Ghislaine Maxwell, the ex-partner of American sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, who was to testify Monday before a committee of the American House of Representatives, preferred to remain silent under the constitutional right not to self-incriminate. She offers to speak in exchange for a presidential pardon from Donald Trump.

Published on: 02/09/2026 - 05:49 Modified on: 02/09/2026 - 17:41

To display this YouTube content, it is necessary to authorize audience measurement and advertising cookies.

An extension in your browser appears to be blocking the loading of the video player. To be able to watch this content, you must disable or uninstall it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, unsurprisingly refused on Monday February 9 to answer questions from a committee of the American House of Representatives but said she was ready to do so in exchange for a presidential pardon from Donald Trump.

“As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer any questions,” declared the Republican president of this commission, James Comer, after a brief closed-door hearing of the inmate, by videoconference from her prison in Texas. The elected official described this decision as “very disappointing”.

The lawyers of Ghislaine Maxwell, 64, engaged in a final appeal against her conviction in 2022 to 20 years in prison for sexual exploitation, had warned that she would invoke her right not to self-incriminate, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. They had initially demanded criminal immunity in exchange for his testimony, which the commission had refused.

This hearing comes in the midst of a storm caused by the publication on January 30 of numerous documents from the Epstein file by the Department of Justice. These “more than three million pages” do not contain any new element that could lead to additional prosecutions, warned the number 2 of the ministry, Todd Blanche. The Trump administration has thus fulfilled its obligation, imposed by a law adopted in November by Congress, to be fully transparent on this politically explosive issue, said Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's former personal lawyer.

“Ready to speak completely and honestly”

Now, Ghislaine Maxwell "is prepared to speak completely and honestly if she obtains a pardon from President Donald Trump," said her lawyer David Markus. In particular, she would be ready to testify to the fact that “President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing. Only Ms. Maxwell can explain why and public opinion is entitled to this explanation,” adds the lawyer.

Donald Trump and Bill Clinton both had ties to Jeffrey Epstein but claim to have broken up with him well before his death in prison in New York in 2019 and to have had no knowledge of his sex crimes.

Ghislaine Maxwell is thus trying to send the message "that her silence can be bought by a pardon", said the elected Democrat Melanie Stansbury, for whom this message is addressed "directly to Donald Trump himself". Asked several times last year about a possible presidential pardon in favor of Ghislaine Maxwell, Donald Trump evaded the question.

Also read: Epstein affair: who are the African figures cited in this sprawling case?

The same commission summoned Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, former Secretary of State, for the end of the month. Both demanded public hearings, saying they wanted to avoid their comments being used by Republicans.

Names of six men redacted without explanation

Several elected officials, including the two co-authors of the transparency law on the Epstein affair, Republican Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna, also went to the Ministry of Justice on Monday to consult the unredacted documents, in particular to ensure that these redactions were carried out under the strict conditions set by law. Both were surprised to discover that the names of six men, apparently involved in the actions alleged against Epstein, had been redacted, without explanation.

The law allows such redactions, primarily to preserve the victims' privacy. But it categorically prohibits them when they are motivated by the harm that the publication could cause to anyone, “government official, public figure or foreign dignitary”, or by their “politically sensitive nature”. “We must give the Department of Justice a chance to review its copy and correct its mistakes,” said Thomas Massie.

Although the mere mention of a person's name in the file does not imply any reprehensible act a priori on their part, many personalities fear the shock wave of revelations about their past links with the sex criminal.

With AFP

Keywords associated with the article

The content you are trying to access does not exist or is no longer available.