← Here's the Scoop
Here's the Scoop
Debate Over DHS Funding a Focus of Government Shutdown; Epstein Survivors Speak Out After Latest Drop
00:23:41
Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:03]
A
Hey, everybody. Welcome to here's the scoop of NBC News. I'm Yasmin Vesugin. Coming up on the show today, the fallout on the newest batch of Epstein files. What those 3 million newly released documents tell us. Plus, we're gonna give the latest on the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Today show co anchor Savannah Guthrie. And all eyes are on Bad Bunny as we count down to the Super Bowl. Up first, though, the US Government partially shut down at midnight on Friday. The Senate actually passed a funding bill to keep the government open, but the House wasn't in town. So here we are. Funding has expired for some major departments like the Departments of Defense, State and Transportation, just to name a few. The good news is that lawmakers say they're close to a deal, but in typical Washington fashion, not everybody's on board. The sticking point is funding the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats, they want changes made to the way the department carries out their work, and so do, by the way, some Republicans. So what exactly are those changes and are they going to get them? So I want to bring in NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Circuit. Hey, Julie.
- [01:06]
B
Hi, Yasmin. Thanks for having me.
- [01:08]
A
Great to have you. Second government shutdown in Trump's presidency. So far, the people hear a partial shutdown and they think, okay, not so bad. It's partial. However, there are some major agencies that are affected by this. Right. You've got the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, Treasury, Transportation, Health and Human Services Services, Housing and Urban Development, all shut down. What exactly happened here and what is the fallout from these agencies being closed?
- [01:41]
B
Well, I'll start backwards here, Yasmin, because I think the fallout is really important for Americans who are wondering, as you say, what does this mean? Yeah, so far the impacts are limited because the shutdown happened over the weekend. Of course, now we are into Monday. Now, I saw some communications websites for different agencies that say they're unable to process requests, things like that. The longer this goes, as we saw in the fall, it can get pretty painful for people. So how did we get here? First of all, Democrats and Republicans, nobody wanted to shut down. Even two weeks ago, when I asked Congresswoman Ocasio Cortez about funding dhs and if they're going to put up a fight similar like they did over the Affordable Care act, she sort of felt deflated. To me, most Democrats did. They weren't looking to make this a big fight. That is, until the second US Citizen was killed in Minneapolis. And that was Alex Preddy. And I feel like that shifted everything that Monday when I went into work and I talked to a Democratic senator on background, they looked at me and this is a moderate. They voted to get out of the shutdown last time. They said, this is gonna be different. It's not if Republicans are gonna accept this, but when, meaning the reforms they were demanding.
- [02:49]
A
So let's talk about the bona contention here, and that is the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Based upon the actions that have taken place in Minneapolis over the past months or so, the killings of Renee Good and Alex Preddy as well, the deal that the House is voting on essentially would fund DHS for two weeks. And in that time, they would actually have to figure out a long term solution to funding dhs. They'd have to agree upon some parameters to how DHS is carrying out some of these missions throughout the country. Walk us through what Democrats want and if there are in fact Republicans on the side of Democrats that could support them.
- [03:26]
B
Well, from all the public statements, you might think it's for Kristi Noem to be fired or Stephen Miller to go, but they know that's not realistic. So the realistic demands that they are making and they hope the White House receives is, number one, all agents that are involved in these operations should not conceal their identities. They should not have masks on. People should know. Civilians should know when they are interacting with these federal law enforcement officials. Number two, they have to be wearing body cameras, and those have to be turned on. This is so important because we saw this play out not only in the case of Alex Preddy, but also in the case of Renee Nicole Good. Number three, Democrats want to make sure that these law enforcement officials are cooperating with state and local partners. You'll remember in the case of Renee Nicole Goode, the federal government said local officials can't be part of this investigation. And that really set people off. Democrats wanna make sure there's transparency. And that is why they think they have the upper hand here, that the American people are on their side. There are Republicans on the side of Democrats. It's why you saw a pretty bipartisan vote rejecting the original funding package that included funding DHS through next year. The issue here, Yasmin, is that Democrats in the House are not on the same page as Democrats in the Senate. There is a part of the base that is frustrated that Leader Schumer went ahead and hashed a deal with the White House and with Republicans without really bringing in House Democratic leadership. And that is because even if they're voting to fund DHS over these two weeks for status quo levels, meaning fiscal year 2025, they are still funding ICE. So that is the fundamental issue that House Democrats are having now. And it's why Leader Jeffries came out and said, look, Speaker Johnson, you're going to have to do this the long way. We're not going to provide votes for you. Now, that does not mean that some Democrats aren't going to vote for it. But what it does illustrate, Yasmin, is that there are Democrats who understand that the idea that they are going to get a deal with the White House and Republicans to essentially ha string the administration and what they can do in these ICE operations on the ground is going to be an extremely uphill battle, if not completely inconceivable, especially an administration that they don't trust at all.
