[0:00]I think in many ways, this testimony on Bondi's behalf is an effort to paper over whatever responsibility she may have
[0:09]and to try and cast blame everywhere else but not on her. >> Hey everybody and welcome to here's the
[0:20]scoop from NBC News. I'm Yamiche Alcindor. Today on the show, former Attorney General Pam Bondi is admitting that the Justice Department made quote unquote redaction errors in its release
[0:30]of the Epstein files but says she stands by the DOJ's work. So what is her house testimony reveal about the Trump administration's handling of the case? Plus we're going to talk to
[0:41]documentarian Ivy Meeropol about her recent film Ask E. Jean and the DOJ's new investigation into the nonprofit that funded E. Jean Carroll's sexual abuse and defamation lawsuits against
[0:53]Donald Trump. And Supreme Court season is almost upon us. We have got what you need to know about some of the biggest cases. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi
[1:03]testified on Capitol Hill today. The House Oversight Committee interviewed Bondi behind closed doors about her role in the release of documents related to the late convicted
[1:14]sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Now Bondi, who was fired by President Trump last month, has been heavily scrutinized for her handling of the Epstein files. In her opening statement,
[1:24]a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, Bondi admitted to quote redaction errors in the files but defended the DOJ's efforts as quote unquote diligent and in good faith.
[1:36]But I want to be clear here. Bondi no longer leads the DOJ. Todd Blanche is now the acting Attorney General. So what were lawmakers actually hoping
[1:46]to get out of her testimony and are the Epstein files as volatile for President Trump as they once were? For that, I want to bring in NBC News Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent Ryan
[1:56]Nobles. Hey Ryan. >> Hi Yats, thanks for having me. >> Great to have you as always. Let's talk about Pam Bondi's um testimony today on the Hill. What stood
[2:06]out to you about uh her opening statement in front of the House Committee? >> I was somewhat surprised that she took any sort of blame or even admitted an
[2:16]error in the release of the files and when she alluded to the fact that there were some mistakes made in terms of the redaction process. But what I wasn't
[2:25]surprised by is any uh effort to take responsibility for those errors or suggest uh that the Department of Justice may not be fully complying with this law. I think in many
[2:37]ways this uh testimony on Bondi's behalf is an effort to paper over whatever responsibility she may have uh and to
[2:47]try and cast blame everywhere else but uh not on her. She's now a private citizen. She doesn't have the responsibility of uh continuing to
[2:57]release these files or shepherding over the responsibility of the release of these files. And uh she seemed to be making an effort to try and say even when she was the Attorney General that
[3:06]it wasn't her primary responsibility uh and that she did not play that big of a role. So, I don't think anybody Republican or Democrat expected this to
[3:15]be all that revelatory of a session, but it seems in many ways they were laying the foundation for future inquiries into how this all plays out. Uh inquiries that may not manifest themselves until
[3:26]Democrats have control uh of either both the Congress and the White House. >> So, so in that vein of what you're talking about, um kind of kicking the can down the road especially with with Bondi not necessarily taking
[3:36]responsibility, she did tell the House Committee that when she was Attorney General, she delegated oversight of the Epstein files to her then deputy Todd Blance who is now acting Attorney
[3:48]General Blance. Is is he going to be subpoenaed now? >> Well, I mean the committee would very much like to talk to him about this. They have talked to him about it before in broad strokes. I think that
[3:59]they're Democrats in particular would like to bring him in a room and ask him very specific questions about this. But I do think if we could go back to the first part of this, the the kind of the shifting of
[4:09]responsibility that Pam Bondi seems to be placing on Todd Blanche. She is saying in no uncertain terms that he was the primary person responsible for anything related to the release of the
[4:20]Epstein files and the compliance with the Epstein transparency act, which is a little ironic given the fact that she bragged about the fact that she had the client list on her desk in the Attorney General's office and she was the one
[4:32]that was behind that whole influencer moment where the conservative influencers came in and walked out with those binders that were largely filled with documents that were already public.
