The US House speaker, Mike Johnson, said on Sunday he would have “great pause” about granting a pardon or commutation to Ghislaine Maxwell while another House Republican said it should be considered as part of an effort to obtain more information about Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
Donald Trump and his allies, including Johnson, have been under immense pressure to disclose more information about Epstein for weeks, especially amid scrutiny over the extent of Trump’s relationship with Epstein. The splits over what to do with Maxwell illustrate the complicated challenge posed by the scandal for Trump, his Maga base and the broader Republican party.
Johnson weighed in on the possibility of a pardon after Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, met with Maxwell, who is serving a 20 year prison sentence for sex trafficking, over two days last week. The one-time British socialite was Epstein’s close confidante for years and his partner-in-crime. Epstein killed himself in jail in 2019.
The House speaker was asked about the possibility of a pardon by Kristen Welker during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday.
“If you’re asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes,” he said. “It’s hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing. So again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would.”
Pressed directly on whether he favored a pardon, Johnson deferred to Trump.
“Obviously that’s a decision of the president. He said he had not adequately considered that. I won’t get it in front of him. That’s not my lane,” he said.
Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who has been pushing for disclosure of more Epstein information, said a pardon should be on the table for Maxwell.
“That would be up to the president. But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let’s get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it’s truthful, I would be in favor of,” he told Welker on Meet the Press.
Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who has joined Massie’s effort to release more information, said he did not support a pardon for Maxwell, who was charged with perjury in connection to a civil deposition in 2016 (prosecutors did not move forward with those charges once they obtained her sex-trafficking conviction.)
“I’m concerned that the deputy attorney general Todd Blanche is meeting with her supposedly one-on-one. Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify. But she’s been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence,” he said on Meet the Press.
After Trump pledged to disclose more information about Epstein on the campaign trail, the justice department said earlier this month it had determined Epstein did not have a “client list” and did not blackmail anyone.
Johnson adjourned the US House of Representatives early last week to avoid a vote on releasing Epstein files. He said on Sunday he favored “maximum disclosure”. During his appearance on Meet the Press, he defended that decision, saying the legislation being pushed by Massie and Khanna would require the release of uncorroborated information and could harm the victims of Epstein and Maxwell’s crimes.
“You have to protect innocent people’s names and reputations whose names might be, as you noted at the outset of the program, intertwined into all these files,” he said. “These are minors in many cases who were subjected to unspeakable crimes, abject evil. They’ve already suffered great harm. We do not need their names being unmasked.”
That kind of argument is a “straw man” Massie said on Sunday.
“Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victims’ names will be redacted and that no child pornography will be released. So they’re hiding behind that,” he said.
Khanna also pushed back on the idea that releasing the information could damage reputations.
“Different people feel that the rich and the powerful have been not held accountable, that they have a different set of rules, and that there may be government officials involved,” he said. “They’re going to be able to distinguish between someone who got a grant for Jeffrey Epstein to do cancer research versus rich and powerful men who were abusing underage girls.”