- [05:38]
A
Why didn't Schumer consult with House Democrats? Why did he go this alone in negotiating with the White House?
- [05:45]
B
I think Schumer and Jeffries were on different pages. He knows that they live in very different political realities. What Jefferies has to contend with is very different than what Schumer has to contend with, meaning Jeffries is new to leadership. He's proving himself. Schumer is not on his way out officially, but he's been doing this for a while. Jeffries has a base that is horrified at the ICE operations that are happening throughout the country in different cities, in New York City, in Newark, just across the river. It's all over social media. And it's in part why Democrats had so much success in getting Republicans to come to the table last week. Because the reforms that they're asking for are, as Schumer puts it, realistic.
- [06:28]
A
What about Republican support here, Julie? Because Senators Collins and Murkowski voted to repeal additional funding to ice, getting in line with an amendment offered by Bernie Sanders that would repeal the additional $75 billion given to ICE under Trump's big, beautiful bill last year. Is anybody else in the GOP shifting over?
- [06:50]
B
Look, publicly, that's really it. These are the same handful, even less than a handful, couple of Republicans that we've seen put up votes on a host of issues that Democrats have supported in trying, and this is the key here, Yasmin, in trying to reassert congressional authority. I will never forget when I was talking to Senator Murkowski a couple of months ago and we were discussing the idea that this administration just has the power to claw back funds that Congress already appropriated. We heard that debate from a variety of issues, from DOGE to other efforts that have been taking place in the administration. It is Only this handful of Republicans that feel like they could stand up to what the administration is trying to do in harness the power. But I'll tell you, when you look at the strikes that are happening overseas, Iran, the comments on Greenland, what happened in Venezuela, Republicans in Congress are angry. And so I think all of this got to a boiling point with what we saw happen in Minneapolis, where Republicans actually took a step back and said, what we're doing might not be popular as we head into this midterm year, we might want to make some adjustments. And so that's why I think that this vote that we saw was potentially a major inflection point where the White House caved on a demand that Democrats set.
- [08:07]
A
So there are some Democrats now, Julie, that are saying they're not going to go along with this deal either way. And quite frankly, Speaker Johnson seems pretty confident that this thing is going to get across the finish line tomorrow and the government's going to reopen the part of the government, of course, that has been partially shut down at this moment. California Congressman Ro Khanna is one of those folks.
- [08:28]
C
I'm not just a no, I'm a firm no. And I'm going to advocate with colleagues that they vote no.
- [08:34]
A
You mentioned Hakeem Jeffries as well. Right. These leaders of both the House and the Senate, they got to get their, their, their folks on board. Right. They got to get the other lawmakers on board. What are you hearing from everybody as to whether or not they're where they're going to vote on this thing? And if it's going to get across.
- [08:49]
B
The finish line, I will try to be as least nerdy and weedsy as humanly possible. But when you're talking about these dynamics in Congress, it gets a little tricky because what we have now is this. Speaker Johnson thought that he could speed up this process and fast track it because he thought he would get so much Democratic support on this funding package. He didn't have to play by the rules. He could pass over the procedural hurdles and he would get two thirds of the House to support this funding package. But then Leader Jeffries came out and said, oh, no, I told my members not to support this bill. Now, that doesn't mean some Democrats, maybe even a lot of Democrats, won't end up voting for this funding package in the end. But what it does mean is that if it fails, that failure rests with Republicans who are in the power right now. And that is the message that Jeffries wants to send.
- [09:40]
A
Julie Serkin, thank you.
- [09:43]
B
Thank you for having me.
- [09:46]
A
We're going to take a very quick break. And when we are back, the fallout over the latest release of the Epstein files. Why are some victims so outraged? And hey, while you're waiting, I would love it if you would go ahead and subscribe to Here's a scoop wherever you're listening. That way, the latest episodes will be in your feed as soon as they drop. We'll be right back.
- [10:09]
B
I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy.
- [10:11]
C
Claire Duffy was one of the best.
