Video: The Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on the Epstein Probe

UpdatedSeptember 10, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Detail
Witness	Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell
Proceeding	Deposition before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Investigation	Committee investigation into the actions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the government investigations involving them
Deposition date	February 9, 2026
Format	Closed door congressional deposition conducted by video conference
Witness location	Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas
Public video	The Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on the Epstein Probe
Publisher	GOP Oversight
Video length	18 minutes and 51 seconds
Platform publication date	February 9, 2026
Transcript	Reviewed platform caption transcript
Transcript length	20 pages
Oath	Maxwell was sworn under penalty of perjury
Substantive testimony	None. Maxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every substantive question
Counsel	David Oscar Markus and additional defense counsel
Committee chair	Representative James Comer
Committee ranking member	Representative Robert Garcia
Epstein Data status	No dedicated synchronized Maxwell congressional deposition entry was located in the Epstein Data deposition viewer as of this review
Evidence classification	Official congressional proceeding preserved through a committee video channel, supported by a reviewed caption transcript and independent reporting
Last fact check	September 10, 2026

Key Takeaways

The video records an official deposition conducted under the authority of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It should no longer be described only as a deposition style session.
Maxwell appeared remotely from Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas and was placed under oath.
She answered basic identity and procedure questions, but invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every question concerning Epstein, abuse, trafficking, influential associates, possible coconspirators, and Donald Trump.
Maxwell provided no names, factual narrative, denial, admission, explanation, or new investigative lead in response to the committee’s substantive questions.
Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not a confession and does not prove the premise of any question. The questions themselves are not evidence.
Maxwell’s lawyer said she would provide a full account if President Donald Trump granted clemency. That was a proposal by counsel, not sworn testimony from Maxwell about the underlying facts.
Counsel also asserted that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were innocent of wrongdoing. The deposition presented no supporting evidence because Maxwell declined to answer the related questions.
Majority staff entered five procedural exhibits. Minority staff entered two survivor letters and a letter from Representative Ro Khanna.
The public video runs less than nineteen minutes because both sides ended questioning after Maxwell made clear that she would continue invoking the privilege.
The reviewed transcript is useful for search and timestamp navigation, but it is based on platform captions and contains name, punctuation, and speaker identification errors. It is not the official court reporter transcript described in the proceeding.

Overview

The public recording documents Ghislaine Maxwell’s February 9, 2026 deposition before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The deposition was part of the committee’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell, and the actions of government agencies that investigated them. Committee counsel stated that the proceeding was conducted under House Rule 10 and pursuant to a subpoena issued by Chairman James Comer on July 23, 2025.

Maxwell appeared by video conference from federal custody. A court reporter administered an oath, and Maxwell affirmed that her testimony would be truthful. She then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination whenever the committee asked about her relationship with Epstein, her role in abuse or trafficking, other possible participants, or Trump.

The recording is important because it preserves what Congress formally asked and what Maxwell declined to answer. Its evidentiary value is also limited for the same reason. It documents silence under a constitutional privilege, not a substantive account of the Epstein operation.

Record Authentication and Provenance

Several features support the recording’s authenticity and congressional provenance.

The video is published by GOP Oversight, the committee majority’s public video channel. Its description directs viewers to the official House Oversight website. The title identifies the proceeding as Maxwell’s deposition on the Epstein investigation.

At the beginning of the recording, committee counsel identifies the committee, its investigative authority, the subpoena history, and the purpose of the deposition. Representatives and staff identify themselves on the record. The proceeding follows congressional deposition procedures, including ground rules, exhibit designations, privilege instructions, confidentiality rules, a court reporter, and an oath.

C SPAN also cataloged the proceeding as the Ghislaine Maxwell Oversight Committee deposition.

The video’s events are independently corroborated by Associated Press reporting, The Guardian, and The Washington Post.

These indicators establish that the recording is not merely a commentary clip or an anonymous repost. It is a public copy of the official committee proceeding.

