The Maxwell Deposition: What Congress Wants — And What She’ll Never Say (1/21/26)

Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted associate of Jeffrey Epstein who is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence, is scheduled to give a **virtual deposition before the U.S. House Oversight Committee on February 9, 2026, as part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into Epstein’s criminal network and the federal government’s handling of related cases. Committee Chairman James Comer issued a subpoena for Maxwell’s testimony, which comes amid growing pressure from lawmakers to uncover additional information about Epstein’s operations and his circle of powerful associates. Maxwell’s lawyers have indicated she may invoke her Fifth Amendment rights during the deposition rather than answer substantive questions, and she had previously resisted congressional questioning while pursuing appeals of her conviction. The deposition is being conducted in closed session, and while Maxwell already participated in an extensive interview with Department of Justice officials last year, congressional leaders see her testimony as a potentially critical piece in efforts to understand the broader Epstein network and related government responses.The context of Maxwell’s appearance is entangled with broader political and legal battles over the release of Epstein-related documents, compliance with subpoenas by other high-profile figures, and disputes between Congress and both the DOJ and the Supreme Court over access to evidence. Republicans and Democrats alike have pushed for more transparency, while some subpoenaed individuals, including former officials, have resisted testifying, triggering threats of contempt proceedings. Maxwell’s deposition thus comes at a moment of heightened scrutiny on how federal authorities handled Epstein and his network — and whether powerful individuals connected to that network will ever be compelled to speak under oath to lawmakers seeking accountability.to contact me:[email protected]:Ghislaine Maxwell summoned before Congress for grilling over Epstein secrets | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent disclosures from congressional investigations and documents tied to the Epstein estate have exposed a far deeper and more personal relationship between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein than previously acknowledged, raising serious questions about her judgment and fitness to serve as general counsel of Goldman Sachs. Emails and schedules show she met with Epstein dozens of times between 2014 and 2019 — long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor — and that their communication ranged from career advice and personal travel planning to repeated informal exchanges, which some insiders view as far beyond the scope of mere professional interaction. She was even named as a backup executor in an early version of Epstein’s will, a detail that triggered internal alarm at Goldman once it became public, and suggests a level of trust and intimacy that many observers find profoundly inappropriate given Epstein’s crimes. The revelations directly undermine her role on Goldman’s Reputational Risk Committee, where she helps decide which clients and relationships could endanger the firm’s ethical standing.Even after Goldman’s leadership publicly defended Ruemmler and denied any formal plans to replace her, the controversy has not dissipated; critics argue that the firm’s insistence on keeping her in a top legal and governance role reflects a troubling tolerance for ethical ambiguity when it benefits powerful insiders. Some executives reportedly view Ruemmler as a potential liability whose past associations were not fully disclosed or understood at the time of her hiring, and whose continued presence on ethics-related committees sends a poor message about the bank’s commitment to accountability and moral judgment. The fact that these revelations emerged only through released documents and not proactive disclosure further fuels skepticism about transparency at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs, intensifying scrutiny from investors, lawmakers, and corporate governance watchdogs.to contact me:[email protected]:New court doc asserts former Obama WH counsel advised Jeffrey Epstein during critical reputational and legal battles | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent disclosures from congressional investigations and documents tied to the Epstein estate have exposed a far deeper and more personal relationship between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein than previously acknowledged, raising serious questions about her judgment and fitness to serve as general counsel of Goldman Sachs. Emails and schedules show she met with Epstein dozens of times between 2014 and 2019 — long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor — and that their communication ranged from career advice and personal travel planning to repeated informal exchanges, which some insiders view as far beyond the scope of mere professional interaction. She was even named as a backup executor in an early version of Epstein’s will, a detail that triggered internal alarm at Goldman once it became public, and suggests a level of trust and intimacy that many observers find profoundly inappropriate given Epstein’s crimes. The revelations directly undermine her role on Goldman’s Reputational Risk Committee, where she helps decide which clients and relationships could endanger the firm’s