♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening, welcome to

ayman tonight. new attacks and racist insults from donald trump in the final stretch to new hampshire. does it help fuel or derail voters to the desantis or haley campaign? we are on the ground getting those answers and more. also, tonight, courtroom chaos. trump, ramping up his attacks against the judge in e. jean carroll case, yet again. the and has a new excuse for why he deserves a get out of jail free card for inciting an insurrection. what that means if he's allowed back into the oval office. and, the critical case that is now before the supreme court, and the billionaire who is banking on it and more, waiting to see a return on his investment. and associate justice, neil gorsuch. i'm ayman mohyeldin, let's do it. we are just three days away from the new hampshire primary, where voters from that state could make or break the

campaigns of donald trump's only two remaining rivals in this race. yet, it seems both nikki haley and ron desantis are already looking beyond to new hampshire, to the next contest in south carolina. the latest tracking poll shows haley tracking the former president by nearly 20 points. and desantis is dead in the water with a measly 7% support. another survey from st. anselm college seems to corroborate those figures. trump at 52%, nikki haley at 38, and desantis at 6%. the polling is so bad for the florida governor that he and his political team have effectively fled the state and they have now shifted the majority of the so-called never back down staff to south carolina. tonight, the desantis campaign announced that he was canceling media appearances tomorrow, including an interview on nbc's meet the press. moments ago, the campaign's press secretary said the cancellation was due to a, quote, scheduling issue. saying the appearances will be

rescheduled. and the governor has public events scheduled throughout new hampshire, between sunday evening and tuesday. now, while haley's numbers aren't nearly as dire as those of her competitor, in the last few days, she has sounded far less optimistic about her prospects of winning. the first in the nation primary. >> we wanted to be strong in iowa. we did that. we want to be stronger in new hampshire, we are going to do that. we want to go to my sweet state of south carolina, even stronger there. it's about just continuing to move up. >> that is a remarkable shift in tone, perhaps inspired by her losing the battle for an endorsement from the man she appointed to the senate, yep, senator tim scott endorsed donald trump last night, after multiple outlets reported that both haley and trump reached out to him this week. although, to cushion the blow, earlier tonight, haley received an endorsement from none other than asa hutchinson. all this being said, new hampshire's election results

are notoriously difficult to predict, and some 40% of the states voters are registered independents. so, if there were ever a time for a major shake up in the republican race, it is tuesday. in short, take nothing for granted in the granite state. joining me now our nbc news correspondent, vaughn hillyard, following the trump campaign, and emma barnett, and nbc news campaign in bed with the haley campaign. it's good to both of you with us. vaughn, i'll start with you. have the trump folks expressed any real worry about haley or anything unpredictable happening in new hampshire? >> they're not showing any concern, a man. i just talk to chris acevedo, who is one of the campaign senior advisers here, this is their major saturday night rally in manchester. about 4000 or 5000 folks in the crowd. i asked that senior advisor what would be a good win in their book? he said, i can tell you, a win is a win. but, if we win by five, six, seven points, that will be defining. because they make the case that

in nevada and south carolina, the next two voting states, that his words, they are going to dominate in both of those states. and polling indicates, at least right now, that could potentially very well be the case. that is where he said that the rest of the states, beyond new hampshire, become just part of an academic process. and here, in new hampshire, it's all that matters. so, if they are able to have a defining win in a state that even the upwards of 40% of the electorate will be independents, that would be a statement that donald trump could win, even when you have a more -- a higher percentage of moderate voters that come in and engage in this process. that's where for donald trump and his team, as law acevedo just told me, if nikki haley does not win the state of new hampshire, she should see that the race is over, and she should drop out. >> speaking of that, emma, we know that the tone has shifted within the campaign, the haley campaign, about new hampshire. she has sounded much less optimistic about her chances of winning, in recent days. what are her supporters saying?

