed that Trump could use emergency powers to take control of the California National Guard over the objection of its regular commander in chief, Gov. Gavin Newsom, to protect federal personnel and facilities during immigration raids in Los Angeles. Trump enjoyed some success asserting emergency powers during his first term. In 2019, after Congress declined his request to fund a wall along the Mexican border, Trump declared a national emergency and diverted to the project $2.5 billion that lawmakers had appropriated for other purposes. Congress voted to cancel the border emergency, but Trump vetoed the resolution. Lower courts found that Trump exceeded his authority, but a 5-4 Supreme Court issued a temporary order in 2020 allowing him to continue with construction. The justices never got a chance to hear argument over the issue, as President Joe Biden terminated Trump's emergency declaration in January 2021. Biden didn't fare as well when he sought to cancel student-loan debt to mitigate the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2023, the Supreme Court said Biden's plan to forgive $430 billion in debt exceeded the powers Congress granted the president to waive or modify student-loan programs in response to national emergencies. In the tariff litigation, two federal courts found in May that Trump exceeded the authority granted by a 1977 statute, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, when he imposed tariffs to pressure foreign governments to meet U.S. demands. He said one set of tariffs was necessary to prod Canada, China and Mexico to step up their fight against fentanyl smuggling into the U.S., while another aimed to goad countries throughout the world to lower barriers against American exports. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but it can delegate authority to the president. The 1977 law allows the president to take economic steps to deal with 'unusual and extraordinary" threats to America's 'national security, foreign policy, or economy." Whether the statute provides for tariffs at all is hotly debated, as is the difficult question of whether courts can and should second-guess a president's decision to proclaim that an emergency exists. In court briefs, the New York wine importer VOS Selections and other companies challenging the tariffs say Trump himself acknowledged that there is no emergency. 'At least nine times, Executive Order 14,257 describes the trade deficit as 'large and persistent,'" the plaintiffs say. A persistent problem 'that has been a consistent feature of the U.S. economy for 50 years" can't be deemed an emergency, they say. In reply, the Justice Department says that trade imbalances have grown into an emergency over recent years. But, as it has in other cases, the administration argues that judges are powerless to second-guess Trump's determinations. 'Courts cannot substitute their exercise of discretion for the president's," the government says. Historically, that has been the practice, says Peter Shane, a constitutional scholar at New York University. 'Federal courts are usually pretty deferential to presidential fact-finding when it comes to an emergency," he says. The Constitution provides the executive branch no explicit authority to set aside normal laws, suggesting the framers 'suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies," as Justice Robert Jackson put it in a 1952 opinion. Nonetheless, presidents have over time asserted extraordinary authority to deal with contingencies that Congress didn't anticipate—and take actions that Congress didn't authorize. President Richard Nixon, faced with a Democratic Congress critical of his Vietnam War policies and conservative agenda at home, took unilateral action on several initiatives. Congress tried in the 1970s to reclaim some of the power that Nixon had consolidated in his so-called imperial presidency. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 established procedures for the president to declare emergencies, set a renewable one-year time limit on emergency declarations and gave Congress authority to cancel an emergency declaration. Trump has invoked that act at least eight times this year. Write to Jess Bravin at
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Don't Control Me': Jaya Bachchan Snaps At Priyanka Chaturvedi During Op Sindoor Speech
During a debate on 'Operation Sindoor' in the Rajya Sabha, MP Jaya Bachchan took jibes at the NDA government. Questioning the symbolic use of the operation's name, she said, 'The real sindoor was wiped off the women's foreheads,' referring to victims' widows. She accused the government of destroying the faith and trust of the people of Kashmir and urged leaders to be humble and responsible. She said that she would not make remarks to provoke a BJP-Congress fight. Meanwhile, Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi was seen giggling and trying to control her laughter during Bachchan's speech in Parliament.#jayabachchan #operationsindoor #rajyasabha #parliamentdebate #ndagovt #kashmir #indianpolitics #priyankachaturvedi #congress #bjp #toi #toibharat Read More
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Saikat Chakrabarti vs Nancy Pelosi: Meet Indian-American challenging Godmother of Dem Party — in her own backyard
TL;DR Saikat Chakrabarti , ex-AOC aide and Justice Democrats co-founder, is running against Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi in California's 11th Congressional District. The Harvard-educated techie turned political organiser accuses Pelosi of refusing to adapt after Trump's re-election. His campaign, 'Mission for America,' is a policy-heavy successor to the Green New Deal — with big plans for jobs, climate, and public investment. He's betting on grassroots support in a district long dominated by Democratic royalty. In a city where even startups go to die, Saikat Chakrabarti is trying to revive something far more difficult: the soul of the Democratic Party. The 39-year-old Indian-American political organiser, best known as the architect behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's stunning 2018 win, has now trained his sights on a political Goliath — Nancy Pelosi, the longest-serving member of Congress from California. And yes, she's running again. 