What the Video Shows

The video opens with committee counsel placing the proceeding on the record and describing the subpoena history. Maxwell’s lawyer then makes an opening statement explaining that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment because of a pending habeas petition.

Maxwell states her full name and spells her surname. Counsel and participating members identify themselves. Committee staff explains the rules, the obligation to testify truthfully, the handling of privileges, the confidentiality of the closed proceeding, and the process for entering exhibits.

A court reporter places Maxwell under oath. Majority staff then asks a series of substantive questions. Maxwell invokes the Fifth Amendment after each one. Minority staff follows with additional questions, and Maxwell again invokes the privilege.

The minority enters survivor letters and a letter from Representative Ro Khanna into the record. Committee counsel excuses Maxwell under the subpoena, and the deposition ends.

The video does not show an extended examination, documentary confrontation, or substantive cross examination because Maxwell supplies no factual answers for either side to test.

Subpoena and Postponement History

Committee counsel summarized the sequence on the record.

On July 22, 2025, a committee subcommittee voted by voice to approve a motion directing the chairman to authorize and issue a subpoena for Maxwell’s deposition.

On July 23, 2025, Chairman Comer issued the subpoena. The committee later entered the subpoena and its cover letter as Majority Exhibit 1.

Maxwell’s attorney sent a July 29, 2025 letter stating that she intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment and requesting that the deposition occur after resolution of her petition to the Supreme Court. That letter became Majority Exhibit 2.

On August 1, 2025, Comer agreed to continue negotiations and postpone the deposition while the Supreme Court matter remained pending. That response became Majority Exhibit 3.

Counsel identified a January 20, 2026 letter from Markus stating that Maxwell still intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment. It became Majority Exhibit 4.

The committee noticed the February 9 deposition on February 4, 2026. The notice became Majority Exhibit 5.

The transcript’s automated captions briefly confuse one year and misrender several names. The spoken correction and surrounding chronology establish that the final defense letter was dated January 20, 2026.

Counsel’s Opening Statement

David Oscar Markus told the committee that he had advised Maxwell to invoke the Fifth Amendment. He tied that advice to a habeas petition that he said challenged the fairness of her criminal trial.

Markus alleged that jurors had lied during jury selection, that the government had broken a promise of immunity, and that newly discovered documents supported Maxwell’s collateral challenge. Those were defense assertions. The deposition did not litigate or decide them.

Markus then proposed clemency as the condition under which Maxwell would speak. He said she was “prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency” by Trump.

He also asserted that Trump and former President Bill Clinton were innocent of wrongdoing and said Maxwell could explain why. Those assertions were not accompanied by documents, sworn details, or answers from Maxwell.

The opening statement therefore has two separate evidentiary roles. It explains the defense strategy for invoking the privilege, and it records an effort to connect future cooperation to presidential clemency. It does not prove the factual claims counsel made about the trial, Trump, Clinton, or the completeness of any account Maxwell might later give.

Maxwell’s Limited Direct Testimony

Maxwell did answer non substantive questions.

She stated her full name as Ghislaine Noelle Marion Maxwell and spelled Maxwell for the record. She confirmed that counsel represented her. She repeatedly said that she understood the deposition rules, the need for verbal answers, the obligation to testify truthfully, the possible consequences of false statements, and the process for asserting privilege.

She affirmed under penalty of perjury that any testimony she gave would be truthful. She said she had no procedural questions before the examination began.

These responses establish her identity, presence, understanding, and invocation of the privilege. They do not add facts about Epstein’s crimes, Maxwell’s conduct, other people, or government failures.

Majority Questions

The majority examination asked Maxwell whether she had been a close friend and confidante of Epstein. She invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Staff asked whether she had played any role in activities involving the recruitment, grooming, or trafficking of young women or girls. She invoked the privilege.

