Ghislaine Maxwell Dropped New Detail About Big Bill Clinton During DOJ Interview
Ghislaine Maxwell provided a heretofore unknown detail about former President Bill Clinton regarding his relationship with the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year.
Maxwell told U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that she does not believe former Clinton ever received a massage aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane, according to transcripts of her testimony released by the Justice Department.
The DOJ on Friday released the transcript of Maxwell’s interview with Blanche, in which she discussed her ties to Epstein during a two-day session. At one point, Blanche asked whether Clinton had ever been given a massage, The Daily Caller reported.
“I don’t believe he did,” Maxwell replied. Asked what made her doubt it, she said: “Well, because I don’t—so that’s a good question. The time that Epstein and President Clinton spent together, the only times I believe—well, obviously they traveled. There was that, you know, the plane, they went on the plane 26 times or whatever … So they spent time on the plane together, and I don’t believe there was ever a massage on the plane. So that would’ve been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage. And he didn’t, because I was there.”
Photographs from September 2002 appear to show Clinton receiving a massage from Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies during a humanitarian trip to Africa aboard Epstein’s plane. Another Epstein accuser, Virginia Giuffre, told an attorney that Clinton had visited Epstein’s private island, though she did not accuse him of committing any crimes.
Clinton has denied having knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. In July 2019, a spokesperson said Clinton knew “nothing about the terrible crimes” attributed to Epstein and denied that the former president ever visited Epstein’s island.
Maxwell also described her involvement with Clinton Global Initiative.
Blanche asked Maxwell whether she was part of the launch of the Clinton Global Initiative, which its website describes as hosting annual gatherings of “leaders of nonprofit and philanthropic organizations; prominent voices in business, labor, and finance; youth leaders and grassroots activists; heads of state and prominent government officials; global citizens; and more,” Fox News reported.
“I was,” Maxwell said. “I would say very central to that, yes.” She added that Epstein was “very enthusiastic” about her work with the initiative.
“[Epstein] supported me to help them, but then I think he may have tried to use that to insert himself in some way, that would not have surprised me at all,” she said. “And I know that he was annoying, in terms that I could catch him on the phone and he wouldn’t always agree with what I wanted to do. And I was like, it’s not your idea. I don’t really care what you think, but that didn’t go over so well.”
Maxwell said she went to Davos with Clinton at least once, insisting he never visited Epstein’s private island. She said she first met Clinton at a White House event and later became friendly with him through former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine.
“Once for sure. And I think maybe twice, but I don’t remember,” she said of her trips to Davos with Clinton. Maxwell also emphasized that Clinton was her friend, “not Epstein’s friend.”
She recalled meeting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once on a flight, possibly from Nantucket or Martha’s Vineyard back to New York, though she was not certain. Maxwell also said she attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding with a former boyfriend, adding that Epstein was not present.
In a statement, Maxwell’s lawyer David Oscar Markus defended her cooperation and credibility.
“Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent and never should have been tried, much less convicted, in this case,” Markus said. “The materials newly released by the Department of Justice make this clear. Ms. Maxwell answered every question. She did not refuse to respond and did not dodge any question.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
