logo
Analysis: Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer adds to Trump's Epstein morass

Analysis: Ghislaine Maxwell's prison transfer adds to Trump's Epstein morass

CNN4 hours ago
The Trump administration made interviewing Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, a key part of its efforts to climb out from beneath its Epstein files problems.
Over a week later, we still don't know what transpired during that meeting. But the Maxwell situation has only grown to epitomize a series of very curious maneuvers that call into question precisely what everyone in the administration is thinking and suggest the controversy is going nowhere fast.
Indeed, it's almost as if those involved are trying to make this look bad.
We learned Friday that Maxwell had been moved from a low-security federal prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas called Camp Bryan – a significant upgrade for an inmate serving a 20-year sentence.
Neither the Justice Department, the Bureau of Prisons nor Maxwell's lawyer has addressed precisely why the transfer was made. We don't know who was involved. But it's conspicuous for a host of reasons.
To wit:
News of the transfer broke after Maxwell met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a political appointee and Trump's former defense lawyer, in a meeting that remains shrouded in secrecy.
Maxwell doesn't appear to have been eligible for such a transfer, unless someone granted her a waiver. Bureau of Prisons policy states that anyone who had 'sexual contact with a minor,' as Maxwell did when she participated in the sexual abuse, 'will be housed in at least a Low security level institution,' without such a waiver. (Maxwell was sentenced in 2022 for carrying out a years-long scheme with Epstein to groom and sexually abuse underage girls.)
Experts have said such a transfer is highly unusual. Prison consultant Holli Coulman on Friday told CNN's Phil Mattingly that she had 'never seen this in my life. Never seen it by women that I've either served time with, clients, never have seen this. This is unprecedented.'
Maxwell's upgrade comes as Trump has repeatedly seemed to dangle a favor – specifically, a potential pardon – as she spoke with the Justice Department and entered into talks to testify to Congress. The White House told CNN last week that 'no leniency is being given or discussed' for Maxwell, but then Trump again conspicuously noted that he had the power to pardon her.
A lower-security prison could certainly be construed as a form of 'leniency.'
Trump has a history of suggesting favors for those whose actions could impact him. He dangled pardons over witnesses in the Russia investigation in ways that special counsel Robert Mueller said could have impacted their decisions on cooperating with the government. And more recently, Trump's Justice Department seemed to tie the dismissal of New York Mayor Eric Adams's criminal charges to him helping with Trump's immigration crackdown.
The favorable prison transfer comes even as Maxwell's lawyer has openly sought concessions for her.
There is plenty we don't know about all of this, in large part because the key players aren't talking. It's theoretically possible this is all just a major coincidence.
But it certainly raises questions that the key officials involved would seem to have motivation to put to rest – and quickly. Maxwell's testimony could bear on Trump personally, given continuing revelations about his ties to Epstein and his desire to put the entire Epstein files fiasco to rest. Now we learn she got a highly unusual perk.
And it's merely the latest in a series of very questionable developments.
The other concession the Trump administration made after failing to produce the Epstein documents that it had promised was moving to unseal grand jury testimony. But its own filing last week reinforced that information is likely to be quite limited, if it even sees the light of day.
Trump has been very slow to acknowledge his own proximity to Epstein. Last week, after days of confusion, the president ultimately said he had been aware in real time that Epstein 'stole' one of his Mar-a-Lago employees, a then-minor named Virginia Giuffre who became one of Epstein's highest-profile accusers.
Given Giuffre's age at the time and a paper trail that suggests Trump's awareness of Epstein's affinity for young women and girls, that raises valid questions about what Trump knew or might have suspected at the time. Family members of Giuffre's have raised the possibility that Trump knows more than he has let on, but the president has balked at expanding on his statements about why this episode made him decide Epstein was a 'creep.'
Trump, who has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, claimed Thursday that 'I don't know really why' Epstein was taking his employees.
But he's repeatedly made false and misleading claims about his past ties to Epstein. Most recently, he denied that Attorney General Pam Bondi had told him his name was in the Epstein files, which CNN later reported she had – back in May.
What's more, the timeline suggests the administration's reversal on promising full disclosure coincided with Trump being told he was in the files.
And then there is the Maxwell situation. Even before the news of her prison transfer, the administration took very little care to make its handling of her appear proper.
It sent Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, to meet with her. Blanche has called Maxwell's lawyer his 'friend.' Maxwell's lawyer has been solicitous of Trump. And, of course, Trump has repeatedly left open a pardon.
Trump late last week said he didn't know what would be produced from the Blanche meeting, saying, 'I don't know because I haven't spoken about it.'
But he again suggested it might be limited by a desire not to create suspicion of people who haven't been charged with crimes.
The confusion around all of this only seems to be growing, in large part because of Trump's and the administration's own actions and lack of transparency.
And perhaps nothing looms larger right now than the unanswered questions about the prison transfer.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oil prices fall on Trump's India tariff threats, OPEC+ output
Oil prices fall on Trump's India tariff threats, OPEC+ output

