Meet the Press Full Episode — Dec. 21

This Sunday, document dispute. Lawmakers accuse the Justice Department of withholding thousands of documents tied to the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. It is an incomplete release with too many redactions. I'll talk exclusively to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, plus reality check. President Trump promises his policies will boost the economy in 2026 as concerns grow over rising costs. And it's not done yet, but boy are we making progress. While he adds his name to a Washington landmark and his chief of staff reveals a more candid view from inside the West Wing. And on the brink, President Trump doesn't rule out war with Venezuela as military pressure mounts. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. As you know, they threw our companies out and we want it back. And the deadly strikes against alleged drug boats continue. There's no doubt in my mind that we have the legal authority to blow up these boats. It's a war that's being conducted on presidential say-so behind closed doors. I'll talk to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Tim McCain of Virginia. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News Senior White House Correspondent Garrett Haake, Republican Strategist Sarah Fagan, former Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson, and New York Times White House Correspondent Tyler Pager. 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. There are growing questions this morning about how the Justice Department is handling the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. After the DOJ released a trove of documents, lawmakers say it's only a fraction of what is required by the law. And joining me now is Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Mr. Blanche, welcome to Meet the Press. Good morning. Thank you so much for being here. Let's dive right in. The Epstein Files Transparency Act called for all files with limited exceptions to be released within 30 days. On Friday, the Justice Department released just a fraction of the overall Epstein files. Why didn't the Justice Department meet that Friday deadline? Good morning. So it's very simple and very clear. The statute also requires us to protect victims. And so the reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that, to protect victims. So the same individuals that are out there complaining about the lack of documents that were produced on Friday are the same individuals who apparently don't want us to protect victims. So we're going through a very methodical process with hundreds of lawyers looking at every single document and making sure that victims' names and any of the information from victims is protected and redacted, which is exactly what the Transparency Act expects. That's exactly what Attorney General Bondi expects. It's exactly what President Trump expects. So that's what we're doing. Well, you're talking about protecting the victims. The law directed the Justice Department to, quote, release internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates. That's the crux of what many of the victims or the survivors say they want to see. Why wasn't that information prioritized in the first release, Mr. Blanche? Well, first of all, it was. And there are numerous documents released on Friday that address what you just quoted from from the statute, that address internal communications within the Department of Justice and internal communications between law enforcement and the Department of Justice. But it's for the same reason, because many of those internal communications talk about victims. Many of those internal back and forth between prosecutors and law enforcement talk about victims and their stories. And that has to be redacted. And by the way, everybody expects us to redact that. So the same complaints that we're hearing yesterday and even this morning from Democrats and from others screaming loudly from a hill about lack of production on Friday, imagine if we had released tons of information around victims. That would be the true crime. That would be the true wrong. And if anybody out there, I heard Congressman Raskin, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee releasing statements accusing Attorney General Bondi, Director Patel and myself of not doing our jobs. If they have an issue with me protecting victims, they know how to get a hold of me. But we're not going to stop doing it. Well, let's talk about the redactions, which you raised the Epstein Files Transparency Act prohibits redactions, quote, on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity. Has anything been redacted on that basis? Absolutely positively not. And that's and that's another trend that that is just simply false. There were a number of photographs that were pulled down after being released on Friday. That's because a judge in New York has ordered us to listen to any victim or victim rights group if they have any concerns about the material that we're putting up. And so when we hear concerns, whether it's photographs of women that we do not believe are victims or we didn't have information to show that they were victims, but we learned that there are concerns. Of course, we're taking that photograph down and we're going to address it. If we need to redact faces or other information, we will and then we'll put it back up. So we are in every way, shape and form complying with the statute, which, by the way, is what President Trump has been asking us to do since before he was elected. There is nothing that he has to hide in the Epstein files. There never was. And even though there's repeated attempts by Democrats to paint him as being part