Maxwell Pleads the Fifth in Brief House Oversight Committee Deposition; Attorney Says She’ll Only Talk if Granted Clemency by Trump
Ghislaine Maxwell, serving a 20-year sentence, invoked her Fifth Amendment right during a brief virtual House Oversight Committee deposition on Feb. 9, 2026, refusing to answer questions unless President Trump grants her clemency, her attorney said.
- Invocation of the Fifth: Maxwell pleaded the Fifth during a closed-door, under-an-hour virtual deposition and declined to identify co‑conspirators or discuss her role.
- Clemency condition: Attorney David Oscar Markus said Maxwell would only “speak fully and honestly” if President Trump granted clemency.
- Committee response: Chair James Comer called it a missed opportunity; the committee obtained unredacted Epstein files and will press ahead with further interviews.
- Victims and immunity: Survivors opposed granting immunity, influencing the committee’s refusal to offer protection in exchange for testimony.
Early depositions, quick silence
Ghislaine Maxwell appeared by video link before members of the House Oversight Committee on Monday in a closed-door setting of the bipartisan probe into how federal authorities handled Jeffrey Epstein’s case. Officials say the session lasted under an hour. Maxwell repeatedly asserted her constitutional right against self-incrimination and declined to answer questions about her role in Epstein’s crimes and the identities of any co‑conspirators. Reporting on the appearance drew from ABC News and Politico.
“Unfortunately, she had an opportunity today to answer questions that every American has — questions that would be very important in this investigation — and she chose to invoke her Fifth Amendment right,” House Oversight Chair James Comer said after the interview.
Attorney’s public offer and leverage claim
Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus, used a prepared statement to explain his client’s position and conditions for cooperation. Markus told lawmakers that Maxwell would only testify “fully and honestly” if President Trump granted her clemency. He also asserted that both President Trump and former President Bill Clinton “are innocent of any wrongdoing,” and said Maxwell alone could explain why. Markus characterized clemency as a straightforward path to unlocking what he called the “unfiltered truth.” These details were reported by Politico and ABC News.
Democrats on the committee and other critics accused Maxwell of attempting to use the deposition as leverage for a pardon. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D) said Maxwell “explicitly stated that she wants to be out of prison through a clemency that this president would grant.”
Legal caution and pending appeals
Markus also pointed to Maxwell’s pending habeas corpus petition seeking to overturn her conviction or reduce her sentence as a reason she could not testify without risk. The Fifth Amendment invocation appears tied to that legal strategy: any testimony could be used against her in future proceedings. Maxwell previously asked the committee for immunity so she could speak without fear of prosecution, but lawmakers declined after survivors and advocates opposed granting such protection. Survivors described Maxwell as “a very bad person” and argued she should not be rewarded for cooperation. Sources: ABC News, Politico.
Committee pushes forward
Despite Maxwell’s refusal to answer, the committee said it will continue its inquiry. Members were granted access on Monday to unredacted Epstein-related files that the Department of Justice had previously withheld from full public disclosure. The committee has scheduled a series of depositions in the coming weeks, including interviews with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 26 and former President Bill Clinton on Feb. 27, along with retail billionaire Leslie Wexner on Feb. 18. The committee also plans to interview Epstein’s accountant and lawyer as part of a broader effort to examine how investigations and prosecutorial decisions were handled in the years before Epstein’s death. Reporting: ABC News.
What this means for oversight and public trust
For conservatives who favor strong oversight, Maxwell’s invocation of the Fifth raises immediate questions: why accept a brief, nonresponsive deposition rather than pursue other legal tools to compel testimony or evidence? Committee Republicans argue the shutdown highlights the difficulty of getting full answers from a target who maintains legal protections and pending court matters.
Markus’s public statement that Maxwell would only speak if granted clemency has added a political layer, prompting accusations that both sides are playing politics with victims’ accounts and with questions of executive pardon power. Survivors’ voices shaped the committee’s decision not to offer immunity — a central tension: fuller factual accounts may require legal deals survivors oppose. Committee members say they will continue seeking documentation and testimony and will review the unredacted files for new leads. Sources: Politico, ABC News.
Implications for Paso Robles, California
Economic impact: Paso Robles is a small but growing community in San Luis Obispo County with a tourism and wine industry that depends on public confidence and stable institutions. The House probe’s revelations — or lack thereof — are unlikely to have a direct economic impact on Paso Robles. However, sustained national political turmoil can influence travel patterns and conference bookings, with potential short-term effects on local hotels, wineries and event venues that host out-of-area visitors for wine festivals and business retreats.
Political consequences: Paso Robles voters tend to lean conservative on many local and regional issues. The committee’s continued pursuit of documents and witnesses — and Maxwell’s high-profile refusal to testify without a clemency offer — will resonate with many voters who prioritize law-and-order messages and accountability for federal agencies. Local conservative officials and residents may view the episode through the lens of executive powers and checks on federal investigations.
Social effects: Survivors’ voices and their opposition to immunity were central to this deposition drama. Paso Robles community groups and faith organizations that support victims’ services may use the national attention to push for more local resources for survivors. Increased awareness could help local nonprofits that assist survivors of abuse to recruit volunteers and donors, and it may encourage county officials to review funding for related social services.
Cultural relevance: Maxwell’s case remains a touchstone for debates about elite privilege, accountability and media coverage. In socially conservative communities like Paso Robles, questions about due process and fairness are often balanced against calls for victim protection. Local conversations are likely to reflect both impulses: demand for truth and transparency, along with skepticism of political maneuvers that seem to commodify testimony.
Practical applications: Residents who follow national politics closely should expect continued coverage and more committee activity in coming weeks. Local readers who want to follow developments can track the committee’s releases, read the unredacted documents as they are made public, and watch for scheduled testimonies from high-profile figures. Paso Robles civic leaders and civic-minded readers may also consider engaging with local advocacy groups to support survivors or to push for clearer communication from federal officials about how oversight processes work.
Sources and reporting notes
This article draws on reporting from ABC News and Politico, which covered Maxwell’s appearance before the House Oversight Committee, her invocation of the Fifth Amendment, statements from her attorney David Oscar Markus, reactions from lawmakers, and the committee’s next steps.
Further coverage will track the committee’s review of the unredacted files, upcoming depositions, and any legal moves by Maxwell’s defense team related to her habeas petition or potential clemency discussions.
