Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney, Leah Saffian, confirmed that multiple federal prison staff members have been fired for illegally accessing Maxwell’s privileged attorney-client emails and leaking them to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Saffian said the actions taken at Federal Prison Camp Bryan involved the improper intrusion into Maxwell’s email system, the theft of confidential legal correspondence, and the transmission of those emails to a federal official.

She said that the official was Raskin, who then released the emails to members of the media under the label of whistleblower information, The Hill reported.

Saffian argued that the disclosure violated Maxwell’s constitutional rights, including the First Amendment’s protection of confidential communications, the Sixth Amendment’s right to effective legal counsel, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.

According to Maxwell’s attorney, prison employees improperly accessed the Bureau of Prisons’ TRULINCS email system, which inmates use to communicate with the outside world.

She said those emails were then passed to Raskin, who provided them to the press without verifying how the emails were obtained or the credibility of the source.

Saffian said, “The release to the media by Congressman Raskin (Dem., Maryland), of Ms. Maxwell’s privileged client-attorney email correspondence with me is as improper as it is a denial of justice.”

She added, “Congressman Raskin is a Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee, an attorney and law professor. He must be aware that his conduct undermines the whole legal process. His action should be a matter for professional disciplinary action.”

She also confirmed that employees at Federal Prison Camp Bryan “have been terminated for improper, unauthorized access to the email system used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to allow inmates to communicate with the outside world.”

Saffian said, “The provision of those emails to a federal official who then caused them to be shared with the media is a breach of constitutional protections including the First, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments afforded to all prisoners.”

She added that labeling the disclosures as whistleblower material “does not mitigate the fact that the mails were both illegally obtained and put to unconstitutional purpose.”

Saffian argued that Raskin’s office made “no effort to fact check the credibility or veracity of the so called ‘whistleblower.’”

She said it was “shocking and reprehensible” that the congressman used the contents of Maxwell’s emails with a family member “to make political capital.”

Saffian also disputed claims that Maxwell was attempting to secure a pardon or commutation.

She said Maxwell “has never sought a pardon” and has not asked former President Trump or anyone else for clemency.

Saffian said Maxwell is preparing a habeas corpus petition that challenges her conviction and raises new claims of government and juror misconduct.

Saffian said, “Ms. Maxwell will shortly be filing a Habeas petition with the Federal District Court (SDNY). Habeas petitions are distinct from petitions to the Supreme Court, in that they relate to prisoners’ rights and conviction challenges.”

She added, “Contrary to Rep. Raskin’s assertion, Ms. Maxwell has not requested a commutation – or made a Pardon – application to the second Trump Administration.”

Saffian said the habeas filing includes new evidence that was not available at trial and alleges misconduct “pre-, during, and post-trial” by both government officials and a juror.

She said the petition “demonstrates unequivocally” that such misconduct “makes the verdict at the very least unsafe.”

Raskin’s office did not confirm or deny the termination of prison staff.

Instead, a spokesperson said they would not comment on any information that could reveal whistleblower identities and accused prison officials of retaliating against staff.

The spokesperson said, “Any effort by BOP to intimidate, silence, or retaliate against anyone, including inmates and staff with information on Ms. Maxwell’s outrageous preferential treatment is unacceptable.”