- [10:13]
B
I cover artificial intelligence and other new technologies for a living. And even I sometimes get overwhelmed trying to keep up with it all. So I'm starting a new show where together we can explore how to experiment with these new tools without getting played by them. It's called Terms of Service. This technology is so crazy powerful. Follow CNN's Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts. Stay informed with the NBC News app.
- [10:41]
C
Breaking news just coming in moments ago.
- [10:44]
B
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.
- [10:59]
A
Let's just take a step back.
- [11:01]
B
It's more context and clarity from the reporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more.
- [11:12]
A
And we are back with here's the Scoop from NBC News. There is new fallout over the Justice Department's release of the Epstein files. Over 3 million more pages of records related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were dropped on Friday. But the DOJ has signaled we're not going to see any more indictments. And survivors, they're speaking out. They're furious that a lot of their private information was left unredacted. So I want to bring the NBC News anchor and senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson. Hey, Hal.
- [11:41]
B
Hi.
- [11:42]
D
Yeah, it's good to be with you.
- [11:44]
A
Great to have you. Let's talk first about what we learned from this latest drop. What more did we learn from these files that were released?
- [11:50]
D
I think that this file drop, if you will, what we've seen over the course of the last 72 hours or so really shows the ties, the links that Jeffrey Epstein had to the rich, to the powerful across so many aspects of American life and honestly, international life, from politics to business to academia to the sports world even, and beyond, doesn't mean these people have been publicly accused of wrongdoing or charged by authorities, of course. But it does show just the many, many ties that Epstein had to these folks. We knew that there was sort of a web of connections that he had. But this really lays it out in black and white.
- [12:28]
A
Some of the names that were mentioned, of course, were President Donald Trump, who we have heard before, the former Prince Andrew, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Elon Musk as well, all by the way, denying any criminal wrongdoing. Any names that I'm missing here that came up on Friday that we hadn't heard before.
- [12:44]
D
We had known some of them. Right. You look at, I think Elon Musk is a good examp example. This is an interesting one because he was out just recently right on X, posting a flurry of things about this, pushing back, of course, on any suggestion that he'd done anything wrong and again, has not been accused of any wrongdoing here, but pointing out that he, for example, was one of the early voices calling for people who had done inappropriate, illegal things to be fully prosecuted. And so that's one name that I think is getting a lot of attention, in addition, of course, to the big names in politics you mentioned, President Trump, former President Clinton, neither one of them charged by authorities, both deny any, of course, wrongdoing related to Jeffrey Epstein. But there was something interesting in the files, too. There was a spreadsheet, if you will, that was released and then temporarily removed from the website without explanation. It's like a list of allegations from various people against notable names, including the two that we just mentioned, claims that the FBI at the time found were not credible, not corroborated. But that has come up as sort of a question here. And you heard from the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanch, just over the weekend about this, who said, listen, there's a lot of names that in this calls are made anonymously, complaints are made anonymously, cannot be found to be credible, cannot be deemed to be credible, et cetera. And so sort of trying to draw the distinction, it seemed that while there were things in this document release that were perhaps reputationally damaging. So, for example, the deputy attorney general talked about the volume of emails, of correspondence, of photographs, et cetera. That does not necessarily mean that what is in the documents mean there is further criminal action or further criminal investigation, the potential of prosecution that can be pursued by the doj.
- [14:25]
A
I'm happy that you brought that up, Hal, because I want to play some of what Todd Blanche had to say on Friday about that, and then we'll talk.
- [14:33]
C
I don't know whether there are men out there that abuse these women. If we learn about information and evidence that allows us to prosecute them, you better believe we will. But I don't think that the public or you all are going to uncover men within the Epstein files that abuse women, unfortunately.
- [14:54]
A
What do you make of this, of this statement by Todd Blanche on Friday when these files were dropped?