[4:41]She now seems to be trying to rewrite what the perception is of what went on inside of the Attorney General's office during that
[4:52]period of time. And you know, even though she may want to place the blame on Todd Blanche, she was still the Attorney General. It was the Attorney General's responsibility to comply with this law. >> So I have kind of a controversial
[5:03]question because the release of the Epstein files was a bipartisan effort. Um but we just saw Thomas Massie be ousted in the state of
[5:15]Kentucky as a result of campaigning from the president himself. Right? Um and the president was campaigning
[5:24]against Massie in part because of his support of the release of the Epstein files.
[5:33]Is his loss a sign that the Trump administration's handling of the files is not going to cost them conservative votes?
[5:43]>> I do think it probably is in the back of the minds of a lot of Republicans that are dealing with this and are dealing with the potential backlash and fallout from it. You know, I think there's a difference between support for the
[5:54]president versus support for individual issues. And in the case of Thomas Massie, the president and his political team did a very good job of at least trying to convince Republican voters
[6:06]that Thomas Massie was a thorn in the president's side on a whole range of issues, not just Epstein. Was Epstein part of that? There's no doubt, but they certainly didn't make it the focal point of those attacks. Regardless, if you're
[6:17]a Republican who needs to win a Republican primary, you are going to have that in the back of your mind because even if the voters aren't necessarily making that correlation, the president's political team certainly is and the president's
[6:28]political team has a lot of money and power and strategic expertise in how to win Republican primaries that they could deploy on a moment's notice. >> A federal judge has temporarily blocked
[6:40]the Trump administration's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund. And and it was created after this kind of extremely unusual settlement between President Trump and the IRS. That's
[6:51]going to play out in the courts. But but how much pushback is the fund getting from congressional Republicans?
[7:01]>> It's overwhelming, Yasmin. And in fact, I would say it is I mean I you maybe you could put the Epstein Transparency Act in this bucket because that was one of the first times we
[7:11]actually saw congressional Republicans willing to stand up to Donald Trump. But what we're seeing play out with this weaponization fund is that times 10. Democrats have nothing to do with this. The Republicans in the Senate have
[7:23]basically created a roadblock to the finalization of funding for ICE and Border Patrol through the end of the of President Trump's term. You'll remember this goes back to the DHS shutdown and
[7:34]the deal that was hatched and they decided to do that through reconciliation, which would allow them to do it with only 51 votes. It's something that Republicans support universally across the board. They've
[7:44]put that on hold because they're so upset. But, there is a distinct possibility, it's almost an inevitability, that when you do something through reconciliation, that
[7:54]requires an unlimited amendment process. And Democrats are prepared to bring to the floor a whole host of amendments connected to this weaponization fund
[8:04]that Republicans do not feel comfortable voting against. >> Do you really think they're going to follow through with that, I guess, especially because this could potentially benefit the president of the
[8:14]United States, and we've seen how his endorsements tend to help Republicans versus hinder them. Everybody wants him on their side. >> The argument I would have there is if you're John Cornyn or Thom Tillis or
[8:26]Bill Cassidy, there's nothing Donald Trump can do to hurt you. He's already hurt you >> Yeah. >> to the point where you're losing your seat. And so, in this narrow window of time that we're talking about, where you want this weaponization fund done, where
[8:38]you want this reconciliation funding for ICE and Border Patrol, when you want a potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for a supplemental package to fund the war in Iran, when you want to just straight out fund the government in
[8:49]September, well, you need that gaggle of Republicans to do all of that stuff, and there's not a guarantee that they're going to fall in line. >> Ryan Nobles, happy Friday, my friend.