are they even noticing that shift in tone? >> it's a great question, amen. i actually spend the day today in rochester, new hampshire. which is about an hour from where i am now, outside in the cold, speaking to everyday voters. those voters seem to be pretty divided. we can break them up into three different buckets. so bucket number one is the voters that are hard-core trump supporters, no matter what happens, they are going to be voting for former president, donald trump. bucket number two, are voters who really don't like the former president, and are not impressed with his rhetoric, and are looking for a change. they are looking for the new generation of leadership and are excited to be voting for nikki haley. and bucket number three, believe it or not, ayman, there's voters here in new hampshire who literally have not decided to they are going to vote for. and that's actually pretty classic, if you do know new hampshire, it's a state, as you mentioned earlier, where 40% of the electorate is undeclared. people here are independent minded. what happened in iowa does not change the minds of the voters

of what they're going and hampshire.o do so, those voters are going to literally walk into the voting booth on election day, and choose who they want to vote for. now, a lot of the nikki haley supporters that i've been talking to are optimistic that she can still pull this off. but if she doesn't pull off new hampshire, could they get -- the big question is where does that campaign look to next? a man. >> let me ask you about looking next for the haley campaign, emma, in particular, this endorsement from asa hutchison. it had to have been very bitter for nikki haley not to get the endorsement of tim scott, who didn't even wait till the south carolina primary to offer his. he just went ahead and did it now this week instead of waiting to see how everyone fares in new hampshire. but, what is the campaign saying about the asa hutchison endorsement, and the rejection, if you will, from the outreach to the tim scott endorsement? >> so first, on the asa hutchins had stuff, my colleague, julian frenkel, actually has been following asa

hutchinson on the trail. she heard from him today, to say that wasn't an official endorsement. he did tweet go nikki haley, first in the nation, but it wasn't an official endorsement. as for tim scott, nikki haley said that's his decision, that's a decision he's going to have to live with. so we will see how it continues to play out. it's also confirmed that nikki haley has a 4 million dollar ad buy going into south carolina on tuesday. so we are going to have to just let the clock play out, and see where this all goes. a man? >> indeed, we will. emma barnett, vaughn hillyard, thank you to the both of you for starting us off this hour. greatly appreciate it. joining the conversation now is elie mystal, justice correspondent for the nation. it's great to see you as always. so, this is the part of the conversation where we pretend that there is a primary for the republican party, even though there really isn't one. haley really is not going to be able to pull around it out of her hat, and miraculously is not going to upset trump. but what is it that you are looking for in this race with

these two remaining candidates going into new hampshire? is it really just about who loses less? >> yeah, i'm really just interested to see what the level of humiliation it's going to take before these people who have already based themselves to the maga-verse jim, before they drop out, snake back to the rocks that they crawled out under from. we talk about this republican primary is if it's a thing. it's not a thing because the primary challengers did not try to challenge the front runner. it was only in recent days, after he went full normal republican racist against her, that nikki haley decided to have anything to say about the loser dame of donald trump. now, for the most part, haley and desantis, scott when he was in it, hutchinson to the extent that he exists, they all refused to take on trump. they were all running in hopes that jack smith would take out trump. right? that judge erdogan, would take

out trump. that somebody else, some other force, that trump would get ruptured, they were hoping something would take trump out of the running, and then they would present themselves to the racist virulent trump voters as the trump alternative. since that didn't happen, since trump is still allowed to run in these primaries, they have no campaign, and they are seeing the humiliation and debasement of that now, as they get worked in these elections against the president they refused to challenge. >> correct me if i'm wrong, i think that probably applies to some of the endorsements that trump is getting this week. because there are probably people like those that endorsed him this week, establishment republicans, folks like tim scott, marco rubio, who probably were like hoping, man, i hope somebody takes donald trump out. i hope donald trump gets taken out some way or the other. and now, he hasn't, he seems to have a lock on the nomination. it seems like literally this week, they finally realized

this primary is a foregone conclusion, and, now it's time for them to calculate their own political incentives. >> this week they showed that the entire world that they have no courage, they have no backbone. they are made of jell-o. if you are serious about being a republican, if you are serious about the values the republican party puts forth, you can't vote for trump. you can't endorsed trump. trump is not a republican, he is a dictator. trump is not a politician, he is a tyrant. he is running to be a tyrant. and these people were serious, they would have endorsed joe biden. but they don't have that kind of strength. they don't have that kind of strength of character. they don't have that kind of commitment to the country, and so, they all wind up as we are seeing, to go kiss the ring. to go lick the boot. that is also going to be the test of donald trump's eventual vp candidate. he's not looking for a person to serve as vice president of

