Q&A: Will President Trump pardon Ghislaine Maxwell?

Summary

Summary of "The Ex Files" Episode: Q&A – Will President Trump Pardon Ghislaine Maxwell?

In this bonus Q&A episode of Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files, hosts Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin delve into pressing global issues, drawing from their extensive experience in international affairs and journalism. Released on July 30, 2025, the episode addresses a range of listener-submitted questions, providing insightful analysis on US foreign policy, media objectivity, and high-stakes geopolitical scenarios.

---

1. Jamie Rubin's Absence from the Obama Administration

Listener's Question: Why did Jamie Rubin not serve in the Obama administration despite his roles in the Clinton and Biden administrations? [00:45]

Christiane Amanpour opens the discussion by addressing Christine’s probing question about Rubin’s career trajectory. Rubin’s absence from the Obama administration appears to stem from interpersonal dynamics rather than formal barriers. He remarks, “I don’t think President Obama liked me very much” [01:03]. Amanpour adds context, noting Rubin’s upcoming article in Liberties magazine, where he criticizes the foreign policies of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. He emphasizes that the Obama years were marked by significant foreign policy missteps, including the rise of Russia and China and the devastation in Syria, which Rubin believes hindered his fit within that administration.

2. The Pursuit of Truth in Journalism

Listener's Question: Why are many journalists today unable to prioritize truth over neutrality, and how can this be changed? [04:08]

Rubin shares his mantra, "be truthful, not neutral," a philosophy he adopted during the Bosnian conflict when witnessing ethnic cleansing and genocide [04:31]. He criticizes the prevailing notion of objectivity in journalism, arguing that true objectivity involves presenting facts without equating morally disparate sides. “For me, objectivity is telling the truth,” Rubin asserts [06:09]. Amanpour echoes this sentiment, highlighting the essential role of journalism in distinguishing truth from political rhetoric. She reflects on the legacy of journalists like John Burns, whose courageous reporting during the Clinton administration had profound impacts on policy decisions [06:09].

3. US Policy on Cuba and Communist Nations

Listener's Question: Why does President Trump maintain the embargo on Cuba while seemingly admiring other communist countries? [09:13]

Amanpour addresses Sharon’s inquiry by explaining the historical and political complexities behind US-Cuba relations. She notes that the embargo has persisted since 1962 largely due to the influential Cuban American community in Florida, which wields significant political power [09:13]. Rubin adds that Trump’s stance is nuanced; while he may admire leaders like Xi Jinping for their authoritative governance, he does not necessarily extend the same admiration to all communist regimes, citing Putin’s Russian nationalism as distinct from communist ideology [10:50].

4. The Viability of International Law in an Unstable World

Listener's Question: Does international law still hold relevance amid global instability? [08:08]

Rubin explores the erosion of international law under the current Trump administration, which favors unilateralism over multilateral agreements. He questions the sustainability of international legal frameworks, especially concerning war crimes, financial regulations, and climate agreements [12:14]. Amanpour shares her mixed experiences with international legal institutions, criticizing their susceptibility to abuse by individuals seeking notoriety rather than justice. She cites the Kosovo tribunal as an example of how international law can be manipulated, undermining legitimate legal instruments [13:04].

5. Gavin Newsom as a Presidential Candidate

Listener's Question: Could California Governor Gavin Newsom be a strong presidential contender? [16:45]

In response to Haley’s question, Amanpour and Rubin discuss the potential of Gavin Newsom as a presidential candidate. They acknowledge his progressive policies on climate change, equal rights, and effective governance as strengths. Amanpour emphasizes the value of governors as presidential candidates due to their executive experience: “Presidents that were governors are often the best kind of administrators” [18:15]. However, they also note the unpredictable nature of the primary system, which can favor celebrity over substance, making Newsom’s future prospects uncertain [18:15].

6. Europe's Response to the Ukraine Conflict

Listener's Question: Why does Europe appear silent regarding the Ukraine situation? [20:12]

Marguerite’s concern about Europe’s subdued response to the Ukraine war is addressed with a strategic analysis. Amanpour contends that Europe may be intentionally restraining its rhetoric to avoid exacerbating tensions with Trump’s administration [20:20]. Instead, they advocate for a strategy where the US and its allies quietly pressure Putin, coupled with economically targeting Russian assets to support Ukraine without overburdening European taxpayers [20:20]. This approach, they suggest, could effectively move international players towards a resolution [22:14].