[9:01]>> All right, thanks, Yasmine. >> So, the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation involving the lawsuits of E. Jean Carroll, the journalist who alleged that President Donald Trump sexually abused her in a
[9:13]Bergdorf Goodman dressing room back in the 1990s. Now, just to review here, in 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll,
[9:24]but not for alleged rape, and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Then, in 2024, a different jury found that Trump repeatedly defamed Carroll
[9:35]before, during, and after the first trial and awarded her another $83 million in damages, but she hasn't seen any of that money yet. Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll's allegations,
[9:47]and last year he asked the Supreme Court to review the case. So then this week, the US attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, who was running the new DOJ probe, says they
[9:58]are not investigating Carroll herself, but are looking into the nonprofit that was paying some of the legal costs, which was founded by billionaire Democratic donor Reid Hoffman, an outspoken critic of President Donald
[10:10]Trump. One NBC source says the allegations under investigation are possible money laundering, obstruction, and conspiracy. Now, throughout both of Carroll's
[10:20]trials, one woman had her eye on everything. Filmmaker Ivy Meeropol, her documentary Ask E. Jean about her life before, during, and after the trials, just came
[10:32]out. And Ivy is joining us now. Hi, Ivy. >> Hi. Thanks for having me. >> This is crazy timing because your film, Ask E. Jean, just
[10:42]opened in theaters last week. You won a slew of awards at major film festivals over the past year or so. And now you have the DOJ, the Justice Department, opening an investigation
[10:54]into how her civil suit was being funded. What do you make of of what is happening in this moment? >> Well, I mean, it's kind of part of a pattern that you can recognize with with
[11:05]the president, um, and I just see it as, uh, it's driven by vindictiveness. I mean, he sees E. Jean as as an enemy of his,
[11:16]and he is lashing out in the way that he does. >> Have you spoken to her since since this happened? >> I have not. They have so much going on between the Supreme Court decision, the
[11:28]or well, or lack thereof. I I they haven't it hasn't even been accepted or denied yet. So, and then this coming I mean, I text and
[11:37]I say, you know, thinking about you and and [snorts] I get, you know, thumbs up or but that's it. >> I want to talk about your documentary. You have made a number of political
[11:49]films. You made a film about sharks on Cape Cod, the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. Your first was actually about your grandparents who are probably one of the
[12:00]most famous in US history. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Why did you want to make a film about E. What drew you to
[12:10]her as a subject? >> Well, you know, it's it's it's interesting because it wasn't the big picture that it became. What initially drew me was just reading the
[12:20]excerpt in New York magazine where she told the story of what happened at Bergdorf Goodman and it sounded unbelievable. But but the way she wrote it it made perfect sense. And I just thought this
[12:32]is this is new. You know, we are we had come out of the Me Too movement. Everyone's kind of saying oh, the Me Too movement is is dead. You know, it had it had all this
[12:42]momentum and then it kind of lost steam and a lot as we know, women are expected to embrace this kind of victimhood and and
[12:53]be and shrink and not be um as unapologetic as E. Jean is. And so that there was something about that I just thought, you know, we need this and
[13:03]I needed it. And then I started digging into who she, you know, her background. And I was fascinated. I said she was a gonzo journalist on par with you know, Hunter S. Thompson. I think even a better writer than Hunter S. Thompson,
[13:15]but she she just had this career where she she busted through the patriarchy in terms of her career, but yet she also
[13:24]was accommodating and suffering from misogyny and the culture that that keeps women you know, from coming forward if if they
[13:36]are assaulted. >> In spite of In spite of the president saying repeatedly that E. Jean Carroll was just looking for publicity, you had a hard time getting her on board with this documentary. How did you do it? >> One thing that Donald Trump had done to
[13:48]her other than assault her um and defame her excessively and and put her at risk of you know, being attacked um you know, by all by his
[13:58]followers uh is that she she felt that he what he had done was also reduce her life to those 3 minutes in the dressing room. And I would say,
[14:09]E. Jean, we want it's it's it's going to be so good for all of us audiences to know you and know your story, know your history. And I think that that meant a
[14:20]lot to her because she she resented and rightly so. And I think her story is so fascinating because she's a member of the silent generation and she what she accomplished
[14:31]during the you know, '80s and '90s and two early 2000s in you know, New York City is remarkable. And she had been you know, kind of reduced to a headline and
