if you look at the stock market and look at the green market stocks, they been doing nothing but shooting up because biden has created a stable oil market for the first time in our history at some of the most crazy moments in the oil market. you would see nothing like stability, we have seen nothing but stability. it's a tremendous success. >> it's an undercover story and it connects, the price volatility is the number 1 political threat to the green transition. when things at five dollars a gallon, everyone is like i don't want this green stuff. thank you very much. that is all in tonight . . good evening, alex. >> i'm going to say i believe your more animated about that than the price of eggs. >> i am. this is one of my favorite stories because it's fascinating and wild and no one knows it, and it's been a seismic change.

>> and huge data point or argument for more time for joe biden inor the white house. >> yes, probably. >> thank you, my friend. president biden was in normandy today commemorating the 80th anniversary of d-day, and while he was there he was asked about something totally unrelated, whether he would issue a pardon for his son hunter if the federal jury in delawarefe convicts the youngerf felony gun possession. here's how president biden responded. >> as ween sit here in normandy your son hunter is on trial, and i know that you cannot speak about an ongoing federal prosecution, but let me ask you will you accept the jury's outcome, their verdict no matter what itdi is? >> yes. >> and have you ruled out a pardon for yourself? >> yes. >> pretty clear answer there, but again this is a yes or no question, and to be honest shouldn't be that hard to answer.

joe biden as president with the power to pardon anyone he wants at the federal level will let his son go to prison if he is found guiltypr by a jury of his peers because that is how the american justice system is supposed to work. now compare that answer to former president donald trump's answer. on trump's very last day in office, january 20, 2021, he issued more than 70 pardons and there were several scandalous names in that stack of pardon papers. there was the guy who had been charged with cyber stalking on "x" who seemed to get on trump's radar mostly because he was friends with jared kushner. there was trump ally janine piro. not exactly a mystery how trump came into contact with him. most notable of all was former trump campaign manager and chief white house strategist steve bannon. bannon had been charged the year before withch allegedly duping thousands of trump supporters

out of millions of dollars in cash by claiming he was crowd sourcing money to build trump's border wall. it wasrd called "we build the wall." to be clear, they did not. but as president, trump made bannon's federal charges just, poof, disappear. typically when a president pardons someone it's because the president disagrees the law that person broke or because the president thinks that person is innocent. thaton did not appear to be the case here. three of bannon's coconspirators in the we build the wall scheme were not pardoned. they went to trial, they were found guilty. one is, serving three years in prison, one is serving four years in prison, and one is serving five years in prison as we speak. so donald trump does not appear to have pardoned steve bannon because he thought steve bannon was innocent. he appears to have pardoned steve bannon because steve bannon's his guy. to be clear bannon still faces

new york state level charges for the we build the wall scheme, but atal the federal level trum got him off the hook. i'm not just bringing up steve bannon here because it shows the stark contrast between biden's understanding of the rule of law and trump's. yes, the difference is stark. today bannon was ordered to go to prison for something else entirely. today a judge in d.c. ordered bannon to report to prison by july 1isst for a totally differt charge. donald trump immediately took to truth social to call this order a total and complete american tragedy. i mean maybe in the eyes of donald trump, but steve bannon committed an actual crime here.t in september of 2021 the house january 6th20 committee subpoend steve bannon to ask him what he knew aboutas the january 6th capitol attack, and they had very good reason to. here was bannon on his podcast, there day before the

insurrection, january 5, 2021. >> so tomorrow morning, look, what's going to happen we're going to have at the ellipse president trump speaks at 11:00, ware going to be live at 10:00. we've got a lot more news and analysis exactly what's going to go on into the day. i'llin tell you this it's not going to happen like you think is going to happen. it'sis going to be quite extraordinarily different. all i can say is strap in. >> strap in, tomorrow it's game day. again, that was steve bannon the day before january 6th. but when the house january 6th committee subpoenaed him, bannon refused to cooperate, so he was charged and put on trial and he was convicted by a jury of his peers. now, steve bannon may believe himself to be a martyr here, but he iser really just a criminal. >> the entire justice department, they're not going to shut up trump. they're not going to shut up

