Trump considers a pardon
for Ghislaine Maxwell after calling her “evil.”
Febuary 10, 2026
|
|
|
|
Trump is aiming for a trifecta never achieved in
American political history: He is attempting to convert his campaign’s top
three winning issues into political liabilities of epic proportions. He has
already done the heavy lifting: He has alienated voters on the economy,
immigration, and the Epstein files. But there is no situation that Trump cannot
make worse. He is about to do so with the cover-up of his involvement in
Epstein’s child rape and trafficking criminal enterprise.
Yes, it is maddening and devastating—especially for the
victims--that a man who seems to be hip deep in the Epstein scandal is on the
verge of granting a pardon (clemency) for Ghislaine Maxwell. But Trump is
deeply underwater on this issue, and one of the few things he can do to make it
worse is to pardon the remaining mastermind of the Epstein-Maxwell sex crimes
network.
If Trump pardons Maxwell, that should further alienate
voters and increase their feelings of betrayal by Trump. The ultimate justice
may be that Trump’s involvement with Epstein will be the final nail in the
crushing defeat of the GOP in the midterms.
To be clear, Trump hasn’t said he is actively considering granting
clemency for Maxwell, but Maxwell is actively seeking clemency. See NBC
News, Ghislaine Maxwell pleads
the Fifth but says she’d ‘speak fully and honestly’ if Trump grants her
clemency.
Maxwell’s “deposition” on Monday was carefully choreographed by her
attorney and Republicans on the House Oversight Committee to make the case for
clemency. GOP House members released a video of Maxwell repeatedly invoking the
Fifth Amendment, while Maxwell’s attorney said that she would testify fully and
truthfully only if she were granted clemency. See HuffPost, Ghislaine Maxwell Pleads
Fifth In Deposition, Holds Out For Trump Pardon.
Maxwell’s attorney said,
Only she can
provide the complete account” [of Epstein’s actions] . . . . Some may not like
what they hear, but the truth matters. For example, both President Trump and
President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing. Ms. Maxwell alone can explain
why, and the public is entitled to that explanation.
Maxwell’s attorney has, in effect, offered Trump a bribe: Testimony
exonerating Trump in exchange for a pardon. (See 18 U.S.C. § 201(c), which prohibits giving or receiving anything of value in
exchange for testimony.)
To say the least, bribery is not the way testimonial proffers are
supposed to work. Generally, plea deals are contingent on the defendant first providing testimony
under an immunity agreement. IF the testimony is
determined to be true, the benefit of the bargain is then delivered to the
defendant. (See, by analogy, US Sentencing Guideline Manual, 2011 5k1.1)
Here, Maxwell wants her “Get Out of Jail Free” card
before she reveals what she knows—or doesn’t know. And after the pardon is
granted, she can lie with impunity to clear Trump of involvement with the
Epstein-Maxwell crimes.
So, why am I discussing the possibility of Trump pardoning Maxwell?
Answer: Trump has not rejected the request, even though Speaker Mike Johnson
has said a pardon would be “unconscionable.” [See NBC article cited
above.]
The fact that Trump has not unequivocally rejected the
request makes it highly likely that he will grant it. Remember that time Trump
pardoned thousands of January 6 insurrectionists despite universal opposition
by his closest advisers?
The Epstein child-rape and sex trafficking cover-up came into sharper
focus on Monday as Democratic representatives were able to view the unredacted
Epstein files for the first time. Or rather, they were supposed to be able to review
the unreacted Epstein files. Instead, the files made available to Democratic
representatives by the DOJ still contained
redactions. Nonetheless, Democratic representatives
confirmed that previous DOJ redactions were improper. See The Hill, Raskin said unredacted
Epstein files indicate DOJ improperly shielded names.
One of the most dramatic disclosures in the unredacted
files viewed by congressional representatives contradicts Trump’s story that he
“kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago.”
Per the Hill, Rep. Raskin said,
“Epstein’s
lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that that Jeffrey Epstein was not
a member of his club at Mar-a-Lago, but he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago, and he
had never been asked to leave, and that was redacted for some indeterminate,
inscrutable reason. I know it seems to be at odds with some things that
President Trump has been saying recently about how he had kicked Jeffrey
Epstein out of his club or asked him to leave.”
Raskin was speaking sarcastically in the above statement. What he was
saying is that Trump told Epstein’s lawyers that Trump never asked Epstein to
leave Mar-a-Lago.
Another dramatic disclosure contradicted Trump’s recent kind words for
Maxwell. In 2020, when Maxwell was denied bail after her arrest, Trump said, “I do wish her well. I’m not looking for anything bad
for her.”
But in July 2006, Trump called the local police chief (in Palm Beach)
when news of Epstein’s arrest was first reported. See Miami Herald, Trump: “Everyone” knew
about Epstein, Maxwell was “evil”.
Per an FBI interview with the Palm Beach police chief,
Trump said the following to the chief in 2006:
DONALD TRUMP
told that he threw EPSTEIN out of his club. TRUMP called the PBPD to tell him
“thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this”.
TRUMP told him people in New York knew EPSTEIN was disgusting. TRUMP said
MAXWELL was EPSTEIN’s operative,” she is evil and to focus on her”. TRUMP told
that he was around EPSTEIN once when teenagers were present and TRUMP “got the
hell out of there”. TRUMP was one of the very first people to call when people
found out that they were investigating EPSTEIN.
The FBI report of the interview with the Palm Beach police chief is
here: Reiter 2019 FBI Interview
| DocumentCloud.
So, documents released last week reveal that Trump
considered Maxwell to be “evil,” but as of February 10, 2026, Trump is
apparently considering granting Maxwell clemency.