the united states. he's looking for a person to serve as his chief boot polisher, which is what people -- are getting thrown out there. the media should be asking the people who trump is thinking about putting in, as vice president, if they would have even the courage of mike pence, to follow the rules, to follow the constitution, when trump hopefully loses another election. but trump is actively looking for people without the kind of backbone that even mike pence had at the end, was able to show. that's what the republican party is right now. it is donald trump, and a bunch of people looking boots. there is part of me that is sad about this. >> yeah. >> i think the country is actually better with two healthy parties. >> for sure. >> but there's also part of me that is like, they're not who we thought they were. these are the people, they've been like this for generation, and this is just what we have

to deal with. >> it's hard to imagine that mike pence would be the standard by which we measure any other republicans, but yet, here we are in the year 2024, doing exactly that. for courage. let me ask you really quickly about something that has become quite, oddly, front and center of this race in the final week before new hampshire. that is race itself. nikki haley's comments about slavery, not being a cause of the civil war, to her claim that america was never been, or has never been a racist country. trump is being trump. he's outright using racist nicknames, even playing the birtherism card. are you surprised that races even factoring into the republican party? we certainly expected it in the general election from the republican party but the fact they're now using race against each other as a weapon seems odd even for the republican party. >> no, no, this is what the republicans do. donald trump doesn't actually

have any kind of policy considerations. what he is running on is white grievance. of course he was going to use white grievance against the brown candidates who were running against him. if you didn't think that then, you just haven't been paying attention to the republican party for the past 50 years. the book, and i don't often do this, but the book i would want republicans running for president to read is michael harriet's black f history. because if you honestly think this has never been a racist country, you are in desperate need of some basic education that book provides. nikki haley, in her own background, has talked about how her father had to teach at an hbcu because he wasn't allowed to be hired in a white university. so for her to run around saying that this has never been a racist country, it's not just the political line or polemic,

it is a baseless lie that she is telling and the fact that she feels the need to tell this lie, to tell potential voters in the republican party, that this is never been a racist country, shows how backwards that party is. that this woman, who well knows the racist history of the country, has to feel that she has to go out and allied to these people, to have her chance at getting 30% of the vote and losing that lead in new hampshire. >> i was going to say, if it wasn't a racist country, or had been a racist country, why did she then take down the confederate soldiers when she was the governor of south carolina? you're actually seeing live pictures of nikki haley speaking in nashua in new hampshire as we have this conversation. elie mystal, lisa ground, we're gonna continue the conversation at the other side of this break. a quick programming note though, make sure to tune in tuesday night, rachel maddow leads analysis of the new hampshire primary.

she'll be joined by the all-star team of steve kornacki, breaking down results at the big board, jen psaki covering the latest developments on the ground as well. all of that special coverage begins tuesday, six pm eastern, right here on msnbc. next up, another target of trump's attacks, e. jean carroll, who has been found liable of sexually assaulting and defaming her. did he just defame her again? that is next. that is next ed against the flu, but don't forget this season's updated covid-19 shot too. with the majority of my patients with sensitivity i see irritated gums and weak enamel. sensodyne sensitivity gum and enamel it relieves sensitivity helps restore gum health and rehardens enamel. i am a big advocate of recommending things that i know work. you always got your mind on the green. not you. you! your business bank account with quickbooks money now earns 5% apy. (♪♪)

that's how you business differently. intuit quickbooks. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. honestly, i was scared when i was told age related macular degeneration could jeopardize my vision. great. one more thing to worry about. it was all too hard to deal with in the beginning, but making a plan with my doctor to add precision was easy. preservision areds2 contains the exact nei recommended, clinically proven nutrient formula to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. thanks to preservision, i feel better

that i'm doing something about it like millions of others. preservision. if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd rather be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. >> 12 point $1 million, that's i know what year it is.