7. The Possibility of Trump Pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell

Listener's Question: Is President Trump likely to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell? [22:14]

In the climax of the episode, Jane’s question about the potential pardon of Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted associate of Jeffrey Epstein, is tackled with gravity. Rubin reveals that Trump has publicly stated he is not considering the pardon [22:58]. Amanpour discusses the internal and external pressures surrounding this issue, including opposition from figures like Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, who argues that pardoning Maxwell would undermine justice [22:58]. They acknowledge the deep divisions within the MAGA movement, which is fixated on extracting information from Maxwell to discredit institutional structures [23:00]. The conversation underscores the complexity of the pardon, balancing political maneuvering with the pursuit of truth and justice [24:17].

Conclusion

Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin conclude the episode by reiterating the importance of informed and truthful discourse in navigating today’s fractured global landscape. They encourage listeners to continue submitting questions and engaging with critical issues shaping the world. This episode serves as a testament to their commitment to unpacking complex geopolitical crises with honesty, depth, and a relentless pursuit of the truth.

---

This summary encapsulates the key discussions and insights from the episode, providing a comprehensive overview for those who have not listened. Notable quotes have been included with accurate timestamp references to highlight pivotal moments in the conversation.

Transcript

[Christiane Amanpour]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[Jamie Rubin]

Hi, everybody. It's Thursday's bonus episode. So welcome to the bonus Q and A episode of the X Files with.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Me, Cristiana Manpour and Jamie Rubin.

[Jamie Rubin]

So we're trying to answer your questions as we do every week. We want to thank everybody who sent one in. Don't forget to keep sending them in. Ask us anything from experiences in the field, encounters with world leaders, whatever you like.

[Unknown]

And.

[Jamie Rubin]

And you can of course find us on social media. Handle is manpaur pod. Or email us at amanpourpod, which is lobal.com if you get it. Let's get started. So, Jamie, first question.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So I've got a toughie from Christine on email. She asks Jamie, your intro says you worked for the Clinton and Biden administrations. Why did you not work in the Obama administration? What were you doing during this time? Ouch.

[Jamie Rubin]

Just say ouch. That's it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Look, you never really know jobs in government at this level. There's not like some formal system and you know exactly what happens and who did this or who did that. I was never proposed for a job and then not received it because of Senate confirmation or anything like that. I don't really know. The answer lies in President Obama's head. I don't know. I don't think he liked me very much. I don't know why, but I know a couple of people around him didn't like me very much. I have an article coming out in Liberties, a great magazine this fall, in which I assess the foreign policies of the Clinton, Obama and Biden administrations. And I think the answer to the question is contained in that. In a way, I feel lucky that I wasn't part of it because I don't think it was the greatest time in our foreign policy history, those eight years. Obama was a great thing that he was elected. It was a wonderful fact that America could elect him as president twice. But in terms of our role in the world and what we did in the post Iraq environment of fear of activity internationally and engagement internationally, I think some terrible mistakes were made that caused terrible problems, including the rise of Russia, the rise of China, and the slaughter of people in Syria. So I don't think I was suited for those leaders. Now, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. I do know that she wanted to hire me at certain points but was unable to. So I don't really know. Barack Obama probably knows. Over to you.

[Jamie Rubin]

I would just simply say that Syria will be the top line in his obituary and then people will argue about the Russia thing. And the China thing, the famous red line, which he didn't cross. But I would also say that, you know, being part of the. And insisting that the US convene and put the Paris climate accords of 2015 over the top, but also, really importantly, the arms control agreement that controlled Iran's nuclear program, known as the jcpoa, he did that. And it was brave and it was necessary and it was very effective. And you've seen what's happened when the US Pulled out of it.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Let me just quickly finish answering the question, because I didn't do the last part. What was I doing during then? Well, we were married for those eight years. We lived both in Washington and London. You were working at ABC News for part of that? I guess I did a combination of things. I was a professor at Columbia, professor at Oxford. I had a. A role there as a researcher, and I worked for a consulting firm. And I also wrote a lot and was on Sky News as an anchor and a commentator. And I wrote, I don't know, a hundred op EDS during that period for various newspapers and magazines and never quite wrote a book that I was thinking about writing and obviously was able, you know, we were married and was able to be around for our family and not have the burden of 24 hours a day, seven days a week in government. So in the end, I think all it worked out well because I did get to go back to government, despite being left out of the Obama administration.