navarro. they're not going to shut up bannon. this is about shutting down the maga movement, d shutting down grass roots conservatives, shutting down president trump. there's not a prison built or jail built that will ever shut me off. >> in reference to peter navarro there, that's because mr. navarro is already serving an eight month sentence right now because he also refused to comply with a congressional subpoena asking about what happened on january 6th. he's in good company because donald trump is surrounded by convicted and accused criminals. steve bannon, mark meadows, rudy giuliani, jeffrey clark, john eastman, sydney powell, jen ellis, ken chesebro, epstein. how long do we have here? the list goes on and on. the republican party today is a party led by a convicted criminal who is surrounded by a

sea of convicted and accused criminals. wrap your head around that for a second. and after you do that recall what the republican party is saying about itself. >> look, we're the rule of law team. we believe inre the rule of law. >> joining me now is dan goldman and george conway. gentlemen, it's great to see you. ins terms of what democrats do here, when you read the list of the convicted and accused criminals that surround the front-runner for the republican nomination, a person who himself is a, convicted felon, what is the appropriate way for democrats to talk about this? >> to call it out like it is. the fact of the matter is donald trump had a trial that is like every other defendant in this country where a jury of 12 impartial jurors swore an oath

to consider just the facts of the evidence applies to the law. and they unanimously decided beyond a reasonable doubt donald trump had every constitutional right that everyone else gets. that is thery rule of law. so when speaken johnson and other house republicans start attacking this prosecution because they don't like the outcome, that is the opposite of supporting the rule of law. and the reality is that americans on november 5th are going to have a very simple choice. do you want in the oval office a convicted felon or not? and that's where we are. >> hewell, it's even probably o step beyond that. it's not just here is a person who doesn't have respect for the rule of n'law, here's a person populating the upper echelons in his inner circle with people whi are criminals or accused

criminals. >> as you said in the intro he is a criminal swimming along a sea of criminals who followed along, and the w republican par has become a party of criminals because theirf position, their only thing that they stand for now is we support the criminals. we support these people. they are persecuted by the people who seek to enforce the law against them. they're basically saying we do it, if our people do it, they're immune from the law. but the law will apply to everyone else. and that's essentially what we're seeing is we're seeing this cultish control of a political party that is simply -- its singular purpose now is to elect and defend a criminal and to keep him from going to jail because let's be honest here, the reason why he's running for president isn't because he want to make the world a better place, not because he wants peace on earth,

he wants to stay out of prison. and this is the only way he can do it. >> it's audacious again even one step beyond that because mike johnson is not only defending donald trump, not only suggesting he's a martyr, but saying the republican party is a rule of law. if you lookepis at the dictiona under the term gaslighting, that's it. like mike johnson suggests -- >> gaslighting with rocket fuel. >> yes. i just think, dan, there's been a lot of reported debate inside democratic circles about how far joe biden should go in the campaign, in thein re-elect campaign on this topic, and i wonder if you have a thought on this because there are fairly wise and established democratic strategists who say if he goes too far-out on this convicted felon thing, if he focuses too much on the criminality of this, he's going to alienate voters right there in the middle. and i wonder what you think about that. >> theyo convicted felon aspectf donald trump is one piece to a

larger effort to completely undermine and overtake our democracy. so it's not just that he's a convicted felon that we're going to emphasize. it's that he's a convicted felon who has already threatened every global alliance, who will implement a national ban, who will politicize and use our most top secret intelligence information for his own benefit, who will pardon his buddies and also roger stone, who by the way had information -- potentially criminal information against him. and he will try to prosecute his enemies. all of this is straight fascism. it is not democracy. and the fact that a jury of 12 found him guilty of 34 felonies is part and parcel of the entire

ethos of donald trump, which is that the law doesn't apply to me, i am above the law, only i am above the law, and i will take down our democracy in order to savein myself. >> i absolutely hear what you're saying. there's an ecosystem of authoritarian if not fascist tendencies that surround this criminality, right, george, but that hadn't cut through in the same way that potentially the felony convict does. and i'm going to quote sarah wong who's been doing some focus groups indicative of where the voters are going toswi on this. the double haters that don't hate trump or don't hate biden are united over trusting the judicial system over trump at least for now. these voters don't speak for the majority, as swing voters are marginal, but the margins will decide this race. thehi copviction confirmed what many of them already knew, that trump is unfit for office.