of the Epstein saga, it's failing over and over again. And so you should not be surprised that the material that we released on Friday or the material that we're going to release over the next couple of weeks is exactly what the statute requires us to release, which is everything that we have from this case, with the exception of redacting personal information from victims and other statutes, privileges and things like that. Otherwise, everything's getting produced. Mr. Blanch, I want to follow up with you on what you just said. You were referencing the 15 files released Friday. They disappeared from DOJ's website yesterday, including this photo of what looks like a desk with a drawer open containing photos of Donald Trump. Just to be very clear, to put a fine point on it, why were these files taken down? You're saying it was at the direction of a judge? You can see in that photo, there's photographs of women. And so we learned after releasing that photograph that there were concerns about those women and the fact that we had put that photo up. So we pulled that photo down. It has nothing to do with President Trump. There are dozens of photos of President Trump already released to the public, seeing him with Mr. Epstein. He has said that in the 90s and early 2000s, he socialized with him. So the absurdity of us pulling down a photo, a single photo, because President Trump was in it, is laughable. And the fact that everybody's trying to act like that's the case is a reflection of their true motivation. But the reality is anybody, any victim, any victim's lawyers, any victim rights group can reach out to us and say, hey, Department of Justice, there's there's a document, there's a photo, there's something within the Epstein files that identifies me. And we will then, of course, pull that off and investigate. Are you saying that one or more of the women in one of the photos or several of the photos is a victim or a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein? And that's why you took those files down? And will they be put back up? No, that's not that's not what I'm saying. Of course, if we knew that, if we had if we believe that that photograph contained a survivor, we wouldn't have put it up in the first place without redacting the faces. But notwithstanding what we believe, we don't have perfect information. And so when when we hear from victims rights groups about this type of photograph, we pull it down and investigate. We're still investigating that photo. The photo will go back up. And the only question is whether there will be redactions on the photo. And of course, if there are survivors in any of the photos, we will redact them as Congress expects us to do, as President Trump expects us to do, and as the attorney general and Director Patel have directed the department to do. OK, let's delve more deeply into the redactions. Is any information about President Trump redacted in any of the files that have or will be released? No, not unless it's supposed to be redacted under the law, which means victim information or any sort of privilege like attorney client privilege. But I have no reason to believe that the lawyers that were working on this case were talking about President Trump because he had nothing to do with the Epstein files. He had nothing to do with the horrific crimes that Mr. Epstein committed. And so I don't expect there will be anything redacted. But the short answer is we are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with with Mr. Epstein. And that narrative, which is not based on fact at all, is completely false. The White House has said that President Trump is included in the files. Can you guarantee that every mention and every photo of President Trump in the Epstein files will be released? Yes. Yes. I mean, I've said it three, four times now. We've said it before. And President Trump has said it repeatedly since before he was elected. And since he was elected all summer long, he said the same thing. I have nothing to hide. And so, of course, that's the case. But let me just make sure everybody understands something to the extent that he is, quote, in the Epstein files. It's not because he had anything to do with the horrific crimes. Full stop. But yes, if President Trump is mentioned, if there's photographs that we have of President Trump or anybody else, they, of course, will be released with the exception of any victims or survivors that we've identified, which of which we will either not release that photograph if it's just a photograph of a survivor, or if we do release the photograph because there's other individuals in the picture, the survivors face or her entire body in some cases will will be redacted. And we're talking about President Trump in relation to this. For months, he urged Republicans to stop pushing for the files to be released. He dismissed the Epstein files as a hoax. I want to play a little bit of what he has said about the Epstein files before he signed the law. It's all been a big hoax. It's perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans. I don't understand why they would be so interested. He's dead for a long time. It's sorted, but it's boring. This is a Democrat hoax that never ends. Are the Epstein files a hoax, Mr. What President Trump is saying is not that the Epstein files are a hoax. It's this game that Democrats have been playing for the past nine months around the Epstein files. It is a complete and total hoax. Well, it's not pushing for the many years. Some of the Republicans are pushing for the release to just to be clear. Well, that's different. That's different. To be clear, releasing the files is not what President Trump has ever had an issue with. When he