He just would go after specific people looking for crimes, like Trump is doing.

He held back a whole lot. Probably for the best.

Is sealed by order of judge Canon. Smith explicitly said he could not comment on it in order to not violate that gag order.
I believe its being challenged in court.

...if you are referring to her asking about Chris Wray (? I think it was) -- by name. If that's the part, I think JS was mostly declining to get into a specific criticism of someone, which would have become a soundbyte that would get more airtime, with less impact. That would be all we heard from the interview, if we didn't watch it live. Refraining from personal comment about someone in the past was a "trap" he didn't fall for.

Instead, he broadened the point out to make his comments more generally applicable, leaving it up to each person to do as they decide to do based on their own situation.

As to whether a person gets prosecuted, he has been clear about his working understanding of DOJ policies and priorities -- needing enough evidence to prove the case, and also making sure that limited resources are going to the most serious crimes. It's that sense of "picking one's battles" that makes his comments about Trump stealing documents so worth our attention: that he (and the DOJ) had more than enough evidence to prove Trump's guilt.

And Lord knows, if there is an opportunity for housecleaning in this country's future, there will need to be a serious look at who gets brought up on trial -- and what form those trials take.