Finally, Reps. Massie and Khanna identified the names of six men who were
“likely incriminated” but shielded from public view by improper DOJ redactions.
See The Hill, Massie, Khanna spotted
six individuals ‘likely incriminated’ in unredacted Epstein files.
In short, the unredacted files made available to
congressional representatives indicate that the DOJ is participating in an
ongoing cover-up of men who are “likely incriminated” by the Epstein files.
Ghislaine Maxwell could provide testimony to help bring those men to justice.
Instead, she is manipulating the system to obtain clemency for herself in
exchange for perjured testimony exonerating Trump.
The American people understand what is happening, and
no amount of Kabuki theater will dissuade them from demanding the truth. As
horrific as the ongoing conspiracy is, it will provide powerful impetus to
defeat everyone who is helping Trump to continue the cover-up.
Quick notes
I am short on time this evening due to family
commitments (as explained previously), so here are few quick notes of relevant
developments.
First, CBS News obtained a DHS
internal memo that reveals only 14% of those arrested by ICE during the last
year had violent records; and the “internal data indicate that less than 2% of
those arrested by ICE over the past year had homicide or sexual assault charges
or convictions. Another 2% of those taken into ICE custody were accused of
being gang members.” See Less than 14% of those
arrested by ICE in Trump’s 1st year back in office had violent criminal
records, document shows - CBS News
Second, the Freedom of the
Press Foundation filed a complaint with the Virginia State Bar, alleging that
an assistant U.S. attorney violated ethics rules in seeking a search warrant
against a WaPo reporter. The complaint is based on the failure of the assistant
US attorney to advise the magistrate judge of a statute that grants additional
protections to members of the press against searches. See NYTimes, Bar Complaint Filed Over
Search of Washington Post Reporter’s Home.
Third, the EPA will repeal
a landmark finding that is the predicate for the regulation of greenhouse gases
and fossil fuels. See WSJ, Trump to Repeal Landmark
Climate Finding in Huge Regulatory Rollback. Per the Journal,
The final
rule, set to be made public later this week, removes the regulatory
requirements to measure, report, certify and comply with federal greenhouse-gas
emission standards for motor vehicles, and repeals associated compliance
programs, credit provisions and reporting obligations for industries, according
to administration officials.
Concluding Thoughts
I urge readers to exercise calm and restraint in
reacting to news reports about voter suppression legislation that is currently
moving through the House. The legislation—a revised version of the SAVE Act—is
an abomination, but it is highly unlikely to pass in the Senate. I watched a
20-minute panel discussion about the proposed revisions, and not once did a
panelist mention that the bill is subject to the Senate filibuster.
The filibuster is a highly relevant fact whose omission
could only have been intended to frighten viewers by creating a misleading
narrative about the likelihood that the bill will become law. I understand why
the fact was omitted—because the panelists want to motivate voters to call
their representatives to vote against the bill. The panelists presumably fear
that acknowledging the filibuster's existence will give people a false sense of
security and dissuade them from taking action.
Two comments. First, fair point. Second, have you met
members of the resistance? They take nothing for granted! And they are
knowledgeable consumers of political information. They can stand the truth; in
fact, they very much like it when the “progressive” media tells them the truth.
The most likely outcome is that the revised SAVE Act
passes in the House with no Democratic support and is blocked in the Senate by
the filibuster.
But the truth is that Trump is leaning hard on GOP
senators to carve out an exception from the filibuster for voting rights
legislation. Senate Majority Leader Thune has repeatedly said he will not make
an exception to the filibuster for the SAVE Act.
Still, nothing is impossible. Republicans may fear an
extinction-level event in the midterms and, therefore, be willing to break the
filibuster to hold onto power for two more years.
The consequence of creating an exception to the filibuster for voting
legislation will be devastating for Republicans and glorious for Democrats.
Republicans have maintained minority rule because of
the filibuster. Once the filibuster is gone and Democrats regain control of Congress and
the presidency in 2028, we will pass the For the
People Act (the bill expands voter registration, automatic and same-day
registration, vote-by-mail and early voting, and independent redistricting
commissions) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (reversing Shelby
County v. Holder). Republicans know this; they fear it; and they want to avoid
it at all costs.
But let’s assume Senate Republicans capitulate to Trump
and create a carve-out to the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act. We cannot assume
a disaster will happen, even if the bill passes. Voter suppression legislation
is a blunt instrument. See, e.g., Texas, where its efforts to use mid-census
gerrymanders are on the verge of backfiring against Republicans.
The provisions of the SAVE Act are intended to make voting harder. And
they do. But those provisions apply to everyone—including women, elderly
voters, and minority voters who supported Trump. Moreover, “Given that
low-propensity and non-college-educated voters have shifted toward the
Republican Party, some have suggested that voter ID laws may now benefit
Democrats.” See The Fulcrum (11/04/24), Could voter ID laws
backfire on Republicans?
So, let’s take a deep breath. Republicans would be
idiots to abolish the filibuster on voting legislation. But if they do pass the
SAVE Act, we can and will mobilize to comply with its provisions (while
litigating in court). Republicans may or may not do the same, even though their
base is at least as vulnerable as Democratic voters.
Let’s not assume disaster. Resist the passage of the SAVE Act in the
House and Senate. If Republicans break the filibuster, let’s get to work to
ensure our voters can meet the bill's requirements. Now is a good time to
mention VoteRiders, an organization that helps people navigate voter ID
requirements.
Stay calm, stay strong, and stay focused. We are
winning. That is why Republicans are resorting to desperate measures.
