[0:00]We appreciate you making time for us today. I want to start with this new report issued by the department today all about the weaponization of the last
[0:10]Justice Department. Help me understand what is the single strongest piece of evidence that you have amassed here that there were selective prosecutions. Well, I think the single most important thing
[0:22]for the American people to understand is that the Department of Justice was working very closely with outside organizations to actually target individuals that were just had different
[0:34]views from that outside organization. So, this isn't about like a a violence against women where everybody agrees that we need to prosecute those crimes and and the department working with
[0:44]local organizations to hear about that. This is about the Department of Justice working handinhand with outside um organizations that were their sole mission was to go after individuals who
[0:54]were pro-life and and the Department of Justice took that information, used it as part of their ongoing investigations and prosecutions. I don't know if we've ever seen that in any context before in
[1:06]with the Department of Justice, but certainly not anything that comes to mind for me. That was the most telling thing. And then you you flow from that the consequence which is prosecutors have a tremendous amount of power and
[1:16]and and so when a prosecutor gets a case they have a lot of decisions that they can make. They're supposed to make the right decision, the one that's consistent with justice. And what we saw
[1:25]unfortunately is on several occasions the prosecutors did not do that. Whether it's in asking for a sentence that is double the time that had been asked for the similar types cases when it's
[1:36]somebody who's who's who's not who's who's pro um who's proabortion or in the way that you know they arrest somebody many most individuals in the federal system who get arrested for white collar
[1:48]crimes surrender. They're not you don't go banging their door down um at the crack of dawn with with a bunch of agents. And here again you had examples where defense council were engaged. So,
[1:58]the defendant already has a lawyer. They say, "If you're going to charge him, can he surrender?" And and he'll surrender whenever you want, and you had the Department of Justice make a decision to go and arrest him at 5:00 a.m. Are
[2:09]either of the are any of those things I just discussed standing alone something that should shock your conscience? Maybe not. But when you combine them, it's it's it's an important reflection of what happened over the past several
[2:21]years and something we we can't let happen again. We've reported a number of people have now been terminated. Are more to come? >> Well, look, I mean, I more to come. Generally speaking, I mean, I think the
[2:33]the Department of Justice, we expect our lawyers to act in the right way. There's been reports out that says that these prosecutors were quote just doing their jobs. We have never and will never fire
[2:44]somebody for just just doing their job. However, every lawyer and every prosecutor knows that they have to they take an oath just like I did. and and if they violate that oath, there should be
[2:55]consequences. And so folks can read the report. It's it's public. Obviously, there's there's we wanted it to be something that the American people could read and and reach their own conclusions. And so, yes, that we did,
[3:07]you know, we did take employment actions based upon the the results of our investigation. >> So, the specific law at issue here, the FACE act as it's known, um makes it a
[3:17]crime to block access to reproductive services. Uh the administration has also used it to target uh those who have been protesting in Minneapolis, those who are
[3:26]against ICE. Help me understand where the line is between First Amendment protected activity and something that's criminal. >> First of all, it's absolutely not
[3:37]protests. We are not and will not ever arrest protesters. Protesting is one of the most important fundamental parts of this country's being. But that but there are a lot of actions being taken by um
[3:48]by men and women in this country that is not protesting. You cannot for example storm into a church on a Sunday morning. And and that's not a protest. If you're out protesting um the actions of
[4:00]government where whether it's ice or anything else, you are welcome to do so. But you cannot assault ICE. You cannot throw bricks at ice. You cannot throw frozen bottle you know water bottles at
[4:11]ice. That is not a protest. So the the second the media or individuals say that this administration is arresting protesters, I raise my hand and say that is false. It is not it is not what we're
[4:22]doing. So every single person that's been arrested in connection with any of these these violent actions against law enforcement around the country, not just Minneapolis, they were arrested for for
[4:33]that for violence, not for protests. >> I want to ask you about some other um matters that are getting a fair amount of attention right now, including Congressman Eric Swallwell. I'm sure
[4:42]you've seen uh the headlines. The FBI director overnight posted an offer to Congressman Swallwell to sit down with authorities amid all of these allegations of sexual misconduct. Uh
