Tag: jeffrey epstein

Ghislaine Maxwell to testify before US Congress in Epstein probe

Ghislaine Maxwell, the jailed associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has agreed to testify under oath before the congressional committee investigating the federal government’s handling of the Epstein cases.

Committee chairman James Comer, who is leading the investigation, says Maxwell will depose virtually on 9 February.

Maxwell’s legal team has previously said she would decline to answer questions under her constitutional right to remain silent unless she is granted legal immunity.

Comer, previewing the deposition, said, “her lawyers have been saying she is going to plead the Fifth,” referring to the US Fifth Amendment right to decline to speak to authorities.

The announcement from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee comes as the Trump administration continues to come under fierce scrutiny for its handling of the Epstein case.

Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for recruiting and trafficking teenage girls for sexual abuse by Epstein.

In July, the committee declined to offer Maxwell legal immunity in exchange for her testimony.

In August, the committee issued legal summons to Maxwell, requiring her to submit evidence under oath.

Maxwell’s legal team said that requiring her to both testify from jail, and without any legal immunity, were “non-starters”.

The lawyers said she “cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity” as speaking from prison “creates real security risks and undermines the integrity of the process”.

House lawmakers cannot force Maxwell to waive her Fifth Amendment protections.

On Tuesday, Maxwell’s legal team said in a letter to the committee that she would continue to refuse to testify.

“Put plainly, proceeding under these circumstances would serve no other purpose than pure political theater and a complete waste of taxpayer monies,” the attorneys wrote. “The Committee would obtain no testimony, no answers, and no new facts.”

Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021, had appealed against the conviction to the Supreme Court last October but the top court declined to hear the former British socialite’s appeal.

Her only route to leave prison early would be a presidential pardon, unless she is able to persuade a federal judge in New York to vacate or amend her sentence. The White House has denied that Trump is considering granting her clemency, however, Trump has also said he has not ruled it out.

Separately, the Department of Justice faced a deadline of 19 December last year to release all remaining Epstein files in their possession. So far only a fraction of them have been made public.

The department has faced criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle over the number of redactions in the files, which the law permits only to protect victims’ identities and active criminal investigations.

Meanwhile, the House committee is also meeting to discuss former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton’s refusal to appear before the panel to answer questions related to the investigation into Epstein.

The committee has said it is considering filing contempt charges against the two.

Keep reading

‘No longer in my hands’: How Hill Republicans stopped caring about DOJ releasing the Epstein files

One month after the congressionally mandated deadline to release all its files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the Justice Department has made only a fraction of the files public — and it remains silent on its plans to fully comply with the law.

Also keeping quiet about the DOJ delays are congressional Republicans, almost all of whom voted in November to release the records after spending months heeding President Donald Trump’s opposition to the move.

Some of them are openly admitting it’s no longer a priority.

“I don’t give a rip about Epstein,” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said last week when she was asked to take stock of the month since the Dec. 19 deadline.

“Like, there’s so many other things we need to be working on,” she added. “I’ve done what I had to do for Epstein. Talk to somebody else about that. It’s no longer in my hands.”

Boebert was one of four House Republicans, alongside Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who joined with Democrats to force a House floor vote on the Epstein legislation when leadership resisted moving it.

The White House lobbied these lawmakers heavily to take their names off the discharge petition to compel the bill’s consideration, with administration officials at one point summoning Boebert to the Situation Room for a final plea.

Now Washington’s attention has since shifted to other political firestorms, from Trump’s military action in Venezuela to the shooting of a U.S. citizen by an ICE agent in Minnesota, and congressional Republicans are eager to move on — underscoring the extent to which the GOP remains wary of crossing swords with the president.

The public falling out between Greene and Trump was largely over Greene’s support for releasing the Epstein files — Trump called her a “traitor” — and ultimately culminated in Greene’s resignation from the House earlier this month. Trump vetoed a bill that would have supported a water infrastructure project in Boebert’s district, and administration officials privately warned Mace that her defiance would likely to cost her the president’s endorsement in the South Carolina governor’s race.

Mace has vowed on social media to “keep fighting” for justice for Epstein’s victims but has not otherwise continued the drumbeat against the Justice Department.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who has worked with Democrats on a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation into the Epstein case, said in a recent interview she’s now more more focused on holding Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for not honoring the panel’s subpoena to testify about Epstein.

Keep reading

House Oversight to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress

Former President Bill Clinton is now facing Contempt of Congress charges after failing to appear for his scheduled deposition regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. 

The House Oversight Committee sent out a press release on Tuesday, noting that Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., delivered remarks after the deposition appointment. He called the Epstein case a bipartisan matter and expressed frustration that none of the democrats in office attended the deposition. “Not a single Democrat showed up today. Not a single Democrat—the ones who have press conferences on the Capitol steps and talk about how they’re trying to get justice for the victims and all that.” 

He declared that Clinton will face a Contempt of Congress markup next week.

During an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, and shared on X, Comer called out the hypocrisy of Democrat leaders for holding former White House official Peter Navarro and former advisor to President Donald Trump, Steve Bannon in Contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the questionable Jan. 6 Select Committee, while remaining silent when powerful Democrats like the Clintons to the same. 

