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.”

MBFC
Archive

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    Once alternate proof of trump’s degeneracy shows up in the files her life will become essentially worthless. She should curry favour to the other side while she has the opportunity.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 day ago

    Trump. She’s protecting Trump. Also herself, since suicide might become contagious if she talks. How is this even a question?

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    2 days ago

    No shit…

    Why did people think trump moved her to a fucking country club?

    They should have held her in contempt and thrown her back in real jail. But she obviously got bribed/threatened and cooperated. The day she got moved to the country club anyone with a half a brain knew she wasn’t gonna snitch.

  • Tenthrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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?

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      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).

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        because the pardon means anything said can’t incriminate her

        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.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

          • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I dont understand the rules at all there, but im given to understand the rules dont matter so much right now

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Who is she protecting?

    Trump, herself, most of the current administration, 1/3 of the Supreme Court, FOX News anchors… The list goes on and on.

  • Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    She should not ever get out. Why she is not serving 99+ life sentences is beyond me. With how much violence she brought to children she deserves much more that a minimum security prison.

    The states she sodomized children in should all press new charges so she can go to state prison once her Federal sentence is done.

  • D_C@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Who is she protecting? And how many times will that orange painted geriatric imbecile have shit themselves today? It’s a mystery I tell ya.”

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    She claims she has dirt to swap for freedom, but nothing on Trump or Clinton. I don’t know about Clinton, but Epstein talked about Trump being evil on numerous occasions. It’s clear that he was up to SOMETHING, so if she claims there’s nothing, shes lying.

    She’s one of the most notorious and prolific child sex traffickers in human history, she gets NO mercy. Toss her in a dungeon.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fuck that. Tie her to the bumper of a truck and drive down 300 miles of road paved with barbwire and broken glass, thats lined with lemon juice sprinklers.

  • DigDoug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 days ago

    She’s protecting herself. Duh.

    By not talking she’s far less likely to run afoul of somebody with the means to suicide her via two gunshots to the back of the head.

  • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Herself. If she seems to be cooperating with law enforcement she’s going to kill herself with two headshots from the back.