Staff asked whether she had coerced, directed, or instructed any young woman or girl to provide sexual favors to Epstein or another person. She invoked the privilege.

Staff asked whether she and Epstein had surrounded themselves with influential people to gain favor and shield themselves from scrutiny. She invoked the privilege.

Staff asked her to provide the names of additional coconspirators in crimes committed by her and Epstein. She invoked the privilege.

Finally, staff asked whether she intended to respond to every substantive question with the same Fifth Amendment assertion. Maxwell invoked the privilege even in response to that question. Markus then confirmed that this was her intention.

Each question shows an area Congress intended to examine. None proves that its premise was true. Maxwell supplied no confirmation, denial, clarification, or names.

Minority Questions

Minority staff also asked a short series of substantive questions.

Maxwell was asked whether she had known during her relationship with Epstein that he was sexually abusing minors or adult women. She invoked the Fifth Amendment.

She was asked whether she had facilitated Epstein’s sexual abuse of a minor or adult woman. She invoked the privilege.

She was asked whether she had personally participated in sexual abuse of a minor or adult woman. She invoked the privilege.

She was asked whether she knew of Trump engaging in sexual activity with anyone introduced to him by Maxwell or Epstein. She invoked the privilege.

The last question did not produce testimony about Trump. Maxwell neither accused nor cleared him in her sworn answer because she supplied no factual answer at all. Markus’s earlier assertion about Trump was counsel’s statement and must be classified separately.

What Maxwell Answered and Refused to Answer

The distinction is straightforward.

Maxwell answered questions necessary to establish her identity, representation, understanding of the rules, and oath. She did not answer the investigative questions.

She did not describe her relationship with Epstein.

She did not address the recruitment or grooming of girls.

She did not identify any additional participant or alleged coconspirator.

She did not explain how Epstein cultivated influential associates.

She did not provide information about Trump, Clinton, or any other public figure.

She did not discuss government investigations, the 2007 non prosecution agreement, financial institutions, Epstein’s residences, travel, surveillance allegations, or the treatment of survivors.

The video therefore records a procedurally significant appearance but almost no substantive testimony.

What the Fifth Amendment Invocation Means

The Fifth Amendment protects a witness from being compelled to provide testimonial answers that could be self incriminating.

Maxwell’s repeated statement, “I invoke my fifth amendment right to silence,” preserved that claim of privilege. Committee counsel repeatedly stated for the record that she was invoking the right against self incrimination.

The invocation is not a confession. It is not a new conviction. It is not proof that every premise in a committee question is accurate. It also does not erase Maxwell’s existing criminal conviction, which rests on the trial record and jury verdict rather than this deposition.

Researchers should avoid converting silence into invented testimony. The accurate statement is that Congress asked a particular question and Maxwell declined to answer by asserting the Fifth Amendment.

The Clemency Proposal

The most consequential affirmative statement came from Maxwell’s lawyer, not Maxwell.

Markus told the committee that Maxwell would speak fully if Trump granted clemency. Clemency can include a pardon or commutation, but counsel did not present a written agreement, a White House commitment, or a committee immunity arrangement.

The proposal created an obvious credibility and incentive issue. Maxwell was serving a twenty year sentence and pursuing collateral relief. A promise to provide information only after receiving presidential relief would give her a direct personal interest in persuading the president and the public that her future testimony had value.

Associated Press reported that lawmakers from both parties criticized the proposal. The public record reviewed for this article does not show that Trump granted clemency or that the committee accepted Maxwell’s condition.

Any later statement given after a clemency negotiation would require independent corroboration through documents, testimony, financial records, communications, and prior sworn evidence.

The Claims About Trump and Clinton

Markus asserted that Trump and Clinton were innocent of wrongdoing and said Maxwell could explain why.

This was advocacy by Maxwell’s attorney. It was not a finding by Congress, a judicial ruling, or a substantive sworn answer from Maxwell. The video presents no supporting evidence for the assertion.