how much donald trump may have to pay e. jean carroll for causing damage to her reputation. this weekend, expert witness recommended that dollar amount for the, quote, severe harm trump caused with his defamatory statements. last year, a jury awarded carroll $5 million after finding trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. now, trump is facing carroll again for the public statements th hmade about her, both while he was president, and after the jury's rdt in may. trump is not done speaking about carroll, believe it or not. on thursday, he went after her 30 times on his failed social media platform. including sharing a conspiracy theory that a witness who testified on her behalf is a democratic party donor. joining me now is jill wine-banks, msnbc legal analyst, and former assistant watergate process cuter. elie mystal is back with me as well. jill, i'll start with that one

point -- four that humphrey says trump will have to pay to e. jean carroll. do you think it may come down to that or could he have to pay more? >> i think more, because, first of, all $5 million did nothing to stop him. he immediately defamed her after that verdict. and i think he's doing it doing during this trial, so he's also done something else really stupid. not a surprise to most of us, but he has now been testifying about how many billions extra he has. in order for the damages to stop someone, it has to impact their personal finances. if you are actually really a billionaire with ten billion more than you ever said, then 12 is not going to affect you. so, i think that the jury could easily conclude that to stop him from doing this again, they have to award more than the 12 that would maybecompensate her for restoring her reputation >> elie, trum's lawyers are

renewing their motion for a mistrial, since carroll admitted on the stand to deleting emails containing death threats, saying she believed it was the smartest, best, quickest way to get it out of my life. which i think makes sense to the average person who doesn't want to be reminded by the vitriol and hate they receive. could this, though, harm carols case in any way? >> no, no, it's a dumb motion. made by dom lawyers. i think if you read the transcripts that come out of that trial, i break out in sweats reading the transcripts about how the hub of the sea has been prosecuting that trial. her inability to know what's going on, or know what to do, or have any idea how to cross examine a witness, it's like that nightmare where you go into the chest and you are naked, and everybody who's looking at you. that's been her all week. if there's a mistrial here, it's for the grossest

ineffective assistance of counsel that one could ever see, except the trump knows that his counsel is like this, and so he can't actually claim that. no, i agree with jill. i think in the best-case scenario, e. jean carroll ends up owning mar-a-lago. that's fair. i don't think the jury is going to go that far. but this trial has been a joke. and i'm making fun of it, but it's sad, because this is a real victim here. e. jean carroll has had to go through so much, her reputation has been smeared by this idiot. she has to relive it every day that they do this. they are basically making a mockery of the entire thing, because they think it's going to help them score political points. it's part of the coarseness of what trump has done to our country that you can't even highlight and focus on the victim here, because he's still out here. he's literally defaming her in

the trial about defaming her. it's a sickness. and yeah, i hope the jury gives her all the money is in the world. >> to your point, it's very important to remember that despite this circus that is trump's legal team, there are real victims to, to the crimes that he commits, as we note in this case, e. jean carroll. speaking of the clown show, jill, i do want to ask you about former trump lawyer, joe tacopina, who represented him in his first e. jean carroll case. he announced that he's no longer representing him on these cases. let me play for you what he told my colleague, the reverend al sharpton, on why he left trump. >> i left the team because it was just my time. i had to follow my compass. and my compass told me it was -- my time there was done. >> i think that's a polite way of saying like, i just can't be a part of this anymore. your compass, if his compass is

telling him he's got to leave, then you know it's definitely way off course. what do you make of this last-minute departure from joe tacopina, right as trump begins his defamation trial? >> so, he wasn't on this one, he was handling an appeal from the first one. so it's not going to affect this trial at all. i listened to reverend al's interview, and of course, when you say my compass in ordinary parlance, that's my moral compass. and one would have to assume that the immorality of the defense that was being requested, and the immorality of the acts of donald trump, and the ridiculousness of his not following lawyer's advice, is what drove him off of this. and he was very careful not to violate any lawyer ethics by saying this specifically what had driven him off it. but it is clear, and i just, i have to add one thing that elie said about humbug. i think the worst thing she did was not knowing how to talk to

a judge. when you say to a judge, i don't like being talked to that way. oh my god. i can't even imagine anybody having the stupidity to do that. that was thought one of her very worst. >> i was gonna say, i'm not a lawyer and i was reading the transcripts and i'm like, what, i've watched enough line order episodes to know not to speak to a judge like that. so the idea she would speak to the judge who would tell her motion denied, sit down, she was like i don't to be spoken to like motion tonight, sit down. it was unbelievable. anyway -- >> i've been insulted by judges, and i've never talked back. i've had success comments, but i don't talk. >> when trump tired them. >> okay guys, we've got a lot more to discuss. please stick around. we're gonna squeeze in a quick break. afterwards, we have to talk about the former presidents pipe dream and potential confession, saying presidents who crossed the line should get total immunity. it's a basket of crazy that unfortunately we have to dive into.

into prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one.

don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. i love your dress. oh thanks! i splurged a little because liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, right? i've been telling everyone. baby: liberty. did you hear that? ty just said her first word. can you say “mama”? baby: liberty. can you say “auntie”? baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need. jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

this election is a choice between jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ results or just rhetoric. californians deserve a senator who is going to deliver for them every day and not just talk a good game. adam schiff. he held a dangerous president accountable. he also helped lower drug costs, bring good jobs back home, and build affordable housing. now he's running for the senate.

our economy, our democracy, our planet. this is why we fight. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. (ella) fashion moves fast. (jen) so we partner with verizon nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (jen) that's enterprise intelligence. (vo) it's your vision, it's your verizon. >> and the weight goes on.

we're still waiting for a federal appeals court to rule on donald trump's claim of presidential immunity in the tion interference case, he claimed this week that president must have, quote, complete and total immunity. his words, not mine. in a lengthy post on his failed social media platform, he went as far as saying, even events that crossed the line must fall under total immunity. your guess is as good as mine as to what that actually means. when you hear that though, think about what could happen if he is allowed back into the oval office. some observers point out in the new republic, trump's post is best seen as a threat and a promise, a second trump term, if voters give him one, will certainly include an untold amount of presidential lawbreaking. elie mystal, jill wine-banks are both back with us.

elie, let's start with you. my colleague, chris hayes, earlier this week mentioned that trump and his supporters don't seem to understand that the powers he calls onto himself must then be given to every single other president. is he being extremely naive or just delusional? >> yeah, i think it's a combination of both. it's really obvious that the presidents can't have this unqualified, forever immunity, if so, then joe biden would have that immunity, and joe biden would be able to do horrible things. joe biden would be able to do the things that trump's lawyers said that trump could do, which include calling in s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political rival. that was what trump's lawyers said in court, that trump should be immune if he did it. which would mean that biden would be immune if he did it. right? so i don't think that can possibly be true. i think calling it a seal team six would violate --

and murder laws everywhere. so i can't imagine that's true. but i don't think that trump is concerned about that, because what he feels is that he's going to be immune, he is going to be president, and he's never not going to be president again. and that's the thing, folks. people need to understand, if trump gets in power again, he's not leaving voluntarily, at the end of his second term, as is required by the 22nd amendment. he doesn't care about things like laws and the constitution and amendments. he's going to stay as dictator for life, for as long as he lives, if people give him power again. and that's why he can have this kind of cognitive dissonance of believing that he should be immune, but biden shouldn't be immune, because he plans to grab power and nevelet go of it again. >> jill, my colleague at msnbc .com, solution aleem, wrote,

the big picture take away from trump's post is that he imagines that president not as a civil servant constrained by the law, but as an absolute ruler restricted only by his own moral reservations, do you agree with that, do you share that assessment? >> i do. and of course, that's terrifying, because we know without any doubt that he has no moral reservations. we also know that, the law has always been very clear, that no president has absolute immunity. there has been a small amount of immunity allowed, in civil cases, when the president is acting clearly within the permutations of his office. if he's doing something that is clearly identified as his job, then he might get civil liability removed. there has never been a criminal case where they have said that there was immunity. and they should not, because

the president is not a king, he's not above the law. if, for example, richard nixon believed the same thing, why would he take a pardon? because he was a man. why would ford have given him a pardon? so we know for sure that no one has ever interpreted this way, and as much distrust as i, and most people, half of the supreme court, i do not believe that they would say that that is within the immunity that a president should have, it certainly isn't in our constitution that way. >> i certainly hope you're right on that one, as much as i want to share your confidence and optimism in the supreme court, nothing surprises me though, i have to admit that. elie, i do want to ask you though about how trump has oval office the things that he can do the second time. because that's really the scary part, when you look, at for example, how he wants to use the military in a dictatoria way, to go after his political rivals, as you mentioned, using s.e.a.l. team six or activating

