Ghislaine Maxwell is the only person left who may be able to offer any new details about Jeffrey Epstein. The question is, what could she say at this point?

Does she have an entire client list hidden in her head? Does she have the goods on Epstein’s finances? And if she has any of that, and didn’t use it as a bargaining chip before in her previous trial and sentencing, why would she produce it now, while she’s in the middle of an appeal? There’s no “goodness” in her heart to appeal to – could everyone please remember that this person is a child sex abuser, who not only worked as a sick version of a “madam” for Epstein, but actively groomed and trafficked these underage girls for Epstein. She is sick, digusting, and should be treated with the same amount of revulsion as Epstein himself. Maxwell is appealing her conviction and her 20 year prison sentence, not on the grounds of innocence, but because she claims she was covered under a previous non-prosecution deal that Epstein struck in 2007. The federal court of appeals has already rejected that argument, and Maxwell and her lawyers have since appealed to the Supreme Court.

If SCOTUS does take the case, it would be on the grounds of jurisdiction, not the criminal case itself.

In Maxwell’s case, that issue is whether a promise on behalf of the “United States” or the “Government” that’s made by a U.S. attorney in one district binds federal prosecutors in other districts.

That’s important to Maxwell’s case because, she argues, a nonprosecution agreement secured by Epstein in Florida should’ve barred her from being charged in New York because the agreement said, in part, that “the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.”

She hasn’t succeeded in her argument so far.

The federal circuit court covering New York rejected Maxwell’s challenge to her 2021 convictions. The appellate panel cited circuit precedent that says agreements only bind the U.S. attorney’s office in the district where the agreement is entered, unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction. There’s “nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts,” the 2nd Circuit panel said, referring to Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement.

But in her high court petition, Maxwell said that the circuits are split on the issue and that the justices should take her case to resolve the split. The Justice Department filed its brief opposing review last week, reminding the justices that they had rejected an appeal raising a similar claim and arguing that the high court “should follow the same course here.”

But with the Epstein case occupying so much media space, the Department of Justice is being told by President Trump to unseal as many documents as possible. To that end, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that he has asked the attorneys for Maxwell if she wants to talk to them.

Statement from @DAGToddBlanche:

This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.  The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6 remains as accurate today as it was when it was…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 22, 2025

The full statement from Blanche reads:

This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead. The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6 remains as accurate today as it was when it was written. Namely, that in the recent thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI in the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.

President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence. If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.

Therefore, at the direction of Attorney General Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department. I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.

For their part, Maxwell’s lawyers sound like the meeting is not a bad idea, but are cagey about what their client may say.

“I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.” David Oscar Markus, Maxwell’s attorney, said later Tuesday morning in a post on the social platform X.

One person who is convinced that Maxwell has the goods is Alan Dershowitz. As you will remember, Dershowitz insists that there is a client list – and he thinks Maxwell should be given immunity to reveal names.

“She knows everything. She is the Rosetta Stone. She knows everything. She arranged every single trip with everybody. She knows everything,” Dershowitz said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

He added he does not see any harm in offering Maxwell “use immunity” to talk freely about the Epstein case in testimony before Congress.

“If she were just given use immunity, she could be compelled to testify. I’m told that she actually would be willing to testify, and there’d be no reason for her to withhold any information,” Dershowitz said.

“So, I don’t see any negative in giving her the kind of use immunity that would compel her to testify. So, she ought to be summoned in front of a congressional committee,” he added.

Someone was obviously listening to Dershowitz, as the House Oversight Committee has now voted to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell.

During an unrelated subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) moved to direct the panel to authorize and issue a subpoena for Maxwell to appear for a deposition, which passed by voice vote.

“Recently, Rep. Burchett sent a letter to Chairman Comer requesting a subpoena for Ghislaine Maxwell’s testimony. In response, Chairman Comer directed Rep. Burchett to introduce a motion to subpoena Ms. Maxwell for a deposition, allowing the Committee to formally consider whether to proceed,” a spokesperson for the committee said in a statement.

“The Committee will seek to subpoena Ms. Maxwell as expeditiously as possible. Since Ms. Maxwell is in federal prison, the Committee will work with the Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons to identify a date when Committee can depose her.”

The Democrats on the committee voted for the subpoena as well – which is mildly hilarious because no Democrats cared about or pushed for releasing the Epstein files while they were in power.

Kudos to Pamela Brown for confronting Squad member Pramila Jayapal for her sudden feigned interest in the Epstein files. And a bonus that they used a clip of me calling her out.

Related: https://t.co/2HP3C9rW6a pic.twitter.com/rM0XOw57uD

— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) July 16, 2025

Look, I am fine with the DOJ and the House Oversight Committee talking with Maxwell, trying to get at the truth, and letting the chips fall where they may. The problem is, everyone is assuming that Maxwell didn’t already offer up this information in order to, oh, I don’t know, KEEP HERSELF OUT OF PRISON. She’s in the middle of an appeal on technical grounds, because it is obvious via physical evidence (photos and videos) and witness testimony that Maxwell is a groomer and child sex offender. I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think the DOJ or the House Oversight Committee can offer Maxwell immunity from civil suits – which, if she started naming names and those people wanted to protect themselves, could obviously pursue. Everyone seems to be making a flawed assumption that Maxwell has information to offer, AND would be willing to “testify truthfully,” as her legal counsel claims. What if she doesn’t, and just pleads the Fifth? That’s been happening to the House Oversight Committee a lot lately.

Ghislaine Maxwell is evil. Any information that she gives up will have to be negotiated for, and likely legally purchased with immunity or some other concession. I’m not sure she has any incentive go on the record before the Supreme Court decides to take her case or not. And too many people are making the assumption that she has a list of names. Having names is one thing, having the evidence to convict anyone else is another. This all feels very slapdash and messy, and in my opinion, it is giving a wretched, vicious, and evil woman far too much rent space in far too many people’s heads.

Featured image: original Victory Girls art by Darleen Click