Meet the Press NOW — August 22

If it's Friday, in my exclusive interview, Vice-President Shady Vance defends the FBI's searches of President Trump's former National Security Advisor John Bolton's home and office, as the president lashes out at Bolton, but claims he knows nothing about the search. Plus, my interview is with top officials in Ukraine and Russia, as Russia's foreign minister tells me exclusively that there is no meeting planned between Putin and Zelensky. And a key Ukrainian minister saying, President Zelensky is willing to discuss trading land or peace. And new developments in the Jeffrey Epstein saga, as the Justice Department believes his audio tapes of its interview with convicted Epstein associate, Elaine Maxwell.

And starts handing over material to congressional investigators. Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, where we are following multiple breaking news stories. Beginning with the FBI searching the home of former top Trump National Security Advisor turned vocal Trump critic John Bolton.

The FBI entered Ambassador Bolton's Maryland home early this morning as part of what a source familiar with the matter calls and national security investigation related to the handling of classified materials and the use of classified documents and leaks to the news. That search extended to Bolton's office in downtown Washington, where agents were seen leaving with boxes. The FBI describing both scenes as quote, court authorized activity, meaning a judge likely signed off on the searches. Ambassador Bolton was seen returning to his home this afternoon.

A source close to him believes the raid was in response to his frequent criticism of the Trump administration, including in his book The Room Where It Happened. Its retribution, pure and simple, the source said. Earlier today, I sat down exclusively with Vice President J.D. Vance, who denied the investigation was politically motivated, offering the administration's most extensive comments yet about the incident.

Take a listen. I do want to start with some breaking news. We've learned that the FBI is searching the home of former Ambassador John Bolton, his office as well. Sure.

Can you tell me why is the FBI raiding Ambassador Bolton's home and office? Did the White House get a heads up? Well, so we're in the very early stages of an ongoing investigation into John Bolton. I will say we're going to let that investigation proceed.

What I can tell you is that unlike the Biden DOJ and the Biden FBI, our law enforcement agencies are going to be driven by law and not by politics. And so if we think that Ambassador Bolton has committed a crime, of course, eventually prosecutions will come. But as you know, Chris, and this is all part of gathering evidence, trying to understand something that we're worried about. And of course, I'll let the FBI comment on the next stage of the investigation.

What's at the root of this? Is this about classified documents? Well, I'll let the FBI speak to that. Classified documents are certainly part of it, but I think that there's a broad concern about Ambassador Bolton.

They're going to look into it. And like I said, if there's no crime here, we're not going to prosecute it. If there is a crime here, of course Ambassador Bolton will get his day in court. That's how it should be.

But again, our focus here is on, did he break the law? Did he commit crimes against the American people? If so, then he deserves to be prosecuted. As we have this conversation, has Ambassador Bolton been detained, taken into custody, arrested in any form?

So this news just broke this morning. The FBI talked to the FBI this morning. I don't know the answer to that question. I assume that he hasn't been detained.

It won't be detained until there's actually a prosecution if that actually happens. As you know, Ambassador Bolton is a frequent critic of President Trump. He's also on Cash Mattel's enemies list. The administration has already revoked a security clearance, Secret Service protection.

Is Ambassador Bolton being targeted because he's a critic of President Trump? No, not at all. And in fact, if we were trying to do that, we would just throw out prosecutions really nearly like the Biden administration DOJ did. Prosecutors that later got thrown out in court.

If we bring a case, of course, we haven't done that yet. The Department of Justice has not done that yet. We are investigating Ambassador Bolton. But if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determined that he's broken into the law.

We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that because we don't think that we should throw people. Even if they disagree with us politically. Maybe especially if they disagree with us politically.

You shouldn't throw people willy-nilly in prison. You should let the law drive these determinations. And that's what we're doing. But you know, a lot of people have already looked at this and said this looks a lot like retribution.

Is this retribution? Well, who has said it looks a lot like retribution, Kristen? A lot of people who tried to throw Donald Trump in prison for completely fake charges that were later thrown out by multiple different courts. I suspect that if the media and the American people let this case actually unfold, if they let the investigation unfold as it's currently doing, they're going to find out that what we're doing is being very deliberate and being very driven by the national interest and by the law here.

And that's as it should be. And you can catch much more of my exclusive interview with the Vice President on Meet the Press this Sunday. President Trump was asked by reporters this afternoon about Vance's comments to me, and the President said he hadn't been briefed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Look.

Well, I haven't spoken to Pam in the group yet, but I will be. I saw that just like everybody else. I try and say that stuff. I'm allowed to be in.

I'm Chief Law Enforcement Officer, believe it or not. I don't like to go around saying that, but I have this position. But I purposely don't want to really get involved in it. I'm not a fan of John Bolton.

I thought he was a sleazebag, actually. And he suffered his major Trump derangement syndrome, but so do a lot of people, and they're not being affected by anything we do. I don't know anything about it. I saw that.