- [15:00]
D
It calls to mind something that we heard, if you remember, Yaz, almost a year ago now, or maybe eight months ago, back last July, when the DOJ, again, these are the early months of the second Trump administration. So this is July 2025, came out with this Einstein memo that said basically just that, Yasmin, that they had looked through these documents and did not find anything that would warrant further investigation, did not uncover evidence that would warrant further investigation. And the deputy attorney general cited that. Again, he sort of cited back to that that essentially it sounds like still holds in the eyes of the doj. And here's what's so interesting about this, Yasmin, is that if you had asked maybe a year before, some of the, some of the people who were involved in the Department of Justice inside the Trump administration with that July memo, some of them, a year, two years, three years before, had been suggesting the opposite, had been saying, we've gotta pursue this, we've gotta pursue the Epstein case and see what's in there. And then you had this dynamic where some of those individuals then became a part of the Trump administration. You look at Cash Patel, the FBI director, et cetera, Attorney General Pam Bondi as well, and then sort of said, hey, we've seen the volume of information here, and we don't think there's anything that's criminally prosecutable, at least at this point. I will tell you that that in my conversations with some of the Epstein survivors, survivors of his abuse, they find very frustrating. Yasmine.
- [16:18]
A
So let's dig into that, because I think the big question is here, how can we trust a statement like that from Todd Blanche when they have made so many mistakes when it comes to these redactions and they haven't met the deadlines that have been put forward with these releases. And what I mean by that is you mentioned it, right? Victims outraged that their private information were not redacted, including people who had not even come forward before. So these aren't even people that are out in the zeitgeist. These are people that hadn't come forward. And then in a court filing today, the Justice Department said they had taken down several thousand documents and media that may have mistakenly included victims information. You've been speaking to victims. What are they telling you?
- [17:01]
D
The words infuriating have come up. The words Frustrating have come up. I spoke with one survivor who told me she was looking through these documents, found her name, her address, her phone number, the name of another person that she told the FBI about in an interview years ago that she feels should certainly not have been unredacted. I think it's fair to say she was livid. She said, at first I thought it was carelessness, right? Because remember back in the very first, on the day of that deadline, Yasmin, back at the end of December, when that first tranche of documents dropped from the Department of Justice, it wasn't all of them. There were some redaction issues then, too. And I think there was a bit of a sense of like, okay, they gotta figure this out. They gotta clean this up. You know, now here we are, flash forward a month and change, and they're like, what is going on? Right. And you make a really important point here about the Jane does that we have. Obviously some. Some Epstein survivors. And by the way, the survivors are not a monolith. And I think that's always important to say. And some of the survivors we've spoken to obviously wanna be public. They wanna come out and the idea that there is courage in numbers, that they can come forward together, speak publicly and try to affect change and get accountability. There are also many survivors who do not want to be public who are Jane does and who. Whose names have now been outed. Now, the DOJ will say there is a mechanism for this.
- [18:16]
B
Right?
- [18:16]
D
They have said a couple of things. They said, first of all, it's a fraction of a percent of the volume of documents that is out there, sort of saying, we understand there is a mechanism by which, once this is reported, those redactions are immediately made. Right. There's a massive volume of information. We're constantly sort of receptive to the idea that there may have been some missing redactions and that we're working to fix that. But to some of these survivors that we're speaking with, that is, that is simply not good enough. And I spoke with one woman who said, I almost wonder if it's deliberate, but the bottom line is she feels unsafe now. Right. She doesn't feel like the DOJ is handling her case or the case of these other survivors with care and with safety.
- [18:50]
A
Do they want to take legal action against the Department of Justice?
- [18:52]
D
It's a great question. It's a great question. And I can't tell you that it's off the table. I don't have any insight into that, but I certainly don't think that that door is shut.
- [19:02]
A
So with all that being said, is there a possibility of a congressional investigation into the release of these files, considering that Congress demanded, with the release that they get explanations to all of these redactions in which they have come forward and said they have not gotten those explanations, certainly not off the table.
- [19:20]
D
I think there were two people, you know, these two lawmakers in Congress, one Republican, one Democrat, who were the engines behind the push for the Epstein Transparency Act. So now here you are, you look at one of them, Congressman Ro Khanna, who was just out saying, yes, this is a huge release. Yes, this, I'm paraphrasing, this is a significant release. It is still not good enough. And so it is very much, I think, still on the table that they will move forward procedurally if they don't get what they need and if they don't get not what they want from the doj, Yasmin. But what is legislatively required, what is in the law that the DOJ delivered? And so I think if there is a question on that, you could certainly see that move forward.
- [19:58]
A
Todd Blanche has already said that this is essentially over. Do victims want to see more released even in spite of their going rogue on these redactions?
- [20:07]
D
One of the frustrations, I think, is that they wanna see all of it, right? They wanna see more. I will say there's some potential legal action there. You've got the attorneys for some of them who are asking a federal court to pull down that whole website, order the DOJ to take it down, to make the proper redactions, and then repost it.
