Trump just made a problematic Ghislaine Maxwell situation look even worse
Aaron Blake
, CNN
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Photo:
AFP / US District Court for the southern district of New York
Analysis
: Interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell is the Trump administration's first big move to allay concerns about its hugely unpopular handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Friday (US time)
wrapped up two days of interviews with Epstein's convicted associate
.
But there were already all kinds of reasons to be sceptical of this move and what it could produce, given the motivations of the two sides involved.
And President Donald Trump epitomised 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."
US President Donald Trump disembarks from Air Force One upon his arrival at Prestwick Airport, south of Glasgow on July 25, 2025, on the first day of his UK visit.
Photo:
AFP / Brendan Smialowski
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 sceptical of this move to interview Maxwell, and nobody involved seems particularly bothered to address those problems or even combat the perception of them.
Ghislaine Maxwell pictured in September 2013 in New York City.
Photo:
AFP / Getty Images
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 sympathise.
"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.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
Photo:
AFP/ Getty - Kevin Dietsch
"The conflict of interest is glaring," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said on Thursday on X. "It stinks of high corruption."
What's more, Blanche appeared on a podcast last year with Markus and labelled him a "friend."
"You are by far the best out there," Blanche said.
But one of the biggest reasons to be sceptical is that Maxwell is someone the Trump Justice Department - the first one, at least - labelled 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.
-CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Donald Trump sets Vladimir Putin a new deadline to end Russia's war on Ukraine
By Riley Stuart , ABC, in London US President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland, 28 July 2025. Photo: AFP / Pool / Christopher Furlong Donald Trump has warned Russia it has "10 to 12 days" to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine before he expands sanctions, slashing the lengthier deadline he suggested earlier this month. Speaking at his Trump Turnberry golf club in Scotland on Monday, local time, the US president said he would enforce severe tariffs on Moscow, and its trading partners, if it didn't agree to end its full-scale invasion. The surprise announcement drew a furious response from the Kremlin, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev posting on X: "Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with (Trump's) own country." Medvedev remains a high-ranking security official in Moscow. Mr Trump told reporters he was "disappointed" in his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin . "I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen," he said. He later said the new timeline would be "10 to 12 days" and that he would confirm the exact number soon. File photo. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia's Security Council deputy chairman Dmitry Medvedev pictured in Moscow in 2020. Photo: AFP Trump is visiting the UK to open his new golf course and meet leaders, including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Trump's decision to ramp up pressure on Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine was welcomed in Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's top aide, Andriy Yermak, posted on social media: "When America leads with strength, others think twice." Although it's not clear what specific measures the US will impose on Russia, Trump flagged so-called "secondary sanctions" that would penalise countries that do business with Moscow. It means China, which is Russia's largest trading partner that's taken a largely neutral stance on Putin's full-scale invasion, would have more skin in the game. Hitting China with more tariffs would likely reignite trade war between Beijing and Washington which had been sparked after the Trump administration took office in January. "There's no reason for waiting. It was 50 days, I wanted to be generous, but we just don't see any progress being made," Trump said on Monday. He later clarified: "I don't want to do that to Russia, I love the Russian people." Fighting has remained intense on the front lines in Ukraine, and on Monday, Russia's defence ministry said its forces had captured two settlements in the country's east. It comes as the Kremlin's aerial attacks on Ukraine's major cities, including Kyiv, escalate. Mr Trump has previously declared that he and Putin have had a good relationship, and while they've spoken on the phone several times in the past six months, an in-person meeting has not been convened. The US president's rhetoric has steadily been deteriorating with regard to his Russian counterpart , though. After initially promising during his election campaign that he could end the Ukraine war in one day, Mr Trump has shown frustration with both Mr Putin and Mr Zelenskyy at various stages over the past six months. In April, the US president took to social media and implored Mr Putin to stop attacking Ukraine, writing: "Vladimir, stop!" That came two months after Zelensky had endured an awkward meeting with Trump and his deputy, JD Vance, in the Oval Office, which ended with the trio arguing openly in front of the world's media . - ABC
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The far-right in Germany wants to soften its image, not its policies