Hannity cited an eight-page letter that Clinton’s lawyers sent Comer, which stated, “President and Secretary Clinton have already provided the limited information they possess about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the Committee.” The letter claimed that the subpoenas are an attempt to embarrass Republicans’ “political rivals.” 

Keep reading

Bill Clinton defies congressional subpoena, Comer says contempt charges moving ahead

Former President Bill Clinton appears to have defied a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday morning.

Clinton was compelled to sit for a sworn closed-door deposition in the House’s bipartisan probe into Jeffrey Epstein, but Fox News Digital did not see him before or after the scheduled 10 a.m. grilling.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., had threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings against Clinton if he did not appear Tuesday.

Comer said Tuesday morning, “We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee … to hold Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress.”

“I think everyone knows by now Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee,” Comer told reporters after formally ending the deposition.

“No one’s accusing Bill Clinton of any wrongdoing. We just have questions. And that’s why the Democrats voted, along with Republicans, to subpoena Bill Clinton.”

He said “not a single Democrat” showed up to the deposition on Tuesday.

Keep reading

Epstein and the Clintons: As Hillary Launched Presidential Campaign, Epstein Feared Exposure

Since Jeffrey Epstein’s second arrest in 2019, the Clintons have spent considerable effort distancing themselves from the enigmatic financier, and they are currently fending off House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, who threatened contempt proceedings after the political power couple refused to testify this week regarding their relationship to Epstein.

Epstein first came into public view after accompanying former President Bill Clinton on a 2002 tour of Africa, aboard Epstein’s infamous Boeing 727 plane, later dubbed “Lolita Express.” Abundant photos from that Africa trip—with Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker—have just been released by the Justice Department.

Through a spokesperson, Bill Clinton has acknowledged traveling on Epstein’s jet during a humanitarian tour of Africa in 2002, but has said he knew nothing of Epstein’s crimes, never visited Epstein’s properties, and ended contact in 2005. In a Justice Department interview in July 2025, Ghislaine Maxwell downplayed Epstein’s connection to the former president, telling Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, “President Clinton was my friend, not Epstein’s friend.”

Yet as Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign ramped up, it was Epstein looking to duck the Clintons. Epstein was facing increasingly dire legal consequences in South Florida, stemming from his years-long sexual exploitation of young women and girls. The glare of a presidential campaign risked unraveling what Epstein and his friend and ally Ghislaine Maxwell had so effectively constructed over the years, as they were increasingly associated with the spectacle of “Clintonworld.”

Keep reading

DOJ is Reviewing 5.2 Million More Pages of Epstein Files

The Department of Justice is currently reviewing an additional 5.2 million pages of the Epstein files to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law by President Trump in November.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, in a post on X, wrote, “DOJ lawyers from Main Justice, FBI, SDFL, and SDNY are working around the clock through the holidays, including Christmas and New Year’s, to review documents in compliance with federal law.”

He added, “It truly is an all-hands-on-deck approach, and we’re asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain.”

Blanche further noted that the delay in releasing the additional pages of the Epstein Files is due to the lengthy process required to redact victims’ names.

Per NBC News:

The Justice Department is scrambling to review about 5.2 million pages related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to comply with a law passed by Congress, a source familiar with the operation told NBC News on Tuesday night.

That number is much higher than previously known.

The Justice Department was seeking to enlist roughly 400 employees in the effort to sift through the records, which is expected to run from Friday to Jan. 20, two sources familiar with the plan told NBC News.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday that lawyers from department’s headquarters, the FBI, the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York “are working around the clock through the holidays, including Christmas and New Years, to review documents in compliance with federal law.”

On Christmas Eve, the Department of Justice announced that it had received the additional batches of the Epstein Files from SDNY and the FBI.

Keep reading

The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?

Congress’s newly minted Epstein Files Transparency Act—a bipartisan law co‑authored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna—was supposed to leave no room for discretion. It required Attorney General Pam Bondi, who serves President Donald Trump, to release all unclassified Justice Department records related to Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days. Trump signed the bill, but his Justice Department blew the deadline and produced only a small fraction of the documents, many of which were blacked out. The co‑authors have responded by drafting impeachment articles and exploring inherent contempt. Their outrage raises a broader question: why can the executive branch ignore the law with impunity, and why does this seem to happen over and over again?

The impetus for the transparency law lies in the horrific pattern of abuse that Epstein orchestrated for decades and the government’s failure to stop it. Even after survivor Maria Farmer told the FBI in September 1996 that Epstein was involved in child sex abuse, officials did nothing. The latest document release confirms that the bureau was tipped off a decade before his first arrest. Many of the new documents show that Epstein’s scheme went far beyond one man; the files include photographs of former presidents, rock stars, and royalty, and testimony from victims as young as fourteen. Campaigners say the heavy redactions and missing files—at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website, including a photo of Donald Trump—betray the law’s intent. The omissions have fueled suspicions that the department is selectively protecting powerful clients rather than victims.

