This has been building for years, but the breaking point came with the news that Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted child sex trafficker, refused to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein during a deposition before the House Oversight Committee by pleading the Fifth. What pushed it over the edge was her added condition: through her lawyers, she said she would only tell the “unfiltered truth” if she were granted clemency by Donald Trump. That doesn’t sound like a search for justice. It sounds like leverage. Or, more bluntly, blackmail.
Her legal team went even further, claiming that both Trump and Bill Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing, while also insisting that Maxwell herself is the only person who can explain why. We are seriously being asked to believe that anything Maxwell would say after receiving a pardon would resemble the truth. This is someone facing prison who has every incentive to say whatever it takes to save herself. Expecting honesty under those circumstances is beyond naïve.
The fact that her lawyers would even release such a statement says a lot about the moment we’re living in. It’s astonishing that an offer this shameless could be written down, let alone floated publicly. And yes, it raises the question of whether this is meant to give Trump political cover to issue a pardon under the excuse of “finally revealing the truth” about Epstein. Trump may believe that logic works. He often does. But believing something doesn’t make it rational or sincere.
Everything about the redacted Epstein files reeks. Internationally, the scandal has ensnared powerful men across borders. In the United States, however, it increasingly feels less about accountability and more about protecting those wealthy and influential enough to insulate themselves from consequences. The stench isn’t subtle.
What’s exhausting is the endless pretending. The public is constantly asked to ignore what’s obvious and accept what’s implausible, simply because the person most implicated also happens to be the one with the most power and the most to lose. That’s not justice. That’s protection.
An innocent person wants the truth exposed to clear their name. A guilty one does the opposite: hides, deflects, distracts, attacks, and threatens. That pattern has defined Trump’s behavior since the Epstein story first exploded. Yet instead of focusing on him, we get James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee, targeting the Clintons once again. Bill and Hillary Clinton have called for open hearings with cameras rolling. Comer has shown no interest in that. Digging for truth isn’t the priority; smearing long-standing political enemies is.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter much what the Clintons have to say. The spotlight should be on Trump. Put him under oath. Force him to answer questions publicly, because lying under oath would come naturally to him. Simply compelling him to testify about his role in the most notorious sex-trafficking scandal of modern times would be a meaningful step toward accountability.
Maxwell’s lawyers tried to appear neutral by declaring both Trump and Clinton innocent, but that move only makes the maneuver more obvious. It’s not balance; it’s cover. Part of a broader effort to muddy the waters and protect the most powerful figure involved.
There are other questions that demand answers too. Why hasn’t Todd Blanche been called to testify about his interactions with Maxwell? What discussions took place that resulted in her landing in what critics describe as a cushy, minimum-security environment? Was there an unspoken deal to keep her quiet? If Congress is serious, Blanche should be on the stand, facing the same threat of contempt charges that have been waved at others.
The uncomfortable truth is that everything leads back to Trump. His name reportedly appears thousands of times in the Epstein files. It has long been established that he and Epstein were close for years. The idea that Trump had no awareness of Epstein’s trafficking and abuse of underage girls strains all credibility. At the very least, it suggests criminal complicity.
Comer claims the committee is interested in speaking to anyone who can help bring justice for survivors. If that’s true, then the most obvious witness is staring them in the face. A man mentioned thousands of times in the files might have something relevant to say. The refusal to pursue that path speaks louder than any press release.
In 1973, during Watergate, Richard Nixon famously said, “People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.” Today, people have a right to know whether their president is a sexual predator or someone who protects those who commit such crimes. The only way to even approach an answer is to question Trump under oath.
There is no reason to simply accept his word. He has no credibility. But sworn testimony, under threat of perjury, at least carries the expectation of forced honesty. That’s the minimum a functioning democracy should demand.
This should never have been framed as Democrats versus Republicans. It is, and always has been, about the powerful versus the powerless. Somewhere along the way, the survivors were pushed aside, reduced to inconvenient footnotes while political games took center stage. That is the real scandal — and it’s long past time to drag it into the open.