calls this a hoax, he's talking about the fact that there's this narrative out there that the Department of Justice is somehow hiding or protecting information about him, which is completely false, as evidenced by the fact that the Epstein files existed for years and years and years. And you did not hear a peep out of a single Democrat for the past four years. And yet we're supposed to believe that, lo and behold, out of all of a sudden, out of the blue, Senator Schumer suddenly cares about the Epstein files. That's the hoax. And that's the hoax that that that has existed for months and months and months. This isn't about whether we would release or not release the Epstein files. As a general matter, we do not release the files of criminal investigations and prosecutions. There's laws around that. There's laws that protect that protect victims, that protect the innocent. So we're doing something here that is more transparent than we've done in any criminal investigation in the history of this country. Don't forget that. In November, President Trump directed the attorney general to investigate. Speaking of investigations, high profile Democrats with ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Is the Justice Department investigating only Democrats or everyone with a connection to Jeffrey Epstein? So Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York, which is the office that had the most recent Epstein case, is investigating pursuant to to the communication from President Trump. And by the way, this department will always investigate anybody and anything that we learn about sex trafficking or any victim of horrible sex crimes that takes place. As as proof of that, the attorney general, the director of the FBI, we have charged and we are prosecuting more child predators just in the first 10 months of this administration than the entire four years of the Biden administration. So this idea that that that there's some that we're protecting or doing something wrong when it comes to to protecting victims is not true. Well, in the directive, President Trump singled out former President Bill Clinton. Of course, a number of photos of President Clinton were released Friday. A Clinton spokesperson saying the White House hasn't been hiding these files for months only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton. This is about shielding themselves from what comes next or from what they'll try and hide forever. Let me ask you bluntly, is President Clinton under investigation? I will never talk about ongoing criminal investigations, so I'm not going to answer that question. But but but let me address the second part of the quote that you just gave us. Think about what how patently absurd that position is. The idea that we have hundreds and hundreds of DOJ lawyers. These are not politicals. It's not me. It's not Attorney General Bondi looking at all of these files and determining whether they are responsive to the act. And we over collected, by the way. We went out to all of our components and we said, give us any document that you think in any way, shape or form is connected to the Epstein case. And that's what we're going through. So the idea that we are hiding something or there's something that we have hidden under a rock around President Trump or other Republicans is not only false, but it's obviously false for anybody that's intelligent enough to think about what we're doing. Let me just put a fine point on this. Will the Justice Department bring any new charges against anyone based on the contents of these files? We we have continued to investigate anybody associated with Jeffrey Epstein for years and years. We discussed this in our July memo. And we continue. So the answer is, I don't know whether there'll be additional prosecutions based on the information that we had in July, based upon the information that I'm aware of now. We are not prepared to bring charges against anybody, but we are learning new information all the time. We learned the names of additional victims as recently as Wednesday of this week. OK, so so there's there's new names that we didn't have before that we ran across our database to understand whether they had ever met with law enforcement or ever talked to to the FBI. And so we're always investigating. And so it would be premature and not fair for me to to unilaterally say yes or no to what future prosecutions there may be. OK, Mr. Blanche, you talk about the reaction from Capitol Hill. Let me allow you to respond to some of it. Congressman Thomas Massey and Ro Khanna, the authors of the Epstein bill, say the partial release of files failed to comply with the law. They say they are considering looking into the possibility of impeachment proceedings, contempt, even criminal referrals for obstruction of justice for DOJ officials. Do you take these threats seriously? Not even a little bit. Bring it on. We are doing everything we're supposed to be doing to comply with this statute. And Congressman Massey and these other congressmen that are coming out speaking negatively about Director Patel and the attorney general have no idea what they're talking about. They know the work that we're going through. They know what we're doing to protect victims. I mean, just think about what we're doing. You're talking about a million or so pages of documents, virtually all of them contain victim information. So listen, the idea that Attorney General Bondi would ever let a single piece of paper go out of this department that contains victim information is something they know we won't do. And the fact that they're threatening to impeach her for protecting victims is a reflection of where their head's at. It's not a reflection of this