I'll find out about it. In additional note, this is not the first time Mr. Bolton has been investigated over classified information. After he left the first Trump administration, the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into the former National Security Advisor.

The DOJ also tried to stop the publication of his memoir, which was highly critical of the President's approach to national security. Both cases were ultimately dropped under President Biden's Attorney General, Merrick Garland. Joining me now is Senior White House Correspondent Garrett Hay, NBC News Chief Justice and National Affairs Correspondent Kelly O'Donnell is with me on set. And also with me, Attorney Mark Sage, who specializes in national security and government investigations.

Thanks to all of you for starting us off on this very busy news day. Garrett, let me start with you, the President there speaking to reporters. In fact, it was multiple times today that we heard to him from him about John Bolton. What are you hearing?

What's the very latest from the White House on this search? Well, Kristen, no definitive word from the White House yet. The President has had that conversation with Pam Bondi or any other Justice Department officials about that search of Bolton's home today. I think it's reasonable to presume that he has given it's been a couple of hours now since that Oval Office spray.

He knows this is top of mind. He's probably seen significant amount of coverage about it on television. I have been asking in a persistent and perhaps slightly annoying way to my source of the White House to find out if that conversation has happened. But I think, you know, the interview with Jamie Vance illustrates the point that the White House knows to some degree they own this, and they're going to have to defend it, whether the President keeps his distance from it in comments like those he made in the Oval Office today or not.

It was notable, Garrett, when I asked the Vice President about the search at John Bolton's home at his office, he said that part of this has to do with classified documents, but he said that there are broader issues as well. Those issues have not been revealed to the public yet, and the Vice President certainly didn't go into any detail. But of course, it comes against the backdrop, as we all know of this incredibly fraught relationship between President Trump and his former National Security Advisor, Garrett. Yeah, and this is part of the challenge that the White House is going to have is to disentangle what may become a criminal case here.

We haven't seen any warrants. We haven't seen any charges. We don't know, as JD Vance said, how far the Trump DOJ will take this, having to disentangle the evidence from the commentary that you just heard from the President. You know, in the way that he does, when he hears a name of someone that he doesn't like, he will seize on that, regardless of sort of the general direction of the question he called John Bolton in a low life.

He said he's not a very smart guy. Bolton was on television last night in part criticizing and part actually praising the President's handling of some of these issues around Russia and Ukraine, separating the President's personal feelings about his former National Security Advisor from whatever evidence may be produced against him. We'll be critical to how this plays publicly, given the amount of time and energy the White House has tried to put in this idea that they are somehow de-weaponizing the Department of Justice. They're already being very aggressively accused of weaponizing it exactly in the other direction.

Again, that's something they're going to have to deal with day in and day out as this progresses. That's absolutely right on that note. Let me turn to Kelly O'Donnell. Kelly, speaking about what has been the public appearance of this, we know that top officials at DOJ are actually posting on social media about this.

Let me read you a little bit of what we saw today, including from Cash Patel, who wrote, No one is above the law and America's safety isn't negotiable. Justice will be pursued always. I believe that one was by Pam Bondi. What's the latest that you're hearing from the DOJ?

Well, certainly we will be waiting to see if there is a point where these key documents that are derived from the search, there's an inventory of what may have been removed, where there is more explanation of what was the probable cause that went to a court to get this court authorization. Will any of that be unsealed and made available? If so, that will give us a lot of the answers we're looking for. So at this point, all we know is that it is related to classified materials.

It is described to me by sources as being a concern about releasing information to news media. Obviously, John Bolton has been in government for a very long time, but has been out of government for a period of time. You referenced the book. That was one part of what might be a constellation of events here.

He wrote a book. High-level officials have to get that cleared for classified information before publication. He claims he followed that process. The first Trump administration sued to try to stop it.

Ultimately, that did not go forward. The book is out. And he is now saying, and you indicated from sources you've talked to, this notion of retribution. He's been asked about that.

We'll have to see what the steps are. It was notable to me in your interview with the vice president, how he referred to we as in the administration. Often you would have in the past distance between the White House and the Department of Justice and the FBI. He was careful about saying that Bolton would have his day in court if it gets to a point where there are charges filed.

Again, that has not happened yet. But he also embraced this as being very much an investigation of the Trump administration looking at Trump. The tone was incredibly fascinating. Kelly Zoom out for us.

Of course, we all saw the images throughout the day. You had the FBI vehicles outside of former ambassador John Bolton's home, his office. What do those types of searches typically look like? What do they entail?

Well, they can be very broad in terms of their access to all of the nooks and crannies of one's office or one's home. We heard the president today talking about the search of Mar-a-Lago that affected his family where he referenced his son, Baron, his youngest child, his wife having her personal drawers and closets looked at. That kind of thing could happen in the Bolton case. If you're looking in the office, obviously there are computers, there are electronics.

