Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyer, Leah Saffian, has accused multiple employees at the Federal Prison Camp Bryan of serious misconduct, alleging they improperly accessed Maxwell’s confidential TRULINCS email account — the system inmates use for monitored electronic communication. According to Saffian, those staffers extracted privileged messages between Maxwell and her legal team and passed them along to a federal official, identified as Rep. Jamie Raskin, who then shared them with the media. Saffian argues this was not just improper, but a gross violation of Maxwell’s constitutional rights, especially her attorney-client privilege.

Saffian states the allegations are not speculative: the prison staff “have been terminated for improper, unauthorized access” to the Bureau of Prisons’ email system. She frames the leak — and its dissemination to a congressman — as a breach of the First Amendment (confidential communications), the Sixth Amendment (right to effective counsel), and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process rights inside the criminal justice system). Saffian emphasizes that providing privileged emails to a member of Congress and then the media cannot be shrugged off as routine whistleblower behavior; she considers it a direct denial of justice.

Regarding Rep. Raskin, Saffian strongly criticizes his role: she contends that he knowingly accepted and publicized illegally obtained, privileged communications. She rejects the framing that Raskin used, in which the emails were cast as whistleblower disclosures. Instead, she argues that he “weaponized” confidential client communications for political purposes — particularly when he highlighted Maxwell’s correspondence with a family member to fuel a broader narrative. According to her, his status as an attorney and law professor — and as a senior figure on the House Judiciary Committee — gave him an even greater responsibility to handle the materials ethically.

Saffian also calls out what she says was a lack of due diligence by Raskin’s office: she claims no effort was made to verify the credibility of the whistleblower, or to assess whether the emails had been legally obtained. She specifically disputes media claims — based on the leak — that Maxwell had applied for a commutation from former President Trump. In her statement, she says that Maxwell never submitted such a request and that her legal strategy is instead focused on preparing a habeas corpus petition to challenge the conviction.

Saffian explains that the forthcoming habeas petition will present “new evidence” not available at Maxwell’s trial. She alleges “extensive misconduct” not only by government actors but also by a juror, and argues that these issues make her conviction legally unsafe.  She distinguishes the habeas process from a Supreme Court appeal, noting that a habeas petition addresses constitutional violations and fairness rather than purely legal errors — and she frames all of this in contrast to a commutation or pardon effort.

In response, Raskin’s office has declined to confirm whether the prison staff were fired, citing whistleblower confidentiality. Instead, his team has shifted the narrative: they allege the Bureau of Prisons may be intimidating or retaliating against staff who raised concerns about Maxwell’s treatment in prison. This response underscores a deep dispute: Saffian calls the leak a constitutional breach, while Raskin’s office frames it as exposing corruption or favoritism — raising thorny issues around whistleblower protections, attorney-client privilege, and the role of elected officials in handling sensitive legal material.