Ghislaine Maxwell Pleads the Fifth in Brief House Oversight Deposition; Attorney Links Testimony to Possible Clemency
Ghislaine Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during a short virtual deposition before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 9, 2026, and her attorney said she would only give a full account if granted clemency, while asserting Presidents Trump and Clinton are “cleared.”
- Closed-door deposition: Maxwell pleaded the Fifth throughout a virtual session that ended in under an hour — ABC News, Politico.
- Clemency condition: Attorney David Oscar Markus read a statement linking full testimony to a clemency offer and saying “Both President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing.”
- Committee response and next steps: Chairman James Comer released video and audio, called the refusal “very disappointing,” and the committee continues its bipartisan probe, with more depositions and newly unredacted files being reviewed.
Deposition details: short, virtual, and silent on substance
Ghislaine Maxwell appeared remotely from a minimum-security federal prison in Texas, where she is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme. Lawmakers had planned to question her about co-conspirators, the extent of Epstein’s network and federal decisions made before his 2019 death, but the session concluded in less than an hour when Maxwell repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment.
Committee members and staff said they had prepared a wide range of questions but received no substantive answers. Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) described the refusal to testify as “very disappointing.” The committee has posted the released video and audio from the deposition.
“Very disappointing.” — Chairman James Comer on Maxwell’s decision to invoke the Fifth
Maxwell’s legal team cited ongoing litigation as a factor. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said the lawyer referenced a pending habeas corpus petition in federal court in New York seeking a new trial or reduced sentence, which helps explain the decision to remain silent for now.
Lawyer’s statement and clemency condition
At the outset, attorney David Oscar Markus read a prepared statement saying Maxwell would testify “fully and honestly” only if granted clemency by President Trump. Markus added that “only she can provide the complete account” and insisted that former Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are innocent of wrongdoing.
Markus had previously floated a clemency-for-testimony proposal in a January 21 letter offering open testimony in exchange for clemency, according to committee aides and media reports. President Trump has not ruled out a pardon publicly, though the White House has not announced any action on that front.
Democratic members of the committee criticized the clemency pitch as a public-relations maneuver. Representatives including Suhas Subramanyam and Jasmine Crockett said Maxwell appears focused on a path to freedom rather than showing remorse to survivors, arguing that offering testimony only in exchange for a pardon is not a genuine step to aid victims or the investigation.
Committee reactions, evidence access, and next steps
Chairman Comer rejected negotiating immunity or clemency through the committee and cited input from survivors who previously met with lawmakers explaining why immunity would be inappropriate. The committee said it will continue with planned interviews and document reviews.
On the same day as Maxwell’s deposition, the committee gained access to previously redacted Epstein files at the Department of Justice. Lawmakers said the unredacted records could illuminate decisions by federal prosecutors and others, including plea deals, sentencing choices and detention decisions tied to Epstein’s 2019 suicide.
The committee’s upcoming schedule includes several high-profile depositions: Leslie Wexner (Feb. 18), Hillary Clinton (Feb. 26) and Bill Clinton (Feb. 27), as listed on committee calendars. Epstein’s accountant and his former lawyer are also scheduled to meet with lawmakers next month.
No new testimony, public questions remain
After the brief session, there was no public indication that Maxwell answered substantive questions about co-conspirators, the extent of Epstein’s network or the federal response to allegations before 2019. Committee members said the session produced no new factual testimony; instead, Maxwell’s lawyer delivered the clemency-linked statement.
Legal experts note invoking the Fifth is common while appeals or post-conviction challenges are pending. Others argue that an unconditional, public account could help survivors and clarify unanswered questions about federal actions. The clemency-linked offer raises legal and ethical issues likely to be debated publicly and in court.
Implications for Sonoma, California
Economic impact
Local nonprofits, law firms and service providers that work with survivors may see renewed demand for counseling and legal help as national attention returns to the Epstein case. Sonoma-area victim advocacy groups could receive increased inquiries from survivors wanting support or to share information with investigators. If more documents are released, local attorneys may need to review records for leads affecting clients or witnesses in Northern California.
Political consequences
Sonoma County’s moderate and diverse electorate may pressure local officials for transparency and accountability. Northern California representatives could be asked to weigh in on committee work or to support funding for survivor services. The episode may shape local campaign conversations about oversight and criminal justice reform.
Social effects and cultural relevance
Survivors in Sonoma may experience a resurgence of trauma as the case resurfaces. Community groups, faith-based organizations and schools may need to increase outreach and trauma-informed education. Sonoma’s civic culture could prompt town halls, opinion pieces and community discussions focused on prevention and survivor support.
Practical applications
Local law enforcement and victim service providers should review outreach plans and hotline capacity. Attorneys in Sonoma may receive subpoenas or requests for records if local leads emerge. Residents with potentially relevant information can contact federal authorities or local advocacy groups that assist with reporting and legal options.
Source notes and reporting context
This article is based on reporting from ABC News and Politico, and on publicly released committee materials and video. The committee video is available on YouTube. The Times Media Service compiled reporting from those sources and committee statements released Feb. 9, 2026.
Key source links: ABC News — Politico — Committee video on YouTube.
