Drive off in a new Hyundai Elantra today with zero dollars down during the Hyundai Advantage sales event. Take advantage of the $1,000 spring drive bonus and lease the 2026 Elantra Essential for just $73 weekly at 4.99% for 60 months. And you're covered by Elantra's best-in-class five-year new car warranty. Now that's the Hyundai Advantage.
Conditions apply. Offer includes 1% loyalty rate reduction for qualifying customers. Visit HyundaiCanada.com or your local dealer for details. This Sunday, mounting pressure.
What are they hiding from the American people? The fight to release the Justice Department's Jeffrey Epstein files grows, touching a political nerve and triggering a pain point for Republicans. There is no daylight between the House Republicans, the House, and the President on maximum transparency. People want the information.
They don't want things covered up. Speaker Johnson has assured that August has become the Epstein recess. The House leaves for an early recess as President Trump shifts blame to the Democrats. After what they did to me, and whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people.
My guests this morning, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, and a joint interview with Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna and Republican Congressman Thomas Massey. Plus, building tensions. As President Trump turns up the heat on the Fed chair, Powell pushes back. It's about $3.1 billion.
It went up a little bit, or a lot. So the $2.7 is now $3.1. And you're just going to edit in a per-building. And hunger crisis.
As ceasefire negotiations fall apart, warnings of mass starvation spreading inside Gaza. Joining me for insight and analysis are New York Times Chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, Amana Voz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, former Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson, and former Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press.
From NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning. President Trump is waking up at his golf resort in Scotland this weekend, but unable to shake the controversy that is increasingly engulfing his White House back at home. Those growing calls for his administration to release all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Epstein was a financier convicted of sex crimes and facing federal sex trafficking charges when he was found dead in his jail cell in 2019. Joined a suicide. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump said he would release the Epstein files.
Would you declassify the Epstein files? Yeah, yeah, I would. All right. I guess I would.
But now his administration is backtracking, creating a backlash from Democrats. And for the first time for many in his own base, the president facing mounting questions about his relationship with Epstein, trying to shift the focus. You're making a very big thing over something that's not a big thing. Don't talk about Trump.
What you should be talking about is the fact that we have the greatest six months in the history of a presidency. This week, The Wall Street Journal reported that back in 2003, Mr. Trump contributed to a collection of letters to Epstein for his 50th birthday, allegedly writing a bawdy letter to Epstein, which included an outline of a naked woman. The president has forcefully denied he wrote the letter and is now suing the journal.
I don't even know what they're talking about now. Somebody could have written a letter and used my name, but that's happened a lot. The journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Mr. Trump during a May briefing that his name appeared in Justice Department documents related to Epstein.
While the White House confirms that meeting happened, the president denies being told his name appears in the files. No, I was never, never briefed on them. Being named in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing. And Epstein's one-time girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence, convicted of a 6 in his sex trafficking ring, including luring and abusing young women herself, answered questions from DOJ officials for two straight days, prompting the question, would the president pardon her?
When Mr. Trump was pressed, he didn't rule it out. It's something I haven't thought about. I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.
All as the drumbeat for the release of the Epstein files continues to grow louder and as Republican infighting over the potential disclosure has reached a fever pitch. People want the information. They don't want things covered up, especially when it comes to the most well-known convicted pedophile in modern-day history. It's important to them, and they really want the information out.
And joining me now, a bipartisan duo who is teaming up to force a House vote demanding the release of the Epstein files. Republican Congressman Thomas Massey of Kentucky and Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Welcome to Meet the Press to both of you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you both so much for being here. I want to start with a question for both of you. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who will be my next guest, has accused you of being hypocritical for pushing for the release of these files now and not when former President Biden was in office.
Take a listen to what he had to say. Remember, President Biden and his DOJ had these files for four years. Neither of those guys said a word about it. Thomas Massey is suggesting that this is some sort of watershed moment.
We are all on the same page trying to advance the truth, full truth and transparency. And the idea that he's suddenly so concerned about it is curious to me. He waited until President Trump was elected to bring this up. It seems that way to me.