[4:54]allegations, I should mention the congressman denies. First, just your reaction to that offer. >> Well, I think any individual is always when there's a a claim of of of committing a crime or misconduct, you
[5:05]can always sit down law with law enforcement and talk about it. So that's available to anybody who who is is being investigated um in in any circumstance, even one that's not on the front page of of of every paper. Um I've watched for
[5:17]the past four days what's happened with with Swallwell. Um and and I I don't have anything to say about any investigations ongoing or anything like that, but but certainly um as we've said
[5:28]repeatedly over the past several months, and by we, I mean the Department of Justice and the FBI, um anybody that is a a victim of of any federal crime, especially those involving um crimes
[5:39]against the most vulnerable, we will for sure investigate. And that remains true today. and and to the extent that there's anything that would that comes of that um as far as investigations um
[5:50]so be it. >> Even if the person is a member of Congress, >> well, I'm not aware of any law that excludes them from from being investigated. So no, to the contrary, I think everybody in America should rest
[6:02]assured that that if if there's if the Department of Justice or the FBI has evidence of crimes against um committed by anybody, whether it's a congressman, a famous person um or a citizen, we will
[6:14]investigate. So that it doesn't matter whether you're a member of Congress. >> So Swallwell obviously not the only lawmaker here who has had sexual misconduct allegations levied against
[6:24]them. Um there's a number of them. We could go on. Do you think there is a sexual misconduct problem on Capitol Hill that is worth the department's time investigating?
[6:35]>> Well, not every sexual misconduct claim is a federal crime, right? So, the federal the federal government, we have a limited number of crimes that we investigate, they have to be federal crimes. And so, if if it's a federal
[6:45]crime, if it's something that that involves a federal statute, of course, we should be investigating allegations of sexual misconduct. That's one of our most fundamental and important missions in law enforcement generally and that
[6:56]includes the Department of Justice. So, yes, I mean, and look, you you already saw that, you know, the Manhattan District Attorney said they were investigating. I'm sure other local law enforcement that typically investigates
[7:06]that type of conduct. If we can assist them, we will. Um, but but yes, no, I mean, I think that that's one of our biggest our biggest priorities, our most important priorities, the Department of
[7:16]Justice are investigating those type of claims. I want to turn to the work of the department. Uh I think you would agree with me it's been a time of significant
[7:26]uh change uh for any number of reasons, but I want to start at the top. As the president thanked um former Attorney General Pam Bondi for her time and her service, I understand you two have a close relationship, but she was
[7:38]ultimately fired. What is it that you have to offer that would be different than Bondi? Look, I think I think that the Department of Justice has gone on, as
[7:49]you said, has there's been a tremendous number of changes over the past 14 months. All good, by the way. All good. And and folks that say they're bad, I'm happy to have a conversation with them about that because I very much disagree.
[8:00]I think that that what we can do, what we can continue to do and what I can do as its leader, at least right now, is making sure that we continue to to push forward on on the agenda that we were
[8:11]assigned to do. So that means making America safe again is the big umbrella, but then fundamentally it's it's addressing weaponization and making sure that things that that happened over the past several years don't happen in the
[8:23]future. It's it's dealing with the drug fentanyl crisis. It's dealing with illegal immigration. It's making sure that we're going into our streets and our communities and making them a place that that you can walk around again. And
[8:34]so that's the mission that I I had two weeks ago. It's the mission that we have today and and that's the mission that I'm selling. and to the American people, but also to to all the great prosecutors
[8:45]that work in in the department. >> But she she did all that, right? And I'm I'm sure you would say she's accomplished a lot and yet still wasn't enough. >> Well, I don't look, I don't know whether
[8:55]it's something is enough or not enough. I think that every single person in this administration, me included, and obviously Attorney General Bondi as well, we serve at the pleasure of the president, and that's true of any
[9:05]administration. And so the president has the right and the duty and the obligation to make sure that that that he has folks that that he wants. And the
[9:15]president may choose somebody besides me to to be the attorney general today. Um he might keep me in for the next 6 months. He might um wait and see. That's
[9:25]that's what we elected him to do. And so I I can't speak to to his thinking. I can't speak to what happened the past year. All I can say is that we have a
[9:35]very defined mission that we've been trying to execute and we'll continue to execute and and and that's that's what we're going to keep on doing.
