Ghislaine Maxwell Gave DOJ Details About 100 People Linked to Epstein
“She was asked maybe about 100 different people, she answered questions about everybody and she didn’t hold anything back.”
Ghislaine Maxwell told the DOJ about “100 different people” linked to Jeffrey Epstein, according to her lawyer David Oscar Markus.
Maxwell never pleaded the Fifth.
The comments start at 5:53 in the video:
I think Ghislaine did a wonderful job. She literally answered every question. She didn’t say, “You know what, don’t ask me that, I’m not gonna talk about this person.” She was asked maybe about 100 different people, she answered questions about everybody and she didn’t hold anything back.
Ghislaine Maxwell attorney David Oscar Markus takes questions from the press after the DOJ meeting in Tallahassee, Florida.
See the full video here! pic.twitter.com/iPo50qw5rV
— Douglas Soule (@DouglasSoule) July 25, 2025
Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after a jury convicted her of sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and conspiracy.
Maxwell has already said “she’s willing to testify before Congress on Epstein’s apparent full client list.”
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and his team questioned Maxwell for two days after Attorney General Pam Bondi reached out to Markus.
Markus went all sappy on Blanche and his team with constant praise. I wouldn’t be shocked if he did that to convince President Donald Trump to pardon Maxwell.
Trump told reporters today he hadn’t even entertained the thought of pardoning Maxwell.
I don’t like how he added, “I’m allowed to do it.” Yes, you are, and it’s something you should not do ever.
Q: "Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?"
President Trump: "It's something I haven't thought about…I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about." pic.twitter.com/ttkO484bq1
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 25, 2025
I mean, Markus latched onto that line:
“The president said this morning he had the right to do so,” Markus echoed before calling Trump “the ultimate dealmaker” and claiming his client had “been treated unfairly for the past five years” and “didn’t get a fair trial.”
“We hope he exercises that power in a right and just way,” he added.
Ugh, no. Your client is disgusting.
Maxwell is appealing her conviction based on a 2007 agreement. This is from July 14:
Maxwell, 63, had urged the court earlier this year to review her case, arguing that an unusual co-conspirator’s clause in Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida barred her subsequent prosecution in New York. A district court and a federal appeals court previously rejected that argument, and the DOJ today urged the high court to do the same.
“That contention is incorrect, and petitioner does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals,” wrote U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
Today, Markus told reporters he doesn’t think “Trump knows that the Justice Department took the position that that promise should not be upheld.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’d let her walk if her testimony lead to high profile democrats being done for pedophilia.
If intelligence services, rich foreigners, and high-profile D’s got a pass, would that be okay by you?
Democrats already have passes you intellectual Pygmy 😂😂😂
Sorry; I meant to type “high-profile R’s”.
And, I wonder the same thing. Rs can be just as dirty as anyone else.
You sound like you’re worried about your name being published, Son of JR.
Like most of your posts regarding the Epstein scandal, this latest one of yours would be discredible to a 6-year-old guttersnipe.
You sound concerned, moonhammed.
You’re quite a sick individual if you’re fine with the US gov’t continuing to let intelligence services and the international elites off the hook for raping hundreds of underage girls.
Where did I post that, moonhammed? You make preposterous inferences just because no one here entertains your obvious concern-trolling and shitposts.
To “Paddy”: Thanks: you’ve made my point by dismissing my posts about the Epstein coverhup as “trolling” and “shitposting”. Also by your habitual name-callng.
Sorry; I meant to type “high-profile R’s”.
Dumb 🫏🤡. Got your cyanide pill handy? Reap the whirlwind when Maxwell’s testimony sinks your precious Democrat ship and rips the last vestiges of your leftist fantasies from your cataract-iced eyes.
Is it your position that no R’s participated in or abetted Epstein’s vast child-rape enterprise, or that you don’t want any of those R’s to be prosecuted? The cover-up has been bipartisan. https://youtu.be/2GK114NGCM8?si=935S3gFv4tbXQr_2
For example, it was Trump 45’s Sec’y of Labor (Alex Acosta) who had (back in 2007) been the Federal attorney who agreed to the sweetheart deal that included the “unusual co-conspirator’s clause in Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida” that Maxwell is invoking in her appeal.