Congressman Khanna, let me start with you first. Why are you pushing for the release of the Epstein files now and not during President Biden's administration? Well, Speaker Johnson is a friend. We came into Congress together, but I hope you'll join us for transparency.
Actually, in 2019, I tweeted out that I was working with Elijah Cummings to have a full investigation of the Epstein situation and the deaths associated with it. Then in 2021 and in 2024, the courts started to release Epstein files. Then you had a situation where the president of the United States, President Trump, says when he's president, we're going to release all the files. And Pam Bondi says that there's a client list.
There may not be a client list, but we're going to release all the files. I didn't say anything while giving him the benefit of the doubt in the first few months. What triggered this is Pam Bondi issuing a memo saying there's nothing more to be seen after saying that there was an Epstein file and a list. And that's what triggered this crisis of press.
That's why we need a full disclosure now and why I have teamed up with Representative Massey and 11 other prominent Republicans to demand that. Well, Congressman Massey, let me turn to you. What say you? Are you being hypocritical by demanding this now and not sooner?
No, not at all. Look, the release of the Epstein files is emblematic of what Trump ran for and why he got the populist vote. There seems to be a class of people beyond the law, beyond the judicial system that operates outside of all of that. And we all thought that when Trump was elected, he would be the bull in the China shop and that he would break that up and bring transparency.
Frankly, it wasn't until just recently that I realized that people who were allegedly working on this weren't sincere in their efforts. And also, politics is the art of the doable. There's enough public pressure right now that we can get 218 votes and force this to a vote on the floor. Somebody should ask Speaker Mike Johnson, why did he recess Congress early so that he didn't have to deal with the Epstein issue?
He can bring this to the floor at any point, yet he's chosen to send us home early for August recess. Well, Congressman Massey, let me delve into this with you. We will get to Johnson in just a moment. The Department of Justice says they will not be releasing further Epstein material in order to protect what they say is more than a thousand victims, many of whom were underage.
I want to read you a little bit of a DOJ memo, which writes, quote, Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. One of our highest priorities is combating child exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither one of those ends. What is your response to the concern that releasing these files could ultimately hurt the victims?
Congressman Massey. Well, look, that's a straw man. Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victims' names will be redacted and that no child pornography will be released. So they're hiding behind that, that we're trying to get justice for the victims and transparency for America.
And so, you know, we've redacted things before. We don't want to hurt the victims. We're doing this for the victims. I think it's just something that they're hiding behind.
And the end of that statement, I heard something about conspiracy theories or something like that. Look, they're the ones. It's the president's own attorney general, FBI director and children who said and vice president who said that these files need to be released. We're just trying to hold their feet to the fire.
Well, Congressman Khanna, take another piece of this. Based on what you are proposing in this legislation, the names of frankly, anyone who flew on Jeffrey Epstein's planes or visited any of his properties, anyone named in the files who was not a victim will likely be publicly released if these files are released. Is it fair to release files that may never see their day in court, but could be devastating, quite frankly, to the people mentioned in them? This is a fair question, On Epstein, you could overshadow Democrats' message on pocketbook issues and hurt your chances in the midterms.
No, and I love my core conviction is a new economic patriotism to reindustrialize America, 21st century Marshall Plan for America, Medicare for all, opposing the Medicaid cuts. But you can't do anything constructive with government if you don't have trust in government. This is about trust in government. When John F.
Kennedy was president, trust in government was 60%. Today, it's in the teens. Congressman Johnson and I, Speaker Johnson and I came to Congress together. He was on the reform side, too.
He wanted to make government work. This is a perfect opportunity for him to say, look, the past is the past. OK, I didn't love that he shut down government. Maybe on your show today, he'll commit that when we come back, let's have a vote.
Remind him of what we were like, the conversations we had in our freshman class. This is about being a reform agent of transparency. Very quickly before I let you both go, first, Congressman Massey to you. Will this pass?
Will it come to the floor and pass the House when you return from August recess? Well, I hope it does because, you know, the question you asked, this is going to hurt Republicans in the midterms. The voters will be apathetic if we don't hold the rich and powerful accountable. I think when we get back, we can get the signatures required to force this to the floor.