department. We are complying with the statute. We will continue to comply with the statute. And if by complying with the statute, we don't produce everything on Friday. We produce things next week and the week after. That's still compliance with the statute. There is well-settled law, as they should know, that in a case like this where we're required to produce within a certain amount of time, but also comply with other laws like redacting information, that very much trumps redacting information, very much trumps some deadline in the statute. All right. Couple more and we're almost out of time. I do want to ask you about Ghislaine Maxwell, who was, of course, convicted in 2021 for her role in helping Jeffrey Epstein traffic his victims in July. You interviewed her in Florida where she was serving a 20 year sentence in federal prison. Just a week later, Maxwell was moved to a more permissive prison camp in Texas. Why was she moved just days after you interviewed her, Mr. Blanche? So that's a Bureau of Prison Security issue that that I will not talk about. Did you have anything to do with it? Let me finish. First of all, I am responsible for the Bureau of Prisons. So every decision that they make lands on my desk to the extent it needs to. But just let me let me talk about the security issue. At the time that I met Ms. Maxwell, there was a tremendous amount of scrutiny and publicity towards her and the institution she was in. She was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her life. So the BOP is not only responsible for the security of the prison, but it's also responsible for putting people in jail and making sure they stay in jail, but also for their safety. And so so she was moved. She is in federal prison. She was in federal prison before. She's in federal prison now. She's doing 20 years because she was convicted. And the fact that she was she moved, she might be moved to another institution tomorrow if security requires it. And that's that's true of any federal inmate across this country. But as you know, survivors were outraged by all of this, especially the fact that she was moved. Why talk to Ghislaine Maxwell and not the survivors, Mr. Blanche? What you just said is completely false. We will talk to any survivor at any time, which is something that we have you talk to them from day one. But have you talked to them? Of course. The attorney. Yes. The attorney. First of all, they have to want to speak with us. The attorney general and I spoke with the Victims Rights Group as recently as Thursday. OK. And if folks want to talk to us next week or the week after or in the coming months, they know how to get a hold of us and we will always talk to survivors and victims families. But just backing up to your question about Ms. Maxwell, nobody ever talked to her. Nobody ever asked her questions about what she knew. So when she said that she had something she wanted to say, notwithstanding the fact she had been convicted. Of course we wouldn't talk to her. Imagine if we didn't talk to her. Imagine if she had said, I have a story to tell and I would like to talk to the government. And I said, no. The same outrage would be directed at this department for not speaking with her. So we're trying to do our job here and we are doing our job here. But any victim that wants to talk to the FBI, that wants to talk to the Department of Justice, they can call us any time. Let me ask you, President Trump in September urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff, saying in a social media post that was supposed to be private, quote, they're all guilty as hell. Comey was indicted five days later. Does President Trump speak to you or to the attorney general directly about individual criminal cases and investigations, Mr. Blanche? I will never talk about the communications I have with President Trump, and I don't expect Attorney General Bondi will either. However, when it comes to the prosecutions that this department is undertaking, we are following the facts and the law, period. And so with the case of James Comey, and he was indicted. The case was then dismissed by a judge because of an appointments issue. We were already investigating, which was very much available to the public at the time that President Trump sent that note. And so the fact that we continue to investigate and ultimately he was indicted is not a reflection of what President Trump put in that truth. It's a reflection of the work that we're doing and had been doing long before September. Just very quickly, career prosecutor Eric Siebert was fired after refusing to prosecute these cases against James Comey, who was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, of course, the president's former personal lawyer who doesn't have prosecutorial experience, who was found to be unconstitutionally appointed. And the cases were thrown out, as you say. To be clear, is the Justice Department taking directions about who to prosecute for President Trump? No, of course we're not. And also, Mr. Siebert wasn't fired because he refused to bring cases. He resigned. OK. And so and this narrative out there that somehow it was because of James Comey, it was because of Letitia James. No, that's not true at all. And Ms. Halligan went in there and did a great job. She's still doing a great job as our U.S. attorney in the EDDA. And you had a local judge rule that that she was not validly appointed. We filed an appeal in that case. I expect that that eventually, when the appellate courts looks at this issue, we'll we'll win that issue. All right. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. When we come back, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia joins me next. And joining me now, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. Senator Kaine, welcome back to Meet the Press. Good to be with you, Kristen. Thanks. It's great to have you. Thank you so much for being here. I do want to start by getting your reaction to what you just heard from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. He says the delay in releasing all the documents was necessary to conduct a thorough review to protect the survivors, he says. Do you trust that the Department of Justice is complying with the law here? You know, I wish I could say yes, but I don't, Kristen. And so let's just review. Jeffrey Epstein was a monster who trafficked underage women. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein knew one another pretty well. The circumstances of that friendship and how it broke up are disputed, but they knew each other. When Donald Trump was president, he put into his cabinet the prosecutor who cut the sweetheart deal with Jeffrey Epstein back during the Bush administration. He put Alex Acosta in his cabinet. Acosta later had to resign in disgrace. As a candidate, Donald Trump said he would release the Epstein files. As president now in February of 2025, he said, we're going to release the files. And he had this much touted event with Pam Bondi at the White House talking about releasing the files. But then in July, in July, the FBI and DOJ said, there's nothing to see here. We're not going to release any more files. The statute that we're now talking about was not something that the White House wanted. It was something that a bipartisan Congress did to force Donald Trump's hand, to force him to meet his promises. And so in September, we passed this Transparency Act, forcing the DOJ, kicking and screaming, they didn't want to do it, to release files. So when they actually do release files, and it's a fraction of what's available, and it's heavily redacted, and then a day later they pull material back, the facts that I've just laid out for you show why so many people are really suspicious. All these files need to come out. Well, Congressman Roe Common and Thomas Massie, as I was just saying, who led the push to release the files, say they're looking at options, including impeachment and contempt for DOJ officials. Would you support those steps, going that far, impeachment or contempt? I think that's premature. Here's a recent example. The Pentagon was dragging their feet on not releasing files about the Venezuelan boat strikes. So we put into the defense bill a requirement that they're either going to release or the travel budget for the secretary of defense is going to be reduced. We have tools in appropriations bills and other tools to force compliance if somebody's dragging their feet. And I'd rather focus on those tools than get into discussions about contempt and impeachment. Let me ask you about what we have seen released in the Epstein files so far. Former President Bill Clinton is featured prominently in the first batch, as I was just discussing. Now, to be very clear, NBC News does not know the full context behind these images. And simply being in the Epstein files doesn't imply any criminal wrongdoing. But does Clinton owe the public an explanation about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? You know, I actually haven't tracked what President Clinton has said. And if there are unanswered questions, you know, he should address them. And I suspect he will. But let's just make sure that we meet the promise that President Trump made as a candidate that all these files will will be released. Let's put all the facts and all the material out on the table and then folks can reach their own judgments about anybody connected with this horrible, horrible case. I led the effort to try to deny Secretary of Labor Acosta confirmation in the first Trump administration because of his involvement in this sweetheart deal, which even knowing a fraction of the facts back then in 2017, it looked horrible and he eventually had to resign in disgrace because of it. And since then, the public has had legitimate questions and everything since, including Jeffrey Epstein's suicide. Legitimate questions. Let's get it all out on the table. I do want to turn to the escalating standoff between the United States and Venezuela this week. President Trump told me in a phone interview that he's not ruling out a war with Venezuela. You yourself have argued that Nicolas Maduro is an illegitimate leader. On the one year anniversary of Venezuela's 2024 election, which you and other senators said was stolen, you said, quote, The United States must not forget about the people of Venezuela who overwhelmingly rejected Nicolas Maduro last year during a free and fair election, but continue to suffer under his brutal regime. Given that, do you think the United States should be pursuing regime change with Venezuela? No, we should be using sanctions and other tools at our disposal to punish this dictator who is violating the human rights of his civilians and has run the Venezuelan economy into the ground. But I'll tell you, we should not be waging war against Venezuela. We definitely should not be waging war without a vote of Congress. As you know, I've long maintained we shouldn't be at war without a vote of Congress. And what I'm searching for right now, Kristen, is what is President Trump's motivation? These vote strikes were initially justified on the ground that we're fighting against narco-trafficking, but then the president pardoned some of the biggest narco-traffickers ever convicted in United States courts. What's going on? Then Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, says it's about regime change. That's what this is about. And