the military to put down domestic protests, which would be illegal. would there be any guardrails left to prevent trump from essentially bending these powers to his will in a second term, based on what he did the first time around? >> no. there would be absolutely none. my uncle is a philosophy professor at the university of north carolina, charlotte, he likes to say that one of the real problems with america is that we never lost our democracy, so we don't know how to defend it. people in other countries, people in the islands, where my family's farm, we know what it's like to lose a democracy. people in western europe understand what it's like to lose a democracy. and, so they have guardrails against exactly -- people exactly like trump, from taking over their democracy, and turning it into a dictatorship. america has never lost it before, so we act like we can't. that is, of course, not true. trump is the thing that loses

us this precious democracy. and it is his intention. he has used his first term as a test run, for a litmus test for loyalty. and when he gets back in charge, should the people give him that power again, the only -- it's not just going to be trump. he's only going to surround himself with, like i said, bootlickers, yes men, and people who are willing to do the tyrannical will of the leader. that's what he will be judging this cabinet for. and so i go back to jill's point about the supreme court, where i have hope that the supreme court doesn't go for this, is that i believe that the supreme court justices are so obsessed with their own power, that they will -- seven of them, will eventually understand that trump is the biggest threat to the supreme court's own continued power. aledo, thomas, there bought, what can men do a bout such reckless hate? but the other seven of them, i do believe that they want to keep their jobs, and that they

understand that trump is the biggest threato that. >> let me ask you, jill, about the supreme court and this important case that could up and jack smith's election interference case. that is fisher versus the united states, which has to do with the socks act. break down the case for us here, how much of it is a threat to the january 6th case and if so, why? >> i actually think that it is a very weak argument. what it is is the sarbanes oxley, which was passed after enron, and has won part, it says, that you cannot destroy documents, because as we know, in that case, people were shredding documents like crazy to keep them from ever being discovered. but there is a part that says for any other form of obstruction. and those words were not used loosely in the debate on that act, members of the congress said, and we mean every other form of obstruction.

so i don't think that it can be read in a way that it would allow only document shredding. so, i feel pretty confident that that case will not allow fisher to get off, and that it won't allow donald trump. but in addition, there are other charges against trump, that even if this was eliminated, this is the one that carries the longest sentence. the heaviest penalty. so it is when you don't want to lose. i don't think that smith will lose it, but if he did, the others are clearly within the acts that he undertook, and should be something that he will be held liable for, even if those two have been to be kicked out. but it is a problem we are going to have to wait for the court to rule on that. it may be allowed to go to trial before that. but maybe not. >> elie, jill, please stick around. we've got a lot more to discuss after the break. we are going to talk about

the supreme court, more specifically, and the billionaire who is waiting to see if his investments in justice gorsuch yield a return. turn

with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. the ball is out and there's a pile-up. -let's go! -get in the pile! ugh, i'll deal with this tomorrow. you won't. it's ripe in here. my eyes are watering. i'm a busy man. look how crusty this is. shameful. ugh, it's just too much. not with this. tide. tide can tackle any pile. that a tackle pun? just clean the pile, ron. okay. this too. that was easy. when stains and odors pile up, it's got to be tide. here on this program, we

have extensively covered the billionaires behind the supreme court ethics crisis, from justice clarence thomas's benefactor, businessmen harlan crow, to leonard leo, the architect of the right-wing takeover of the judiciary. this week, we have a new name that we want to add to that list. philip anschutz, now, you might not know the 84-year-old billionaire by name, but you certainly know his portfolio. he is a majority owner of the nhl's los angeles kings, he also has a stake in the mls his los angeles galaxy, he also owns the crypto backed calm arena, once known as the staples center, and the coachella music festival. his investments spanned everything from energy to railroad and, real estate, and

entertainment. forbes estimates that his fortune clocked in at a 15 billion dollar bottom line. anschutz told the magazine, quote, when you see what can be done, the possibilities you want to be involved in something, you want to own it. now, this philosophy may apply to one of his other long term investments. his decades-long relationship with supreme cot justice, neil gorsuch. back in 1995, gorsuch worked at a law firm representing the billionaire's business interests. years later, the 84-year-old magnate and future justice had grown so close that anschutz personally campaigned for gorsuch to be appointed to the tenth circuit court of appeals during the george w. bush adnistration. after taking the bench, gorsuch then became a semi regular speaker at eagles night. a sprawling ranch in colorado where the billionaire often hosted retreats for some of the biggest names in politics, and business.