'I've decided to run against Nancy Pelosi,' Chakrabarti posted earlier this year, somewhat matter-of-factly, on X. 'I know some of you might be surprised... but she is — for her 21st term.' Pelosi, who has represented California's 11th District (essentially, San Francisco) since Ronald Reagan was president, remains a towering figure in Democratic politics. But for Chakrabarti, her endurance is exactly the problem. 'She basically made the case for how the Democrats don't really need to change,' he told local reporters, referencing Pelosi's post-2024 remarks after Donald Trump reclaimed the White House. That statement, for Chakrabarti, was a red line. If the Democrats weren't willing to course-correct after a second Trump term, then maybe it was time someone else forced the issue. The long arc from Fort Worth to Capitol Hill Saikat Chakrabarti Born to Bengali immigrant parents in Fort Worth, Texas, Chakrabarti went from Harvard computer science grad to co-founding a tech startup, to an early engineering role at Stripe, the financial giant. Then came 2016. Disturbed by the political chaos of the Trump-Clinton showdown, he joined the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, building grassroots digital tools and witnessing the gap between Democratic messaging and working-class concerns. What followed was the co-founding of Justice Democrats, a left-wing insurgent group aimed at replacing centrist Democrats with progressive ones. Their biggest success? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old bartender from the Bronx who took down 10-term Congressman Joe Crowley in 2018 — with Chakrabarti as campaign manager and later, her chief of staff. But the Capitol didn't suit him for long. He exited in 2019 amid friction with Democratic leadership, after a series of now-deleted tweets criticising moderates. One compared them to segregationists, prompting then-Speaker Pelosi to issue a rare internal warning to members: stop fighting on Twitter. The establishment didn't forget. A campaign without big donors — or safety nets Now back in San Francisco, Chakrabarti has set up shop with a policy think tank focused on climate and economic transformation, and is trying to do what many progressives dream of — take on the system from within. His campaign is anchored by the Mission for America plan — a sweeping public investment programme that blends climate action, job creation, and universal social protections. If the Green New Deal was the first draft, this is Chakrabarti's second chapter: technocratic, detailed, and unapologetically radical. 'I've talked to so many people in San Francisco who respect Pelosi,' he said. 'But they can't believe she's running again.' Critically, he's not taking money from corporate PACs, fossil fuel lobbyists, or AIPAC, relying instead on small donors and direct engagement. As of March 2025, he'd raised just under $300,000 — a David's purse next to Pelosi's $1.7 million Goliath. But Chakrabarti seems unfazed. His campaign style mirrors his politics — more Zoom calls than glad-handing, more policy briefings than Instagram reels. Why this race matters (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg, File) To be clear, defeating Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco is a long shot. She's a household name. Her district is deeply blue and deeply loyal. Even progressives who complain about the Democratic establishment tend to do so while sipping espresso in Pacific Heights cafés that fundraise for her. But Chakrabarti's bid is less about unseating Pelosi and more about challenging the Democratic status quo. He sees the party as dangerously out of touch — too slow on climate, too reliant on billionaire donors, and too comfortable with losing. His candidacy is a shot across the bow, signalling that progressive energy won't sit quietly on the sidelines — even in the party's bluest bastions. And let's not forget: Pelosi isn't just any incumbent. She's the embodiment of a Democratic era that, depending on who you ask, either held the line against Trump or failed to stop him — twice. The Subhas Chandra Bose shirt and other landmines Like many progressive stars, Chakrabarti has courted controversy. In 2019, he was criticised for wearing a T-shirt with Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian freedom fighter. Right-wing media pounced. Chakrabarti defended it as a nod to anti-colonial resistance, but the optics stuck — and were later compounded by his social media critiques of centrist Democrats. It didn't help that some of those tweets came while he was officially employed by a sitting Congresswoman. Still, his supporters argue that the Democratic Party needs more uncomfortable truth-tellers, not fewer. What happens next? If Pelosi retires before March 2026 — a possibility some local insiders whisper about — Chakrabarti could face a very different race, likely against local heavyweights like State Sen. Scott Wiener or Pelosi's daughter Christine. If she stays in? He'll be up against a political machine three decades deep, with the donor list to match. But Chakrabarti's bet is long-term. Win or lose, he's placing a wager that San Francisco — and by extension, the Democratic Party — is ready for generational, ideological, and tactical change. Whether the voters agree is something even Silicon Valley's best algorithms can't predict. FAQ Q: Is Chakrabarti a serious threat to Pelosi? Not at the moment. Pelosi remains dominant in fundraising, name recognition, and local loyalty. But Chakrabarti's campaign could influence the political discourse. Q: What's 'Mission for America'? A comprehensive policy plan focused on clean energy, job creation, public healthcare, and economic transformation — meant as a modern successor to the Green New Deal. Q: Has he held elected office before? No. Chakrabarti has been a campaign strategist, activist, and policy thinker — not an elected politician. Q: Why is Pelosi still running? Officially, to continue serving her district. Unofficially, many believe she's trying to control her succession, possibly paving the way for her daughter or an establishment ally. Q: Could Chakrabarti become the next AOC ? Unlikely, unless lightning strikes twice. But he doesn't need to be. He just needs enough spark to remind the Democratic Party that some progressives aren't waiting for permission.