[14:41]called a whack job and a liar. >> I I do want to note the president has repeatedly um denied E. Jean Carroll's um allegations. So, let's talk about
[14:51]E. Jean Carroll as a person. What did you learn about her over the course of this documentary? Because I think one of the things that she was criticized for
[15:01]kind of laughing it off in a way. >> Yeah. >> But then, as you mentioned, became a leader in a way of extending, you
[15:11]know, the Me Too movement. A leader in her own right in coming forward um with the piece that she wrote. How did she change from being the person that was
[15:22]assaulted in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the '90s to the person that walked into court every day facing the former president of the United States and the potential next
[15:33]president of the United States. >> Right. I mean, it it's really interesting cuz I think she's still fundamentally herself and that's why she's the person who could do that. So, you get to know that she is
[15:44]this force of nature. She made she was a self really a self-made woman. People throw that around all the time, but she moved to New York City and made her way in the male-dominated world of mag the
[15:55]magazine world and and achieved a lot. So, that's still her, but I think what what happened is as we show in the film, she was inspired by the Me Too movement and these younger women not just them
[16:07]telling the stories, but also the act of journalism that made it a store put it all together and that it was working. There was accountability. Men were losing their jobs. They were getting all
[16:19]right, you know, they were going to, you know, they were being So, she saw that happening and I think she was 75 years old at the time and I like to look at it as like she decided
[16:29]to care about herself more in this very, you know, and I I just I think that was the shift and she'd been alone for a very long time meaning not with a
[16:38]partner, but lot of friends and family and everything, but she I think, you know, it's just was like a perfect storm of things coming together where she found herself open to it, but
[16:48]she was really listening to her readers who kept at her advice column and L magazine who were coming to her during the Me Too movement and saying, "What do I do? I've been assaulted. I mean, can
[16:58]you, you know, help me?" And so, she is someone who knows how important it is to share each other's stories. >> You wrote an op-ed recently that you were
[17:08]quote unquote shaking with fear when E. Jean was asked on the witness stand, when she finally did go to trial, if she was taking part in a documentary. You were actually in the courtroom at
[17:18]that moment. Why were you so afraid? >> Well, first of all, I had no idea it was going to happen. [laughter] So, I just was completely unprepared. And I was already kind of laying low.
[17:30]Like, I just didn't want, you know, to be seen as I mean, I we weren't working on the film at that point and I didn't know if it was going to come back. But, I knew that it was a sensitive issue
[17:40]because the the Trump team was going to try potentially going to try to use that against E. Jean because they're always they're always saying, "Oh, she's benefiting from it. She's" And really what they were trying to get to, the ultimate question in that line of
[17:52]questioning was um have you been paid to participate in Miss Miracles film or what I however they phrased it. And of course, E. Jean said, "No." That's what they wanted to know. Like, uh somehow
[18:02]she's getting rich off a documentary, which is >> [laughter] >> For all talking about that there. >> how that Yeah, exactly. So, so that's where I'm I'm coming from,
[18:14]right? So, I'm sitting in this courtroom and it is a, you know, it's a quite a intense experience in there. And and I I I must admit I think I just was the I
[18:25]called it in the op-ed, the Trump effect, which you know, had had already put its pressure on our film in other ways. And of course, I was seeing it in all the the the ways he operates. And knowing
[18:37]that he learned a lot of this from Roy Cohn, who is ruthless and and just and like I said, vindictive. Um and wouldn't
[18:47]stop at anything. I mean, look, Donald Trump put E. Jean's his followers were threatening her with rape and murder relentlessly. So, this is all stuff that
[18:59]I'm like I'm aware of. It's already started. And I'm thinking, "Oh my god, am am I in the crosshairs now myself?" That's how it felt. >> You mentioned the Trump effect earlier. Um
[19:10]how did that affect the film? >> I mean, I've I, you know, I can only guess. It's not like people were saying to me, you know, "Oh, we're not going to touch this because of that." But, I was convinced, and now that you've
[19:22]seen the film and you know who Eugene is, that this this was something that everyone was going to want to see, but actually, it was harder for me to get
[19:32]any traction on this than any other film I've done. Even Even it felt like like making a film about a nuclear power plant. >> [laughter] >> Which just is not the biggest, you know, the best pitch.
