Ghislaine Maxwells list of demands to testify to Congress

Ghislaine Maxwell’s conditional intention to provide congressional testimony was spelled out by her attorney in a letter detailing what would keep her from invoking the Fifth Amendment.

In pursuit of transparency regarding the case of late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the Justice Department wasn’t alone in aiming to turn the dead financier’s former associate into an asset for answers. While Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche had already met with Maxwell, efforts to arrange testimony before Congress found her attorney listing what it would take and calling out “non-starters.”

Submitted to the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Kentucky Rep. James Comer (R), the convicted sex trafficker’s attorney David Oscar Markus responded to the subpoena by reiterating his client’s efforts at appealing her conviction and how, “… our initial reaction was that Ms. Maxwell would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and decline to testify at this time.”

“However, after further reflection we would like to find a way to cooperate with Congress if a fair and safe path forward can be established,” he went on before making a case to conduct the testimony away from prison, be provided questions in advance and to delay the hearing until after a Supreme Court ruling on her appeal of her conviction.

BREAKING

Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney says she will invoke her Fifth Amendment rights during a forthcoming congressional deposition unless she is granted immunity.

Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, adds that if Maxwell receives clemency from the president, she would be… pic.twitter.com/oMdTbcUJRU

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) July 29, 2025

“First, public reports–including your own statements–indicate that the Committee intends to question Ms. Maxwell in prison and without a grant of immunity. Those are non-starters,” stated Markus. “Ms. Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity. Nor is a prison setting conducive to eliciting truthful and complete testimony. The potential for leaks from such a setting creates real security risks and undermines the integrity of the process.”

Claiming that her constitutional rights had been violated due to the conditions of her pretrial detention in “torturous” circumstances, the attorney petitioned for the questions in advance “to allow for meaningful preparation” and to gather “relevant documentation.”

“Years after the original events and well beyond the criminal trial, this process cannot become a game of cat-and-mouse,” he argued. “Surprise questioning would be both inappropriate and unproductive.”

With the case made on what it would take for Maxwell to provide testimony to the Oversight Committee while maintaining the status quo, Markus proceeded to suggest that an alternative arrangement could be made in exchange for a clemency deal.

“Of course, in the alternative, if Ms. Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing–and eager–to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, D.C.,” wrote the attorney. “She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning.”

In concluding the letter, Markus recapped the purported conditions at Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn and once again argued that she had not been granted a “fair trial,” suggesting her opportunity for defense had been limited and a juror had lied in addition to contending that the U.S. government had failed to uphold a plea agreement with Epstein that the defense argued shielded Maxwell from prosecution.