[Jamie Rubin]

So to me, Christiane, you're famously truthful, not neutral. That's actually my mantra. I say be truthful, not neutral. Why are so many journalists unable today to just to subscribe to this important tenet of journalism? What can be done to change it? So look, Christine, good question to Jamie, good question. To me, I would just say that I learned this mantra out of the cauldron of Bosnia, where ethnic cleansing and genocide was committed, where one group, the Bosnian Serbs, backed by the strong Serbian nation, decided that they wanted to carve out an ethnically pure statelet in Bosnia and essentially kill or transfer the Bosnians, who are the Bosnian Muslims in this case, out of certain pieces of territory, killing men, women and children, non combatants, besieging cities like Sarajevo, small enclaves like Srebren and others. And then, of course, there was a Srebrenica massacre. And I think I was so tired of hearing world leaders, including the US and Britain and France and all those others, saying that all sides are equally guilty. We can't do anything about it. It's just centuries of ethnic hatred. I started to really examine that prospect. And of course, people looked at me and thought that maybe I was not being objective by pointing out the truth, that one side was the victims and the other side were the aggressors. So I learned that there. And I. People who haven't had that experience in, no matter what crucible it might be, believe that objectivity means neutrality or it means impartiality. I think it's slightly different. To me, objectivity means giving all sides a hearing, but not necessarily concluding that there is a moral equivalence and not falsely making a moral or factual equivalence. So for me, objectivity is telling the truth. That is how I define objectivity. And that's how I came to it. It's hard, and it took some really hard work to get to that place, but I've stuck to it since the 1990s, and that's what I do.

[Christiane Amanpour]

That's how we met, because I watched you and talked to you and was impressed by that, among other things, which we wouldn't get into in a podcast. And that was a powerful thing that you did. And I think it had an impact on our world because you and John Burns from the New York Times really brought home the war to the Clinton administration. I remember the effect that it had on Warren Christopher and Bill Clinton, your reporting and John Burns reporting, and it made a difference. And because it was so clear and lucid, and it's a word that I've tried to use in my life, lucidity. But look, journalism has problems these days, and it grows out of that inability to distinguish between two arguments on both sides and one truth. So, you know, political journalism suffers from this as well. They think it's their job is to report. Here's what the Republicans say, here's what the Democrats say, here's what the labor says, here's what conservatives says. Well, not always. Maybe that's part of their job. But it's also to distinguish between whether the conservatives are being truthful and whether the labor is being truthful and whether the Republicans are actually stating facts or misrepresenting truths or denying facts. And that's what journalism is for. That's why Thomas Jefferson said freedom of the press was the most important right in the Bill of Rights of the United States. So what journalists do matters. And when they do it right, it makes a huge difference when they do it wrong. Our world, our democracies, suffer.

[Jamie Rubin]

Just a quickie. Yes. And the other thing that really compromises us these days is the amount of mis and disinformation and people you know, portraying themselves as journalists on social media and everywhere else, they're really just observers and commentators, but it gets all mixed up so people don't know where to go. But anyway, that's another question for another time.

[Unknown]