[9:45]>> If he was to choose somebody else, it sounds like you'd stay. >> Yes. I mean, listen, I I I've said it a couple times now. Um I love working for President Trump. Uh it's an honor to be
[9:57]part of this administration. It's an honor to to to work in this administration in whatever capacity the president asks me to work and and so I I loved working with Attorney General
[10:07]Bondi as a deput attorney general. I love being the acting attorney general right now. If the president asks me to do something else, whether it's going back to my my role as deputy attorney general, whether it's something else in
[10:19]the administration or to leave, I will I will be appreciative of the opportunity he gave me. But this is a great time to be in this country. It's a great time to be part of the work that we're doing um
[10:31]every day for President Trump and for the American people. And right now I'm part of it and and I'm appreciative of that. >> Right now if you walk outside the Justice Department headquarters, there's
[10:41]a big banner with President Trump's face. It says make America great again. It's obviously an agenda you support. But I wonder for passers by who see that
[10:52]banner, is the president calling the shots or is the acting attorney general calling the shots at headquarters? >> Well, I suppose I would ask you to define calling the shots because the
[11:02]president is the we can read article two together of the constitution. The it puts the power of of the executive in one man um and that's the president of the United States. though he is he is my
[11:13]boss and he is every president is the attorney's boss um from the time the constitution was enacted and the time that an attorney general was was selected and so who is calling the shots
[11:23]I mean I think everybody in this country knows um and has known for 250 years that the the the president of the United States when it comes to the executive
[11:34]calls the shots and any any idea that there's a cabinet secretary out there whether it's the attorney general general or the secretary of state or the secretary of war or commerce that gets
[11:46]to quote call the shots. Um they have not read article 2. >> So to that end, last September the president sent a message to the then attorney general Pam Bondi. He's
[11:57]employing her to charge former FBI director James Comey. I'm sure you know the post well. If you're nominated and you're confirmed as the next attorney general, what do you do with a message
[12:07]like that? the president. Look, I do exactly what we did with the message last time and we have thousands and thousands of investigations going on in this federal investigations going on in this country right now. There is outsiz
[12:19]focus on a handful of them because they involve individuals that the president has has had significant issues for good reason by the way with in the past. That
[12:30]will continue um for the rest of the time he's president. It was the case during the Biden presidency. I mean, that's that's what that's what being the the commander-in-chief is about. I mean,
[12:39]I think the fact that he encourages or directs or expects the Department of Justice to do its job, that those type of messages do not um do
[12:49]do not fase me. As a matter of fact, I I want a president that does that. I want a president that actually sets his agenda and then sticks to it. And so, that's something that that the president's done his whole life, even
[13:01]when he's not, you know, commander-in-chief. And so, look, that type of message, um, he knows that we're doing great work. Um, and believe me, if if we weren't, I would expect that he
[13:11]would he would call me and and that's what we're we're going to continue to do. >> But he wasn't happy in that message. I think you're going to agree with me, right? He said it's going too slowly. Justice needs to be served. What's going
[13:23]on? He appeared to be expressing frustration that the department wasn't actually following through on his wishes. >> I I don't agree with that. I think the
[13:34]president wears what he thinks. He doesn't keep things from the American people. So he and yes, does he think things were going too slowly? Yes. Does are things moving slowly? We have four
[13:44]years. So he he is somebody who has high expectations for his cabinet and for this administration. It's not just the Department of Justice. It's in every single area. And so that type of
[13:54]communication from President Trump should make every American happy because it means that there's an executive, a chief executive that is making sure every one of his cabinet members are working as hard as they should. So that
[14:06]though telling us telling any of us that we need to move quicker, that we need to make sure we're focused completely on mission. Um I know that there's a a part of this country that takes that with
[14:15]shock and awe. But that's the same that's the same president that we have had um for four years and now for another year and a half. And it's why we're having so much success. I mean, if you look at the things that are
[14:26]happening today, it's tomorrow's tax day. There's a whole reformation happening. There's now no tax on tips. So, you have thousands and thousands of of of workers in this country who get a meaningful who need it the most who get