How does a dirty lawyer like Acosta end up being appointed by Trump to such a plum position?
Democrats or non-democrats, high profile or bottom of the barrel, I don’t care. They all should should go down.
💯 Both parties have been involved, and it’s been a bipartisan cover-up.
https://youtu.be/2GK114NGCM8?si=935S3gFv4tbXQr_2
Especially given that it was Trump 45’s Sec’y of Labor (Alex Acosta) who had (back in 2007) been the Federal attorney who agreed to the “unusual co-conspirator’s clause in Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida” that Maxwell is invoking in her appeal.
Don’t stop there. I’d let her walk if her testimony lead to high profile anybody being done for pedophilia. I don’t care who they are, we don’t need “leaders” like that. We need to take out the trash wherever we find it.
Bring Maxwell’s hammer down on Ghislaines’ list.
Will Trump pardon Larry Sinclair?
I think it would be fair an honorable to sacrifice justice on one guilty person to condemn maybe hundreds of sex perverts. One thing I have learned is that when a young woman who is 17-19 years old that looks older wants to be considered a woman, they can fake it without any trouble. Then if caught, claim they are miniors and should be pitied not prosecuted. I’m not saying they all did that but one has already been caught lying about Alan Dershowitz and she admitted it in court. I believe the child porn were all videos bought, not made by Epstein so there won’t be any of his visitors in them. I do know that Trump needs to take this issue away from the creeps in the Dem party because its all they have now. They and the msm will use this to divert away from obama and his traitorous behavior.
You’ve constructed quite a fairy tale to downplay the international scope of Epstein’s child-rape operation. And of Trump’s involvent in running cover for the perps. It’s been a 20+-year, bipartisan cover-up.
https://youtu.be/2GK114NGCM8?si=935S3gFv4tbXQr_2
So where is the list of 100 names and did they ask her for any names not on the list.
Having her name names that they don’t have any corroborating evidence for would be useless without that confirmation. So I would assume that the 100 would be those with some circumstantial reason to believe they could have broke the law whilst partying on Pedo Island with Jeffry and Ghislaine. Her eyewitness testimony – coupled with circumstances AND any corroborating testimony from fellow partyers or staff would be useful. Anything less and the Rich & the Powerful’s lawyers can reasonably argue Ghislaine Is lying to buy a sentence reduction.
Of course there are names not on the list, if her motive (at least partly) is to be pardoned.
You don’t give up all of the high profile names without something in return.
See the above quote about heresay evidence.
Her testimony is useless without substantial corroborating evidence, but that might be possible with some of them. If she helps nail a few prominent Democrats it will be worth it.
The general federal SoL is five years. Epstein has been dead for six years. At this point, without more evidence, it’s damn near slander to name names. How is someone supposed to clear his name?
Yes she was holding back when she had an opportunity to give a plea agreement in return for claims she could verify with evidence till she had what on the internet looks like an ideal political moment to finally tell who Epstein was in contact with.
Here are some thoughts
1. We have Epstein’s phone and travel records we know everyone he ever met with
2. We also have thoroughly investigated the case. The only person who there is both alive and could be proven to have raped alongside Epstein is now serving a 20 year prison sentence.
Prosecutors have an obligation to only act on testimony that can be proven.
The word of a convict with no other evidence has no credibility at all.
Maxwell claimed she was innocent, the evidence disagrees her credibility is none.
Furthermore being associated with a billionaire does not mean you had anything to do with secret evil he was doing.
Epstein literally contributed generously to chemistry departments at universities, meaning chemistry teachers are through no fault of their own Epstein contacts.
20 years is a good amount of time for what she is convicted for.
For some context if you had been a MIT professor trying to encourage Epstein to continue his contributions to the University congratulations you are now a Jeffrey Epstein contact. This is relevant because Epstein was an MIT donor.
The internet lynch mob is precisely the reason why judges whoever appoints them are very hesitant to release details about cases that are irrelevant to the case itself.