The AfD's new strategy emerged from an internal analysis of its performance in national elections in February. It ran on an anti-elite, anti-immigrant platform that included promises of mass deportations. It also vowed to reignite the nation's industrial economy, powered by German coal and Russian natural gas. The party finished second, winning more than one-fifth of the vote. But the AfD found itself shut out of government, with no other party in Parliament willing to work with it. Unable to cement its place in the Bundestag, the AfD decided that it needed to expand its appeal at the ballot box and in circles of power in Berlin. Enter the new approach, which takes as its starting point the idea that German voters are fundamentally conservative — an assertion that centre-left parties dispute. It is based largely on a surface read of February's election, when more than half of the voters either backed the AfD or the centre-right sister parties of Merz, the Christian Democrats and Christian Social Union. Merz's voters broadly agree with AfD's view that Germany needs to strengthen the economy and reduce migration, said Beatrix von Storch, a senior AfD Member of Parliament and an architect of the new strategy. Opinion polling shows that Germans are worried about migration and security above all other issues. The AfD, she said, will try to appeal to centre-right voters through those issues. It will also try to provoke Germany's major liberal parties to move to the extreme left on social issues like abortion and transgender rights, she said, by raising the profile of those matters and of Germany's growing far-left party. 'There is a cultural war in the Western world and we will win it,' she said. She said she hoped for an echo of last year's American presidential election. 'Moderate Republicans voted for Donald Trump, even though they don't approve of everything he says or does,' von Storch said. 'But the divide between moderate Republicans and the progressive Democrats is so deep that these reservations no longer mattered.' There are many reasons why the AfD's effort could fail. Merz's voters disagree with the AfD's stances on several issues, surveys suggest, most notably Germany's backing of Ukraine in its war against Russia. And Germans tend to be consensus builders. While its political extremes are growing, many voters still baulk at supporting any party seen as too far on one end or the other. 'You could say that the political centre is a kind of ideal in Germany, which is why I believe that, despite the potential for polarisation, there is no great desire for division among the German population,' said Johannes Hillje, a political scientist who has studied the new AfD strategy. Some voters have also been turned off by the AfD's sharp rhetoric, particularly on immigration. German intelligence has formally declared the AfD to be extremist over what the Government called an unconstitutional campaign to treat migrants differently from other German residents. The extremism designation could someday lead to the party being banned from German politics. The force of many voters' distaste for the AfD helped prompt the other part of its strategy, the effort to soften its image without retreating on policy. In May, AfD drafted penalties for members who had acted uncivilly in parliament, including fines of up to €5000 ($9760) and a three-month ban from giving speeches in the chamber. Earlier, it dissolved the Junge Alternative, the party's notoriously radical youth wing. The AfD is now polling around 25% nationally, but it has lost ground to the centre-right since Merz took office in May. His party gained support after loosening government borrowing limits, cutting some taxes and tightening border controls. The Chancellor has rallied Germans around increased military spending, as long-standing American security guarantees for Europe have faltered. Until recently, he had avoided the sort of coalition bickering that brought down former Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Government last year. To rattle Merz's coalition, the AfD needed a controversy — one that combined hot-button social issues and hot-tempered political infighting. This month, Merz's Government provided both. A progressive law professor named Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf had been nominated for a seat on the nation's constitutional court by Merz's centre-left coalition partner, the Social Democrats. But Merz's party was baulking at supporting her. The far-right had helped provoke the dispute. The AfD and social conservatives had been attacking Brosius-Gersdorf, claiming without evidence that she supported legalised abortion to the ninth month of pregnancy. Such a stance would have been far outside the German mainstream, were it true. Abortion is illegal in Germany, but there are no penalties for the procedure through to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Brosius-Gersdorf had worked on a commission to change the law to decriminalise those early-term abortions, but she never publicly supported late-term abortion. The AfD, which opposes abortion, cares little about that distinction. When Merz took questions in Parliament this month, von Storch asked whether he could in good conscience vote to seat Brosius-Gersdorf. After verbally attacking von Storch, Merz said yes. Soon, an edited version of the exchange raced across social media. Outrage built among conservatives, who fumed that Merz had effectively endorsed legalised abortion. Some Catholic bishops warned against confirming the nominee. Merz's governing coalition had to postpone the vote, fearing Brosius-Gersdorf had insufficient support. The nomination remains unresolved, though Merz has refocused his attention in recent days onto foreign policy. Government aides say the best way for Merz to thwart the AfD is to stay out of culture wars and stick to solving problems that rank high among voters' concerns. That includes restarting economic growth, reducing migration and restoring German leadership on the global stage. And doing so while projecting unity inside the government. Some AfD leaders agree that policy wins would be Merz's best weapon against them. Von Storch said AfD voters could flock to Merz if he effectively adopted the party's platform on immigration, including blocking new migrants from crossing the German border and deporting millions of asylum-seekers from Syria and elsewhere. Merz has tightened border controls and stepped-up deportations, but there is no indication he would support anything close to the full AfD migration agenda. Even as she stressed the importance of culture wars to divide the Merz coalition, von Storch said that for the AfD to grow in popularity, it must sell Germans on its plans for their wallets. 