[14:37]a meaningful break. You have a new fraud task force. That's all President Trump. We are going to focus very very heavy on the fraud and waste that's happening across this country through our tax dollars. That's that's because the
[14:49]president is a driver of results. And so I don't have any issues with that. And and as a matter of fact, I think it's why he was elected. >> You talk about success, but some of the cases at least in the most controversial
[14:59]cases, the ones that get the headlines, the one that the president appears to care very deeply about, the the record has been has been tough for both Comey and James. The indictments get
[15:10]dismissed. The indictment against Congressman Adam Schiff that he called for never gets off the ground. The probe into those six Democratic lawmakers. The grand jury declines to indict. A judge
[15:20]in DC tosses out a subpoena for uh Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Pal. That's bad news for the department. No. >> Well, not not bad news for the
[15:31]department. It means that we're working hard. I mean, look, for one, some of those indictments were dismissed on procedural grounds because of the the US that the judge found the US attorney wasn't properly in place. So, that's not a that's not a finding, a factual
[15:42]finding of whether there was probable cause. A grand jury turn returned indictments in those cases. The some of the investigations you spoke about are are just that they're investigations and and the fact that the media picked up on
[15:53]them and and drove a narrative. Um, for one, it's not necessarily true. Um, and for two, it's it's their investigations. And so it's easy to focus on the five or
[16:03]six that that that that are, you know, that get outsized media attention. There are thousands and thousands of investigations and prosecutions, indictments, um successful
[16:14]prosecutions, successful indictments that are happening every day. And we're going to focus on on all of those and the ones that are Look, those are difficult cases. They are difficult cases with the ones that you talked
[16:26]about and some of them are still ongoing. So, it's I'm not I'm dancing around the conversation a little bit, but but we're not going to away from run away from hard cases and even if the media doesn't like it.
[16:37]>> In cases where in particular the grand jury declines to indict, is that because the cases are hard, the prosecutor's not the right team? What is that? >> Could be any of those. It could be that
[16:49]the grand jury um just made a dec wrong decision. You know, the grand jurors don't get everything right, just like nobody gets everything right all the time. So, some of those it's a tough case and some of those um we're
[16:59]continuing to investigate. You don't have to just take a a no true bill from a grand jury and and walk away. The law allows us, as a matter of fact, that happens all the time that you continue
[17:09]to investigate and go back. And so, I don't think anybody should view that as a this case is over. It's just something that that happened. And by the way, that's supposed to be secret. >> That's not something we're supposed to be talking about. So when you're talking
[17:21]about the ones where there's a leak or in some cases a judge has announced it. That's not the way the system normally works. So there's plenty of times that we get no true bills that that you don't hear about. Um it's just it's part of
[17:32]our system. >> Uh you've managed to stay on the president's good side for a long time. You were his personal defense attorney. You're now occupying the highest levels
[17:42]of the Justice Department. How do you deliver bad news to him and tell him the grand jury failed to indict Tish James? The president wants to hear the truth. And I think that's not I mean there's a lot of people around the president that
[17:53]have had relations with him for a lot a lot longer than me. But my relationship with the president um is one that he expects, which is that I will give him counsel and that I will give him um
[18:03]facts that whether they're good or bad and and there's a a a false narrative out there that that's that's unusual, but it's it's not. It's it's my job. I um >> What do you think's unusual? What do you
[18:15]think's the false narrative? the false narrative that that that there's something um that I should be worried about giving false information to the president. Like, how do I tell him bad news? I mean, he's the president of the United States. He hears good news and
[18:26]bad news all day, every day from all corners. And so, we have so many successes that we've done as a department of justice over the past year. So many successes. We we won a circuit DC circuit court case this
[18:38]morning um that that that where we meant where we mandamus to judge. And then sometimes we lose cases and sometimes we lose cases and then we win them. And and so the president knows that he's he's um
[18:49]he's a very savvy, smart man. And so if if there's news I have to tell him that's bad, I tell him. If there's news that's good, I tell him. And that's what he expects.