That there is an internet firestorm determining anyone who had contact with Epstein must have known he was a child molester and been one is a compelling reason for any judge to say no to releasing more files.
Lots of people have secret lives nobody in their circle knows about.
Trump knew Epstein, Trump had no idea who Epstein really was and if you had been in Trump’s position you wouldn’t have had any idea either.
To be fair, people who are genuinely concerned with this case are only interested in information that links particular people to criminal activity. I don’t care about who merely palled around with Epstein. Couldn’t care less about who those people are. The game being played here is likely a false story that the prosecutors and judges are incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff, and the the wheat gets a pass in order to protect the chaff.
See post below for my point reinforced however. Here on LI you could see people who seem to want to ruin the lives of professors for seeking donations to their university from him.
In fact, the Epstein scandal at MIT involved professors schmoozing Epstein for grants AFTER he had already been convicted of his sex crimes. Epstein was already on a “don’t accept money from this guy unless cleared from the top” list at MIT. The professors wined and dined with him anyway, and sent grants up to the top for approval which were signed off on by President L. Rafael Reif, board member of the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations. (He says he signed it without noticing what it was.) If the professors “didn’t know” Epstein was a convicted sex criminal, a simple feedback system broke down very badly at MIT.
In other words you want to name shame and ruin the lives of professors for the crime of seeking donations for their university proving EXACTLY my point of WHY a federal judge is unlikely to unseal everything.
Federal judges are sensitive to the possibility of ruining innocent lives through no fault of their own and the post defending the idea that we should know which MIT professors sought and achieved donations from that rich pedo as I said proves exactly my point.
Nope. Not for ‘seeking donations’. For wining, dining and stroking the ego of Epstein who had an already checkered history. If it was OK to seek his money then its also OK to be named for doing so. Sup with the ‘devil’ aka Epstein and there should be a high price to reputation. Choices have consequences. Shame and ostracism for the unsavory company one chooses to keep seems a low price. Hopefully full transparency and applied consequences will act as a deterrent to other supposedly ‘good’ people to become far more selective about their choices…maybe it will even work to push out more paedophiles and the paedophile adjacent and those who seek to defend them from polite society and positions of public trust.
Do you actually know the age of the girl who Epstein was convicted of sleeping with, and the age of the girl Matt Gaetz slept with and does the answer to those questions permit a standard of destroying peoples lives for asking Epstein for donations?
Yes we know universities sent their people to him for donations, and that the direction came from the top Alan Dershowitz described that in exact detail in discussing how he met Epstein.
The desire to ruin chemistry and biology professors for that is not consistent with a judge removing the name redactions.
Danny,
Your constant invocation of the possibility for reputation damage is the exact point. At MINIMUM there should be reputation damage for remaining in the orbit of Epstein/Maxwell. If nothing else for severely impaired decision-making and ability to gauge risk/reward. Release the info, let the chips fall. The public is entirely capable of viewing the entirety of the information in full context and coming to their own conclusions about the degree of innocence or guilt.
You really do not understand human decency sir.
You really do not.
Innocent people do not get their lives ruined because they asked the wrong person to donate to an institution in this country.
Again demonstrate that is the standard you have for Matt Gaetz.
Prior to 2019 the biggest and only criminal conviction for Epstein was 17 years old girls.
The Matt Gaetz scandal was determining if a girl he slept with was 17 or 18 and he got away with no prosecution entirely because police and congress failed to determine the answer.
I did not see you demand a single person commenting about how they insisted he become attorney general suffer in any way.
In case you didn’t realize allowing someone to be AG is worst than begging them for cash for a university.
That’s why there should be more info released. The DoJ should create several different ‘lists’ of folks with varying degrees of Epstein/Maxwell contact from more/less harmless to WTF and everything in between. The range could begin with those who bumped into them at some social event well before public allegations but zero suspicion these individuals engaged in wrongdoing and going up from there.
Creating different lists reflecting various levels of contact/behavior with Epstein/Maxwell helps to remove unfair innuendo that ‘anyone’ with even minimal arms length contact was mixed up in abuse at Pedo Island.
People demanding more haven’t read the files that have been already released.