'Voters want a government that can lead the economy out of crisis, secure prosperity and ensure sound public finances,' she said. 'The AfD will gain massive acceptance and support if we aggressively stake out these areas.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Jim Tankersley and Christopher F. Schuetze Photograph by: Lena Mucha ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
US prison officials get tips on how to modernise jails during trips to see how they are run abroad
'They treat their maximum-security prisoners like minimum-security prisoners,' Davison marvelled. And yet, Tegel Prison is far less violent than many American prisons. Over the course of a week, officials from Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Oklahoma toured four German prisons where inmates wore street clothes, maintained their right to vote, cooked their own meals, played in soccer leagues, and learned skills like animal husbandry and carpentry. One, called the Open Prison, allowed residents to come and go for work, school, and errands. A growing number of American states are looking abroad for ideas that can be adapted to their state prison systems, most often to Scandinavian countries famous for the IKEA-utopia design of their correctional institutions, but also to places like Germany and New Zealand. In the past two years, California, Arizona, and Oklahoma's prison systems have shifted their focus to rehabilitation rather than punishment. In 2022, Pennsylvania opened a unit known as Little Scandinavia, and last year Missouri began a similar transformation project in four prisons. Six other states have established European-style units for younger prisoners. The efforts are still small, dwarfed by the sheer size of the American prison population, and limited by political and financial roadblocks. Prison conditions are not a priority for voters, polls show, and changes are sometimes unwelcome. In March, thousands of corrections officers in New York state walked off the job to protest against new limitations on the use of solitary confinement, saying the changes would make their jobs more dangerous. In Arizona, a new head of prisons who had sought to make them more humane faced sharp criticism after a prisoner who had been moved out of maximum security killed three fellow inmates. And harsh punishments are part of the American DNA. US President Donald Trump has said he would 'love' to send American convicts to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Still, making prison life more like normal life is catching on in some surprising places. 'I'm amazed by how quickly these ideas are taking off across the US,' said Keramet Reiter, a criminology professor at the University of California, Irvine. Prisoner advocates say the changes make communities safer by better preparing prisoners for their eventual release and create a less stressful environment for prison workers. However, the real catalyst is that US prisons are in crisis, struggling with severe staffing shortages, crumbling facilities and frequent violence. A common room in a ward for Berlin's most dangerous prisoners at Tegel Prison. Photo / Lena Mucha, the New York Times Inmates in US prisons often endure extreme temperatures, vermin-infested food and years, or even decades, in solitary confinement. High-profile cases have brought attention to prolonged shackling, fatal beatings, and sexual abuse. 'It's unsustainable, which is why we have to change the justice system to lock up only those who are a danger to others,' said Tricia Everest, secretary of public safety for Republican-led Oklahoma. The state once had the country's highest incarceration rate. In 2016, voters approved measures to lower the penalties for some crimes and to direct the savings into mental health and substance abuse treatment. Everest has presided over the closure of four prisons. European prisons are far safer than those in the US, experts say, with lower recidivism rates and healthier, happier employees. In Berlin, which has 3.9 million residents and operates a correction system analogous to that of an American state, suicides are rare, and homicides are virtually non-existent. Of course, the US has higher crime than European countries. America's system of prisons and jails is the largest in the world, incarcerating nearly two million people, according to the World Prison Brief, which tracks global data on incarceration. Change on that scale is difficult to accomplish, especially when the American public can be sceptical of spending money on what they regard as prisoners' comfort. Even in states that have been noted for overhauling some aspects of their criminal justice system, like Georgia and Texas, prison conditions can remain abysmal. Georgia was singled out by the Justice Department last year for failing to protect inmates from 'frequent, pervasive violence', and in March a federal judge declared the heat in Texas prisons to be 'plainly unconstitutional'. By contrast, German prison officials say they consider loss of liberty to be punishment enough. The courts have ruled that new prisons must provide single-occupancy cells at least 10sqm in size. Many have kitchens where residents may cook their own meals. One prison for young adults is experimenting with removing bars from some of the windows, on the premise that looking at bars is depressing. Many of the rules were made in response to the shame of the country's Nazi past, when prisons were used to suppress dissent and concentration camps held unspeakable horrors. 