[18:58]>> Uh there's no shortage of hard work that you guys have on your plate. Anybody would agree with that. Um, but yet we have seen a number of firings of FBI
[19:09]agents and lawyers in particular, people who worked on any matters related to the president and at the time running for office. What do you say to folks at home who might be watching all of the
[19:21]headlines of people who are fired and say there is a brain drain going on at the Department of Justice? >> It's completely false. I mean, it's just not true. I mean, anytime there's an administration change, a lot of people
[19:33]leave. And yes, it is true that we did fire some people and the FBI did fire some people. Every agency in the federal government fired people when when President Trump was elected in the weeks
[19:44]following January 20th. It is also true that the media has and and some members of the of the bar um wanting nothing to do with President Trump have suggested that that has created a some sort of
[19:54]issues within the department. We are there there are no issues and I mean that. I mean we have a great department. We have great prosecutors. It's insulting to the prosecutors. the thousands of prosecutors across this country, the thousands of prosecutors at
[20:06]Maine Justice to say that there these are rock stars. They're hardworking men and woman women that have done their jobs for years and years and they'll continue doing their jobs for years and years. Um when we have a supervisor
[20:17]leave, there's somebody right there that that's ready to take his or her place. And so um we are we're firing on all on all cylinders. I want to talk about the Epstein case because it has occupied so
[20:29]much of your tenure here and earlier this year the department has turned over now more than 3 million pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein but
[20:40]Capitol Hill still has questions. Would the department object to Pam Bondi now as a private citizen sitting down with them? >> So I think that's something that they're
[20:50]working out. By they I mean um Chairman Culmer and other members of the committee with the attorney general. Um we already went there. So when when you say will we object the attorney general
[21:02]I went to Congress sat there for hours said you can ask us any question you want and yes it was not televised live on TV. The reason for that is because what they had said they wanted to talk
[21:14]about is victims and why we weren't investigating certain things that they had supposedly learned about victims. And so that is not something that should have been aired on on TV. And instead what we got was was just a complete
[21:25]charade by Democrats and a few Republicans. And so I we have said from day one we have nothing to hide. And and that's that's not just lip service. We
[21:35]have produced every single relevant document that has anything to do with the Epstein files. And we had to redact a lot of that because the law requires it. And we have invited Congress to come and look at unredacted versions of every
[21:47]single document as much as they want for as long as they want. And some have taken advantage of that, some have not. And so I'm not sure um where the complaints are from Congress that we
[21:58]need to do more because we've done more than in any other case in the history of this country to be transparent and to make available the information that we have in our files. I think there's still
[22:09]a fair amount of confusion about this issue whether you like it or not. I think people are still very confused about it and think that more can be done and they think people should be held
[22:20]accountable and they see you say case closed. We've produced all the documents. There's nothing to see here. Help help people bridge the gap. Is it because the claims are too old? Is it
[22:31]because there isn't enough evidence to indict a co-conspirator? What is it that is preventing anyone else from being held accountable? >> So, we've never said case closed. If we
[22:42]learn information any day, whether it's in if it's 5 years from now, if we learn information from a victim or or learn other evidence that allow us to charge anybody associated with Epstein's crimes, we'll charge it. So, the big
[22:54]misconception is that that the Department of Justice or me has ever said case closed. What we have said is that um from the information that we have within the Epstein files um we do
[23:05]not have a case against anybody. And so guess what? We then released the Epstein files. And so now everybody has the Epstein files that we had. And if if some congressmen have have asked us for