Speaker Mike Johnson to do the right thing and just bring it to the floor and not require us to force it. And he'll have a choice once we get those 218 signatures. Is he going to try and change the rules of the House of Representatives midstream or not? If he does, that becomes the vote for the American people.
Congress. I'm out of time, but yes or no. Will it pass? It will pass.
All right. There you go. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation. We really appreciate it.
Thank you so much. And when we come back, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson joins me next. Welcome back. Joining me now is House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana.
Speaker Johnson, welcome back to Meet the Press. Great to be with you. Well, it is great to have you. You just heard my conversation with Congressman Massey, Congressman Kana.
So let me start off with this question. Why did you adjourn the House early and does it run the risk of feeding the perception that there's something to hide in the Epstein matter? Look, these are all important questions. Let me be absolutely clear, as we have been from the very beginning.
House Republicans insist upon the release of all credible evidence and information related to Epstein in any way. But we are also insisting upon the protection of innocent victims. And our concern is that the Massey and Kana discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented. It does not adequately include those protections.
And I can explain all the details of that. The important thing on the timing to answer that question first is that we did not do anything to end the term of Congress early. The Massey Kana discharge petition was filed so that it would not ripen until a day after Congress had previously been scheduled for almost a year to be out of session and in the district work period for August. And that is the timing of it.
So what we did do this week is end the chaos in the rules committee because the Democrats are trying to use this in a shameless manner for political purposes. Quite obviously, they hijacked the rules committee and they tried to turn it into an Epstein hearing. That's not what the rules committee is about. So that's why the floor votes ended on Wednesday instead of Thursday.
But the work of Congress continues. And the schedule of Congress was published well over a year ago, December of 2024. So none of this was a surprise. And Kana and Massey could have brought their discharge petition a day earlier and prevented that.
Or as noted earlier, any time over the last four years, they did not do it during the Biden administration. And that's an important point for everybody to know. But, Mr. Speaker, it's not just Republicans supporting this.
It's 11, not just Democrats. It's 11 Republicans as well. Let me just ask you, because I hear you say that, yes, the file should be made public while protecting the victims. Let me just ask you, though, should all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein be released and made public?
Yes, I agree with President Trump, with the Department of Justice, with the FBI that you need all credible evidence and information out there. That word credible is important. And why? Because you have to protect innocent people's names and reputations whose names might be, as you noted at the outside of the program, intertwined into all these files.
This has been a long legal process. There's a reason, for example, that grand jury materials are protected under the federal rules of criminal procedure because they're not to be put out. See, the Massey and Kana discharge petition would require the release. It would require the DOJ and FBI to release information that they know is false, that is based on lies and rumors and was not even credible enough to be entered into the court proceedings.
And that would be a dangerous thing. Our main concern here, though, is the protection of the innocent victims. I mean, these are minors in many cases who were subjected to unspeakable crimes, abject evil. They've already suffered great harm.
We do not need their names being unmasked. The Massey and the Kana discharge petition does not have adequate protections. For example, in the way that it was drafted, they cite that they don't want child abuse, sex abuse information uncovered, but they cite the wrong provision of the federal code. And so it makes it unworkable.
It requires the DOJ to release grand jury testimony. They are prohibited by law from doing so. So it is not the right approach. There is another approach out there.
The House Republicans on the Rules Committee have a resolution that is well drafted, that is thoughtfully drafted by lawyers that would make this workable. That's the approach we have to protect the innocent. We'll do it at all costs. They do say that they want victims names redacted.
Just to be clear, let me move on to Ghislaine Maxwell. But their language doesn't adequately protect that. Yes. Okay.
Let me move on to Ghislaine Maxwell. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the deputy attorney general spent two days interviewing her. She, of course, has been convicted of grooming, recruiting, abusing young teenage girls along with Jeffrey Epstein.
Mr. Speaker Maxwell's attorney said she answered all questions honestly and truthfully. But do you think that Ghislaine Maxwell can be trusted? Well, I mean, look, it's a good question.
I hope so. I hope that she would want to come clean. We certainly are interested in knowing everything that she knows. And as you'll note, in our House Republican majority, we're working towards that.
Chairman Comer and our oversight committee has already issued their own subpoena. They want to bring in Ghislaine Maxwell as well. I hope she's telling the truth. She is convicted.