'What it all boils down to is the core principle, human dignity,' said Deputy Warden Johanna Schmid as she led the group through Tegel Prison's leafy courtyards. At Heidering Prison, warden Andreas Kratz showed off a visiting room with a kitchenette, bed, crib and balcony. Colby Braun, head of prisons for North Dakota, and Tricia Everest, the secretary of public safety for Oklahoma, view a work area at Heidering Prison, in Grossbeeren, Germany. Photo / Lena Mucha, the New York Times Time with family, German officials said, helps prisoners maintain the ties they will need to stay out of trouble when they are released. In the US, privacy, time outside of cells and family visits are considered risky, and 'overfamiliarity' between correction officers and inmates is prohibited. German prisons take the opposite approach, known as dynamic security. Correction officers are expected to develop relationships with inmates and know when problems may arise. Yvonne Gade, a correction officer in a ward that houses a small number of prisoners deemed particularly dangerous, shrugged off concerns about their access to a gym with free weights. 'It would be a huge potential for violence if you locked them up all the time,' she said. Prisons in Europe are certainly not perfect. The Americans and Germans shared frustrations over gangs and a recent influx of synthetic marijuana. Some of Germany's problems show just how different the system is. In one facility for young adults, a resident set his curtain on fire using a lighter he was permitted to have. In Saxony-Anhalt in April, a prisoner was accused of killing his wife during a five-hour, unsupervised conjugal visit. The idea of showing US policymakers how European prisons work originated with a civil rights lawyer named Don Specter, whose lawsuits have led to changes to the California prison system. In 2011, he accompanied a group of students on a visit to prisons in Germany and Scandinavia and was struck by how it changed the 'hearts and minds' of people with diverse political views. 'It seemed that the magic sauce was actually seeing it in person,' Specter said. When Specter was awarded a large fee in one of his cases, he used it to fund a trip abroad for prison officials in 2013. Out of that grew the Global Justice Exchange Project at the Vera Institute of Justice, which organises regular trips to Germany, and a programme at the University of California, San Francisco called Amend, which has worked with Washington, Oregon, California and other states to change prison culture. Working with Vera, six states have gone on to create special units for 18- to 25-year-olds that allow more frequent visits with family, shared responsibility for resolving conflicts and more out-of-cell time. The effect of these transformations is difficult to measure, in part because many of the units are quite new and in part because doing research in prison is inherently complex. However, a randomised, controlled trial in South Carolina showed that residents who were placed in the special units were 73% less likely to be disciplined for violence and 83% less likely to be sent to restrictive housing. An inmate works with a pony on a small farm at the Neustrelitz Prison in Neustrelitz, Germany. Photo / Lena Mucha, the New York Times Such efforts can also improve staff morale. Guards whose interactions with prisoners go beyond shackling and unshackling them are likely to consider their work more meaningful, said Reiter, the criminology professor. Throughout the German tour, US officials were intrigued but also wrestled with how much of what they saw would work at home. The biggest obstacle was cost, especially increasing staff-to-inmate ratios when states are already struggling to recruit officers. But even simple acts like a guard and inmate sharing a cup of coffee could require an overhaul of long-standing policies designed to prohibit fraternisation. Differing concepts of liability also get in the way. In Germany, prisoners can use the toilet behind a closed door, while in the US toilets are typically installed in open cells, said Colby Braun, director of the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 'You live in your bathroom,' he said. 'With another person.' When the state was planning a new prison, designers tried for a more dignified arrangement but could not achieve it, Braun said, because of a requirement that officers be able to see prisoners on their rounds. The officials compared notes on how to overcome political resistance in their own states. Braun said he tried to develop relationships with lawmakers so he could fend off proposals he viewed as counterproductive, like a recent one that would have ended the use of rehabilitation programmes and halfway houses. On the other hand, members of the Massachusetts delegation were frustrated because, they said, its liberal legislature did not want to replace their prisons, some of which are more than 100 years old, even though new ones could make incarceration more humane. For her part, Everest said she had learned how to speak the language of her state's legislators and law enforcement officers. 'I don't do criminal justice reform. It's been politicised,' she said. 'We are modernising the system.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Shaila Dewan Photographs by: Lena Mucha ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