When minority staff later asked Maxwell a direct question involving Trump, she invoked the Fifth Amendment. That answer did not adopt, reject, or explain counsel’s earlier statement.

The deposition did not include a substantive question about Clinton after counsel’s assertion. It therefore produced no sworn factual account about him either.

The correct evidence classification is that Maxwell’s lawyer made exculpatory claims while asking the president for clemency, and Maxwell declined to provide the underlying testimony during the deposition.

Exhibits Entered Into the Record

The video identifies eight exhibits, but the recording does not display complete readable copies of them.

Exhibit	Description stated on the record
Majority Exhibit 1	July 23, 2025 subpoena and accompanying cover letter
Majority Exhibit 2	July 29, 2025 letter from David Oscar Markus stating Maxwell intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment and requesting postponement
Majority Exhibit 3	August 1, 2025 letter from Chairman Comer agreeing to continue negotiations and postpone the deposition
Majority Exhibit 4	January 20, 2026 letter from Markus stating Maxwell still intended to invoke the Fifth Amendment
Majority Exhibit 5	February 4, 2026 notice for the February 9 deposition
Minority Exhibit A	Letter from survivors of Epstein and Maxwell
Minority Exhibit B	Second letter from survivors of Epstein and Maxwell
Minority Exhibit C	February 8, 2026 letter from Representative Ro Khanna

Minority staff said the survivor letters described survivors’ experiences and their demands for transparency, accountability, and justice. The video does not read the letters in full.

The exhibits matter because they preserve the procedural history and survivor response. Researchers should use the actual exhibit copies or the official written transcript when available rather than treating the brief oral descriptions as complete substitutes.

The Reviewed Caption Transcript

EpsteinWiki preserves a 20 page reviewed caption transcript.

The transcript includes timestamps from approximately 0:08 through 18:43. It accurately preserves the basic sequence, the Fifth Amendment invocations, the questions, the exhibit descriptions, and the close of the proceeding.

It is not a certified transcript. It was created from YouTube platform captions and reviewed for errors. Several names are misspelled. David Oscar Markus appears as Marcus. Jeffrey Epstein is briefly rendered incorrectly. The captions also confuse speakers, punctuation, capitalization, and some member introductions.

The video states that a court reporter was making an official written record. That official record is distinct from the reviewed platform caption transcript. If the committee releases the court reporter transcript and exhibits, those materials should become the preferred text source.

Researchers should cite the video timestamp for disputed wording and use the reviewed transcript as a navigation aid.

Comparison With the Todd Blanche Interview

Maxwell’s silence before Congress contrasted with her July 2025 interviews with then Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

During the earlier Justice Department sessions, Maxwell answered questions over two days. The Justice Department later released recordings and transcripts. She did not invoke the Fifth Amendment throughout those interviews.

Representative Ro Khanna publicly questioned why Maxwell would answer the executive branch but refuse Congress on related subject matter. That inconsistency formed part of the committee’s scrutiny.

The two events must not be merged. The Blanche interview contains Maxwell’s claims and denials. The February 9 congressional deposition contains no comparable substantive account. Statements from the Blanche sessions cannot be attributed to this deposition.

Criminal Conviction and Habeas Context

Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 following a federal jury trial in the Southern District of New York. The jury found her guilty on five counts connected to facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of minors with Epstein. She was sentenced in June 2022 to twenty years in federal prison.

The Justice Department’s verdict announcement and sentencing announcement document those outcomes.

At the deposition, Markus said a habeas petition was pending in the Southern District of New York. He used that pending collateral challenge to explain his advice that Maxwell remain silent.

The committee did not decide the habeas claims. Maxwell’s conviction remained the controlling legal judgment during the deposition. Any later ruling on collateral relief should be documented separately rather than anticipated from counsel’s opening argument.