She is serving a 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking. And so her character is in some question. But if she wants to come clean now, that would be a great service to the country. And we'd like to know every single bit of information that she has.
I certainly hope she's telling the truth. Well, listen, this week, President Trump didn't rule out a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. Of course, that's one of the big questions looming over all of this. So let me put this to you, Mr.
Speaker. Would you support a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker? Well, I mean, obviously, that's a decision of the president. He said he had not adequately considered that.
I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane. My lane is to help direct and control the House of Representatives and use every tool within our arsenal to get to the truth. I'm going to say this as clearly and plainly and repeatedly as I can over and over.
We are for maximum disclosure. We want all transparency. I trust the American people. I and the House Republicans believe that they should have all this information to be able to determine what they will.
But we have to protect the innocent. And that's the only safeguard here that we've got to be diligent about. And I'm insistent upon doing so. I guess my question is, are you open to a pardon or commutation?
I mean, Mr. Speaker, the victims referred to Maxwell as Epstein's right-hand woman. Here's what one victim who testified under a pseudonym told the court at sentencing, quote, The many acts that were perpetrated on me by Epstein, including rape, strangulation and sexual assault, were never consensual and would not have occurred had it not been for the cunning and premeditated role Ghislaine Maxwell played. Is that someone deserving of a pardon or commutation in any circumstance, Mr.
Speaker? If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes.
And as you noted earlier, probably a thousand victims. I mean, you know, this this is it's hard to put into words how evil this was and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it. At least in under under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing. So, again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would.
Two more critical topics to get to with you, Mr. Speaker. Let's I hear you defending the Israeli position on that. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. You got it. Thank you. Yeah.
Thank you. When we come back, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joins me next. There is a magical land where museums are more fun than tablets, where picky eaters ask for seconds, and where boredom has long gone extinct. It's called Halifax, and you can plan your trip at HalifaxKids.ca.
No magic required. Welcome back. Joining me now is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Senator Graham, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Thank you. Thank you for being back. So let's start with the Epstein files. Let me ask you the question I've asked everyone.
You've just heard my conversations. Do you think that the Jeffrey Epstein files should be released in full, Senator? Yeah, I like what the Speaker said. I'm on board with Speaker Johnson to release as much as you can, protecting victims the best you can.
All right. Well, let me ask you about this twist that happened this week. President Trump seemed to want to try to shut down questions about the Epstein files by accusing former President Obama of treason. This came as his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, declassified documents which alleged top Obama officials manufactured information related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Now, Senator, as you are well aware, this actually contradicts a bipartisan Senate intelligence report led by Marco Rubio, which found that Russia did, in fact, interfere in the election. Do you actually believe that former President Obama committed treason? Well, I think somebody needs to look at what we found. The Intel committee looked at the matter, and they said in 2017, the intelligence analysis of 2017 showing that Russia was trying to interfere in our election was real.
They didn't achieve their goal. But what she found, Ms. Gabbard, is that in 2016, the intelligence community told President Obama there's no evidence that Russia was involved in trying to change the outcome of the election. And he supposedly told a group of people, keep looking.
And the analysis changed. So what we're looking at is, what role did Obama play in 2016 to change the narrative that resulted in 2017? I'm not alleging he committed treason, but I am saying it bothers me. It's disturbing that this is new information.
Now you've got the number two guy at the FBI, Mr. Bongino, saying he's seen things that has changed his life. And I assume now he's referring to Russia. So the best way to handle this is if there is evidence of a crime being committed or suspected evidence of a crime being committed, create a special counsel to look at it.
I think that's the best way to go. Okay, let me follow up with you on your calls for a special counsel investigation. As you know, Senator, there was already a Trump appointed special counsel at the time investigating the origins of the Russia probe. It did not find any evidence of political interference.
And Senator, at the time, you agreed with the findings of the intelligence community. I want to play back what you said at the time. Take a look. The Russians did it.
It was the Russians who tried to interfere in our election. Every member of the committee agrees it was the Russians. They didn't change the outcome, but they did release information embarrassing to the Democratic Party. It did affect Hillary Clinton.