>> i think it's completely, extremely meaningful. if one fifth of what the congress with us described were true, this election should be a no-brainer to begin with. but the fact of the matter is you've understated it. you can go on and on and on with allan the legality he's engaged in. we haven'td talked about the ft he's an adjudicated rapist, we haven't talked about the fact he's an adjudicated fraudster. we haven't talked about the fact his company was convicted of crimes. we did talk about the fact he stole classified documents and should have gone to jail for that already. >> it's like how much time is there. >> how much time is there? and there are things we probably don't even know about and i think they can all be tied together with -- to me i've been on this kit for several years. the man is narcissistic sociopath. if you lookss at the definitionf what a pathological narcissist and pathological sociopath is,

this is who -- he is the poster child of that, and that ties into the authoritarianism. it ties into the criminality. itin ties into the misogyny. it ties into the racism. ithe ties into the desire to do the bidding of vladimir putin because, you know, he's one of -- they're one of a kind. it ties into everything and explains everything that donald trump is, which is as morally bereft, depraved human being whoicide notde be in any positi of power. >> and i'll tell you, you know, part of the problem is, and i talk to peoplean all the time w say, well, i like donald trump's policies on this or on that. you know, george and i have very different policy views, but it's irrelevant if our democracy will not exist. >> yeah. >> and so i say this all the time, a i disagreed with very my of george w. bush's policies,

but i always knew and believed that he cared first and foremost about thisan country, we just h a different view of how we're going to get there. i long for those days where we can have those real policy discussions. we cannot have them with donald trump because the threat to t o way ofe life and everything th we knowif in this country is to grave. >> on june 6th of all days, you see those moving moments and juneau beach and omaha beach, you know, we all -- we're brought to tears as americans. donald trump thinks those people whonk died on those beaches, on those cliffs, and buried in those cemeteries, he thinks they're suckers and losers. >> i have to say and i'm reminded about what president biden was asked about in that interview tonight. the republicans are saying the system is rigged against them at the precise moment that the president of the united states is sitting in an interview

saying he'll not interfere with the federal prosecution and potential conviction of his own son. these republicans truly underestimate the american tr public, that they are going to believe the system is somehow rigged as it prosecutes the president's own son. i mean it really is playing the american public for suckers, congressman. >> absolutely. and the problem is there's such anhe ethos sphere because very w of them are probably watching us right now. >> well, hopefully more and more as theul hour progresses. >> i agree. of the problem is and how we break through, and that's why those double haters are so important because they are paying attention to both sides of things. and when you hear on d-day, you know, the former president talking about going after and prosecuting hist enemies, and u see the current president take

making a really stirring speech about the importance of service, thee importance of our freedom the importance of our democracy, and all those people who have died for our country and our country's way ofry life, which democracy and the rule of law, that is what this election is about. >> totally. it is the starkest contrast imaginable. congressman dan goldman and the great georgema conway, thank yo both for your time, guys. coming up, republicans try to court black voters by conjuring the specter of jim crow. my friend and colleague joy reid will be here to discuss that strategy coming up. but first american presidents can't pardon state convictions especially they're own state convictions, but donald trump has a plan for that. more on the legalese behind that coming up after the break. lese t coming up after the break.

with absorbine pro, pain won't hold you back from your passions. it's the only solution with two max-strength anesthetics to deliver the strongest numbing pain relief available. so, do your thing like a pro, pain-free.

absorbine pro. craig here pays too much for verizon wireless. so he sublet half his real estate office... [ bird squawks loudly ] to a pet shop. meg's moving company uses t-mobile. so she scaled down her fleet to save money. and don's paying so much for at&t, he's been waiting to update his equipment! there's a smarter way to save. comcast business mobile. you could save up to 70% on your wireless bill. so you don't have to compromise. powering smarter savings. powering possibilities.