Yahoo

timea few seconds ago

  • Yahoo

Oil prices fall on Trump's India tariff threats, OPEC+ output

Oil prices (CL=F, BZ=F) are under pressure on Monday after US President Trump threatened to raise tariffs on India due to its purchase of Russian oil and OPEC+ lifted production numbers. Yahoo Finance Senior Reporter Ines Ferré outlines what investors need to know. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. Oil futures are sliding this coming against the backdrop of OPEC plus hiking oil production and potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. For more, bring in Yahoo Finance senior market reporter, Ines Ferre. Ines. Yeah, Josh, we saw Brent today down more than 1 and a half percent, and WTI also down almost 2%. This is because of that September output hike from OPEC Plus. Now, Goldman Sachs says that they do not expect any more hikes from OPEC Plus. This pretty much now unwinds the 2.2 million barrels per day, those voluntary cuts that they had installed over the last couple of years. So, for now, this should be the last output hike. As far as Brent futures are concerned and where they're going for the rest of the year, well, Goldman Sachs is saying that they're going to go lower. They're predicting $64 per barrel for Brent by the fourth quarter of this year. So we're about $4 away from that. And also, as far as 2026 is concerned, they're predicting that Brent is going to go down to $56 per barrel. They're talking about more supply coming into the market with non-OPEC members that have new production coming on, like US shale, like Brazil, also Norway, as well. So that really limits the amount of more output hikes that OPEC Plus could do without creating a surplus, Josh. And Ines, we also saw some headlines about India's oil purchases from Russia. What can you tell us about that? Yeah. So, well, President Trump has really been pressuring India to stop purchasing oil from Russia. Essentially, basically saying that they are funding Russia, Russia's initiatives in Ukraine, in the war in Ukraine. So, Trump saying that he will substantially increase tariffs on India. But Indian Prime Minister Modi has said they're going to continue buying Russian oil. He also said that Indians should purchase domestic products. I will say that what Wall Street is looking at is if Russian production were to somehow be compromised, or if that would be decreased, then you would see an upside risk to oil prices. In this case, India is kind of stuck in this sort of push that Trump has been doing in order to end the war in Ukraine, and him using tariffs and pointing to oil purchases because India has been a big buyer of Russian oil since the war in Ukraine started. All right. Thank you, Ines. Appreciate it.

Trump envoy Witkoff in Russia this week for stab at Ukraine ceasefire after Kremlin warns US to be ‘careful' over nuclear subs move
Trump envoy Witkoff in Russia this week for stab at Ukraine ceasefire after Kremlin warns US to be ‘careful' over nuclear subs move

Yahoo

timea few seconds ago

  • Yahoo

Trump envoy Witkoff in Russia this week for stab at Ukraine ceasefire after Kremlin warns US to be ‘careful' over nuclear subs move

Steve Witkoff, the New York real estate developer turned roving peace envoy for President Donald Trump, is heading to Russia this week for yet another round of talks with officials in Moscow with an eye towards pushing Russian President Vladimir Putin to end his years-long war against Ukraine. Trump told reporters on Sunday that Witkoff, who has also been tasked with serving as a mediator in the Israel-Hamas conflict, would be traveling to Russia on either Tuesday or Wednesday for meetings ahead of Friday's deadline for Moscow to call off the war or face more U.S. sanctions. Asked what Putin could do to avoid harsh penalties, including secondary tariffs on goods from countries that purchase Russian oil, he told reporters: 'Get a deal where people stop getting killed.' But the president also expressed skepticism that new sanctions could hurt Russia's economy, citing Moscow's demonstrated ability to evade them. 'Well there will be sanctions but they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions. You know, they're wily characters and they're pretty good at avoiding sanctions. So we'll see what happens,' he said. Trump's Ukraine envoy, retired Army general Keith Kellogg, is understood to be planning travel to Kyiv at the same time Witkoff is in Moscow. Witkoff has visited the Russian capital multiple times since being handed the Russia portfolio, and he has attracted attention in foreign policy circles for his nonchalant and conciliatory attitude towards Putin and his government. He has openly spoken of his admiration for the Russian leader and once presented him with a painting of Trump as a gift. Witkoff has also violated normal diplomatic protocols by arriving without an American translator, instead relying on a Russian one during meetings without any other American witnesses. Kremlin press secretary Dimitri Peskov told reporters on Monday that the Russian government is 'always happy to see Mr. Witkoff in Moscow' and called the talks with the real estate developer 'important, substantive and very useful.' He also suggested that Witkoff could end up meeting with Putin during his time in the Russian capital. The Trump White House envoy's visit comes just days after Trump said he was redeploying a pair of American 'nuclear submarines' in response to belligerent statements made on X by former Russian president Dimitri Medvedev earlier last week. Writing on Truth Social on Friday, Trump said he was ordering the American warships to 'the appropriate regions' due to what he called 'the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia' and noted Medvedev's status as a deputy chair of the Russian national security council. Trump said the move was a precautionary measure 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances,' he added. The online feud between Trump and Medvedev comes as months of talks in Turkey between Ukraine and Russia have failed to achieve anything beyond arrangements for exchanges of prisoners of war and the bodies of each side's respective war dead. Russia has continued to target Ukraine with nightly attacks by drones and other aerial weapons, with a civilian death toll that has incensed Trump and led him to send more U.S. made weapons to Ukraine after months of indulging the more isolationist-minded members of his government. During an appearance last week alongside British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on the steps of his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, Trump complained that Putin had too often talked a good game about wanting to reach a ceasefire in the conflict only to resume bombing civilian targets in short order. 'We thought we had that settled numerous times. And then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv, and kills a lot of people in a nursing home or whatever. You have bodies lying all over the street. And I say that's not the way to do it,' Trump said.

FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible

Yahoo

timea few seconds ago

  • Yahoo

FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible

Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: "You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store