Ghislaine Maxwell Has Agreed to Be Deposed By Congress - But the Clintons Are About to be Held in Contempt

Apologies for the delay - I’ve been working with the team to have my book about the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal finalised. It’s due to be released next month (finally), and will cover my 5+ year investigation into the case and my exclusive interviews with key witnesses. The situation here in Kyiv is also pretty bleak - countless air raid sirens and explosions, and millions of homes are without electricity and water - so please bear with me.

I’ll be pushing out a few more audio interviews with key Epstein Scandal witnesses in the coming days and weeks, so stay tuned. This week, I’ll also be posting a fact-check of most of the Epstein files and photos released so far.

In the meantime, Ghislaine Maxwell has agreed to be deposed by Congress.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said yesterday that his panel is set to depose her on Feb. 9 as part of its ‘investigation’ (sadly, much of it appears to be less of an investigation, and more of an attempt to turn this whole circus into an opportunity to smear political rivals) of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Comer announced the scheduled deposition during a committee markup of resolutions to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt for defying subpoenas as part of the panel’s Epstein probe.

“We need to hear from Ghislaine Maxwell,” Comer said. "We’ve been trying to get her in for a deposition, and her lawyers have been saying that she’s going to plead the Fifth, but we have nailed down a date, Feb. 9, where Maxwell will be deposed by this committee.”

Is it a big story that is set to reveal explosive revelations about the scandal? Very unlikely. It appears to simply be an exercise in getting Maxwell on the record, or more importantly, the Committee’s questions on the record. Those questions can then be fed to the press, and Maxwell’s predicted ‘no comments’ will be spun alongside senationalised headlines as ‘well, she didn’t deny it’.

You can thus expect to soon be reading questions and headlines putting pressure on Bill Clinton (and, likely, President Trump) shortly thereafter.

The reason for Maxwell’s preference for pleading the 5th is simple: She has an ongoing legal petition (her habeas corpus challenging her conviction).

Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, wrote in a letter to Comer on Tuesday that if the committee proceeds with its deposition, “Ms. Maxwell will invoke her privilege against self-incrimination and decline to answer questions.”

“That is not a negotiating position or a tactical choice; it is a legal necessity,” wrote Markus, who noted in the letter that Maxwell’s “post-conviction litigation is far from over.” He added, “Testimony under oath while a habeas petition is pending would risk irreparable prejudice to her constitutional claims and expose her to further criminal jeopardy.”

Markus argued that continuing with a deposition under those circumstances would result in “pure political theater” and would be “a complete waste” of taxpayer dollars.

“The only certainty is a public spectacle in which a witness repeatedly invokes the Fifth Amendment,” he said.

Maxwell has filed a habeas corpus petition that could become the final major legal battle of her case, raising new questions about the integrity of the trial that led to her 20-year sentence. The petition, lodged in federal court, argues that fundamental constitutional errors and numerous other factors undermined the fairness of her conviction.

A writ of habeas corpus, one of the oldest safeguards in American law, forces the government to justify a person’s detention. It is not a retrial and does not revisit the factual guilt or innocence of a defendant. Instead, it examines whether the conviction was constitutionally sound — whether the processes, protections and obligations of the justice system were properly upheld. Habeas corpus is typically filed only after all other appeals have been exhausted, making Maxwell’s petition both a final recourse and a high-stakes legal assessment of her trial.

Maxwell has already pursued several avenues of appeal. After her 2021 conviction, she filed a direct appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Her lawyers argued that the trial had been compromised by procedural errors, juror misconduct and an unprecedented media environment surrounding the Epstein scandal. In 2023, the appeals court rejected those arguments and upheld the conviction. A subsequent attempt to have the Supreme Court review the decision also failed, closing the standard appellate pathways.

Maxwell’s newly filed petition asserts that her trial was compromised in ways that strike at the constitutional foundations of due process. One of those claims is the issue of Juror 50, whose conduct has shadowed the case since the verdict was announced.

The juror, who sat through the selection process in late 2021, indicated on his court questionnaire that he had never been the victim of sexual abuse. This was false. After the verdict, he told multiple news outlets that he had, in fact, suffered abuse as a child. Under federal rules, any prospective juror with such a background must disclose it so the court can assess whether they can be impartial in a case involving sexual abuse. If he had answered truthfully, he would almost certainly have been dismissed.

His public statements after the trial heightened concerns. He said that during deliberations, when some jurors expressed uncertainty, he told his personal story in order to persuade them to convict. The revelation triggered an internal inquiry, yet the trial judge, who has been accused by some of bias, ultimately ruled that his failure to disclose his history did not warrant a new trial. Maxwell’s legal team has maintained that this decision represents a breach of her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.

Legal analysts note that habeas petitions often revolve around claims of juror misconduct, particularly when a juror’s undisclosed background could have influenced the outcome. In Maxwell’s case, the juror’s actions — concealing his past, joining a case for which he was legally disqualified, and then openly acknowledging that he used personal experience to sway deliberations — constitute the kind of structural error that habeas corpus was designed to address.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg.

The petition, which Ghislaine Maxwell has been working on day and night behind bars, also raises numerous other startling problems with her conviction.

You can read it in full by clicking here.

Relevant to this ongoing political circus are the so-called ‘Epstein Files’. Despite the law stating that they should have been released in their entirety by now, the DoJ are putting up a legal challenge. You can read my breakdown of their concerns and what happens next by clicking here.

Stay tuned - I’ll be posting out some updates and exclusives very shortly.