then President Trump tells you and others it's about oil. They took our oil and we want our oil back. What is it? This is so confusing. And meanwhile, the American public is watching the news of this week, Venezuela, the Kennedy Center renaming, the Epstein situation, and they're saying, Mr. President, please focus on bringing food costs down, health care costs down, energy costs down. Christmas is too expensive. We don't know why you're doing this in Venezuela. And we want you to focus on making life better here at home for Americans. All right. Senator Tim Kaine, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Have a happy holiday. Have a great holiday. Thanks, Kristen. Thanks so much. When we come back, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joins me next. Welcome back. And joining me now is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, live from Tel Aviv. Senator Graham, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you. Thank you so much for joining me. There is a lot to get to this morning. I do want to start on the Middle East because you're there in Tel Aviv. You just met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We have video of some of that. Our viewers are seeing this as we speak. It's been two months since President Trump brokered that peace plan for Gaza. And Prime Minister Netanyahu says Israel could move to phase two of this peace plan as soon as the end of this month. But as you know, Senator, that involves the disarmament of Hamas and transferring control of Gaza to an international security force. Do you believe Hamas is ready to disarm? Absolutely not. One of the reasons I came here is to answer that question. The Trump administration deserves a lot of credit for getting a ceasefire. It's been 90 days now. What did I learn on this trip? That Hamas is not disarming, they're rearming. Hamas is not abandoning power, they're consolidating power. That's what the military intelligence people in Israel told me. That's what the IDF told me. That's what our own people told me. So I am all for a stabilizing force. I'm all for a border peace. But you can't have a border peace, you can't have a stabilizing force in Gaza until Hamas is disarmed. They're not being disarmed. There's nobody coming over the horizon to disarm them. So I would urge President Trump to meet with President, Prime Minister Bibi next week and come up with a plan, put Hamas on a time clock. If they don't turn over their weapons and stop rearming at a date certain, I would unleash Israel on them. That's what I would do. Okay. Let me ask you about another component. Let me ask you about another component of this. Senator, we still have you. We still have you, Senator. NBC News is reporting that Israeli officials believe Iran is expanding its ballistic missile program and reconstituting the nuclear enrichment sites. I do believe we may have lost Senator Lindsey Graham. We are working to try to get him back. I'm going to reread this question. It does. Senator, we have you back. Thank you for bearing with us. Let's try it one more time. All right. Let me ask you about another part. Hamas must have been listening. Let me ask you about another part of this. NBC News is reporting that Israeli officials believe that Iran is expanding its ballistic missile program and reconstituting the nuclear enrichment sites the U.S. bombed in June. Do you believe additional U.S. strikes against Iran are necessary? Well, I'm going to let the Israelis talk to President Trump about it, but here's what I learned on my trip. We obliterated their nuclear facilities, but we did not obliterate their desire to have a bomb. Have they tried to open up enrichment in other areas? I think they may have. Are they trying to rebuild their ballistic missile force to overwhelm the Iron Dome? I believe they are. Back to Hamas. The one thing I want people to understand from this program today is that there is no pathway forward to peace as long as Hamas has their arms and they intend to stay in power. They're doing both. They intend to stay in power. They're not disarming. And I think it's going to come down to Israel to do that unless there's a changing event on the ground. I see no effort by Hamas to voluntarily disarm. I see no effort for them to give up power, quite the opposite. As to Iran, they're up to no good. Let me ask you about the other major conflict you're focused on, Ukraine. I want to read some comments that Secretary of State Marco Rubio made to Vanity Fair about President Putin. He said, quote, there are offers on the table right now to basically stop this war at its including Crimea, which they controlled since 2014. And the Russians continue to turn it down. And so you start to wonder, well, maybe what this guy wants is the entire country. Do you think President Trump is underestimating President Putin's willingness to stay in this war? I'm not so sure he's underestimating his willingness. I think we're overestimating the people negotiating, who are good friends, Putin's willingness to end the war. Listen, we've made great progress between Ukraine, Europe and the United States to come up with a proposal that would end the war. We're not going to evict every Russian out of Ukraine, I understand that. But I want a deal that would prevent a third invasion. I want European troops on the ground to make sure there's no third invasion. I want us to give security guarantees to Ukraine to make sure there's no third invasion. I think Putin's going to continue to take the Donbass by force until we increase pressure. So here's what I think. We're going to be loosey with the football if we don't watch it. We keep engaging Russia. We keep engaging, trying to lure Putin to the