Democratic representative says Epstein associate’s decision to invoke fifth amendment points to ‘White House cover-up’
Ghislaine Maxwell refused to answer questions during a closed-door congressional deposition on Monday, prompting criticism from a House representative backing efforts to release Jeffrey Epstein investigative files.
Robert Garcia, ranking member of the committee on oversight and government reform, said in a statement that Maxwell invoked the fifth amendment and refused to testify during her scheduled deposition. Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, also said that she invoked her fifth amendment right.
“After months of defying our subpoena, Ghislaine Maxwell finally appeared before the oversight committee and said nothing,” said Garcia, a California Democrat. “She answered no questions and provided no information about the men who raped and trafficked women and girls.
“Who is she protecting? And we need to know why she’s been given special treatment at a low security prison by the Trump administration. We are going to end this White House cover-up.”
She is protecting her benefactors. ALMOST surprised she hasn’t been fully pardoned yet. I would look for that in the last few days of second term if he lives that long.
I would argue she’s protecting herself, given that her closest associate ended up with a Hyoid bone fracture in police custody after unaliving himself. It’s not like they can put her in double-jail with contempt of court charges. Why would she say anything at all?
Also a good point. But could still see that pardon coming on as a thank you
Trump’s not going to remove her leash until he’s on his way out of office.
That or that’s when she kills herself.
Trump doesn’t do that
Trump doesn’t say thank you, he just releases dangerous people from prison who did him favors.
Only if he has something to gain from it.
If he gets nothing out of the deal, he has no reason to grant clemency.
Cuellar?
If she gets pardoned, she loses 5th ammendment protections, as I understand it (because the pardon means anything said can’t incriminate her). So it opens a can of worms that she might rather keep closed because then she could be kept in real prison for contempt for refusing to speak (which she will regardless of the legal consequences because those aren’t the ones she fears the most).
Only for the things that the pardon covers, and for the time period up to the pardon. For example, you can be pardoned for a bank robbery conviction but can still get charged with that act of cannibalism that you also did.
Still damned if he does because either he needs to mention specific things to limit the scope of the pardon and incriminates himself, or keeps it vague and she loses the 5th ammendment protections from talking.
I dont understand the rules at all there, but im given to understand the rules dont matter so much right now