[23:15]follow-up on some communications or some issues potentially saying, "Hey, maybe this is somebody you should investigate." And we did and and we're happy to to to to do that. And so the
[23:25]the the frustration for me is is I understand why people feel like more people need to be held accountable. How can it be that only two people were held accountable for for the years and years
[23:35]decadesl long um crimes committed by Mr. Epstein? I agree with that. This this case was ep was investigated by multiple prosecutors, dozens of federal agents
[23:46]for many over the course of of many years over the course of 12 years. And so the idea that we have it investigated is is false. Um it was investigated in multiple jurisdictions by state and
[23:57]local by the feds. We have we have now produced every single file we've had. We have said to victims, you can come talk to the FBI any day of the week. If you have information that we need to know to
[24:09]help us um bring charges against anybody. >> So if something new comes out, it sounds like your door is open. >> Yes. But just to be clear, I'm not breaking news telling you that. I've been saying that for months and months
[24:20]and months and months and months and so that that has always been the case. And so that and the attorney general, attorney general Bondi said the same thing. Director Patel said the same thing. And so we've been saying that and
[24:31]then there are some of these victims rights groups that have suggested that that's not the case. Um we met with victim's rights groups, the attorney general and I did. I know Director Patel, prosecutors in the southern
[24:42]district of New York met with victims. Um, so there have been um there's been a lot of investigation over the years. Um, it hasn't resulted in the prosecutions that some people uh that the American
[24:53]public may maybe believe it should have. Um, that's that's a fact, but we have been as transparent as we possibly could be. I remain available to answer
[25:03]questions from from the media, from folks on the Hill that have questions about about our process, about what we have, what we don't have, and and that's all that I can do. Are you willing to
[25:13]sit down with lawmakers if they want to interview and and talk to you once again? We know you've already said I already have. I already have and I've talked to I've talked to multiple We have Yes. We have always said we'll talk
[25:25]to to lawmakers about it. Lawmakers, many of them, Democrats and Republicans can contact me and and they can ask. I'm not sure what questions they have because they mostly speak through X and
[25:36]and actually are totally wrong on what they think is the case. >> They say they have questions about redactions. They say they have questions about documents that have been withheld. Those are their questions. >> Well, those questions could be directed
[25:47]to me instead of to the to the ex universe out there. And I think they can be they can be answered. I think the problem is they don't really want the answers because the the truth of the
[25:57]matter is this Department of Justice, okay, President starting with President Trump who signed the Transparency Act has done more when it comes to the Epstein files than any administration in
[26:08]history. Okay, so the first Trump administration prosecuted Epstein. this administration released all the files um and and that's not something that that didn't satisfy some um lawmakers who really wanted
[26:20]there to be a different narrative. Oh, we covered up for President Trump. No, we didn't. And that now that has gone away. Oh, we we we are protecting um
[26:29]famous men who did things. You have all the files. What's a single famous man that you think we've protected? I I I'm I'm So, yes, of course. I'm available to answer questions to to anybody that asks
[26:41]every interview that I do when when I'm asked about the Epstein files. I'm happy to talk about it as long as folks want to. I do think that we have to get back
[26:50]to um the the work that we're doing when it comes to this issue. We prosecuted more sex predators in just 14 months than the last administration done and
[27:01]had done in almost three years. And so this is something we're doing every single day, protecting young women, our most vulnerable, minors, um people who here illegally, and so they're they're they're often trafficked. That is
[27:12]something we're doing every day at US attorney's offices across this country. So the idea that we are somehow not protecting um the our most vulnerable is also a narrative that is completely false.