peace table. And he rebuffs all of our efforts. If he says no this time, here's what I hope President Trump will do. Sign my bill that has 85 co-sponsors and put tariffs on countries like China who buy cheap Russian oil. Make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism for kidnapping 20,000 Ukrainian kids. And most importantly, seize ships that are carrying sanctioned Russian oil like you're doing in Venezuela. If Putin says no, we need to dramatically change the game, including giving Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine to hit the drone and missile factories that exist in Russia. I would go all in if Putin says no. OK. Senator, let me ask you about another big conflict, Venezuela. This week in a call with me, President Trump didn't rule out the possibility of a war with Venezuela. Overnight, we saw the United States intercept another oil tanker. President Trump promised to get America, as you know, out of foreign wars, not start new ones. Would he be going against that promise if he did, in fact, go to war with Venezuela? Absolutely not. If you're an American and you want Maduro to stay in power, man, have you lost your way? President Trump promised to secure our nation from the scourge of narco drug trafficking. The kingpin in our backyard is Maduro and Venezuela. They're poisoning America. They're aligned with Hezbollah. Iran vowed to come to their aid just yesterday. So I applaud President Trump of trying to bring down this narco terrorist state in Venezuela run by Maduro. They're bad news. They did seize our assets in 1976. They are flooding our country with cocaine. They're aligned with international terrorist organizations. I support the idea of standing up to Maduro, and I want him to go. I am all in the camp for regime change, and I'd like to see the people of Venezuela be able to elect a new leader that would not only be good for them, but good for the region and good for the United States. So stay tuned. Maduro's days are numbered. Senator, with a couple of seconds that we have left, Erica Kirk, the widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in September, this week endorsed Vice President J.D. Vance for president in 2028. What do you make of that? Would you endorse Vice President J.D. Vance for president at this point? I'm worried about tomorrow, but that's a big day for J.D. J.D. I like J.D. Vance. That's a big get for him in terms of the future, but our fate will be determined how well we do keeping America safe and prosperous between now and 26. President Trump is on the verge of changing a regime in our backyard that should have went a long time ago. He's on the verge of creating a new Mideast. Get rid of Hezbollah, Hamas, try to get Saudi and Israel to recognize each other. 26 can be the year of bad news for the bad guys and great for peace. That's what I hope and pray for. All right. Senator Lindsey Graham, happy holidays to you. Thank you so much for being here. Merry Christmas. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Still ahead, President Trump's chief of staff reveals her private thoughts about life in the West Wing. The panel is coming up. President Trump added his name to an iconic Washington landmark, raising legal questions. The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here. NBC News senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake, Tyler Pager, White House correspondent for The New York Times, Republican strategist Sarah Fagan, and Jay Johnson, former secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here, Garrett. Let me start with you. You heard my conversation with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. He explained why those 15 files were taken down. He did signal he anticipated they'd be put back up after a review. What were your big takeaways? Well, look, on a basic level, this is obviously going to be a complicated process, and I think that's true and understandable, but I don't think I can describe this better than Susie Wiles did in that Vanity Fair interview and said, this is still like the administration whiffing on the Epstein files. Todd Blanche told you that it would be premature and not fair to discuss the possibility of other prosecutions based on this. The administration's whole reasoning for not releasing these files back in July was that there was no prosecutable conduct in any of them. Their messaging on this has been a mess. The public trust in them is incredibly low in this moment. I think the White House understands, based on my reporting, that the only way out is through. They have to ultimately get all this stuff out there. And the president has said, and I think he's right, that ultimately there will be lots of people who are unsatisfied with this, but they're in a mess largely of their own creation now that they're just going to have to muddle through. And I think we saw some muddling from the deputy AG. Yeah, and Tyler Garrett references the extraordinary interview that Susie Wiles gave to Vanity Fair. She was incredibly frank, and in it she also talked about the fact that, yes, they are aware of the fact that President Trump's name appears in the Epstein files. What do you think happens next? Where does this all go from here? I mean, I think we continue to see this drip, drip, drip of revelations and this pressure campaign mostly from Democrats, but including from some Republicans like Thomas Massey, who have turned into prominent critics of how the administration is handling this issue. And this is an issue that very much animates a core part of Donald Trump's face. And they have shown no interest in going away silently. And I think the way in which the administration, as Garrett was just saying, has