- [20:25]
B
Right.
- [20:25]
D
That's what they think needs to be done in order to truly protect vict. I do think there are some sort of legal pieces that are yet to play out on all this.
- [20:33]
A
Hallie Jackson, thank you.
- [20:35]
D
Thanks, Yasmin.
- [20:37]
A
We are going to take a very quick break, and when we are back, authorities are asking for the public's help to find Nancy Guthrie, the mom of Today anchor Savannah Guthrie. Nancy's disappearance is now being investigated as a crime. Stay with us.
- [20:54]
C
It's tax season, and at LifeLock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year visit. LifeLock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.
- [21:25]
E
Hey everybody, it's Kate Snow. I'm an NBC News anchor and host of the new podcast the Drink with Kate Snow. So here's the deal. I sit down with all kinds of celebrities, actors, musicians, athletes for a casual conversation over a drink of their choice. It's always about their journey, the successes, the struggles, the lessons they learned. I thought I knew all about self help superstar Mel Robbins, but in our candid conversation, she got really honest about a business decision that almost bankrupted her and how she was able to pull herself out and then build an empire. Trust me, you're gonna learn something. I always do. I hope you'll listen. Just search for the Drink with Kate Snow wherever you get your podcasts and follow now.
- [22:10]
C
On the night before Halloween in 1975, 15 year old Martha Moxley was murdered, but police failed to make an arrest until in 2000, her one time neighbor Michael Skakel was arrested. He was also a cousin of the Kennedys. The Kennedy connection is the reason that most people know about this case. But the deeper I dug, the more I came to question everything I thought I knew. Dead Certain the Martha Moxley Murder. All episodes are available now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [22:43]
A
And we are back with here's the scoop of NBC News. Let's get to some headlines. Fulton County, Georgia is suing the FBI and the justice department over the FBI's execution of a search warrant at an election hub last week related to the 2020 election. The county says the warrant was illegal and is asking the court to force the government to return hundreds of boxes of ballots, ballot images and voter rolls that were taken. Georgia was at the center of a special investigation into attempts by President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The FBI did not immediately respond to NBC News request for comment. The disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of NBC Today show co anchor Savannah Guthrie, is being investigated as a crime. In a press conference in Arizona today, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nano said Guthrie's family reported her missing around noon on Sunday and asked for the public's help in the investigation.
- [23:38]
C
This is a 84 year old lady who suffers from some physical ailments, is in need of medication, medication that if she doesn't have in 24 hours it could be fatal.
- [23:56]
A
The Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt partially reopened on Monday, allowing small numbers of Palestinians in need of medical treatment to actually leave Gaza. This is a significant step in an already shaky ceasefire between Israel and Hamas hospitals in Gaza said that Israeli strikes over the weekend killed at least 30 Palestinians, including some children, after Israel accused Hamas of new truce violations. The Palestinian Health Ministry estimates that Israel has killed 500 people since the ceasefire began in October. Israel's military says its attacks have been responses to violations of the agreement. School was canceled today because of a bomb threat in the Columbia Heights Public School District in Minneapolis. The district has been in the news in recent weeks because of the detention of one of its students, five year old Liam Conejo Ramos. His case sparked outrage after a photo of him being detained by ICE agents went viral. Liam and his dad returned to Minneapolis over the weekend after a judge in Texas ordered their release from a detention center. Their asylum case is, though, continuing. The Columbia Heights Police Department says a school search did not reveal anything suspicious and that they're still looking into the source of the bomb threat. Classes, though, are expected to resume on Tuesday and singer Bad Bunny made history this weekend. His album Debi Tirar Mas Photos, which in English means I should have taken more photos, became the first all Spanish language album to win album of the year. It was Bad Bunny's third win of the night, and like many other artists, he used his moment on stage to speak out against the Trump administration's immigration policies.
- [25:35]
B
Before I say thanks to God, I'm gonna say eyes out.
- [25:45]
A
And Bad Bunny is about to rack up another win, everybody. This Sunday, he is gonna be the first Spanish language Latin solo artist to headline the super bowl at Levi's Stadium in California. Here's hoping he remembers to take lots of photos. And that's going to do it for us at here's this group from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Bisugin. We'll be back tomorrow with whatever the day may bring. And if you like what you heard, subscribe. Wherever you get your podcasts. We'll see you tomorrow.
- [26:28]
C
It's tax season, and at Lifelock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money in refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points Lifelock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.