Those are always of high interest looking in file cabinets. Those are the things we would typically expect to see. If they're looking for classified information, they're looking for things that could demonstrate that he may have possessed that, if in fact that is what they find. And any situations where there might be information that could fill out this suggestion that this is related to leaking this information to news media.

All right. Well, we'll continue to track it very closely. Kelly O'Donnell, thanks so much for being here. Bring us all of your reporting and expertise and Garrett.

Hey, thank you for joining us from the White House. Mark, I want to turn to you now in my conversation with the vice president. He pushed back forcefully on any suggestion that former ambassador Bolton is being targeted because he is a Trump critic. What was your reaction to everything that unfolded today?

Well, first thing was, why is the vice president and any of the others even speaking about this publicly? I mean, there's going to have all sorts of undo sort of command influence is in the military context terms that could be used if there would be a prosecution. I think if we were in 2020 right now in this event had happened, I would have much better understood it. Five years later, if this does have to do with John Bolton's book and maybe some other things, it smacks a political retaliation and vindictiveness.

But it is rife with the ability to abuse this law, the Espionage Act. And I dare say, and I've been saying this for a few months, quite frankly, that I think this is just a stepping stone towards how this administration is going to treat its perceived and actual enemies, including members of the media. And how do you assess the level of risk that John Bolton is facing right now? I think there is a risk now when the administration tried to stop publication of his book five years ago in a very haphazard way.

The federal judge concluded that it was very likely there was classified information that was in the manuscript that ultimately became published. But think of it this way. So Bolton had an obligation to submit the manuscript for pre-publication review. The practice has always been for decades that those drafts are sent to sometimes the lawyer, the literary agent, the publishers, and as long as it goes to the government before it actually hits the bookstores and negotiations happen and text is removed if desired, that's okay.

But everything I just mentioned is an unauthorized disclosure. If the information is classified or national defense information, which is actually the terminology, those are all violations. So that if the early drafts actually had classified information in them, even if John Bolton thinks it didn't, once it went through the White House review and those drafts are on his computer, that could be a problem for him. Well, and I was struck by the fact that the vice president said, yes, there are some issues with classified documents, but he said it's broader than that.

What did you make of that part of what the vice president said and how broad could this actually be, Mark? Well, we look to the first media outlet that broke the story in print this morning was the New York Post, which has been the favorite of this administration. When my security clearance was being revoked, that's how I learned that it occurred. And there were Justice Department comments given as an exclusive to the New York Post that said this is part of a broader investigation, not just into John Bolton, but also into Biden administration officials under the Espionage Act.

This act is really, really broad. It has only been by both Republican and Democratic administrations for a century that they have narrowly interpreted and pursued prosecutions. But if they want to, if you discussed on air, John Bolton's book and read an excerpt or put it on the screen and that excerpt was deemed to be classified, NBC could theoretically under the law be prosecuted for disseminating national defense information. That's how broad this statute is.

Well, I know you weren't inside John Bolton's home in office today, but based on what you witnessed based on what you've heard about what transpired. Was there anything unusual about it beyond the fact that he's a former national security advisor and ambassador? What did you make of how this unfolded today? I mean, it looked to be normal.

I know many people most likely would think, well, look, he's a former national security advisor, you give him some heads up, you'd have you'd invite him in for an interview. I've had clients where we were negotiating and cooperating fully with the FBI and they still ended up searching the individual's home in search of classified documents. They often do it between six and eight a.m. in the morning.

So there's nothing that I saw on that part that concerns me as being different. It was very much like the search on Mar-a-Lago of FBI agents just facilitating the execution of a search warrant issued by a judge. That's their job. The issue was more at the higher levels.

The cabinet officers, the FBI director, what prompted this search warrant to obtain it and then pursue it and what how broader is this other investigation going, which I dare say we're going to find out no doubt pretty soon. We will all be watching and waiting for every little nugget and twist and turn in this investigation. Marc State, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

Mike Lynch. Coming up, top Russian and Ukrainian officials meet the press at a crucial moment for peace talks. My one-on-one interviews with top diplomats for both countries of the obstacles to peace and the prospects of a Putin Zelensky summit. Do not go anywhere.

You don't want to miss these interviews. We're watching the press now. Welcome back. Earlier today, I spoke exclusively to Russia's top diplomat, Sergey Lavrov, about President Trump's push for a Putin Zelensky summit.

Lavrov told me bluntly, there is no meeting plan. Take a listen to some of what he had to say. So bottom line, bottom line, there's no meeting plan. President Putin said clearly that he's ready to meet, provided this meeting is really going to have an agenda, presidential agenda.

So that's a big gift. There's no meeting plan to Mr. Foreign Minister. That's a big gift.

You're saying there's no meeting plans right now. I'm sorry. You're not listening. There is no meeting plan.

