Ghislaine Maxwell's defense lawyer told Politico there is a "good chance" his client could receive a presidential pardon, arguing that the convicted sex trafficker was unfairly prosecuted as a stand-in for Jeffrey Epstein after his death in federal custody.
David Oscar Markus, the Miami-based attorney handling Maxwell's case, stopped short of putting a number on the odds. But he made clear he believes the case for clemency is strong, and that Maxwell would never have faced charges at all if Epstein had lived to stand trial.
Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence following her 2021 conviction on charges related to recruiting and grooming underage girls for Epstein's abuse. Her appeal remains pending. Federal prosecutors have consistently rejected the scapegoat argument, maintaining that Maxwell played a key and independent role in facilitating Epstein's crimes over a period of years.
Markus framed his client's prosecution as a case of misplaced accountability. As reported by Newsmax, Markus said:
"I don't know what the percentages are. There's a good chance and for good reason that she would get a pardon."
He went further, casting Maxwell as a convenient target for prosecutors who lost their primary defendant when Epstein died in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Epstein's death was officially ruled a suicide, though Markus's phrasing left room for doubt.
"I think she's a scapegoat. She would never have been prosecuted had Jeffrey Epstein not committed suicide, or whatever, however he died."
That "or whatever" does a lot of work. It echoes the widespread public skepticism about the circumstances of Epstein's death, skepticism that has never been fully resolved and that cuts across political lines.
Markus's comments are not an isolated trial balloon. The clemency campaign has been building for months. The Washington Examiner reported that Maxwell, through her attorney, is openly seeking clemency from President Trump, and has framed it as a potential exchange. Markus told the outlet that Maxwell "is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump."
That framing turns the pardon question into a negotiation: information about Epstein's network in return for Maxwell's freedom. Former Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz endorsed the logic, telling the Examiner, "If what the public really wants is information, this is a perfect case to exchange information."
The question of what Maxwell knows, and whom she could name, has hung over the Epstein case since long before her arrest. Epstein's ties to powerful figures in politics, finance, and entertainment have fueled years of speculation. Maxwell, as Epstein's longtime associate, is widely regarded as one of the few people who could fill in the blanks.
But so far, she has declined to do so in a congressional setting. Maxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment before the House Oversight Committee, refusing to testify without a clemency guarantee. House Oversight Chairman James Comer confirmed the standoff, noting that Maxwell's lawyer raised the clemency demand directly.
For his part, President Trump has not closed the door. When asked directly about a potential Maxwell pardon, Trump did not commit either way but indicated he would consult the Justice Department.
The New York Post reported that Trump said, "I will speak to the DOJ. I wouldn't consider it or not consider, I don't know anything about it." When reminded that Maxwell was convicted of child sex trafficking, he added, "Yeah, I mean, I'm going to have to take a look at it. I'd have to ask DOJ."
That response, neither yes nor no, is consistent with how the pardon process typically works. Any presidential pardon decision rests solely with the sitting president and usually follows a formal review by the Department of Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney. The process is advisory, not binding. A president can bypass it entirely.
The Justice Department's own assessment of Maxwell's crimes has been blunt. Federal prosecutors said she played a key role in facilitating Epstein's abuse of more than 1,000 young women and girls over a period of years. That is not a minor conviction. It is one of the most high-profile sex trafficking cases in modern American history.
Trump has shown a willingness to use the pardon power broadly. His administration has issued multiple rounds of clemency across a range of cases, drawing both praise and criticism depending on the recipient.
That broader pattern has created an environment where clemency requests of all kinds are flooding in. Maxwell's is among the most politically charged.
The president has also faced questions about potential preemptive pardons for administration officials, a separate but related debate about the scope and limits of executive clemency. Each decision shapes how the next request is perceived, and how far future petitioners are willing to push.
Maxwell's case sits at the intersection of several volatile issues: the unresolved Epstein scandal, the public's demand for accountability, and the political dynamics of a clemency process that answers to no court.
Lost in the legal maneuvering is the fact that Maxwell's conviction was secured on behalf of real victims, young women and girls who were recruited, groomed, and exploited. Federal prosecutors built their case around those victims' testimony. A jury found the evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
Markus's argument that Maxwell is a scapegoat may resonate with those who believe the justice system failed to hold Epstein himself fully accountable before his death. There is a legitimate grievance buried in that claim: Epstein's death did deprive the public of a full reckoning.
But the answer to one failure of accountability is not a second one. Maxwell was not convicted for being Epstein's associate. She was convicted for her own conduct, for actively participating in a scheme that destroyed lives. The jury heard the evidence. The judge imposed a 20-year sentence. The appeal process exists for a reason.
Maxwell's legal team has also moved her closer to the exit in other ways. The New York Post noted she was recently transferred to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas following interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. That transfer itself raised eyebrows, though the details of what Maxwell discussed with Blanche remain unclear.
Several key facts remain unresolved. Which court is handling Maxwell's appeal, and on what grounds? What, specifically, has Maxwell offered to disclose, and to whom? Has a formal pardon application been filed with the Office of the Pardon Attorney, or is this campaign operating entirely through the press and Congress?
The downstream effects of high-profile clemency decisions are already visible in other legal cases, where defendants invoke presidential pardons as precedent for their own relief. Every pardon sends a signal, not just to the recipient, but to the entire system.
If Maxwell's cooperation could genuinely expose the full scope of Epstein's network, that would serve the public interest. But conditioning that cooperation on a pardon, rather than offering it as part of the appeal process or a formal proffer, looks less like justice and more like leverage.
The victims who testified at trial did not get to negotiate the terms of their participation. They showed up, told the truth, and trusted the system. Maxwell's team is asking for something very different.
A pardon is the president's prerogative. But the people who suffered under Epstein and Maxwell's operation deserve better than a backroom deal dressed up as transparency.
