The sham Ghislaine Maxwell proffer is a shameful whitewash of accountability

And it has the full power of the DOJ behind it.

In the highly unusual two-day interview conducted by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted by a jury in 2021 of participating in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple minor girls with Jeffrey Epstein and sentenced by a federal judge in 2022 to 240 months in prison for that conduct, Maxwell repeatedly denied and minimized her own criminal conduct. In my 17 years as a federal prosecutor, we would call that a “failed” proffer. Why? Because the entire purpose of an interview pursuant to a "proffer" agreement or “queen for a day” is to allow someone charged (or even occasionally convicted) to admit wrongdoing without fear of further liability and, therefore, be able to talk freely and with credibility about other people’s involvement. The one big exception to that protection or immunity is if the target or defendant lies to the prosecutors—that can be prosecuted as perjury, obstruction, or false statements. As a practical matter, lying or minimizing about core criminal conduct also typically stops the interview in its tracks.

In any semi-normal time, the Justice Department would acknowledge that Maxwell’s denial of her own conduct proved at trial means she has zero credibility, and her statements about President Donald Trump or anyone else’s conduct are therefore meaningless (in a “normal” DOJ, this interview never would have taken place–she was charged with perjury, after all, and it certainly would have been halted when Maxwell brushed her own crimes under the rug). In normal times, they might have even prosecuted her for lying to a federal agent. But credibility and truth were clearly not the goals of this so-called proffer.

One exchange is particularly revealing. Blanche asked Maxwell about the millions of dollars bank records show Epstein paid to her over the course of their relationship. Blanche noted that “the reason why he paid you that is because you were performing an extraordinary service for him by recruiting young women, many of whom were underage to—so that he could sexually abuse them… That's their—that's their allegation.” He also said, “I am stuck with the witnesses at trial and what was said at trial on that issue.” He then asked Maxwell, “what do you dispute about that?” and allowed her, without pushback, to proceed to minimize the payments, claiming they were not actually payments at all but loans and business ventures. Blanche even offered some explanations on her behalf: “When a financial investigator like, the FBI looks at accounts, they don't know [what] kind of the conversations you're having. They just see the money.” Think about that: The No. 2 person at the Justice Department refers to the evidence proved by federal prosecutors at trial as “their allegation” and then asks a charged perjurer and convicted child abuser whom the district judge found lacking “candor,” free reign to spew her own version of events and even offers some explanations of his own. The DOJ then publishes the transcript of that half-baked “proffer” under the guise of “transparency.”

Let’s be clear: These were not just “allegations.” They were cold, hard facts–proved beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury and affirmed on appeal. In fact, the judge who sat through the entire trial and heard the victims and witnesses and saw the evidence found that Maxwell was “instrumental in the abuse of several underage girls and that she herself participated in some of the abuse”; conduct that was “heinous and predatory.” Per the judge, Maxwell was not some innocent bystander but “worked with Epstein to select young victims who were vulnerable. … [She] played a pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of the underaged girls through a series of deceptive tactics. A sophisticated adult woman, she provided an initial veneer of responsibility and even safety. She befriended and developed relationships of trust. She then manipulated the victims and normalized sexual abuse through her involvement, encouragement, and instruction.”

Blanche (accompanied by an FBI official and notably not any of the career prosecutors or special agents who participated in Maxwell’s prosecution) allowed Maxwell to simply deny and deflect everything without any pushback. That is not a proffer, that is not an interview, that is not transparency. It is a shameful whitewash of accountability enabled by the highest levels of the DOJ. As the victims themselves have said, DOJ gave Maxwell a “platform to rewrite history.” And to what end? Is DOJ now saying that Maxwell is innocent? The jury got it wrong? The judge got it wrong? The Palm Beach police, who as far back as 2005 found the victims credible, also got it wrong? Or is it more simply an excuse to get the one (weak if you ask me) statement out in public that purportedly benefits Trump personally—that Maxwell “never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way…. The President was never inappropriate with anybody” and muddy the waters so that Maxwell could receive preferential treatment in exchange? She has already received an unprecedented and unwarranted transfer to a minimum-security prison, and a pardon is clearly on the table.

Early on in the “interview,” Maxwell claimed that her attorneys had reached out to the government when she was arrested and prosecuted in 2020 and offered to speak with them but supposedly the offer was declined. Whether or not this version of events is true, there is no question in my mind that the Southern District prosecutors who were investigating the case against Maxwell and Epstein told her lawyer what they say to every defendant’s attorney with significant charges (especially when there is significant cooperation that could be valuable): If she wants to come in and tell us the truth about what she did and what Epstein did, we are all ears, but if she is going to minimize her conduct or his, don’t bother. I don't know the answer to why and what exactly motivated Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct and publish this sham “interview.” But I do know that the real victims—over 1,000 by this DOJ’s own statement—have been further traumatized by allowing Maxwell this platform to spew her falsehoods. And, just as important, some of the most important cases that federal prosecutors bring–sex trafficking and child sexual enticement and abuse cases—will no doubt be jeopardized. Because who would trust a DOJ that orchestrates such a travesty of justice.

---