There's only one person in Washington that I know of that has any doubt about what Russia did in our election. And it's President Trump. Senator, are you now saying that you don't believe that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election? Well, what I am saying is that you left a lot out here.
It's called the Horowitz report. It's the Mueller investigation was crooked and rotten to the core. The Washington Post and The New York Times got a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Trump's campaign's relationship with Russia. It was all BS.
At the time, I didn't know any of that. At the time, I didn't know that they were manufacturing evidence to get FISA warrants. There was a confirmation bias. Darrow didn't say there was no political bias.
He said quite the opposite. He said every time a FISA warrant was sought in the Mueller world, they got it. And the errors made to get warrants in this space were a lot greater than they were in anything not involving Trump. But what I'm saying is that this is new evidence.
This is something I didn't know. You didn't know that in 2016, Obama suggested, I don't like the outcome, but there's no evidence Russia was involved. Well, now we all say Russia was involved. But in 2016, they said Russia wasn't involved.
What's going to happen? Let's get a special counsel. Hold on, Senator. As you know, former President Obama has weighed in through a spokesperson.
He says that's just patently false. I actually spoke to Susan Miller, who's a former senior CIA officer who helped oversee the 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference. She said it's completely false that Obama or anyone else asked them to change or sway their investigation. She said they all...
She says, and she's a Republican, said they all would have quit if that had happened. Senator, are you trying to rewrite history to distract from the Epstein matter, Senator? No, I'm trying to let you know and the media know that we found something we didn't know before. At the end of the day, I'm not calling for a prosecution against President Obama for treason, but I am calling for an investigation.
Mr. Miller also said there was no credible evidence that President Trump colluded with the Russians for years and months and days and weeks. People had their lives turned upside down, chasing the Mueller narrative that Trump was in bed with the Russians, that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. The only people colluding with the Russians were the Hillary Clinton campaign and Christopher Steele manufacturing a document to get warrants against Carter Page based on lies and falsehoods.
So, yeah, I'm very familiar with it. What you don't seem to acknowledge is there's something new being found. Rather than reinventing the wheel here, let's go back to a special counsel model to look at this something new. Something new is statements by President Obama, I don't like your analysis, Russia wasn't involved here in 2016.
Senator, you're saying there's something new. This report goes back to 2020. It's five years old. There's actually nothing new in this report and nothing that changes any conclusion.
But let me talk about that. The evidence that she turned over is new to me. That's new to me. Senator, stop trying to sweep this stuff under the rug and that's not right.
But, Senator, you know that at the time you said you did believe the assessments and the multiple investigations. But let me move on to Gaza. Let's talk about Gaza, Senator, because this is so important. As I just talked about with the House Speaker, the world is just watching this humanitarian crisis unfold.
President Trump said he told Prime Minister Netanyahu to, quote, finish the job this week. I know that you are in touch with President Trump. You're in touch with Israeli officials. What are you anticipating is going to happen next?
What does finish the job mean, Senator? Well, I talked to Sidney McCain last night. Here's some good news for the people in Gaza. Humanitarian quarters are now going to be open.
Israel is going to work with the U.N., the World Food Program, to get some food into these people who need it. But I think what the topic we're talking about today is a change in strategy. I think President Trump has come to believe, and I certainly come to believe, there's no way you're going to negotiate the end of this war with Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization who is chartered to destroy the state of Israel.
They're religious Nazis. They hold Israeli hostages. I think Israel has come to conclude that they can't achieve a goal of ending the war with Hamas that would be satisfactory to the safety of Israel. And they're going to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin.
Take the place by force, then start over again, presenting a better future for the Palestinians, hopefully having the Arabs take over the West Bank and Gaza. But I think going forward, Christian, you're going to see a change in tactics, a full military effort by Israel to take Gaza down like we did in Tokyo and Berlin. Senator, bottom line, does that mean the hostages are not going to be coming back alive if Israel were to move forward with what you're effectively saying? I hope not.
I think there are people maybe in the Hamas organization that would accept safe passage if they release the hostages. If I were Israel, I'd make that offer to Hamas fighters. You can leave safely. We want our hostages back.