And I'm not challenging this. But you cannot understand what I'm saying. Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky when the agenda would be ready for a summit. And this agenda is not ready at all.

President Trump suggested, after anchorage, several points, which we share. And on some of them, we agreed to be to show some flexibility. When President Trump brought those issues to the meeting in Washington, with Zelensky present together with his European sponsors, he clearly indicated it was very clear to everybody that there are several principles, which Washington believes must be accepted, including no NATO membership, including the discussion of territorial issues. And Zelensky said no to everything.

He even said no to, as I said, to canceling legislation prohibiting the Russian language. How can we meet with a person who is pretending to be a leader? President Trump was asked about Lavrov's comments today and about what comes next. Well, we'll see.

We're going to see if Putin and Zelensky will be working together. You know, that's like oil and vinegar a little bit. They don't get along too well for obvious reasons. But we'll see.

And then we'll see whether or not I would have to be there. I'd rather not. I'd rather have them have a meeting and see how they can do. Joining me now is Ukraine's first deputy foreign minister Sergei Kislitzia.

Mr. Deputy Foreign Minister. Thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.

Well, thanks for inviting me. Well, I had the opportunity to speak to Russia's foreign minister earlier today, Sergei Lavrov. And he told me that as of right now, there is no meeting scheduled between President Putin and President Zelensky. He said, first, there needs to be an agenda established.

And he said that agenda is a long way off. So, Mr. Foreign Minister, let me put this question to you. Do you think that this peace process is still moving forward?

Or is it stalled right now? No, I do believe that it does move forward. And it's moving forward gradually. Unfortunately, not as fast as we would love it to move.

But I think that this Monday and the meeting at the White House was a super highlight of the latest months. And I think that it was an important achievement where President Trump has played crucial role. Well, you know, Deputy Foreign Minister Lavrov said to me of President Zelensky that he's pretending to be Ukraine's leader. Of course, he was democratically elected.

But given that kind of language, do you think it is possible to negotiate a peace agreement with the Russians? I've heard that many times back during my years in New York. And I was the primary rapper of Ukraine to the United Nations. If it's not the new narrative, they're trying to promote that narrative for quite a number of years.

But I think that we should really put it away, and we should not really be distracted by what level of process. I think that the leadership of President Trump and his team, as well as the leadership of Ukraine, are on the right track to advance negotiations. And we have to work very hard. And I know that our Foreign Minister and our NSA, the Chief of Staff of President Zelensky under your mark is working very hard with their American counterparts.

And I do believe that the United States and the Trump administration have enough leverage on Moscow to get the process move forward. And what is the timeframe that you're looking at? Do you think there can be a direct leader-to-leader meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky in the next few weeks? Or do you think it's going to be longer than that?

Well, I think that's a very good question because President Trump wants to put the end to this war as soon as possible. And that was part of our long conversation in the Oval Office. And my President explained to President Trump and then the European leaders who joined us later in the afternoon to explain to the American side that if we speak about security guarantees, it's such an important issue and so complex that we do really need at least one week to deliver, to prepare a solid draft of a package of security guarantees to Ukraine. And ever since Monday night, the NSA's and the Chief of Military Staffs are working very hard, practically every day, to draft that agreement.

So ideally, we may have the first draft sometime early next week, and then we have to decide, the political leadership has to decide how we do work with these drafts on the political side. Well, I also had the opportunity to interview Vice President J.D. Vance. We talked about the fact that Russia is demanding to be a part of any security agreement.

He believes there may be some miscommunication around what each side is asking for, but how do you see it? How can Russia play a role in any security agreement related to Ukraine? Can they? No, I think that Russia should comply with its end of the deal, and that is to work in a cooperative spirit with the United States and the European part in Ukraine.

Who will agree among themselves the security guarantees that are not subject in my opinion of negotiations with the Russian Federation. The security guarantees are designed to protect from the aggressor and from the recurrence of the aggression. The security guarantees are not designed for any malign activities of the aggressor in the future. You know, as I'm sure you are well aware, there was an American-owned business in Ukraine that was struck by Russia.

There were some 600 people at work at the time. Now, they were able to evacuate, but how did you see that attack? Was that basically Russia thumbing its nose at the entire peace process and, frankly, President Trump as well? Well, absolutely.

I think it's a absolutely provocative move by Moscow. They knew very well that it is one of the places where the American investments work in Ukraine, and they deliberately attacked the American investments, so probably joined by the conversations that we have with the US administration on a very serious package of trade and economic cooperation as well as mutual investments. So that was a deliberate provocation by Moscow, and it should seem like that, and we hope that the United States will reply and react in a proper way to that provocation. Well, just a big picture.

You have the attack on the American-owned company. You have the fact that Russia will not agree to a ceasefire which President Trump has asked for. You have the fact that there's still no meeting schedule between President Putin and President Zelensky. Do you think Russia is serious about trying to get a deal, or do you think they're just stringing along President Trump and all of you?

