Ghislaine Maxwell's Silence Raises More Questions Than Answers
When Ghislaine Maxwell appeared before a closed-door congressional deposition on Monday, she refused to answer any questions, prompting criticism from lawmakers who are pushing for transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Maxwell, convicted of luring teenage girls into Epstein's orbit, is serving a 20-year sentence.
Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, invoked her fifth amendment right, stating that she must remain silent because she has a habeas petition pending that suggests her conviction was based on an unfair trial. However, this stance raises more questions than answers. Why did Maxwell suddenly invoke the fifth amendment after previously providing information to Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's deputy attorney general?
In July, Maxwell sat down with Blanche for a two-day interview, during which she answered every single question asked of her honestly and truthfully. Yet, when it came time to answer questions before Congress, Maxwell remained silent. It appears that this stance is inconsistent with her previous conduct.
Lawmakers are seeking answers about the men who raped and trafficked women and girls, as well as any potential connections to President Trump or former President Clinton. The White House has been tight-lipped on the matter, but some lawmakers are pushing for clemency for Maxwell if she is willing to speak fully and honestly about what happened.
The Department of Justice claims that there is no list of names identifying men who participated in Epstein's abuse, but recently released documents and prior legal proceedings have raised questions about this assertion. Some lawmakers, such as Ro Khanna, are questioning why Maxwell would suddenly invoke the fifth amendment after previously providing information on similar subject matter.
Maxwell's refusal to answer questions has drawn criticism from those who believe she is being given special treatment by the Trump administration. The question remains: who is Ghislaine Maxwell protecting?
When Ghislaine Maxwell appeared before a closed-door congressional deposition on Monday, she refused to answer any questions, prompting criticism from lawmakers who are pushing for transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Maxwell, convicted of luring teenage girls into Epstein's orbit, is serving a 20-year sentence.
Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, invoked her fifth amendment right, stating that she must remain silent because she has a habeas petition pending that suggests her conviction was based on an unfair trial. However, this stance raises more questions than answers. Why did Maxwell suddenly invoke the fifth amendment after previously providing information to Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's deputy attorney general?
In July, Maxwell sat down with Blanche for a two-day interview, during which she answered every single question asked of her honestly and truthfully. Yet, when it came time to answer questions before Congress, Maxwell remained silent. It appears that this stance is inconsistent with her previous conduct.
Lawmakers are seeking answers about the men who raped and trafficked women and girls, as well as any potential connections to President Trump or former President Clinton. The White House has been tight-lipped on the matter, but some lawmakers are pushing for clemency for Maxwell if she is willing to speak fully and honestly about what happened.
The Department of Justice claims that there is no list of names identifying men who participated in Epstein's abuse, but recently released documents and prior legal proceedings have raised questions about this assertion. Some lawmakers, such as Ro Khanna, are questioning why Maxwell would suddenly invoke the fifth amendment after previously providing information on similar subject matter.
Maxwell's refusal to answer questions has drawn criticism from those who believe she is being given special treatment by the Trump administration. The question remains: who is Ghislaine Maxwell protecting?
97% of ppl think she's gettin special treatment cuz trump admin 
her conviction was based on circumstncls, rite? 
but wut about those documents that came out recently? 
did u no that in 2018, there were 10 ppl identified as abusers by maxwells own testimony ?? 
?? this is like a whole different story than the one we thought we knew 
u gotta wonder why Ghislaine Maxwell suddenly goes silent, especially after giving a full-on interview with Blanche 
just 6 months prior... it's all kinda fishy! I'm not buying the "habeas petition" excuse, sounds like she's hiding something big 
. The fact that her lawyer is trying to spin this as an attempt to protect her from being railroaded by the system just doesn't add up 
It's like there's a whole network of people involved here and we're still in the dark 
. Can we please get to the bottom of this? 
especially since she did talk openly in July and then suddenly gets all secretive about it... it feels like there's more to this than meets the eye 
anyone who was affected by Epstein's abuse deserves answers and justice 
i mean, she gave away all this info to todd blanche and then suddenly goes dark on congress. seems kinda sketchy if you ask me. 
lawmakers are trying to get some answers about the men who were involved in epstein's abuse and it's weird that maxwell would suddenly invoke her 5th amendment right. is she being given special treatment by the trump admin? 
i don't think so, but something fishy is going on here... 
and what's with the department of justice saying there's no list of names of men who were involved? 
seems like they're hiding something. anyway, i'm all for maxwell speaking out if she has info that could help bring down more people involved in epstein's abuse. 
. AND NOW SHE'S JUST SITTING THERE, REFUSING TO SAY ANYTHING? IT'S LIKE SHE'S TRYING TO COVER HER TRACKS OR SOMETHING. I DON'T GET WHY SHE WOULDN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ALL THE OTHER GUYS INVOLVED IN HIS ABUSE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A BIG OL' COVER-UP TO ME 
. One day you're spilling your guts to someone, and the next, suddenly 'I don't remember' 
. Like, if she was so adamant about telling her side of the story, why stop now? 
... or is this just some masterful manipulation tactic? 
Anyway, gotta wonder what's really going on behind closed doors 
. Is she trying to protect someone big? The whole thing is giving me major "fishy business" vibes