Closed-Door Maxwell Deposition Goes Completely Dark

A bronze statue of Lady Justice holding scales, with legal documents and a gavel in the background

A convicted Epstein trafficker just stonewalled Congress—while floating the idea that truth comes only if President Trump grants clemency.

Story Snapshot

Ghislaine Maxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment in a closed-door House Oversight virtual deposition on Feb. 9, 2026, providing no substantive testimony.
Maxwell’s attorney renewed a public push for presidential clemency as a condition for “full” cooperation, which lawmakers from both parties resisted.
Chair James Comer called the refusal “disappointing” but said the investigation continues, with additional high-profile depositions scheduled.
House investigators also viewed unredacted Epstein-related files at the Justice Department the same day, signaling the probe is moving beyond Maxwell.

Maxwell’s Fifth Amendment Wall Leaves Congress Empty-Handed

Ghislaine Maxwell, serving a 20-year federal sentence for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme, declined to answer questions during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee deposition conducted virtually on February 9, 2026. The deposition was closed-door, but Republicans later released video and audio of the session. Chair James Comer said the outcome was disappointing because Maxwell chose to invoke her Fifth Amendment right rather than provide testimony.

Maxwell’s decision matters because she is one of the few living figures with direct knowledge of Epstein’s operations and contacts. The committee’s interest is not simply historical; it is tied to a current congressional push for transparency, survivor accountability, and the unredacting of files that could clarify who enabled Epstein. Maxwell’s refusal also shows a basic reality of oversight work: subpoenas can compel appearance, but they can’t force answers when constitutional protections apply.

Clemency Talk Raises Separation-of-Powers and Accountability Questions

Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, reiterated a demand that has become central to her posture: presidential clemency as the gateway to fuller cooperation. According to reporting on the deposition and prior correspondence, Markus argued Maxwell cannot give a “complete account” while legal proceedings remain active, and he urged clemency so she could speak publicly and fully. Lawmakers, including Comer, signaled they oppose any deal that resembles immunity-for-testimony.

The constitutional irony is hard to miss. Maxwell relied on one constitutional protection—the Fifth Amendment—to avoid self-incrimination, while seeking relief through another constitutional mechanism—executive clemency—controlled by the president, not Congress. For conservative voters who want equal justice, that divide is important: Congress can investigate and legislate, but it cannot pardon. Any clemency decision would sit with President Trump, and the committee’s comments indicate they are not endorsing a trade that could undercut accountability.

What Maxwell’s Statement Did—and Didn’t—Add to the Record

Republican members highlighted that a statement read by Maxwell’s attorney included claims that she did not witness wrongdoing by either Donald Trump or Bill Clinton, echoing earlier reporting about her prior contacts with federal officials. That point may influence political narratives, but it is not a substitute for sworn, detailed answers under questioning. Democrats on the panel argued her posture showed a lack of remorse and criticized the clemency framing as self-serving rather than survivor-centered.

The strongest, most verifiable fact emerging from the day is not a revelation about any public figure; it is the absence of testimony. With Maxwell refusing to answer, Congress is left to corroborate the Epstein network through documents, other witnesses, and prior investigative records. From a conservative perspective, the test for credibility here is straightforward: claims that cannot be tested through questioning, cross-checking, and documents should be treated cautiously, regardless of which party they appear to help.

The Probe Moves to Other Depositions and DOJ File Access

House Oversight indicated the investigation is continuing with additional depositions already on the calendar. Reporting cited upcoming sessions with Leslie Wexner on February 18, followed by Hillary Clinton on February 26 and Bill Clinton on February 27, along with other Epstein-linked figures expected in March. Lawmakers also viewed unredacted Epstein-related files at the Department of Justice on February 9, underscoring that the committee is pursuing multiple avenues beyond Maxwell.

That sequencing is significant because it reduces the risk that one incarcerated witness can dictate terms. Survivors have publicly pushed against immunity arrangements, and the committee’s approach—documents, depositions, and file review—reflects that pressure. For Americans worn down by years of two-tier narratives and elite impunity, the practical measure will be follow-through: whether the committee can produce verifiable findings, and whether federal agencies cooperate with transparency instead of hiding behind bureaucracy.

WATCH: Ghislaine Maxwell Refuses to Answer Congress’s Questions About Jeffrey Epstein Mediaite https://t.co/ZJnp9jpW8r

— #TuckFrump (@realTuckFrumper) February 10, 2026

Maxwell’s silence also reinforces why institutional transparency matters more than viral claims. If Congress has access to unredacted files and can question additional witnesses under oath, the public has a better chance of learning what happened and who enabled it—without backroom bargains. The Constitution protects individual rights, including the Fifth Amendment, but it also expects government to pursue justice within lawful boundaries. The next steps will test whether Washington can do that credibly.