My hard opinion is that Russia continues to manipulate the United States and the person of the President Trump, and I think that that comes very annoying to the Americans. We got used to that because we are dealing with Moscow and Russia's aggression and Russian tactics and strategies since 2014. In fact, we are already in the 12th year of the war. But I think that slowly and gradually the US administration understands better that it has been manipulated by Moscow.

I don't believe I see no signs that there is readiness on Putin's side to have minimal conversations, and that he's ready for a meeting of bilateral meetings or a trilateral meeting that we discussed in Washington in Monday. Well, let me ask you, if that meeting doesn't happen in a matter of weeks, or if there's nothing at least on the books in a matter of weeks, what do you think the United States needs to do in order to apply pressure? Should they impose more sanctions on Russia? I think they should.

I think that the seven snap mechanisms should be in place, and additional pressure should be almost instantaneous when the deadline that Trump has in mind expires, and then the Russians should really feel the pain of not being willing to follow the peace path that President Trump offered to the Russian Federation. In my conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov, I tried to get him to really lay out what exactly Russia is asking for as a part of any peace agreement. He wouldn't get into a number of specifics, but clearly Russia wants to keep much of the territory that it's illegally seized and arguably even more. Is that a non-starter for Ukraine, or is there such an effort and desire to end this war that that's something that you think would be considered at this point?

I think that President Zelensky is very clear, and President Zelensky is guided both by legal framework that is in place in Ukraine and the public sentiment, and public is categorically against trading our land for peace, and it was clearly delivered as opposition in Washington, D.C. But when we talk about territorial issues, I think President Zelensky made it very clear that he's ready to sit down with President Putin and discuss it, and the beginning of the conversation on the territorial issue is the contact line that is currently there. All right. First Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Kislitsya, thank you so much for your time and your perspective.

We really appreciate it. Please stay safe. Now, thank you. Have a good day.

Joining me now to unpack those two interviews is MBC News Chief Foreign Affairs and Chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell. Thank you so much for being here. Such big interviews, my gosh. Thank you.

Andrea, my goodness. It's been a busy day, but it's been a busy day, but it's been a busy day. There are so many discussions, and this is such a dynamic situation. Right now, let's talk first about the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine.

He clearly is saying we want to try to reach a peace agreement, but the momentum has slowed, but he's not giving up. What did you take away from what we did? This was a very positive conversation. This is a man who had been at the United Nations, who's very familiar with the diplomacy and certainly familiar with Sergey Lavrov, the Wiley Foreign Minister, whom you dealt with.

So early this morning, because he has been there for years and, you know, is a master at indirection. But what Kizeti has said was that they are in that last phrase was very important. He was indicating a lot of positivity that nothing is being ruled out. They were leaning forward.

They want to see more pressure from the U.S. as do the European, all the European allies want to see more pressure from the U.S. from Donald Trump. Those promised sanctions and today the president indicated his comment sanctions.

We don't know if it's sanctions or terrorists, but we'll see in a couple of weeks if Putin still doesn't deliver. He did say that that hit on the American company, a company from Texas in Ukraine, was provocative, which it certainly is. You asked him whether this was a deliberate slap against the peace process, and particularly against President Trump, in Vladimir Putin striking that facility. But what he said was that they're willing to talk about the territorial, not the exchanges, but the territory along the existing contact lines, which to my ear means the front lines, not giving up what they don't, you know, with Russia controls in the dumbbells, but just where the front lines are.

And that really is one of the biggest questions. How does the territory look if there can be any type of peace agreement? And when I spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov about that, he really poured cold water on the idea that there had been any momentum toward having a face-to-face meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky. So here we have what you were talking about, these strikes against that Texas-based company that is in Ukraine, an electronics company.

Minister Lavrov tried to argue that it's a military installation. It's not, according to people we've spoken to who are on the ground there. But he said, Andrea, there has to be an agenda that's hammered out before Putin will meet with President Zelensky, and he said, that agenda's a long way off. What do you think happens next?

Can these talks get back on track? Because Putin conveyed to President Trump, he was willing to have this meeting. It certainly indicates to me that President Putin is trying to drag this out, because as long as he can drag it out, they have momentum and they are achieving a lot on the ground in terms of, if not advancing, they are destroying so much in terms of civilian targets, and that is giving them momentum. And for the first time in a long time hitting Western Keep as well, not just Eastern Keep where the front lines are.

But Zelensky and his deputy foreign minister are trying to indicate as much flexibility as possible. And what Lavrov is saying, he's throwing cold water on everything Zelensky has said and casting it in the most negative terms possible to try to put the onus on him. And I think in terms of Europe and certainly the reaction in the U.S. if President Trump is realistic and factual about this, it's certainly Putin who is stretching this out and delaying it.