There's nothing like sinking into luxury. At washablesofas.com, you'll find the Annabe sofa, which combines ultimate comfort and design at an affordable price. And get this, it's the only sofa that's fully machine washable from top to bottom. Starting at only $699. The stain resistant performance fabric slipcovers and cloud like frame duvet can go straight into your wash. Perfect for anyone with kids, pets or anyone who loves an easy to clean spotless sofa. With a modular design and changeable slipcovers, you can customize your sofa to fit any space and style. Whether you need a single chair, loveseat or a luxuriously large sectional, Annabe has you covered. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your home. Right now you can shop up to 60% off storewide with a 30 day money back guarantee. Shop [e-mail] Add a little to your life. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Sharon on email, asks as Trump is trying to destroy Canada and the rest of the world, why does he still refuse to deal with Cuba but will basically admire the other communist countries in the world? The embargo has been on since 1962 and the Cuban people are suffering. I have a vested interest, she says, as my dil. I don't know what that means. I guess her family is Cuban and I know how hard life is there. Look, Cuba policy is one of those terrible, terrible issues. I remember Madeleine Albright, who I worked for for seven years, used to hate to get a Cuba question and always seemed to come at the end of a Q and A when she thought everything was going beautifully. She answered all the questions and then they'd say why are dealing with China, a Communist party and you're not dealing with Cuba and have an embargo on Cuba, not China? And she hated that question because this is a case where our policy through the democratic processes in the United States is affected by the Cuban American community in Florida who have had a stranglehold on politics in Florida. And we saw that in 2000 when 500 votes went the wrong way, partially because of the case of Elian Gonzalez, an orphan or a boy who was brought to the United States and then had to be sent back to Cuba. And it was a disaster. And Cuban Americans were mad at the Clinton and Gore, and that's one of the many reasons why 500 votes went the wrong way. That's the answer to Cuba policy. It's not really based on what we think is the best outcome. I wouldn't say Trump admires other communist countries. I don't think he admires North Korea.

[Jamie Rubin]

No. But Xi, I think Xi and Putin.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah. He does seem to admire Xi's power, and that's. And Putin's not communist. He's just Russian nationalist.

[Jamie Rubin]

Oh, he's just kgb.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, kgb. Communist Party ideology. But I think now he's interested in money big time. He may be the richest man in Russia, people say. So there's no good answer. The best answer is politics in America.

[Jamie Rubin]

Yeah. Okay. So I've been to Cuba. I also saw firsthand how difficult life is there for people. And it is very capricious and very American domestic politics, you know, notably the government there, is repressive, gets a little bit better around the edges in some areas, but it is very repressive, and that's a real problem for people as well. Oscar on Instagram asks, does international law still exist in this unstable world? So, look, Jamie, honestly, that seems to be the question du jour, because does the rule of law exist in the United States and does the United States support the rule of international law? And I think from the beginning of this administration, since the inauguration, people have been talking about how the rules of the road, everything, the whole liberal world order that the US created after World War II is at risk now because of all the things that Trump is doing. The idea of smashing the tenets of multilateralism and going unilateral in America first, and as some Europeans have said, the survival of the fittest, only the strong survive. That's the imagery around this current Trump 2.0. So I think that's one issue that we still are waiting to see, whether international law will triumph or not, or whether it just becomes a whole load of individualist, nationalist situations. And then the other thing is, on the actual law, in terms of war crimes, financial law, climate law, all sorts of things, are you going to accept that there are issues where there is a right and a wrong and the law can adjudicate it? And once the law does adjudicate it, are you going to pay attention and follow that law? I think those are all in question right now. What do you think, Jamie?

