The prosecutors of the Department of Justice interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, a partner of Jeffrey Epstein on Thursday, after the officials said they would ask about the other EPStein partners, but the critics have expressed concern about whether you can trust their testimony, pointing out the ongoing prison sentence of Maxwell and his history of allegedly lying under oath.
Key data
The officials of the Department of Justice are interviewing Maxwell in a court in Tallahassee, Florida, on Thursday, and it is reported that the attached attorney general Todd Blanche and the lawyers of Maxwell will arrive around 9 am edt on Thursday morning.
Blanche said previously that the agency wanted to talk to her to obtain “information about anyone who has committed crimes against the victims.”
The interview occurs at a time when the Department of Justice has refused to publish documents of his research on Epstein, and while Maxwell turns a 20 -year prison sentence after being convicted of charges of sexual trafficking and transport of minors to participate in illegal sexual acts.
Maxwell is also in the process of appealing his conviction, and recently asked the Supreme Court to consider it, and legal critics and experts have expressed concern that she can use the interview for her own benefit to obtain a more indulgent sentence of the federal government.
These fears have been amplified by the history of alleged perjury of Maxwell, since the socialite was accused of perjury in 2020 for allegedly lying during a 2016 statement in a civil lawsuit on Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse.
Maxwell was never judged or convicted of Perjurio: the charges separated from their other positions before their 2021 trial, and when he requested a new trial for their positions of sexual traffic, the prosecutors offered to withdraw the positions of perjury whenever they allowed their conviction for the other positions, more serious, remained.
What to pay attention to
It remains to be seen what Maxwell said to prosecutors during his interview, and if his testimony will be made public or will result in a suspension of his conviction. Blanche refused to comment when he arrived at the court on Thursday morning, according to ABC News, while Maxwell’s lawyer, David O. Markus, just said: “We expect a productive day.” It is expected that officials of the Department of Justice meet with Maxwell throughout Thursday, and the interview could be extended to a second day, according to sources cited by the Tallahassee Democrat.
Why was Ghislaine Maxwell accused of perjury?
Maxwell was accused of perjury based on the answers he gave in an affidavit of 2016 about the alleged abuse of Epstein and his own complicity. The accusation against him cited multiple comments that he denied any knowledge of the alleged abuse of Epstein: when asked if Epstein had a “plan to recruit minor girls for sexual massages,” he replied, “I don’t know what he’s talking about”, for example, and said that “I had no knowledge that someone with whom he interacts” in the properties of Epste civil. Maxwell also testified under oath that he had no knowledge of any “toy or sexual device” that was used in Epstein’s properties, and that he had never personally given a massage to Epstein or any of his victims. He also said he did not know that Epstein participated in “sexual activities” with anyone but her and two women with whom she and Epstein had “three -band sexual activities”, saying in her statement: “I did not know that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him apart from myself.” When the lawyers asked him again to confirm that his testimony was that he “did not know” that Epstein had other sexual partners, Maxwell redoubled the bet and said: “That is my testimony, that is correct.” His statements conflict with the charges of the accusation for which Maxwell was subsequently convicted, who claimed that Maxwell was massaging and was “present and participated in the abuse of minor victims”, among other accusations.
Why was Ghislaine Maxwell judged by Perjury?
Maxwell’s perjury charges were not addressed in their 2021 trial together with those of sex trafficking, since it successfully requested that they separated before trial. Maxwell argued, and the court agreed that the charges had to be judged separately because they would have included evidence that could have harmed the jury on the other positions, and could have disqualified one of his lawyers from the trial for his participation in the previous case. Perjurio’s charges were still scheduled to proceed to trial after Maxwell was convicted in 2021, but prosecutors then offered to withdraw the charges in exchange for keeping the conviction standing, instead of trying again the complete process of re -judging the positions of sex trafficking. The Government suggested that it was willing to withdraw the minor positions of Perjurio for the benefit of the victims of Epstein, since Maxwell had already been convicted, citing “the important interest of the victims to close this matter and avoid the trauma of testifying again.”
Main critic
Multiple legal and critical experts have expressed concern about Maxwell’s testimony, given his history of alleged perjury and the fact that he could benefit from providing a favorable testimony to the Trump administration, such as exonerating Trump from Epstein’s crimes or suggesting the participation of opposition to Trump. “Any new ‘testimony that (Maxwell) offers is inherently unreliable unless she is backed by evidence,” said former federal Joyce Vance in X on Thursday. Bradley Edwards, a lawyer who represents the victims of Epstein and who participated in the case in which Maxwell was deposed, told MSNBC on Wednesday that the victims are “alarmed” because of the fact that the Department of Justice has spoken with Maxwell and that “somehow is being given credibility and a platform in this particular issue.” “We are going to ask someone to have been accused of perjury related to this issue that tells the truth,” said Edwards. “Now, do you have information that can be useful? Yes. Will it be sincere about it? Who knows.” Edwards asked that anyone who interviews Maxwell is well informed about the Epstein case and what Maxwell has previously testified, arguing: “If you send there to someone who does not know anything, he will say what he wants to say.”
How could Ghislaine Maxwell’s testimony affect his case?
Trump’s government could grant Maxwell some indulgence in exchange for his testimony through a “rule 3.”, which allows the prosecutors to request the court to reduce the sentence of a defendant due to the actions he carried out after the sentence. This could include providing “substantial assistance” to the government in a different judicial process, for example, if Maxwell would provide information about other EPStein associates involved in their alleged crimes. In theory, Trump could also pardon Maxwell or commute his sentence, although the image of doing so would probably cause considerable public reaction. The Supreme Court is still deliberating on whether to grant Maxwell’s request that the judges reconsider their conviction, since Maxwell argues that a non -processing agreement that Epstein made in 2008, which allowed him to declare himself guilty of some positions to avoid a life imprisonment, also exempted him with responsibility. (Epstein was subsequently accused in 2019, after more information was made public about his alleged abuse, and died in prison before his trial). The Trump administration has so far opposed Maxwell’s request in the Supreme Court, presenting a letter on July 14 that argues that the court should not take the case and should let his conviction be maintained.
Tangent
In addition to the Department of Justice, the Supervision Committee of the House of Representatives plans to interview Maxwell and voted on Wednesday in favor of issuing a citation for his testimony. The representative Tim Burchett, Republican by Tennessee, suggested that legislators could also link Maxwell’s testimony and his veracity with his sentence, which would encourage it to be useful. “The only thing we have in the head is that, if we discover that you lie, it will return to its original sentence,” said Burchett. “If you are considering taking advantage of this to reduce your sentence, then we could have some influence.”
This article was originally published by Forbes Us.
You may be interested: Republicans take measures to dismiss Ghislaine Maxwell