And so striking to hear President Trump say, I'm going to give him two weeks, basically acknowledging that hitting that American owned company in his words he said I wasn't happy about that, so we'll have to see. These are really important interviews. Thank you. Thank you for being here to help us break them all down.

We really appreciate it. Thank you. But we will have much more of my exclusive interview with Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov this Sunday only on Meet the Press. Coming up next, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell delivers a major address as President Trump threatens to fire one of the central bank's top officials.

Say with us, you're watching Meet the Press Now. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news just coming in moments ago. Watch, read, and listen throughout your day.

And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad interruptions, including ad free articles, podcasts, and full NBC News shows, plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back. It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust.

Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's a Scoop, but new podcast for NBC News, with Meet your host, Gazzam D'Sougean. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. 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 on the front page.

Here's a scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Spotify. Welcome back. We're following Breaking News.

The Justice Department has just released the transcript and audio recordings of its interview with Jeffrey Epstein's associate, Elaine Maxwell, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, releasing the information from his two-day interview with Maxwell, conducted last month. Maxwell, telling Blanche she never witnessed now President Trump acting inappropriately. I actually never saw the president in any type of star setting. I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting.

In any way, the president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects. It comes as the Justice Department hands over its first batch of documents from its Epstein case to the House Oversight Committee, which had issued a subpoena for those records. Let's get right to NBC News National Law Enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter, who's been going through these transcripts since they were released.

Tom, I know that there are a lot of them, but based on what you have seen so far, you've seen any big surprises in these transcripts and recordings? Not at all, Kristen, and with the asterisk that, yes, there's over 300 pages here approaching 330 pages. So we are going to still continue to comb through line by line, and of course, it's a big team effort here. No real surprises today for anybody who has followed this case or followed what Maxwell has said in the past and the facts of what the Justice Department laid out in their own words just a couple of months ago when they released that memo back in July.

So what we have from her today is there's no client list. We have from her that audio that you played there involving her testimony with the current president Donald Trump. She referenced it was asked about former president Bill Clinton said that she didn't see him have any massages. And there were several inquiries about powerful CEOs and Silicon Valley and again there to the best of what we've read so far.

There's no indication that there's anybody there that she's implicated in any sort of propriety or illegality. And really, Kristen, as we continue to pour through these notes, nothing is jumping out at me as far as investigative leads, which of course makes the question as to why this interview took place at all because it doesn't appear that she's provided any sort of information that could provide any sort of other investigative pass. And again, that's something that Justice Department already told us here just within the last 16 days. They don't have enough to even open an investigation and properly predicate it, let alone go down the path of potential charges.

And Tamina, one of the sections of this that's getting so much attention is Maxwell saying she doesn't believe Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, even though his death was ruled a suicide. Let's listen to that. Do you think he was, he did not die by suicide, given all the things we just talked about? I do not believe he died by suicide.

And do you believe that do you have any speculation or view of who killed him? No, I don't. Tom, talk a little bit about the significance of that. You know, I don't really understand what the thought process is by those close to Jeffrey Epstein who suggested he died by any other manner of suicide.

And the reason why I don't understand it, Kristen, is that a single time have they ever offered up a piece of evidence that suggests as to why it may have been a homicide. Nobody has suggested Maxwell doesn't there in her interview, doesn't suggest any sort of clue, fact, investigative avenue or lead or otherwise that suggests to us in any way that there could have been any other way for Epstein to die by suicide. That would have had a fool, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of New York City, a state, not a federal institution, a state institution, the United States Department of Justice's U.S. Attorney Office here in Manhattan, the FBI, New York, and other investigators who have taken a look at this, including the Inspector General for the Justice Department.

So there's no indication here at all, Kristen, that this is anything other than a suicide. We keep our mind open to it as reporters, right? You never know when another piece of information or fact could come along. But nobody's offered one to suggest and support any theory as it relates to homicide.

So, not clear what that's about. It's being seized on by people. But where's the proof? All right.

Tom Winter, thank you so much for jumping on that and delving into all of the documents. We really appreciate it. We do want to turn out to the economy, stocks soared today as investors reacted to the strongest indications yet from Fed Chair Jerome Powell that the Federal Reserve is ready to cut interest rates. The Dow surged more than 800 points to close in record territory.

The S&P and NASDAQ were also at more than one and a half percent on the day. While speaking at a highly anticipated conference in Jacksonville, Wyoming, Powell said he was concerned about the future health of the U.S. job market and that current economic conditions may warrant a change in the Fed's approach. Significantly higher tariffs across our trading partners are remaking the global trading system.

Tighter immigration policy has led to an abrupt slowdown in labor force growth. Over the longer run, changes in tax, spending, and regulatory policies may also have important implications for economic growth and productivity. There is significant uncertainty about where all of these policies will eventually settle and what their lasting effects on the economy will be. CNBC Senior Economics reporter Steve Leesman joins me from the beautiful Jackson Hole.