Related Epstein Data Evidence

The congressional video does not have an EFTA number, and none of the EFTA records below was identified as an exhibit in the deposition. They are separate records that help explain why Congress had questions about Maxwell and possible coconspirators.

EFTA02731082 is an 86 page December 19, 2019 prosecutorial memorandum titled “Investigation into Potential Co-Conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein.” The opening page states that the memorandum details investigative steps taken after Epstein’s July 2019 indictment and analyzes whether certain associates and employees might face criminal liability. It is a direct investigative record and a more appropriate source for examining potential coconspirator evidence than the unanswered congressional question alone.

EFTA00008631 is a 77 page grand jury transcript dated June 29, 2020 and captioned for the Maxwell matter in the Southern District of New York. It belongs to the criminal investigation and prosecution record. It is not the February 2026 congressional transcript.

EFTA00077895 is a 21 page government file containing a numbered name table with source labels and classification markings. The scanned orientation and degraded optical character recognition make context especially important. A name appearing in the file should not be described as proof of criminal conduct without the surrounding investigative record.

These records supply documentary context where the congressional deposition supplied silence. They must still be analyzed on their own terms and should never be presented as answers Maxwell gave on February 9, 2026.

Survivor Centered Significance

The deposition’s central failure is the absence of information for survivors and the public.

Congress asked Maxwell to identify other participants, describe recruitment and grooming, explain the use of influential relationships, and address what she knew about Epstein’s abuse. She answered none of those questions.

Minority staff placed survivor letters into the record after it became clear that no substantive answers would be provided. The Guardian reported that survivors had urged the committee to scrutinize any Maxwell testimony carefully and avoid allowing the proceeding to rehabilitate her public narrative.

That warning is essential. Maxwell’s willingness to offer information in exchange for clemency does not make the proposed account reliable. Her conviction, litigation position, sentence, and personal incentive require rigorous corroboration.

The video should be preserved because it documents an accountability attempt and Maxwell’s refusal to assist it. It should not be framed as a revelation filled with answers that the recording does not contain.

Evidence Assessment

Question	Assessment
Is this an official congressional deposition?	Yes. The recording identifies the committee authority, subpoena, members, staff, court reporter, oath, exhibits, and deposition rules.
Was Maxwell under oath?	Yes. She affirmed the oath administered by the court reporter.
Did Maxwell testify about Epstein’s crimes?	No. She invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every substantive question.
Did Maxwell name additional coconspirators?	No. She was asked and declined to answer.
Did Maxwell admit the premises of the questions?	No. An invocation of privilege is not an admission that a question’s premise is true.
Did she deny the premises?	No. She supplied no substantive denial during the deposition.
Did Maxwell ask Trump for clemency?	Her attorney proposed clemency as the condition for a full account. The recording does not show Maxwell personally stating the proposal.
Did Maxwell clear Trump or Clinton under oath?	No. Her attorney asserted their innocence, but Maxwell did not provide sworn supporting facts.
Were survivor statements entered?	Yes. Minority staff entered two survivor letters and summarized their purpose.
Is the EpsteinWiki transcript official?	No. It is a reviewed platform caption transcript, not the court reporter’s certified record.
Does the video have an EFTA number?	No EFTA number was identified for this congressional video.
Is the recording complete?	It appears to preserve the public committee release from opening through adjournment. The official transcript and exhibits are still needed for the complete record.

What the Record Establishes

The record establishes that Maxwell appeared for a House Oversight deposition on February 9, 2026.

It establishes that she appeared by video from federal custody, had counsel, received procedural instructions, and was placed under oath.

It establishes that committee staff asked about her relationship with Epstein, recruitment and grooming, sexual abuse, influential associates, additional coconspirators, and Trump.

It establishes that Maxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every substantive question.

It establishes that Markus connected future cooperation to clemency and made unsupported exculpatory assertions about Trump and Clinton.

It establishes that the committee entered procedural correspondence, survivor letters, and Khanna’s letter into the record.