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, look, I have some mixed experiences with international lawyers and international legal institutions. I think we mentioned this from time to Time. The things we did in government that I am most proud of. Preventing a genocide in Kosovo, preventing the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people. Never happened before. Often, always it was afterwards the world got engaged. During that time, some international lawyers took it upon themselves to charge the Clinton administration, including me, with war crime, accusing us of violating international law by advocating the destruction of the Serbian television station. Even after we gave them 10 days of warnings to get everybody out because that station was promoting the mass murder of Albanians. Those lawyers accused us of war crimes. And that showed me how international legal instruments become abused by individual groups and individual people trying to make names for themselves. Amnesty International is a good example. When I grew up, I had such respect for that organization. It told the truth about people in prison all over the world. And over time, it evolved to be a liberal, lefty institution that wanted to make policy. And I think a lot of this flows from people who are not policymakers, who don't belong to governments or governmental institutions, who are desperate to make policy. And they invent legal arguments that end up discrediting international law. To me, the international law that exists is UN Security Council resolutions, to the extent they're clear. And certain cases where individual tribunals are created for international war crimes, like the Rwanda tribunal and the Bosnia and Kosovo tribunals. But now the Kosovo tribunal is an example of an international legal institution run amok. They created a case out of whole cloth for the leader of the Kosovar Albanians. They indicted him at a moment he was about to make peace with the Serbs, put him in prison. He's been in prison for four plus years. And they can't even put their case together for the first three and a half years of that because they're inventing the law as they go. And this is how international law damages the real international legal instruments that are legitimate by individual groups, politicians, and lawyers who try to make themselves famous or make names for themselves by making new arguments that aren't necessarily legitimate. So I think it's a real problem. We don't have a world government. There isn't one law. But you're absolutely right, Christiane. There are two theories of the world now. There's the world of rules, rights, which I believe are. Is crucial, where there are legitimate rules and rights that have been established by the un, The Human Rights Charter, the UN resolutions. That's a world of rules and rights versus the world that the Trump administration is advocating, which is a world of spheres of influence where the powerful rule in Asia. The Chinese get to decide what happens in Asia. And I think Trump has talked about this in Europe. The Russians get to decide what happens in their sphere of influence. And the United States can have its, you know, Latin America, South America, and if Trump has his way, Canada and Greenland and its power rules. That's not a world that I think most of the people in this world want, and it's one that I hope is firmly rejected by countries around the world. And that goes with the end of Trump, which will obviously be some years away, but will go away with the end of the Trump administration. I hope so.

[Jamie Rubin]

Haley on Instagram asks, and this, I'm asking, I'm reading it, because I'm next, but I have no idea. Do you think Gavin Newsom, he's the governor of California, could be a strong presidential candidate? So he's a Democrat. I do not know. But I am very interested in his podcast where he tries to talk to the other side in some kind of constructive way and talk to the right and the, maybe even the far right. I haven't seen them all, but he's been very vocal on a lot of things. He does a lot of good things. He's a, you know, criticized for a lot of other things. He's obviously a bet noir, so to speak, of Donald Trump's. And there's a lot of fisticuffs between them. Some would say that California governor is not necessarily. Well, I say that, but Reagan was California governor and he became president. But I just don't know, to be honest. Do you have an idea on that? I mean, I'm very, very much impressed, frankly, by his, you know, combating for the climate, to combat climate change, you know, equal rights, the rights of, you know, women and minorities and, and others. And his wife, I will say, who I've met, Jennifer Newsom, who is an independent filmmaker, is a real powerhouse when it comes to equal rights. And she does wonderful films on, on Women and Girls and she's. She's incredible. So I don't know the answer, but certainly the Democratic Party is casting around anyway for a policy, not to mention a head of a ticket.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Yeah, I agree with all that. I don't know. I don't know who's going to make it through the crazy system we have where the nominees go through this weird vetting process through primaries that isn't necessarily the best way to get the best candidate. It often gives more power to celebrities than serious thinkers and policymakers. It unfortunately creates an incentive to make sure you don't make anyone mad, which means you don't take strong views on the other hand, Gavin Newsom has taken some strong views that are respected in California. And look, America's a country where states have enormous power, and therefore governors have enormous power. And it's a good training for government. I think presidents that were governors are often the best kind of administrators, not necessarily the best policies, but they know how government works because they've been at the top of a executive pyramid. So Bill Clinton understood that he had cabinet members who had their jobs, and he allowed them to be leaders in their field, and he chose them and organized his cabinet in a sort of pyramidic way. While senators and congressmen don't always have that skill set, that doesn't mean they're going to make the right decisions, but it's a good indicator of management skill. Look, the US Government is hard to manage. Donald Trump manages it the way he would manage his corporation. I think that's terribly damaging to our government. And we've seen the damage where he empowers these people to do nutty things, and they do and say nutty things, and reporters report on it every day because he's got a. A group of people around him that are not serious policymakers because he never was a governor. So if Governor Newsom becomes Candidate Newsom and President Newsom, at least we'll know that he knows how to run a.

[Jamie Rubin]

Large governmental institution, if the institution survives. President Trump is doing his best to. What is it? Put it into the wood chipper, as Musk said.