the new york criminal case against donald trump is probably the only one of the four that he is currently facing that will reach the sentencing stage before the november election. two of those cases, of course, prosecutions that will likely be shutdown by trump's justice department if -- it is a big if -- donald trump is re-elected president. and then there's georgia, a state level case with prosecutorial independence the doj can't touch and for which trump can't pardon himself. same goes for his new york state conviction. now, trump knows all of this quite well, which is why he's doing everything in his power to shield himself from any current or future state level criminal charges regardless of whether he wins the election or not. and he's doing it with the help of his own party in congress, where the speaker of the house is now considering a bill to give current and former american presidents the option of moving state or local prosecutions into the federal courts instead.

joining me now is duncan levine, former assistant u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. duncan, you are my legal sensei. please help me understand. on its face it would mean donald trump have at least a better chance in state courts than federal courts. can you talk utthat there? >> so much for states rights. they're thinking the president or former president is above the law in all 50 sovereign states in the united states of america. and you can think of these crimes that are not federal crimes, that don't bear on a federal question or cross state lines, just a purely state crime. i'm thinking, for example, shooting someone in the middle of fifth avenue. a local murder case, the local d.a.'s office would not be able to prosecute anymore and would have to be moved to federal court for a federal prosecutor to prosecute where there's no statute available, and you can

see where it's going, and it's complete bedlam. not only is this unlikely to pass the democratic senate, but it's unconstitutional because the current state of the law is that a state prosecution or criminal prosecution can be removed to federal court if the conduct underlying it relates somehow -- it comes under color of someone's federal office and there's some sort of federal defense to it. you saw this recently with mark meadows. he tried to move the election interference case in georgia and that got rejected by the federal courts and got sent back down to the state courts. that's really where this arises, so i think this falls to category of performative politics than anyone writing this who had any knowledge of criminal law or constitutionallyitary or anything. >> you're saying the house republican conference is concerned with constitutionality of things. >> shocking i know.

>> i do wonder when we're talking about what levers to pull in and around immunity, we're waiting for this decision from the supreme court, and they very well could conifer some limited immunity for donald trump for certain activities in and around what he did in office and thereafter. i do wonder whether that immunity question could affect any of the state level prosecutions as well. >> the real answer is nobody knows because nobody knows what the state prosecution is going to do. we're expecting a ruling but we don't know. and mr. trump is asking for something very broad, immunity from criminal prosecution not only around the activities carried out as part of the core part of his presidency but this quote-unquote outer perimeter of activity that somehow relates to his presidency but is further removed from it. and i think the answer is probably it's unlikely to affect the two state cases, and really just because of the facts here. remember this is something that's actually gotten tested in

the new york courts because when mr. trump got indicted, he brought the case to federal court, and he went in front of the judge who's a federal judge, and among these claims he made, he made these claims about presidential immunity, and the judge said mr. trump had not presented any evidence at all, that hiring or paying your personal attorney relates to your core constitutional duties, that paying hush money to a porn star relates to a constitutional duty. again, shocking, or that covering up a conspiracy to promote your election by unlawful means is part of your core constitutional duties. the biggest insult you could give to a defense attorney is to say they didn't even come up with a colorable argument. the georgia case arguably has more to do with his duties because it relates to an election, but even that you're talking about whether it relates to even -- remotely relates to his constitutional duties in

calling an elected official and having them falsify, you know, election results or pretend that they're electors or come up with fake documents -- fake elector documents. so i don't think any of this relates to the outer, outer, outer perimeters of what he is arguing here, so it's unlikely to carry any water. but with some of these judges and the supreme court these days who are flying flags upside down you don't know what they're going to rule. >> what they're going to ask for sentencing. >> they're going to ask for jail time, and with good reason, and it's not politics. it's because the case calls out for jail time, and i don't think that's a political statement. i think it's because -- and you can argue, look, this is someone who's lived a law-abiding life for a long time, it's a low level e-felony, its his first

criminal conviction, it's nonviolent. but you could also argue on the other side and i think this is the way the prosecution will see it and the judge is to the extent the legislature envisioned an e-felony punishable by up to four years in jail, this is case that screams out for it. this is case where falsifying business records relates to subverting the election to the presidency. michael cohen went to prison for three years for basically the same conspiracy. you could say, well, there are different sovereigns, it was a federal prosecution, this the is a state prosecution. and michael cohen was not a leader of that conspiracy. donald trump was the leader of the conspiracy. michael cohen was, you know, a henchman there. he was someone carrying out orders. if there's pardi it's sentencing it calls out for sentencing. and he's violated recently in that rambling 33-minute speech he gave he was railing on michael cohen. he called him a sleazebag and on