Thank you Steve so much for being here. I really appreciate it. So Wall Street seemed to think that the rate cuts are on the horizon. Do you agree?

What did you make of what we heard today? Yeah, I think markets may have gotten a little bit too exuberant, but I think overall the message from the chair was if things go the way he hopes they go that they could cut rates in September. Basically, you heard in the sound that you played there the dilemma that Fed is dealing with, right? You have on both sides of its job.

Let's remember what its job is. Two jobs. One is to keep unemployment as low as possible. The other is to keep prices stable.

So what's happening? A lot of stuff on the job side with immigration reducing the labor force. On the inflation side, you have these tariffs pushing up prices. So the expectation is that on the inflation side, you're going to have inflation is going to come through, but just as a one-time price increase.

And only those goods that are really tariff will go up and it won't spread across and there won't be a second or third round of inflation after that. If all that goes according to the plan, the Fed is holding back the range a little bit on the economy because inflation is higher than it wants it to be. But the hope is that these tariffs come through with a one-time price increase. The Fed can ease back and let the economy go.

And the markets really like to hear that today. So is there any indication? Were there any tea leaves about whether it would be a one-time cut, Steve, or too soon to say? Well, what Paolo is talking about is this one-time price increase.

It's kind of like the textbook. Think about it like if you put a tax on alcohol. In the month that you put the tax on, let's say the 10% tax, prices go up 10%. The next month, there's no change in the price because you don't have that tariff that that goes on.

Well, tariffs are a tax they've been put on. And once we kind of settle in the president doesn't keep changing them, it should just result in a one-time price increase up to the level of the tariff. The other thing that happens is as you spend more money on the tariff, you have less money for other things. So in the full basket of things that's measured to figure out inflation, some prices may actually decline because consumers don't have enough money to pay for all this.

None of this says there is a pain involved in this process for the people importing the stuff, for the people who want to buy it at the local retail store. But the Fed is looking at inflation and trying to figure out the right level of interest rates. And in that regard, yes, there's pain, but the Fed can perhaps ease it a little bit without causing an inflation problem and reduce rates. All right, Steve Leesman, reporting from Jackson Hole.

Thanks so much for joining us. Steve, great to see you as always. Pleasure. Well, we have much more ahead on Meet the Press Now.

Stay with us. Welcome back. A very busy day here in Washington. Let's bring in our panel.

Joining me now on set is Nicholas Woon, Congressional Reporter for Politico. Megan Hayes, former Special Assistant to President Biden and Republican Strategist Rick Tyler. Thanks to all of you for being here, long-tracing news today. It's hard to keep up with all of it.

We have to start with the rate of John Bolton's home and office. I spoke with a source close to Mr. Bolton, who said this person sees it as retribution, pure and simple. Nicholas, but how is it playing?

What's the reaction then? Right now, what we're seeing in many ways is the mixing of retribution and law enforcement by the Trump Administration's Department of Justice. And so, you know, members of Congress are back on August recess right now, but this is something that they'll definitely see questions about when they get back here in a few weeks, and now, as members of the Justice Department come to testify on Capitol Hill. Yeah, Rick, I had the opportunity to interview Vice President J.D.

Vance, who denied that this was retribution. He said this is a part of an ongoing investigation. He said it's about classified documents, but actually more than that, I didn't go into any details. How do you see it and could this backfire?

It's clearly a retribution. You know this because both the Attorney General and the FBI Director of Cash Patel issued a tweet during the raid that is unprecedented. We don't have ongoing investigations where the leaders of those investigations are doing a PR stunt to let people know that the former National Security Advisor's House has been raided. I know John Bolton.

He is an honorable principal man. He is very knowledgeable. People may not agree with his politics, but I can't imagine what premise that the two judges signed an article of particulars to conduct this raid. It's just outrageous.

Well, let's put those tweets up because you raised them and I do think it's important that people see exactly what you're talking about. Cash Patel, no one is above the law. FBI agents on mission. Here is Pam Bondi.

America's safety isn't negotiable. Justice will be pursued always. Dan Bongino, the Deputy FBI Director. Public corruption will not be tolerated.

Megan, to Rick's point, I mean, all of these coordinated tweets typically in an ongoing investigation. What you hear from law enforcement is we're not going to talk about the investigation. Yeah, absolutely. And a normal administration or a normal Department of Justice.

That's what would happen there. Clearly, weaponizing the DOJ, their weaponizing the FBI. But also, this is terms of masterful way of being able to change the narrative. When the Epstein files were going to Congress and they were releasing this, this changed the conversation significantly today, away from the Epstein trials and now to this, which is just more of what they think is a better conversation than for them to be having.

Well, speaking about changing the conversation, we are seeing the federal government send National Guard troops to DC. President Trump was out with the National Guard troops overnight, basically making the case prime has dropped significantly in the nine days that they've been out on the streets of Washington, DC. Take a look. We will discuss it on the other side.