But here's the problem Israel has. They're losing soldiers four and five a week. I hope and pray the hostages will come back. Hamas could end this tomorrow by laying down their weapons and releasing the hostages.
There is no future for the Palestinian people as long as Hamas is around. So all I can say is that you're going to see, I think, in the next days and weeks, a military effort to destroy Hamas akin to what we did in Tokyo and Berlin to destroy the Nazis and the Japanese. Well, we all are praying for those hostages still. Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you so much.
When we come back, the cancellation of a late night comedy show and what we've heard from its iconic hosts over the years on Meet the Press Minute is next. Welcome back. It's the end of an era for a late night institution. CBS announced last week that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert will end its run in May of next year.
The decision comes after the parent company of CBS settled a lawsuit with President Trump. Before Stephen Colbert took the helm of The Late Show in 2015, he That part of the story. I'll just repeat what my former boss, President Obama, said. It's bizarre.
It doesn't make any sense. To the extent people want to relitigate what happened nine years ago, first, it's important to go back to October 2016. We had an evolving intelligence picture, but we believed it was important that the American people know that there was a foreign actor with his thumb on the scale. But we did not say pre-election, we believed they were trying to help Trump hurt Clinton.
After the election, the president wanted to put out as much as possible to the American people so the public would understand what happened. There was the assessment done in January 2017 that said that the Russian government favored Trump, was out to hurt Clinton. Most significantly were the congressional reviews, specifically the Senate Intel Committee. Their final version of the report on this came out in November 2020 during a lame duck session after Trump had lost, but while the Republicans were still in control of the Senate.
A lame duck, forgive me, Carlos, is when Congress tells you what they really think about things. And so the Sissy report, done by a very professional Republican-driven staff, made the same conclusion that the Russians were out to help Trump hurt Clinton in even more forceful terms. And that is the idea that there were just so many investigations. Marco Rubio.
Yes, indeed. Peter Baker, zoom out for us. How might this impact Republicans, Democrats, Muslims? It's a way of trying to muddy the waters, right?
You know, don't pay attention to this, pay attention to that. What you saw is the printing states put out a video showing artificial intelligence video showing Obama being handcuffed in the Oval Office and put in prison. Another image over the weekend showing him in the white Bronco as if he was O.J. Simpson being chased by police officers.
We should stop for a second and remind ourselves, this is not what presidents do. Presidents don't do that. Even if you think there was some criminal issue, no president's supposed to weigh in on an issue that might be adjudicated like that. He is taking a fog of innuendo, a smattering of selective facts, and added that up to say this is a years-long coup.
That was the phrase Tulsi Gabbard used. And treason. And there's zero backing that up. But it's a way of trying to get the base energized against a common enemy, an enemy, of course, being Barack Obama and the Democrats.
Democrats are trying to energize the base of the FC matter. The question is, will it overshadow what I put the road on? Will it overshadow the pocketbook issues? I don't think we know what's going to happen next week, let alone in the midterms this yet, how much this actually resonates with voters.
We do not know. But I will say, we're having this conversation in a political context related to FC because it's an issue right now with Democrats and Republicans. To not lose sight of the victims in all of this is important. And I just want to give a quick shout out to people like Julie Brown at the Miami Herald, the journalists who uncovered a lot of these heinous crimes in the first place.
You and your team here, Peter and his team, my team at the news hour, even in federal funding cuts are working on this. If there's any credible information that comes out from this, it's going to be because it's led by the facts, not by politics. Yeah, look, the best thing for Republicans to do is to get some information out there as soon as possible, maybe get Pam Bondi answers some real questions. Best thing for Democrats to do is to stay out of the way.
If they make this and us versus them issue, that's the best thing that could happen. I agree. I worry that a large segment of the American public is drowning in conspiracy theories. I think Democrats should stay away from this, focus on what we know really matters to the American people.
Pocketbook issues, the economy, the tariffs, so forth. Right. Powerful final message. Thank you all for joining us.
Really appreciate it. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's meet the press.
As the day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, the new podcast from NBC News, with me, your host, Yasmin Vastuia. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News' trusted journalists. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and it's informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From the front page to the Zeitgeist, here's the scoop from NBC News.
Listen daily on Amazon Music.