news max the other day calling the jurors -- and the judge is very concerned what donald trump is saying about these jurors. he was talking about the jurors and how he didn't get a fair trial with them. and so judge merchan has been really clear with trump in saying if you violate this gag order you are going to jail. and so he's put him on notice about it, and i think when you put all this together, it's a case that the prosecution's going to ask for jail time. i think there's a really good chance of it. >> okay, duncan. please come back on july 11th when we have the sentencing because i am eager to hear your thoughts on that. thank you, my friends, for your time. still ahead tonight make america great again by reversing civil rights? this week one republican congressman used that argument when pitching donald trump to black voters. my friend and colleague joy reid joins me to talk about that story coming up next. joy reid joins me to talk about that story coming up next

i got indict said and then i got indicted a second time and a third time and a fourth time. and a lot of people said that's why the black people like me because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against, and they actually viewed me as i'm being discriminated against. >> that was donald trump in february claiming his multiple felony indictments were actually a reason black people should vote for him. quick reminder here that donald trump is a man who took out a full page ad essentially calling

for the execution of five wrongfully accused black and latino teenagers. a man sued by richard nixon's justice department for housing discrimination against black renters. he reportedly told one of his casino operators that laziness is a trait in blacks and promoted the birther conspiracy about our nation's first black president. he reportedly told white house staff that haitian immigrants to america all have aids. and he once held a private dinwer a white supremacist who wants to bring back segregated water fountains. i could go on. now, donald trump believes his criminal convictions somehow put him in league with communities that have faced systemic injustice, something that as president trump claimed does not exist. >> some african american community leaders and a lot of others actually have said it's systemic. where do you stand on that? >> i don't believe that.

i think the police do an incredible job. >> trump's black people love me because i'm a convict argument is as absurd as it is insulting to people of color, but the notion trump's suffering at the hands of the criminal justice system mirrors the suffering faced by people of color in the criminal justice system, well, that notion has become a real thing inside the republican party. here's north carolina republican congressman dan bishop talking about trump's conviction earlier this week. >> the people who are engaging in selective prosecution, vindictive prosecution using it. and when i say it's rigged it's they go into a place where they know the fight is unfair. it's as bad as it was in alabama in 1950 if you were a person who was black. >> that argument is not just an ill-advised talking point, it is

officially part of donald trump's campaign strategy. today south carolina senator and trump's veep's stake senator tim scott announced his campaign is launching a $14 million campaign to woo black voters. he believes trump's convictions would help kshs win over black men who are, quote, so fed up with this two tiered justice system. but believe it or not that may only be the second most insulting pitch to black voters from trump allies this week. on tuesday republican congressman byron donalds was in philadelphia for an event aimed at attracting black voters to the trump campaign when byron donalds said this. >> during jim crow the black family was together. during jim crow more black people were conservative -- but more black people voted conservatively, and then acw,

lyndon johnson and you go down that road and we are where we are. >> that is a republican congressman and trump surrogate telling voters in a trump state things went down after civil rights began. he spent the last 24 hours trying to clarify those comments including just this evening with my colleague joy reid. we're going to show you how that conversation went and talk about it with joy herself coming up next. it with joy herself coming next

number smart bed? i need help with her snoring. sleep number does that. thank you now, save 40% on the sleep number special edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now at sleepnumber.com today marked another day with nor major decision from the supreme court where we await several significant rulings amid donald trump's claims he's immune from prosecution to the availability of abortion medication. all of that hangs in the air as does the controversy surrounding justice samuel alito after it was reported the flags associated with january 6th insurrections, two of those flags raised over at least two

of his homes. the justice blamed his wife for flying one of those flags saying it came after a very nasty neighborhood dispute, but it was later discovered the alitos were flying that flag nearly a month before that fight with the neighbor, and now that neighbor is speaking out. >> at best he's mistaken, but at worst he's just outright lying. in that interaction she approached us, started screaming at us, used all of our full names, which to me felt like a threat because you're a stranger. we don't know you, you don't know us, how do you know our full names? i said how dare you, you're on the highest court in the land, you represent the supreme court of the united states, you're behaving this way and yelling at a neighbor, harassing us, how dare you, shame on you? >> joining me now mark joseph stern, senior writer at slate magazine covering the courts.