A law that leaves little wiggle room

In addition to the redactions, entire files vanished after the department’s release. Al Jazeera reported that at least sixteen documents disappeared from the Justice Department website soon after they were posted, including a photograph of Trump. Survivors expressed frustration: Maria Farmer said she feels redeemed by the disclosure yet weeps for victims the FBI failed to protect, and critics argue the department is still shielding influential individuals. The missing files underscore that Bondi’s partial compliance is not just tardy but potentially dishonest; the law obligates her to release names of government officials and corporate entities tied to Epstein, and removing those names is itself a violation.

The statute instructs the attorney general to release all unclassified Justice Department records about Epstein within thirty days. This covers everything from flight logs, travel records, names of individuals and corporate entities linked to his trafficking network, to internal communications about prosecutorial decisions and any destruction of evidence. It prohibits withholding information to avoid embarrassment, and allows redactions only to protect victims’ privacy, to exclude child sexual abuse imagery, or to safeguard truly classified national security information. Even then, the attorney general must declassify as much as possible and justify each redaction to Congress. These provisions make the statute stricter than a typical subpoena and leave little room for discretion.

Keep reading

DOJ Subpoenaed Flight Records For Reporter Who Exposed Epstein Scandal

Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown’s late 2018 series on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein contributed to the Justice Department reopening its case against Epstein the next year.

It looks like the DOJ also subpoenaed Brown’s flight records. Brown said she found her name in the recently released “Epstein files”—the trove of documents released by the DOJ earlier this month pursuant to congressional legislation.

“What I didn’t expect to see was an American Airlines flight record from 2019 with my full name on them, including my maiden name, which I don’t use professionally. It’s an unusual name, so it’s clear it’s me,” Brown wrote on her Substack.

“The document appears to be details of an itinerary for a series of flights I booked in July just before the SDNY and FBI arrested Epstein.”

According to journalist Michael Tracey, the DOJ may have been tracking Epstein accuser Annie Farmer. Brown and the Miami Herald reportedly booked a flight for her in July 2019.

Keep reading

New Files Show Epstein Was ‘Too Useful’ for Banks to Drop — Trump Was ‘Too Politically Dangerous’ to Keep

The newest Epstein disclosures include deposition testimony that illustrates, in unusually concrete detail, how major financial institutions assessed risk, value, and accountability.

The transcript does not add new allegations about Epstein. Instead, it explains why he remained bankable long after his 2008 conviction and why his relationship with major banks survived despite generating almost no traditional revenue.

That institutional logic is the same logic that later drove JPMorgan to end its ties with Trump Media, and the contrast between the two cases shows how selectively these standards are applied.

In the deposition, Paul Morris—a private banker who handled Epstein’s accounts at JPMorgan Chase and later Deutsche Bank—described Epstein’s financial profile with unusual precision.

Epstein’s trading was minimal. His accounts produced limited fees.

He was not a high-activity client and did not utilize the investment tools that banks rely on to generate consistent revenue. By every conventional benchmark, he was a low-value account.

And yet, the relationship continued.

The deposition shows why. Epstein was not retained for his financial performance but for his institutional usefulness.

Morris acknowledged that Epstein facilitated introductions to ultra-wealthy individuals that the bank viewed as essential prospects. One example was Leon Black, whom Morris identified as a “priority prospect” because of Black’s significant net worth and influence in the investment sector.

Epstein introduced the bank to real-estate investor Andrew Farkas and discussed a potential connection involving biotech investor Boris Nikolic, who had ties to Bill Gates.

These introductions were specific, documented, and initiated by Epstein, not the bank.

This is the key element that many public accounts overlook. Epstein was not being managed as a traditional client. He functioned as a relationship broker inside a system where introductions to power carry more internal value than account-level returns.

Banks routinely emphasize compliance structures, but the testimony shows how those structures contract when the client provides access that cannot be replicated elsewhere.

Keep reading

Outlandish claims Andrew ‘at UK paedo ring parties’ where Epstein victims ‘tortured’

British police are to seek further information from the FBI after newly released files included claims that Jeffrey Epstein‘s victims were abused at “paedophile ring” parties in Britain.

The claims appear in a batch of more than 11,000 documents released this week by the US Department of Justice.

The files contain a series of lurid and unsubstantiated allegations involving Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Epstein’s long-time associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

One allegation comes from a 35-year-old individual who claims they were abused as a child in England during the mid-1990s.

According to the heavily redacted FBI document, the individual alleges they were drugged and driven by their father to an abuse ring in Surrey when they were aged between six and eight.

The complainant further claims they were taken to Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor Estate.

The property later became the home of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

They allege they were restrained on a table and subjected to electric shocks, given by Maxwell. Mountbatten-Windsor and other men were said to be present and watching, though no evidence was given to support this claim.

Additional allegations include claims of molestation at Epstein’s property in Florida. The individual also alleges they were struck by a dark blue vehicle with a personalised registration plate.

They claim to believe Mountbatten-Windsor was driving the car outside one of the alleged gatherings in Surrey. Surrey Police stated that it has no record of the allegations having been previously reported.

A spokesman said: “Following a review of our systems using the limited information available to us, we can find no evidence of these allegations being reported to Surrey Police. We are therefore engaging with relevant agencies to obtain access to the redacted information.”

Keep reading