[27:22]>> So one of the people that actually was prosecuted, you sat down with, you interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell. She's now lost her bid at the Supreme Court to try to get her conviction overturned. Her
[27:33]only hope is a pardon from President Trump. Having met with her, having interviewed her and talked to her. Is that a pardon that you would advise him is a good one to do? >> So, I don't advise the president on
[27:44]pardons. That's his job and his his alone. So, I don't and and by the way, the president has pardon power and he can or cannot use it. Um I have no reason to believe the president is
[27:54]considering a pardon for Miss Maxwell. Never have. Um and and I did sit down and meet with her. And the reason why is because she said she wanted to talk about what she knew. And so if if you
[28:05]think about it, nobody has actually ever just talked openly about everything that they knew with respect to this case. Does that mean everything she said was true? Does that mean everything she said was false? No. She just she answered
[28:17]questions and and the the the entire interview was recorded. Um the there's transcripts available of every question I asked and every answer she gave. you found her believable.
[28:27]>> I I you can't find somebody credible by meeting with them once. I mean, the way that you do this is you would we would need to to spend a lot of time pressure testing every one of her answers and and and understanding why she answered
[28:38]things a certain way. Um, and so, you know, it's not I I didn't view that it was my job to make an independent credibility finding. That's the American public's job. It was just me trying to
[28:49]ask the questions that that I thought were were appropriate to ask and and followup were necessary and and and that's that's what I that's what I did and and the like I said what I asked and
[29:01]what she answered is available for everybody to read. >> It sounds like though if the president said over dinner, hey, what do you think about this? You would say no, don't do that.
[29:10]Well, I think that there's not that's not necessarily true that I would just called out say don't do this or do do this. I think there's there's more work to do when it comes to to Miss Maxwell
[29:22]if if we really want to understand um everything that she knows. Okay, she you can hear from her interview what she said about what she knows and what she observed along the way. Um there's
[29:33]there's a she went to trial. She was convicted. Multiple women testified against her. That that matters. a jury of of her peers convicted her. So, look, I don't I I I hesitate to even talk
[29:44]about anything happening in w with Ms. Maxwell going forward. We met with her twice. It became a really big deal. Um and and we'll see.
[29:54]>> Why do you think this issue continues to have so much traction? >> I think it's a case there was never closure. you know, he got a a deal that
[30:05]many people would believe was was not appropriate um in the, you know, years ago in Florida. He then um continued to to live his life in a way that I think people find unfair, inappropriate, and
[30:17]disgusting. He was charged again and and then he's dead. Okay. So, there's not the closure that maybe folks would would would expect from a case like that. And
[30:26]so, it's it's partly that. It's partly um the past administrations, the past some of the past investigations weren't as thorough as as folks would would I think demand now when it comes to Mr.
[30:38]Epstein. I think it's partly that. Um and so I think it's a combination of trust that that I think we had to fix over the past year and a half with the Epstein files, which remember it's worth
[30:49]saying for four years nobody cared. Okay? So for four years you barely heard a peep about the Epstein files. And so that's four years of time lost. that's four years of of of memory loss of of
[31:00]people, you know, not maybe remembering things they otherwise would. And so when we came in and and were were asked to look at it again, and we did, um, I
[31:10]think that's just a culmination of of of reasons why the American people, and some still do, have questions about that investigation, what we did or didn't do, and about Epstein himself. I think
[31:21]people also still have questions about why Maxwell got transferred to that minimum security camp in Texas. And we I know you've spoken about it. I know you've said that that was the BOP's
[31:32]call, the Bureau of Prisons, but now is the acting attorney general. Do you think that the public needs a better explanation of what happened there so that they can feel confident that this
[31:42]was all on the up and up? Well, I had the same responsibility as a deputy attorney general over this issue as I do now. And I've said it several times, which is that um the Bureau of Prisons moves inmates constantly because of all
[31:54]kinds of reasons, including security issues. Um what I think I've the American people know is that when I when it was publicly announced that I was going to see her in Tallahassee, where
[32:04]she was where she was um designated, um she had a many many security threats against her. Um the security level of her prison in Tallahassee is virtually the same as the one where she is now.