[19:43]>> tell you, people do love sharks, though. They love some sharks. >> The sharks were Yeah, that was >> [laughter] >> Um so, I think, you know, so that that's
[19:54]one one way. Um then we had a lot of people who were working on the film once we did raise some money. Um and I had to go very piecemeal and raise We had to raise the money through equity investors
[20:05]and donations from individuals because there was no studio or streamer that was picking this up or even giving me development money or whatever. So, that's the route we went. Then people
[20:17]started want to take their names off the film. >> Why do you think, you know, the folks that could have distributed the film, the streamers, people working on the film, why do you think they were so
[20:27]averse to distributing and/or working with being a part of this film? >> He has created such a culture of fear
[20:36]that it's almost doesn't have to be um you know, it it does almost doesn't even have to be realistic, right? This idea that's has back to me sitting in the courtroom and kind of feeling like,
[20:47]"What's going to happen to me?" I think, you know, maybe people felt like he, you know, he could go after anyone who's connected to the film, like maybe try to claim defamation against us or just like
[20:58]tie people up who don't have a lot of money uh in court. I'm sure that that was part of it. I don't, you know, all I can say about the the streamers and the bigger
[21:10]companies is like we don't have a lot of them left, you know, they're all everyone's merging and the mergers when he got elected again, he has real um
[21:21]power there to interfere with major mergers and so I'm sure you know, they just think it's not worth it. >> What do you hope people are going to take from this documentary?
[21:33]>> The main thing is to listen to women fully tell their stories, right? Like like don't like just I I think
[21:43]just sitting just allowing someone like E. Jean or giving her the platform in a documentary to really get to know her that she's not that there's there's real
[21:54]nuance there, you know, she's she's not a perfect person. She's not a perfect feminist. She's not a perfect victim. She's not you know, she and she has gone
[22:04]through so much. I just think that especially being able to watch the depositions so you can really see what women go through if they bring
[22:15]a lawsuit like this. Um but I also want to think that you I I would love people to come away from this say you can stand up to the bullies and
[22:26]win. >> Ivy, it it it has been a pleasure. And we wish you the best of luck with your film. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks for having me. >> So June is right around the corner,
[22:36]which means there are some major Supreme Court decisions headed our way. For the past month my colleague NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett has been talking to Supreme Court lawyers right here on our feed and
[22:48]discussing some of the top cases before the court this term. Like who gets to be a US citizen at birth, whether trans women and girls can play on girls teams in school sports, and on tomorrow's
[22:58]episode, whether President Trump has the power to fire the heads of independent agencies like the Federal Reserve or the FTC and why that matters. Here she is
[23:08]talking to Canaan Shanmugam, the head of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Davis Polk. >> Say your youngest child came to you and said, "Dad, I don't I don't understand like why do I need to care about these
[23:20]executive agencies, right? We learn about the president, we learn about the judiciary, we learn about lawmakers in Congress. Like what are these executive agencies and why do I why do I care what they're doing?"
[23:31]>> Well, our youngest child is nine, but he's very precocious. >> I picked him in particular. >> So, I will start with how Henry would have thought about this and what he would have asked. And I think the answer to that, if you think about this in
[23:42]terms of Schoolhouse Rock and and sort of basic principles of our government, the basic idea is that it's Congress' power to make the laws, it's the
[23:52]president's power to carry out the laws. When we talk about executive power, we're really talking about executing the laws, carrying them out. And what took
[24:02]place in the early 20th century was that Congress started to create so-called independent agencies. And what it was really trying to do was to kind of have
[24:13]it both ways. On the one hand, to say that these agencies would do things that you would think of as exercising executive power, things like bringing
[24:23]enforcement actions against individuals and private parties, issuing regulations. And here, issuing civil investigative demands. But yet, Congress at the same time tried to make these
[24:34]agencies independent, tried to take them outside the executive branch. And Congress has done that in a variety of ways, but I think this issue of removal
[24:45]has really become the flash point for a lot of this litigation. >> That is going to do it for us at Here's the Scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Vossoughian.
[24:55]We'll be back on Monday with whatever the weekend may bring. And if you like what you heard and you saw, press the subscribe button. We'll see you Monday. >> We thank you for watching and remember
[25:09]stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app >> [snorts] >> or watch live on our YouTube channel.