James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, agreed on Friday to a request from Ghislaine Maxwell to keep her in custody until the Supreme Court reviews her appeal regarding her sex trafficking conviction.
However, Comer declined requests from Maxwell’s attorneys to provide her immunity and allow her to receive questions beforehand.
Following bipartisan support for investigations last month, Comer summoned Maxwell for a deposition at the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee on August 11.
In a letter to Maxwell, Comer emphasized, “Your testimony is essential to our inquiries into Jeffrey Epstein, particularly concerning the non-prosecution agreement of 2007 and the circumstances of Epstein’s death. These investigations may inform potential laws aimed at combating sex trafficking and improving federal protocols related to non-prosecution and judicial agreements in sexual offense cases.”
On Monday, Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Marx, wrote to the committee requesting a postponement of the interview until the Supreme Court reviews her petition.
Comer agreed to the postponement, stating, “The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled your petition regarding the Certiorari warrant for consideration on September 29. Given this, we are willing to delay your deposition until after the court reaches a decision.”
However, Comer rejected the request for immunity.
He noted, “The committee is hesitant to grant immunity under 18 USC §6005 at this moment. Additionally, while we are not willing to provide questions in advance, we will continue our practice of engaging in open and detailed discussions regarding the scope.”
Maxwell has argued in her appeal that she is being unfairly held to a non-prosecution agreement made with federal prosecutors in 2007, which a lower court ruled only applied to the Southern District of Florida, not to the New York District where she was convicted.
Maxwell participated in a two-day interview with Associate Attorney General Todd Blanche last week, where her lawyer described the session as “full and comprehensive,” noting that “no topics were off-limits” and asserting that “the truth emerges.”