[32:16]She may get transferred again if there's other security issues. Um that that happens all the time in the federal system. And to suggest that going from one prison to another prison is some sort of um benefit to her or that she
[32:28]got something um is is just not true. >> But you have to admit the timing right after your interview with her. >> No, the the timing of threats. So when would when somebody is being threatened,
[32:39]should the BOP have said, "Let's wait a little bit because we don't want it to look suspicious." I mean, this this wasn't in response to the interview. It was respon in response to threats that she had been receiving where she was
[32:50]housed. And so the timing happens to be what it is, but it's it's on the other hand, it makes perfect sense, I would hope. >> Uh the department obviously came under a fair amount of scrutiny for all of the
[33:01]redactions. Do you have a a message to any of the survivors whose information was wrongly revealed? >> Yes, it's it's horrible that that happened. It's it's horrible and it's
[33:12]inexcusable, but I want to make sure folks understand what happened. What happened was um we had a an ongoing dialogue with victims, their lawyers, their families, and any other active ad
[33:24]advocacy groups to help us identify any mistakes that we made. So point less than 1% of the documents had errors. And by the way, inexcusable, okay, but we
[33:35]were on the clock. As a matter of fact, we were being we were criticized by the same congressman who now complain that we didn't redact properly. We were criticized for not doing that work quickly enough. You're talking about
[33:47]work working through six million pieces of paper. So two Eiffel Towers. Okay. Um in in what's supposed to be 30 days ended up being 72 days. And so in any
[33:57]review like this that that's that that happens um mistakes will be made. And so what we did is the second we learned about a mistake we pulled the document down addressed it and and for many of
[34:07]those mistakes for example the name was misspelled. So the victim's name is clearly the victim but the it appears the reason why the reviewer made the mistake is because it was misspelled.
[34:18]Sometimes it was genuine mistakes and and that's that's human and that doesn't make it right. It doesn't make me I'm not I'm not excusing that, but you're talking about less than 1%. By the way,
[34:29]as far as we know, it's fixed. So, that happened the first week or two after we released the Epstein files. We we put dozens and dozens of prosecutors full-time, seven days a week on addressing those. So, pulling the
[34:41]documents down, fixing them, and then putting them back up. And and that was what I thought and I I still believe is is what we should have done. and and and
[34:52]then the second we fixed that, congressmen decided to complain about something else. Then they started complaining that we overred redacted, right? So the first it was we didn't redact enough and then it was, "Oh my gosh, you redacted too much." And so then we said, "Okay, what did we redact
[35:03]too much about?" And for the most time most to a person, we we redacted victim's names. And Congressman wanted us to think that that we and tell the American people be dishonest with the
[35:15]American people about our overredact which wasn't true. So I I I our prosecutors worked extremely hard for 72 days support staff nights,
[35:27]weekends, Christmas, New Year's and um they did a great job and they made mistakes and every mistake that they made we tried to fix um within a day or
[35:37]two. Um we we reviewed it, fixed it, and put it back up. But that's that's why normally you don't release files because this is what can happen. Normally the
[35:48]American public, they don't get to see grand jury files, grand jury investigative files because there is so much victim information, especially in these types of cases. But the transparency act was passed. We did it
[36:00]and it's the right thing to do. I support it. But but one unfortunate consequence was that we we did make mistakes. We thank you for watching and remember, stay updated on breaking news and top
[36:12]stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.