REED COWAN:
00:00:37
Inappropriate to talk about it. CBS News Department of Justice Reporter Jake [INAUDIBLE] live with us now. Jake, that's not a no. For sure Maxwell would like a pardon. Who, in her circumstances, wouldn't want one, right? But is there any cue about what she said to the feds in last week's meetings? So we don't have more than what Maxwell's attorney said Friday afternoon, Reed, in which he said that she had answered all the questions accurately. She did not plead any kind of Fifth Amendment protections and in which she said-- he said that she answered every question to the best of her knowledge and that the questioning was wide ranging. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was leading these conversations with Ghislaine Maxwell, said that he would release what the outcome was of these conversations at the appropriate time. It's unclear when that could be. We've pressed the Justice Department for more, in addition to whether there could potentially be other conversations with Maxwell going down the road and whether there was some kind of immunity granted to her, either before or after those conversations. Certainly, this political football really has been passed between Congress, the Justice Department, and the White House, and that's not going to stop anytime soon because also in that conversation overseas, President Trump kind of ranted about Epstein and the personal gripes he had with him, saying that Epstein had stolen some employees from him, which kind of cast doubt on why he was kicked out of the club in the first place. And really, the heat is still building among the MAGA base in Capitol Hill, where Republicans are now pushing him and Speaker Johnson for more answers on why these files have not been released. Well, the files on Epstein are one thing, but just getting right back to the conversation that Maxwell had with the feds. Any chance that we'll get our hands on a transcript, not only of her answers but, also, I'm curious about the questions she was asked? It's certainly possible. I think we really are in unprecedented territory because, on one front, so much of this information that they've gone through is still sealed in court. The Trump administration is trying to unseal some of these grand-jury testimonies that were about Maxwell and her dealings with Epstein. And at the same time, whether the Department of Justice wants to be fully transparent at another level, in which they're hoping to give some real concrete answers. It certainly would help their case if they're able to provide a readout of this conversation. And again, Maxwell's attorney did not rule out a pardon either when he was asked on Friday. Certainly that would be the next big domino to fall, if there is one. Well, and all while, the reporting is fierce. It is hot in Washington, DC, and elsewhere on this matter. You're learning that President Trump is asking for an expedited deposition of Rupert Murdoch-- of course, the media giant-- in his libel case against the Wall StreetJournal and its owner over their article with Trump and Epstein. What more can you tell us about that request? Well, that's right. That article kicked off a firestorm that really brought up this new wave of criticism that's been building and building, like we've talked about, Reed. The Trump attorneys in this case cite Murdoch's advanced age-- he's in his 90s and the health problems that he had. Basically saying they want to talk to him now about what he knew about this article being published and whether he had any involvement in it, and said that it's unlikely that they're able to do any kind of in-person conversations with Murdoch if this ever does go to trial. Certainly possible that, Reed, this is used the same way it's been used within lawsuits versus Paramount and ABC News to simply coerce some money out of a news organization for doing reporting, or at the same time, if this does ever go to trial and does not settle, certainly Murdoch's involvement in this and Trump's back-and-forth, hot-and-cold relationship with Murdoch over the years would be at the center of it. All right, so we're watching that one but also a huge headline that hit over the weekend that I think a lot of parents will take interest in. The Justice Department has shut down what they're calling a dark-web child-abuse site. Had more than 120,000 members. What's this all about? Well, that's right. There have been 18 people who have been charged federally for being members of this site and running it, keeping this child pornography online, hidden from federal authorities, and being given access to for those 120,000-plus members. In addition to that, there are about 100,000 visitors daily. So simply by removing these sites, it certainly lowers some of the access that there is to these terrible images and videos. The Justice Department started these investigations back in 2020, and it really shows, Reed, how long it takes to get to the point where you can actually have a deliverable for the families and children of those who are involved in which taking down this intellectual property off the internet-- it's difficult-- and to then find the people who are responsible for it. The Justice Department said that they're really trying to do more of this work and to amplify how important it is to be protecting your kids from getting access to, potentially, people who could take advantage of them, but then also at the same time, doing the work every Department of Justice has done throughout all this turmoil, Reed, in terms of taking these down and getting after people who are taking advantage of our most vulnerable. Yep, justice on behalf of kids I think is the most important form of justice. Jake Rosen, thank you so much for that, my friend.