mark, i was very interested in what this neighbor had to say, first of all, because her account differs from that of the justice, which seems significant. but also, you know, there's been a lot of talk about him recusing himself, and today justice alito did recuse himself on a minor case relating to chapter 11 bankruptcies. can you talk about the sort of dissonance there between his desire to recuse him from one case that has nothing to do with the major, major scandal that surrounds him right now? >> yeah, so justice alito is one of a few justices who owns individual stocks and still trades those stocks as we all discovered when chris reported that he had sold off stock in bud light during the controversy when bud light had a transgender spokeswoman, and he recused himself from a decision today almost certainly because of his ownership of some individual stock, probably a small amount, a few thousand dollars, almost as if to say, yeah, i can do

this when i want to and to remind us that he's not doing it when he doesn't want to, which is in some of the major cases that come before the court including as we keep saying over and over again donald trump's prosecution for crimes relating to january 6th, which he seems hopelessly conflicted on in the legal sense that he should not be sitting on this case. you know, the interview with the neighbor confirms some information that "the washington post" and new york post had reported it happened before the conflict reached a boiling point. it really seems the disputable they were supporting stop the steal. he wasn't just spinning the facts. he was potentially committing perjury in a letter to congress, which in itself is a very serious federal offense. >> does anybody hold him to task for that? or can congress?

>> it really seems congress isn't going to or isn't going to try. the sense i'm getting and i've been pressing senate democrats on this to say what is your plan here, they are throwing up their hands and saying, look, the election is getting closer, we're trying to confirm judges. that's the message they're trying to send to the base. maybe we are holding alito to account, but at least we're getting some of these great judges through. to be clear the judges appointed by joe biden are wonderful, minority women, former public defenders, but they cannot undo the corruption and ill gains being secured by a supreme court that includes sam alito and clarence thomas sitting on cases they have no business sitting on. and so i do see this extraordinary dissonance not just with alito's whole story but with how democrats are approaching this as though they can make up for their hands-off attitude to the supreme court by appointing good people to the lower court. those good people on the lower courts will be reversed every

time by alito and thomas and their ilk unless democrats try to tackle this. >> well, especially as the court is backing like four or five terms of blockbuster cases into one term. we're talking right now there are 29 pending decisions that we're waiting for from this court, i think 16 of which are major cases. the fact we haven't heard boo about any of those 16, mark, i mean how do you read the court's silence right now, the fact they're going to effectively jam these decisions in the last remaining weeks of june? because the court's out as of july 1, right? >> yeah, the supreme court has its own deadline usually arbitrary when it'll get out its own opinions. so they are going to pack in so many block busters into the next three or four weeks of news cycles in the hopes i am certain of having them get lost to the public as we approach july 4th.

and this is the grand strategy of this court. the conservative justices are greedy for these cases. i want to be clear they have taken up a bunch of issues they did not need to resolve. they have preme churly waded into major cases because they want to use them as vehicles to shift the law to the right. they are packing in all of these barn burners into a single term, and now they're poised to dump them all on the public in rapid fire succession so that we can barely process one before the next drop. i think it's the friday news dump from hell for the next three or four weeks. we're just going to getting these major decisions and have a limited ability to respond to them. the political branches will have a limited ability to push back in ways they might be able to because before they know it, the next one will drop. guns, abortion, immunity, the environment. it's all going to come flooding the zone, and we're going to

struggle to really kind of process it all, and then the justices will flee for the summer and hope the news cycle fizzles out. >> god, mark, that's such a cynical assessment of the timing here. and i'm not trying to question you on that, but have we -- have we seen -- is there anything comparable in recent supreme court history in basically waiting to do an end run around the public and the media when you're issuing a really controversial ruling with landmark importance? >> no, this is new. as recently as five or six years ago the supreme court only had a handful of block busters each term. ten years ago, maybe two, maybe three. it's only been really since justice barrett joined the court that they haveacy clated here taking on more and more of these huge cases and stuffs them all into the last couple of weeks of june, sometimes dropping two or three major ones every day, dropping them a few days in a