ethical standing.Even after Goldman’s leadership publicly defended Ruemmler and denied any formal plans to replace her, the controversy has not dissipated; critics argue that the firm’s insistence on keeping her in a top legal and governance role reflects a troubling tolerance for ethical ambiguity when it benefits powerful insiders. Some executives reportedly view Ruemmler as a potential liability whose past associations were not fully disclosed or understood at the time of her hiring, and whose continued presence on ethics-related committees sends a poor message about the bank’s commitment to accountability and moral judgment. The fact that these revelations emerged only through released documents and not proactive disclosure further fuels skepticism about transparency at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs, intensifying scrutiny from investors, lawmakers, and corporate governance watchdogs.to contact me:[email protected]:New court doc asserts former Obama WH counsel advised Jeffrey Epstein during critical reputational and legal battles | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Alex Acosta interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General was not a genuine act of oversight but a carefully managed exercise in institutional self-protection. From the outset, the OIG accepted Acosta’s framing that the Epstein deal was inherited, constrained, and unavoidable, rather than interrogating his clear authority as U.S. Attorney to reject or dismantle it. Extraordinary features of the agreement—blanket immunity, secrecy, victim exclusion, and shielding of unnamed co-conspirators—were treated as unfortunate byproducts instead of deliberate choices. The interview avoided probing motive, power, ambition, or external influence, and allowed “complexity” to substitute for accountability. Victims were reduced to procedural inconveniences, dissent within Acosta’s own office was minimized, and secrecy was discussed without examining intent. The questioning was gentle, the language sanitized, and the structure designed to preserve narrative control rather than expose wrongdoing. Oversight became theater, and truth became optional.The result was a report that closed ranks instead of opened files, offering procedural recommendations while refusing to assign responsibility for one of the most grotesque plea bargains in modern history. The interview failed because success would have required institutional self-indictment, something the DOJ was never willing to permit. It reinforced the message that elite defendants receive different justice, that internal watchdogs protect the system before victims, and that career incentives quietly shape prosecutorial restraint. More than a missed opportunity, the Acosta interview became proof of how accountability is neutralized through tone, omission, and deference. Rage is justified because this failure was engineered, not accidental. Disgust is warranted because victims were erased yet again under the banner of review. The true scandal is not only the Epstein deal itself, but the system’s refusal to confront how and why it happened.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The UK’s Metropolitan Police Service (Met) is now “actively looking” into fresh allegations that Prince Andrew allegedly used a taxpayer-funded police bodyguard to obtain the U.S. Social Security number and date of birth of his accuser, Virginia Giuffre — apparently to dig up “dirt” on her. These new allegations arise from leaked emails and Giuffre’s recently published posthumous memoir, and they have reignited calls for a full criminal inquiry in the UK after previous investigations by the Met opted not to open one. Sources suggest that if evidence is found that the royal improperly sought to direct or influence police resources, then the offence of misconduct in public office could be in play.Meanwhile, in the United States and in political circles, pressure is building for action — though no formal prosecution has yet been confirmed. U.S. lawmakers such as Nancy Mace have publicly demanded that any potential crimes by Prince Andrew on U.S. soil be pursued, and parliamentarians in the UK are calling for a mechanism to strip him of titles and privileges as accountability ramps up. The combination of renewed documentary claims, political uproar, and active investigation means that this may no longer be purely a reputational or civil matter — the threshold for possible criminal exposure appears to be closer than at any time in recent years.to contact me:[email protected]:Could Prince Andrew ever be prosecuted over his links to Jeffrey Epstein? | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In newly surfaced emails following the publication of a photograph linking Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Giuffre, Andrew appears to have communicated with Jeffrey Epstein in a tone of solidarity rather than distance. On February 28, 2011, the day after the photo was made public, he reportedly wrote to Epstein: “Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it.” He also urged Epstein to “keep in close touch” and ominously added, “we’ll play some more soon!!!!” — a line that strongly undermines Andrew’s repeated claims that he severed ties with Epstein in December 2010.These messages cast Andrew’s denials of continuing association in a starkly different light, suggesting instead complicity or at least an unwillingness to genuinely distance himself. Rather than distancing, his language portrays a desire to jointly weather scandal and maintain a shared alliance — insinuating that he viewed their relationship as ongoing and durable, even in crisis. His use of phrases like “in this together” and talk of “playing more” with someone later convicted of orchestrating a vast trafficking enterprise projects callousness and entitlement, exposing not just personal cowardice but a deeply troubling willingness to remain entwined with criminal misconduct.