Could Ghislaine Maxwell deliver what Pam Bondi has only promised? Does she have the infamous Jeffrey Epstein "client list," and is she ready to "tell the American public the truth"? Has anyone seen Hillary Clinton visiting the federal prison housing Maxwell at the moment?
I kid, I kid. Mostly, anyway.
According to the Daily Mail, "insiders" claim Maxwell wants to reveal all she knows, but there is a catch or two along the way:
Now a source said: 'Despite the rumors, Ghislaine was never offered any kind of plea deal. She would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story.
'No-one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows. She remains the only person to be jailed in connection to Epstein and she would welcome the chance to tell the American public the truth.' ...
A source close to Maxwell told Daily Mail that the former girlfriend of Epstein - who continues to protest her innocence - would 'welcome the chance to sit in front of Congress and tell her story'.
The source said: 'Congressional hearings have been held into everything from JFK's assassination to 9/11. The Epstein Files rank up there with those cases. Ghislaine would be willing to speak before Congress and tell her story.'
Let's take this in order. No one offered Maxwell a plea deal because Epstein's suicide left her at the top of the criminal conspiracy. What would a plea deal have gotten prosecutors? If Epstein were still alive at that time, the DoJ may well have negotiated a plea to get her testimony against Epstein ... if they needed it. They probably didn't, but either way, that's academic now. Prosecutors had no one left higher up the chain that Maxwell could have helped convict. That's what happens when you sit at or near the top of a criminal conspiracy; prosecutors flip your lieutenants, not you.
Of course, Maxwell and her high-priced legal team could have proposed a deal themselves at that time. If she had the goods on Epstein's "clients," she could have offered to testify against the wealthy and powerful in exchange for a reduced sentence or possibly immunity. The latter would have never been offered, but Maxwell might be serving a shorter sentence had she provided such testimony to federal prosecutors. There seems to be no record of Maxwell offering such testimony, nor did she testify in her own trial to the actions of "clients" and co-conspirators.
So why make this offer now, if the "insiders" talking to Daily Mail are reliable? Well, guess what's due in court today?
Pam Bondi's leadership of the Department of Justice may come under further Jeffrey Epstein-related scrutiny over an appeal by Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.
The British socialite, and former friend of Prince Andrew, was sentenced to 20 years in jail in June 2022 for her role in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, but has appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration's response to that case is due July 14 at a particularly pressured time for Bondi, who as attorney general leads the DOJ.
Maxwell's legal team has challenged her conviction based on an agreement between the Florida prosecutors and Epstein in 2008. They claim that the agreement precluded any prosecution not just of Epstein but also "any co-conspirator," which the DoJ avoided by moving Maxwell's trial to a different venue:
A filing by her team, seen by Newsweek, reads: "Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein.
"Only because the United States did so in the Second Circuit and not elsewhere, her motion to dismiss the indictment was denied, her trial proceeded, and she is now serving a 20-year sentence.
"In light of the disparity in how the circuit courts interpret the enforceability of a promise made by the 'United States,' Maxwell's motion to dismiss would have been granted if she had been charged in at least four other circuits (plus the Eleventh, where Epstein's agreement was entered into).
"This inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places should be addressed by this Court."
Epstein's lawyers raised the same objection at the time. He didn't live long enough to get his appeals through to the Supreme Court, but it seems like a long shot for Maxwell. She wasn't a party to that agreement in the first place, which makes this a very difficult argument. With Epstein's death, the agreement likely terminates anyway, since the only other party to it is now deceased.
The Daily Mail story looks like a deal proposal by media proxy. Back off and I'll finally tell all, Maxwell is signaling via the "insiders" behind this story. It comes at a pretty good moment, too, for a DoJ that is already getting embarrassed by the Epstein scandal all over again. Bondi might like the idea of 'forcing' Maxwell to publicly reveal all she knows and can corroborate, and a congressional hearing would be a pretty good venue for that, too. Maxwell would still be subject to penalties for potential perjury, so if she lies, she can go right back to prison.
The problem with this is that it's all predicated on Maxwell having some secret store of knowledge that hasn't already been exposed. Thus far, nearly every indicator is that Maxwell doesn't have squat. If she did, she would have traded it when it mattered -- before her trial and conviction, and likely even before Epstein killed himself and left her holding the bag. Maxwell essentially came up empty, as did Bondi. For the last few years, everyone has come up empty, adding nothing to that already known, such as the flight logs for the Lolita Express and Epstein's contact list, which clearly was a mundane address book and not a "client list."
Only Alan Dershowitz has given any direct public testimony to a "client list" and other evidence still not made public. He argues vociferously that he's seen this evidence, but ...
Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz just now: " I know for a fact [Epstein] documents are being suppressed and they're being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names of the individuals, I know why they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them, but… https://t.co/uJACbSGXu7 pic.twitter.com/MKuHIpyFCo
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 10, 2025
"I know the names of the individuals, I know why they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them, but I'm bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can't disclose what I know. But, hand to God, I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them, and that's wrong."
@SeanSpicer: “Just out of curiosity, without names, are these politicians, business leaders…”
Dershowtiz: “Both. Everything.”
I'm not questioning Dershowitz' veracity, but the question would be whether this data is evidence or just hearsay. (I stipulate with enthusiasm to Dersh knowing the difference, of course.) If it's the latter, then it shouldn't be made public, which may be what tripped up Bondi. If Maxwell has evidence to offer that implicates other co-conspirators and sex trafficking clients beyond her own testimony, then that would be another matter. (Don't forget that co-conspirator testimony requires independent corroboration in most cases to be useful in court.) However, if she has that, why wait until now to offer it?
Color me skeptical, but still interested to see where this goes. Don't be surprised if it goes nowhere at all, though ... like all of the other Epstein threads.