gorsuch was so intertwined in the businessman's inner circle that he even co owned a property in the centennial state with anschutz's chief counsel and an anschutz executive. that is, until he sold it all off after his appointment to the nation's highest court. now what is this decades-long relationship between gorsuch and anschutz matter, and matter right now? well, it just happens to be thatweek, the supreme court heardoral arguments in a case that could significantly ease regulations on anschutz's businesses. the case, luke bright enterprises verse raimondo is one of a pair of decisions that could overturn the so-called chevron deference. a 40-year-old legal precedent that broadly speaking grants federal agencies the authority to interpret federal statutes. this means the justices have the power to dramatically alter how federal agencies regulate feelsli the oil and gas

indury or say, anschutz i's exploration company. the billionaire has extensive connections to not only gorsuch, t to a network of republican aligned groups, either to see the president thrown out. anschutz has funded americans for prosperity, the right-wing non prospect -- plaintiffs in the lower case, and his foundations also i -- amicus briefs in support of overturning chevron. now the long-standing link between and shoots and gorsuch led several watchdog groups to call on the justice to recuse himself from the case. and guess what? gorsuch, of course, refused all of those calls. instead, during oral arguments this week he helped lead the attack against chevron, clipping that the doctrine, quote, is exploited against the individual and in favor of the government. now, we are going to have to wait until june for the courts

final decision, but this much is clear. not only will this case have major implications for the future of the adnistrative state in the u.s., but it also could furthermage the already batted tation of the supreme court. as the new republics kate are enough puts it, if gorsuch overturns the chevron doctrine, quote, it will cement the supreme court's reputation as a pay for play venue, where billionaires can fetch a big return on their investments in future supreme court justices. elie mystal and jill wine-banks, on the sticks of whatever the court decides. that's next. that's next. an office. hi! hello! a cinema. so automated. yes, the definition of a car changes... but one thing stays the same. it's a mercedes-benz.

[deep exhale] [trumpet music plays] 579 breaths to show 'em your stuff. every breath matters. don't let rsv take your breath away. protect yourself from rsv... ...with abrysvo, pfizer's rsv vaccine. abrysvo is a vaccine for the prevention of lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can be serious if you are 60 or older. having asthma, copd, diabetes, or heart disease puts you at even higher risk. abrysvo is not for everyone and may not protect all who receive the vaccine. don't get abrysvo if you've had a severe allergic reaction to its ingredients. people with a weakened immune system may have a decreased response to abrysvo.

the most common side effects are tiredness, headache, pain at the injection site, and muscle pain. ask your pharmacist or doctor about pfizer's rsv vaccine, abrysvo. visit these retailers or find other retailers near you at abrysvo.com. [deep breath] here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. >> a moment ago, we told you

about the decades-long relationship between justice neil gorsuch and billionaire, philip anschutz, their bond is under renewed scrutiny now that the high court is weighing a case that could deal a major blow to federal agencies regulatory authority. as caroline chacon-y, president of the watchdog group, accountable dot u.s. puts it, quote, this is just the latest in a long pattern of cozy relationships between supreme court justices and billionaires, creating conflicts that undermine the legitimacy of the court. elie mystal, jill wine-banks, are both back with me to break it down. elie, your reaction to this latest conflict of interest at the nation's highest court, is anything in what we just presented there to you not jive or doesn't make sense, or incorrect? >> it's not incorrect, but i

will say that neil gorsuch has been on this idea of destroying this case and taking the power for himself to determine what the regulatory state looks like, he's been on that for years. it's almost like you don't have to pay him to do that, he already wants to do that, because it goes back to his mother. this case that we are talking about, chevron deference, this case arose out of a 1984 epa decision, made by his mom, when his mom was the head of the epa. his mom was trying to, as a reagan appointee, was trying to destroy the epa from the inside out. and all neil gorsuch is doing right now is carrying on with that family business. so one of the reasons why he's -- these millionaires and billionaires, to use the phrase, wanted neil gorsuch on the benches because they understand that his lifelong dream has been to destroy the regulatory state, and he's about to do that now, with this case. >> jill, is this what it takes