What has been released is the evidence for the case with people who should not be named redacted, and information unfavorable to the victims redacted, and evidence that would be highly illegal to show the public kept out (any police officer releasing child porn to the public is on the way to his own arrest).
Release the evidence. Protect the victims by redacting the minors names/blur their faces and release the names of the folks engaged in sexual exploitation of minor children. Issue a Pardon to the person tasked with releasing all this so that the public will know just who was doing what, where and when. If this blows up a bunch of oligarchs, gov’t officials or otherwise prominent and powerful predators of children so be it. No excuses.
Some of the victims are over 18, and allowing child porn into the public violates American law, in all 50 states as well as federal..
Federal judges order names redacted and American law keeps some things out of the public for a reason.
Sure and our establishment/ruling class would never ever seek to hide the truth from the public, especially if it embarrassed them, opened them up to criminal/civil liability or could potentially upend their power and influence. /S
Release it in DC hosted on DC servers. Put it on a drop down menu with J6 info among other things. Maybe add the Waco/Branch Dravidian info. Issue pardons. Problem solved.
By the way you aren’t suggesting that these ‘innocent’ fundraising professors are involved in illegal activity are you?
WHat you just stated is the definition of conspiracy theory.
You aren’t willing to read the files already released which frankly is ALL of the relevant ones.
The couple of names redacted are redacted so goose stepping lynch mobs can’t target innocent people.
Because a police officer pushing child porn into the public is called a sex criminal and is required to spend a decade in prison as a sex criminal there will always be files not available to the public.
Because innocent people happened to have contact with Epstein the redacted names will always be there.
The only conspiracy is assholes who want to ruin lives of people they know are innocent of wrong doing.
The same assholes wanted AG Matt Gaetz despite the fact that he did exactly the same thing Epstein was convicted of.
What because he was convicted of doing what Matt Gaetz did they should have known there was more?
Does that apply to Gaetz current employer?
If the only evidence you have is nothing you have no case.
Maxwell was treated unfairly. A fair system, interested in actual justice, would have followed up upon her conviction, having established with a legal certainty that Epstein was playing host to guests who were criminally abusing underage girls. Instead, her singular conviction smacks of a miscarriage of actual justice, amounting to nothing but the identification and conviction of a fall guy.
Yeah, exactly. How can it be that Maxwell is guilty of trafficking leading to sexual abuse/exploitation of minors but there’s no trials much less convictions of those who did the abusing? It screams that some prominent, powerful folks are being protected from prosecution. The lack of information lends credence to conspiracy theories. Far better to mitigate/eliminate the hoopla of innuendo and conjecture with transparency. Otherwise this story and the innuendo will not end.
Trafficking to Epstein doesn’t mean to anyone else.
Feel free to return to planet earth some day and stop making conspiracy theories.
She spilled on 100+ persons. The DOJ had to have known the names from some type of investigative notes, grand jury testimony, etc.. We don’t know how many of those 100+ may have potential criminal culpability. Some may be people who may have met him, but never committed a criminal act. Since her c are is still on appeal the info developed might not see the light of day until she has exhausted her appeals. Don’t forget it was the recently fired Comey daughter that was the prosecutor. If she hid the 100+ names to protect them, that’s a whole other story.
Hillary defending bill again?
and there you go
its deal time
she say whatever needs to be said and lefty will spin and amplify anything and everything and then with the PRETEND MAGA’s on their side
the lefty will win UNLESS WE CRUSH THEM BY MAGA….
THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE RIGHT NOW
then OLosers >>>fbi >>hillary>>> dnc RussiaGate where they clearlyyyyyy
gave the middle finger to the law and good ethics and by any means necessary was more than just the violent rhetoric they pose
The left claimed Trump was not going to allow people in voting lines to get water……..GET THEM NOW AND INDICT
and all the rest can continue to scream eppppsteinnnnnnn
Is it just me or does NOT look like the same woman? When I saw her typical picture (with Epstein) and this one the other day side-by-side my first thought was “who’s that?” Yes, prison is not kind to facades, but that doesn’t even seem close.
Prison charges you significantly.
Pam Bondi told us she had the list and it was on her desk.