handled this has only created more questions. And they are finding that, critics of the president, that this is a salient issue for them and they're going to continue to drive that. We want more answers, and that keeps this in the news, which is ultimately unhelpful for the president. Sarah, speaking of the MAGA base, I mean, we have seen this issue actually fracture the MAGA base. One of the first times we've really seen that, in fact. Well, it's created a lot of headaches, I think, for the administration. I mean, look, if you look at a MAGA leader, the worst thing a MAGA leader can say about another Republican is that you're a member of the Uniparty, which is a cabal of Democrat and Republican elites that take steps to protect themselves. And this issue kind of reeks of that. And so I think this separates Donald Trump from his base, based on the way that this has been handled. Two other really problematic things. I think because of this issue and the way that the administration has been for releasing, against releasing, for releasing, is it depresses the base. And in a time when Republicans already are underperforming the president in these most recent elections, there's a 20-point gap in polling. They need their base energized, and the base of the Republican Party right now is not. And then I think thirdly, and most importantly, we are talking about Jeffrey Epstein for the 15th time this year, and we are not talking about the Trump tax cuts, which will put more money in people's pockets. That is a much better thing for the administration to be speaking about. And so I agree with Garrett. They have to get through this, but the cleaner and the faster they can do it, the better. Jay, what about the politics of this, the fact that you heard the Deputy Attorney General say Democrats are focused on this because it's a political issue. They see it as a winner in the midterm elections. How do you see it playing out? Well first of all, lawyers are terrible about meeting deadlines, I know, because I'm one of them. And as a technical legal matter, what he said about, you know, one statute preventing disclosure doesn't, you know, Trump's this, that's all correct. But the thing that has been puzzling to me is I, and I'm sure a whole lot of other people, assume that there was some sort of inappropriate relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. You see the videos, you see the images, the correspondence, the general tenor of Donald Trump's Access Hollywood remarks, yet his Department of Justice is treating this as if they're trying to hide a Watergate scandal. You see the Deputy Attorney General doing two things that a Deputy Attorney General never does. One, Sunday morning news shows, and two, conducting his own personal witness interviews of somebody in jail. And Garrett's right to point out the odd inconsistency of their position. And so much of the way this Department of Justice is approaching this is fueling the politics of this, both in the Democratic and Republican parties. And this all comes against the backdrop of a wild week in Washington, Garrett, a little bit of a rapid fire round here. President Trump's name is now on the Kennedy Center after the board voted for it, but muted some of the people who dissented. Yeah, look, there's this sort of YOLO presidency element of what we saw this week, where there's certain things that the president wants to be out talking about, and there are certain things the White House wants to be talking about. The White House would love for us to be talking about his big economic speech on Wednesday, or the efforts they've done to cut drug pricing. And instead, it's the president's messaging that's coming through. His posts about Rob Reiner, his remaking of the colonnade, and the Kennedy Center takeover. There's total dissonance here. Tyler, why does he want to put his mark on Washington in this way? The plaques that went up disparaging the past president. What do you make of this? I mean, this is all a legacy play, and this is part of, as we look and reflect on the first year of Trump's second term, he is unburdened by some of the restraints that have held in other presidents, and he is fully feeling himself and trying to make not only the White House, but all of Washington in his own image. That's why we're seeing gold everywhere in the White House, in the Oval Office, on the colonnade, wherever he can put it. And it's Trump really leaning into what he wants to do. Jay, as someone who's very familiar with the grounds of the White House, how is this playing with people who have been in that building before? Good question. So the so-called Walk of Fame, that corridor, you know, many of us, when you think of that corridor, you think of the images of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And, you know, I've walked that corridor with President Obama a number of times. So to see it with these plaques, it's almost as much as a violation of seeing the Wrecking Ball on the East Wing. Sarah, do Republicans think this could be a political liability, or are they not paying attention? This is Donald Trump's style. He's in office. He gets to choose what the style is. The next person is going to come change it the way he or she wants it to be. So it may offend some people in Washington. I don't think it matters. Are there legal questions? Probably. Probably, like everything these days. But it's a people's house. It's no one person's house. And the president is a temporary occupant. All right, guys. Thank you so much. Hope you all have a fantastic holiday week. That is all for today. Thank you so much for watching. Have a very Merry Christmas. We will be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.