What the Record Does Not Establish

The record does not establish the identity of any additional coconspirator.

It does not contain a new account of how Epstein and Maxwell recruited, groomed, or abused victims.

It does not prove the factual premise of any committee question.

It does not transform Maxwell’s Fifth Amendment invocation into a confession.

It does not provide evidence supporting Markus’s assertions about Trump or Clinton.

It does not establish that the White House offered, considered, or promised clemency.

It does not resolve Maxwell’s habeas claims.

It does not replace the criminal trial record, the official congressional transcript, or the exhibits.

It does not show that Maxwell cooperated with Congress in a substantive way.

Fact Check

Checked September 10, 2026.

Was this only a deposition style recording?

No. The video itself identifies the proceeding as a House Oversight deposition conducted under committee authority and pursuant to a subpoena.

When did the deposition occur?

February 9, 2026.

How long is the public video?

The verified YouTube metadata lists a duration of 18 minutes and 51 seconds.

Was Maxwell physically present in Washington?

No. She appeared virtually from Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas.

Was she sworn?

Yes.

Did Maxwell answer any substantive question about Epstein?

No. She invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Did she name coconspirators?

No.

Did she testify that Trump and Clinton were innocent?

No. Her attorney made that assertion. Maxwell supplied no sworn factual explanation.

Did Maxwell personally demand clemency on the recording?

Her attorney presented clemency as the condition for her future cooperation. Maxwell did not personally deliver that part of the opening statement.

Does invoking the Fifth Amendment prove guilt?

No. It preserves the right against compelled self incrimination and is not a confession.

Were survivors represented in the record?

Minority staff entered two survivor letters and described them as calling for transparency, accountability, and justice.

Is the downloadable EpsteinWiki transcript the official congressional transcript?

No. It is a reviewed platform caption transcript. The video says a court reporter created an official record.

Is there an Epstein Data synchronized transcript?

No dedicated Maxwell entry was located in the public viewer during this review.

Questions Still Unanswered

Will the committee release the official court reporter transcript?
Will all eight exhibits be published in complete form?
What specific questions were planned but omitted after Maxwell announced that she would invoke the privilege throughout?
Why did Maxwell answer extensive questions from Todd Blanche in July 2025 but refuse Congress in February 2026?
What precise habeas claims did counsel believe created additional self incrimination risk?
Did Maxwell or her lawyers have any communication with the White House about clemency before the deposition?
Did any government official offer, discuss, or reject a pardon or commutation?
What information did Markus claim Maxwell could provide about Trump and Clinton?
What independent records could corroborate or disprove that proposed testimony?
Who are the additional people the committee intended to question Maxwell about?
What names did the majority expect in response to its coconspirator question?
What government investigative failures did the committee intend to examine with Maxwell?
What did the two survivor letters ask Congress to do after the deposition?
Has the committee issued follow up subpoenas based on the questions Maxwell refused to answer?
Could Congress revisit the deposition if Maxwell’s habeas litigation ends?
Would any future immunity or clemency arrangement protect survivor interests and require full corroboration?
Has any later filing changed the status of Maxwell’s conviction or sentence?
Why is the video absent from the current Epstein Data synchronized deposition viewer?

Related People and Organizations

Ghislaine Maxwell, witness and convicted federal defendant
Jeffrey Epstein, subject of the committee investigation
David Oscar Markus, Maxwell’s attorney
James Comer, committee chair
Robert Garcia, committee ranking member
Ro Khanna, committee member whose February 8 letter was entered as an exhibit
Donald Trump, president asked by counsel to grant clemency
Bill Clinton, former president discussed in counsel’s opening assertion
U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Southern District of New York

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Sources

Primary and Official Records

Investigative and Contextual Reporting

auto-caption transcript (reviewed) The Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell on the Epstein Probe Feb 9th 2026 Download

PostedFebruary 9, 2026