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:[email protected]:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense rested its case after calling just nine witnesses, a move that underscored how thin and constrained her strategy ultimately was. Rather than mounting a sweeping rebuttal to the testimony of survivors and corroborating evidence, the defense leaned on a narrow, risk-averse approach that avoided putting Maxwell herself on the stand. The witnesses largely focused on character testimony, selective denials, and attempts to cast doubt on the government’s timeline, rather than directly confronting the substance of the trafficking allegations. This minimalist presentation stood in stark contrast to the breadth and emotional weight of the prosecution’s case, which featured multiple survivors describing Maxwell’s hands-on role in recruitment, grooming, and abuse. By resting so quickly, the defense effectively conceded that it could not meaningfully dismantle the core narrative presented by the government. The choice signaled damage control, not confidence, and suggested that the defense was more concerned with limiting exposure than persuading the jury of Maxwell’s innocence.The brevity of the defense case also highlighted a deeper problem for Maxwell: there was no alternative explanation that could plausibly account for the volume and consistency of the testimony against her. Calling only nine witnesses reinforced the impression that the defense had little to work with beyond procedural arguments and character appeals. It also avoided opening doors to cross-examination that could have dragged Epstein’s broader network and Maxwell’s long relationship with him further into the record. In that sense, the defense’s decision to rest early fit neatly into the larger pattern surrounding the case, one where scope was tightly controlled and uncomfortable questions were left unasked. Maxwell did not mount a full-throated defense because doing so would have required confronting facts that were difficult to dispute. When the defense rested, it became clear that the trial was no longer about competing narratives, but about whether the jury believed the survivors the government put forward, and whether minimal resistance was enough to overcome their testimony. It wasn’t.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In early September 2020, amid growing scandal and public scrutiny over his associations with Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew traveled to Balmoral Castle to hold what was described as “crisis talks” with Queen Elizabeth II. This meeting was seen as a critical moment for the royal household, as the Queen and her advisors sought to manage the fallout from mounting allegations, including accusations by Virginia Giuffre and the widely publicized BBC Newsnight interview that followed. Sources at the time characterized the trip as an urgent effort to contain reputational damage and assess Andrew’s future role within the monarchy.Though details of the discussions were never made public, the visit marked the beginning of a permanent shift for Prince Andrew. In the wake of the scandal, he stepped back from public duties and relinquished many of his official roles and patronages. The Balmoral meeting highlighted the monarchy’s internal crisis and underscored the delicate balancing act between familial loyalty and institutional preservation as the royal family confronted one of its most serious controversies in decadesTo contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8692215/Duke-York-visited-Queen-Balmoral-crisis-talks-Jeffrey-Epstein.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Streaming services played an outsized role in rekindling public interest and scrutiny in the Jeffrey Epstein case by making documentaries about his life, network, and crimes widely accessible. Projects like Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich on Netflix showcased survivors’ stories alongside investigative reporting, exposing the broader systems of power and complicity that helped shield Epstein from accountability.  Other streaming platforms similarly offered exposés—such as Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein? on Hulu and Prince Andrew, Maxwell & Epstein on Discovery+/Prime Video—which helped sustain media momentum, push archival material into public view, and keep pressure on law enforcement and institutions tied to Epstein.The cultural influence of these streaming documentaries also amplified the voices of survivors and shifted public discourse, creating renewed demand for transparency and legal accountability. For example, Surviving Jeffrey Epstein on Lifetime reportedly triggered a 34 % jump in calls to a U.S. sexual‐assault hotline, showing how media exposure mobilized public attention to issues of sexual abuse and institutional failure.   In many ways, streaming allowed the Epstein story to transcend news cycles—embedding it into ongoing popular awareness and pressuring institutions and legal actors to respond more aggressively.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.