[Christiane Amanpour]

So, Marguerite asks, why is Europe practically silent when it comes to Ukraine now? I don't. Marguerite, I don't agree. I don't think Europe is silent. I think they know that they should not be pressuring Trump too much, that that can backfire, and instead, they're letting Trump see for himself that Vladimir Putin is responsible for this war and Vladimir Putin is the cause of no ceasefire. And Vladimir Putin is responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians in Ukraine and the murder, in the sense by his war, of a million Russian soldiers dead or wounded and many more to come. So I think by not yelling loudly from the rooftops about Ukraine, but talking quietly and carefully with Trump officials and Trump himself. You see, today, Trump is giving Vladimir Putin a shorter deadline of agreeing to a ceasefire and realizing that Putin has been dissing him every day by talking nice on the phone and then launching massive attacks right after he hangs up. So that's the best way to move the most important figure to change our world, is getting the Trump administration to revert to the kind of policies we had under President Biden, where we led the world in working together with Asians and European countries and countries all over the world to help the victims of aggression. And that is the best way to do it. It seems to be working. Trump is moving Europeans are stepping up militarily, economically, financially. Their next step should be to seize the assets and use them for assistance to Ukraine so that the European taxpayer doesn't pay, but the Russian assets are seized. And then show the Russians the longer the war goes on, the less assets they're going to be left for them when it's over. So that's what I think about that.

[Jamie Rubin]

And very finally harking back to our previous episode, last week, Jane on Instagram asked asks, do you think Trump will pardon Ghislaine Maxwell? He appears to have hinted at the possibility. So she was the partner of the disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. She's serving a 20 year jail sentence for two counts under this. But his lawyer, Todd Blanche, who is now the deputy attorney general, went down to Florida to talk to her and to question her. Apparently had nine hours of talks with her this past week. Afterwards or during that, Trump was asked, are you thinking of pardoning her? And he essentially said, I'm not thinking about it. So we don't know. I'd really like to know what they talked to her about.

[Christiane Amanpour]

Interesting. I mean, the Trump team is troubled by the Epstein crisis. They're having a crisis because the MAGA movement that is the source of Trump's power, is obsessed with the Epstein issue, believes that Ghislaine Maxwell holds information that would upset the, the institutions that the MAGA movement pours and they want to see her spill the beans. Whether she has beans to spill. I'm sure there are some beans to spill. How important they will be, I don't know. I found it interesting that Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, actually took a firm position, although he probably would change it if Trump changed it. But he said over the weekend that she doesn't think she should get a pardon, that she should serve out her full 20 year sentence sentence, which makes it harder for Trump to do it. Although again, Mike Johnson will do what Trump says. He's shown that over and over again. But at least he's signaling that the MAGA lovers, the leaders of the Congress, don't want to see her get a pardon because they think that will undermine the system of justice by which she was sentenced and won't necessarily get US truths, because they think that she will say and do whatever is best for Trump and not necessarily telling the truth.

[Jamie Rubin]

And let's not forget, serious crimes were committed against very vulnerable people. And one of the first to come out with her story actually died by suicide recently. So it's had a horrendous effect on the women who've been so terribly victimized. All right, everybody, thank you for your questions. That's it for this bonus episode of the X Files with me, Christiane and Jamie Rubin. Remember, if you have a question that you'd like us to answer next time about something in the news or something we've done during our careers, you can find us on all the major social media platforms. Our handle is Amanpur Pod. Or email [e-mail] so Jamie, as you know, our next episode is out on Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcast, remember you can listen for free FREE on Global Player. You can download it from the App Store or go to globalplayer.com okay, goodbye. All right, bye bye X. Bye.

[Christiane Amanpour]

This is a Global Player original podcast.

[Unknown]

Let's be real Life happens. Kids spill, pets shed and accidents are inevitable. Find a sofa that can keep [e-mail] Starting at just $699, our sofas are fully machine washable inside and out so you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry free living. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics, they're kid proof, pet friendly and built for everyday life. Plus changeable fabric cover let you refresh your sofa whenever you want. Neat flexibility. Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa anytime to fit your space, whether it's a growing family room or a cozy apartment. Plus, they're earth friendly and trusted by over 200,000 happy customers. It's time to upgrade to a stress free mess proof sofa. Visit washablesofas.com today and save that's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.