to become a supreme court justice in america these days? access to billionaires, because it seems like every conservative justice has their own billionaire buddy, who sooner or later, has business before the court. i'm not trying to be skeptical here, but just the way this system is designed, to have a billionaire lobbying for you to get on the court, to get you in front of the white house, to get the federalist society behind you, it seems it's a lot of work and a lot of money. >> i think you're right. i think this case also shows a lot of very important facts. one is that the ethics that the supreme court justice adopted are totally meaningless, they will not change anything, because this would be a case where a recusal would be necessary. same thing for justice thomas and the january 6th immunity case. but they are not recusing, so that is important. i think, to explain to the audience exactly what the chevron deference means, it meant that when the government

creates agencies to oversee their technical things, to keep our lives in -- going, both the equal protection agencies, the epa, any agency, the fda, all of those have very complex rules and regulations, where there is some misunderstanding about it, who is better to make a rule and regulation then the people who are experts in that, as opposed to technically congress, because the accusation is that only congress can set all these rules and regulations. congress can't even get the government running by funding it properly, how are they going to have the time or the expertise? you would have to have all these experts hired by congress to pass these regulations, and that would be the same thing as having these agencies. and the agencies are answerable to an elected official, the president of the united states, and that is what it should be. it should be part of the executive branch, not the

judicial branch, not that congressional legislative branch. so it is a really important decision, and ellie's right, this is something that gorsuch and others on the court have wanted for a long time, and, now they have their opportunity. and it could really destroy the effectiveness of the administrative expertise of all the agencies of our government. >> jill brings up a very important point, elie, that i wanted to ask you about. that is the idea of the ethics, the code of ethics. ahead of this term, accountable dot u.s. lead over 40 watchdog and accountability groups, in sending a letter t chief justice, john roberts, demanding he ensured conflicted justices recuse themselves from key cases. that letter highlighted in not only gorsuch's connection, but also justice clarence thomas's extensive participation in the coke network events, since the coke network staff attorney represented the plaintiffs in other cases. and that means justice thomas and gorsuch of refused to

recuse themselves from cases in which they are clearly conflicted. will the roberts court go down as the most corrupt or unethical in modern history, if you don't want to use the word corrupt, certainly unethical, or conflicted in modern history? >> it's the most corrupt supreme court that i know of, let's put it like that. it's the mauve ethically convicted supreme court that i'm aware of. and that's because they won't submit themselves to independent third-party accountability standards. you can't have an ethics rule, if it's up to each individual justices conscience, whether or not to recuse themselves. and that is what the supreme court, even after it's fake ethics ruling, that's what they still hold on to. right? so it's up to neil gorsuch whether he recuse is. it's up to clarence thomas whether he refuses. it's not up to anybody else, and you can't have ethics rules that way. it just doesn't work that way. that's the problem, and again, why are they unethical?

you have to remember, it's not just they want something for that money. the billionaires that are paying, they want something that money. and what they want is to take power away from the people through their elected representatives, and put it in the hands of supreme court justices. >> all right, elie mystal, jill wine-banks, thank you to the both for playing with us this whole entire hour. greatly appreciate all your insights, legal analysis, and brilliant takes. after the break, another hour of fall ayman, don't go anywhere. anywhere and rehardens enamel. i am a big advocate of recommending things that i know work. here's to getting better with age. here's to beating these two every thursday. help fuel today with boost high protein, complete nutrition you need... ...without the stuff you don't. so, here's to now. boost. - i got the cabin for three days. it's gonna be sweet! what? i'm 12 hours short. - have a fun weekend.

- ♪ unnecessary action hero! unnecessary. ♪ - was that necessary? - no. neither is a blown weekend. with paycom, employees do their own payroll so you can fix problems before they become problems. - hmm! get paycom and make the unnecessary, unnecessary. - see you down the line. looking for a smarter way to mop? try the swiffer powermop. ♪♪ an all-in-one cleaning tool, with a 360-degree swivel head

that goes places a regular mop just can't. ♪♪ mop smarter with the swiffer powermop.