Look, DC is a miracle. What's happened? I mean, they can come up with that. And I was like, the mayor was like, oh, no, it was going down for 20 years.

You live here. You know, have you been mugged? DC was at Hell Hall. And now it's safe.

We are going to make DC totally safe. When people come from Iowa, Indiana, all of the beautiful places, they're not going to go home in a body bag. They're not going home in a coffin. And it's very safe right now.

Nicholas, how is this playing? Because if you look at some of the polling, the majority of people who live in the district do not want National Guard troops patrolling their streets. Yeah, Republicans certainly think that this is something where they can put Democrats on the defense. We've seen Republicans deploy this label on crime targeting cities over the past elections to varying degrees of success.

But the question is really when this will come to a vote in Congress. Trump needs congressional authorization to extend this takeover past 30 days. And, you know, there might be some hesitation among civil libertarians among the Republican party about doing so. But they might also pick up Democrats who could be skittish.

Megan, how do you see this? And to some extent, I mean, does it put Democrats in a difficult situation? Because President Trump is trying to argue he is the law and order. President, this is the law and order party.

Do you think the Democrats are responding in a way that's been effective so far? Look, I think Democrats need to not take the bait here. This is another distraction tactic. This is just like what they did with immigration.

You can't build the don't believe your lying eyes. Gary does not work. That there is a crime problem in DC that to the extent that he is saying, no, absolutely not. Do people want the National Guard in the police, the FBI out roaming the streets?

No, absolutely not. But this is just one more thing where he's not talking about the economy. He's not talking about how he's not lowering prices for the American people. And that is a better conversation for him to have the president who's tough on crime rather than the one who's not lowering costs.

Rick, what do you think? And how do you see the debate playing out so far? Do you think that President Trump right now, because he's got these optics on his side? Despite the polls saying, hey, we don't want the National Guard troops here.

Do you think politically speaking, this helps him change the conversation? I think he doesn't want to discuss. If we want to talk raw politics, it does not hurt for the president to point out that cities do have a crime problem and they have a high crime problem. It's overstated.

But I don't know that the Republican Party wants to see itself as an anti-civil liberties party in the end. And that's the optics that's going to happen. So you have two, you know, the optics of pretending that everything is fine in DC or flooding the zone with people who have military fatigues. And I don't think either one serves the American people very well.

We can solve the crime problem. But I don't think this is the way to go about it. And I don't think it's, again, it's transactional and it's for show and it will go away and things will return to the way they were. All right.

Well, another big headline we've been following this week, Nicholas is the war in Ukraine. The fact that President Trump started the week having that really remarkable summit with President Zelensky and other European leaders have had a chance to interview President Macron. And then I also just this morning spoke with the Russian Foreign Minister, Vice President JD Vance. The Russian Foreign Minister was such a fascinating conversation because he really did try to tamp down the idea that there's any imminent meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky.

What do you make of the fact that Russia, even after all of these meetings and summits, is still not able to say publicly, yes, we're willing to commit and have a meeting? I think it speaks to the confidence that Russia is projecting in these negotiations. Right now, Ukraine is very much on the defensive in a lot of ways. In Congress, the Republican Congress is not very likely to send any more weapons to Ukraine.

Like there's not much appetite there among the Republicans. And so if you're Russia, you're really negotiating in some ways from a position of strength. I think that's kind of what we're seeing play out here. The fact that Russia won't even agree to a ceasefire.

The fact that they're still dropping bombs, including on an American company, endangering and killing civilians. There's a lot of skepticism about whether this can move forward. What are you hearing in terms of how much time the administration is going to give Russia? Well, President Putin is very good at playing the long game.

And the whole meeting in Alaska, as I think I said on the show last week, was designed to delay. And here we are delayed again. And Trump has now issued another two-week deadline, which is now meaningless because the last deadline was meaningless and the next one would be meaningless. They have to get serious.

And they have to decide whether Putin is going to be allowed to be an aggressor in Eastern Europe. And if he is, then you can look toward the Baltics or Ukraine, Poland. They will be next because Putin has no intention of stopping. He did this with Georgia.

The Obama administration. Nothing was done. And now he felt like he could do Ukraine. It turns out he was right.

Meghan, we have about 10 seconds left. Yeah, Trump is getting played here. And he needs an offer where he doesn't look like he got played by Putin. But that would happen.

Putin's just trying to weigh everyone out. All right. Thank you so much, Nicholas. And, Rick, for a great conversation.

Really appreciate it. We will be back Monday with We're Me the Press Now. And if it's Sunday, it's Me the Press and your local NBC News station. I'll have exclusive interviews with Vice President J.D.

Vance, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Senator Adam Schiff. There's more news ahead on NBC News Now. I'm Craig Malthus. Cheers.

Cheers. I've always been a glass half folk kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny.

And you're my candidate. So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half full.

Search glass half full with Craig Malthus from today. On YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.