Maxwell appeared virtually for a closed-door deposition from the Texas prison where she is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.
Republican House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer said that "as expected", Maxwell pleaded the Fifth Amendment, invoking her right to remain silent.
"This is obviously very disappointing," he said. "We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed, as well as questions about potential co-conspirators."
Ghislaine Maxwell refuses to answer questions about Epstein from Congress
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgv5yre39zo
12 Comments
mysticpickle@lemmy.ca · 40 pts · 180d
As per the terms of her agreement with Trump to continue her cushy stay at Club Fed 🙄
Nilay@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 175d
Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io · 16 pts · 180d
So then did they submit the evidence they already had in the form of questions? For example, "we have this documented evidence here, which shows XYZ, do you wish to make comment on this matter?" "I plead the 5th.", GM. And keep doing that hour after hour till all of the evidence has been read into the record. Oh, right, and also make sure that this happened in public. Oh, what's that? This was a closed door session? Well there's your problem. We're trying to exhibit transparency, aren't we? Power cycle the system, and when it reboots, try again with an OPEN DOOR SESSION so that your bosses, the United States Citizens can know exactly what is going on. Try that and see how it works.
Rhoeri@piefed.world · 8 pts · 180d
Back to solitary then, right??
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 9 pts · 180d
The intent of the fifth amendment is that one cannot be punished for failing to testify if the testimony is self-incriminating.
As much as Maxwell is a reprehensible human being, the law exists for good reasons.
ETA: using the fifth amendment as a bargaining chip (as in “if Trump grants clemency, I’ll talk) is an inevitable outcome, but also entirely dirtbag manoeuvre.
Madison420@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 180d
In criminal trials, not civil. You technically do not even have a fifth amendment right in civil trials.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 179d
Can one be criminally prosecuted based on statements made in civil court?
Madison420@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 179d
Yes. It just didn't work the same. Statements you refuse to answer can be seen in the light least favorable to your position whereas in criminal cases you can't make any determination or assumption about answers that people refuse to answer.
bhamlin@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 180d
What are they gonna do? Put her more in jail?
ryper@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 180d
Trump got her moved to minimum-security, so they could certainly move her back to a more jail-y jail.
bhamlin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 180d
DOJ could, yeah. Congress less so.
artyom@piefed.social · 2 pts · 180d
Trump is running the show. DOJ has his arm up their ass. He can keep her in the cushy prison where she gets whatever she wants or put her in federal prison and have her killed just like her homie.
bhamlin@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 179d
Right. The only people who could do anything to her won't because the cheeto in charge won't let them. All congress can do is be angry about it.