row so you really can't focus on it if you're a regular person. it is head spinning and very difficult to follow, and i really do think that it is a strategy and not a coincidence, and part of it is that conservatives don't know how long they'll have a super majority. it could end at any time. you know, health could get in the way, whatever, a scandal could get in the way. >> i feel the scandal's already gotten in the way, mark. >> but, you know, something could change the way the court is constituted, and they want to get it all down now. they learned the lesson when justice scalia died in the middle of a term in 2016 and they had to put a bunch of those cases on hold and set those issues aside for a few years because they lost their votes. they don't want that to happen again, and so that is another part of this tactic is getting this all done as quickly as possible while they've got the votes. they've got them right now, who knows how long it'll last, but they're going to get it done.

>> speaking of supreme court justices immeshed in scandal, clarence thomas, tomorrow is the release of the justice's financial disclosure records, and i know because you tweeted this out. released a gifts the justices have received in the last two decades, and wow, the reported gifts for justice clarence thomas i don't know if you at home can see these numbers here, he's by far and away the person who has received the most gifts, an estimated $2.4 million in reported gifts, and the report estimates he received up to $4 million in gifts. mark, is there no -- and i mean we just move on? is that the idea here? >> look, rather than reiterate how utterly broken our system is, that there's seemingly no accountability for a justice that takes millions of dollars in a gift and illegally refuses to disclose them, look at some

of the liberal justices and the moderate justice. they are not participating in the same racket. some of these justices like sudur, even kavanaugh, they only have a few hundred dollars worth of gifts they've received. they are trying to play by the rules while they watch their colleagues flout those same rules. and the point i want to make is it is possible to serve as an ethical justice. it is possible to say these are the guidelines that both congress and the judiciary itself has set, and i'm going to work within them. clarence thomas has decided he is above those rules and quite literally above the law, and that really does set him apart i think even from someone like sam alito who comes just in second having accepted many gifts from billionaires. but it's still not on the scale of thomas. what this shows is thomas is in a league of his own when it comes to this kind of corruption. >> i would say clarence thomas and samuel alito are in mutual

leagues of their own, different ways, different justices, same court. thank you for your time. and incandescent rage about what is a broken, broken court. i thank you, my friend, for joining me tonight. we'll be right back with my colleague joy reid coming up next. right back with my colleague joy reid coming up next

her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name!

it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. during jim crow could your family have existed? you are an in interracial marriage. your wife is a conservative activist. could your family have existed at all during jim crow? >> no, it could not, joy. and we all know that, but that's why i am blessed to live in america today as opposed to america during that time. but we cannot ignore the realities of not having fathers in homes. that is important for black people today and all people today as we move forward for a better america. >> joining me now by phone is my friend joy reid, host, of course, of "the reid out" who just interviewed republican

congressman byron donalds, the man who suggested jim crow was somehow a time of nostalgia. speaking nostalgically about a segregationist era. >> thank you for having me. we invited him on because he's so odd to say the least. a source of mine knowledge about the event knows the people who were in that room who were black were already supportive of donald trump, so it wasn't one that really attracted a new

audience. what really got me about what byron donalds was saying in philadelphia, by the way, not somewhere in the south where jim crow was relevant, talking presumably to other black people he said not once, not twice but three times during jim crow the black family was together and he repeated that. and then he said that black people during jim crow were conservative and voted to service. anyone who knows history outside the state of florida knows during jim crow the black family had no rights. the man in that family fizz any in the home did not have the right or ability to protect his wife or his children from lynching and did not have the ability to earn a living that could support that family.

typically the mom in that family never saw her kids all week because she was working in a white woman's home while the father was working in the field. at the time of jim crow, and so that many only worked during the seasonal picking time, so these families were broken and they were facing violence. the idea that was somehow better because they were all living in the same house is insane. >> well, joy, listen, we need to continue the conversation quite obviously, my friend. there's a lot to unpack in that interview, joy reid, host of the reid outright here on msnbc. thank you so much for joining me tonight. that's our show. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. ukraine has been invaded by a tyrant bent on domination. ukrainians are fighting with extraordinary courage, suffering great losses but never backing