reduction act. he had the infrastructure with josh shapiro down in pennsylvania. a lot of them are very committed, and they stuck to, it we passed a bunch of stuff that we think is good for the american people in a very tangible and literally concrete way. that is the story they're going to tell. >> and by the way, that guy, and those guys and gals over there want to take away your access to abortion. they want to take away and make it harder to go to college, they want to make it so that the air is harder to breathe, and you don't have clean drinking water. those are the things that they want. they want to make it harder for you to vote, and exercise your voice. they are trying to take away your rights. people don't like things being taken away. we saw this, remember with the affordable care act, the whole journey with approval rating on that. i want to be able to make sure i am covered when i have a pre-existing condition. it changed the trajectory there, and they're betting on that as well. >> jen psaki, host of inside jen, thank you. >> great to be here. >> that is "all in it's on this wednesday night. >> we're just a few feet apart and i'm sitting here minding my own business getting ready for my show, and all of a sudden you're swearing on television.

i mean -- just to be clear i am quoting. i'm a journalist, people say it, i quote it. i let you decide whether it's appropriate or not. the use is important here. i'm mentioning, not using. >> i remember when we were talking about donald trump having sworn and at some point you just had to just say the words he said on tv and there were a lot of firsts over the last few years. >> i have not arrived at a consistent policy on this because it's ludicrous either way. it's ludicrous when you actually say it because it's like silly, but it's also ludicrous when you're like, called you a little "b" word. >> every part of this is unreal. thank you, chris, and thanks to you for joining us this hour at

home. ten hours is about how much breathable airtime the u.s. coast guard estimates is left for the five men aboard the missing submersible which is named the titan. it began its descent to the wreckage of the titanic saturday. it conducts a search and rescue operation to find them in an area twice the size of connecticut and 2 1/2 miles below sea level. multiple countries and agencies are involved would the effort including a canadian coast guard, a bahamian research vessel, a french research vessel, the u.s. navy, and the air national guard. remote operating vessels are also being deployed in the search, and more ships are expected to arrive in the next 24 hours, and that's where things stand right now. now, as you can see the movement on this tracking map as many as 11 ships were spotted today heading toward the location of the titanic wreckage, so in a

remote part of the north atlantic ocean after a canadian surveillance plane detected noises underwater for a second straight day. the noises sparked optimism the submersible's passengers could be found alive. one search and rescue expert said if those noises are coming from the till tan, quote, it sends a message you're probably using military techniques to find me and this is how i'm saying it. the coast guard says it's unclear whether the sounds are from the missing craft. >> rov operations were relocated in an attempt to explore the origin of the noises. although the rov searches have yielded negative results, they continue. >> it was supposed to be a two-hour descent on sunday has turned into a four-day ordeal for the men trapped inside a

very cramped titan vessel. it was 24 hours into the dive when it lost contact with the support ship. however, this isn't the first time something like this has happened for ocean gate, which is the company that owns the titan and hosts several different diving explorations. a former passenger tells abc news his submersible lost contact with its host ship on all four of his dives include on a trip to the titanic. for years there were multiple warnings that things could go wrong. "the new york times" reports as far back as 2018 ocean gate's director of marine operations wrote a report saying the titan needed more testing to meet industry standards. he warned of potential dangers to the passengers of the titan as the submersible reached extreme depths, end quote. more than two dozen industry leaders and oceanographers issued a similar report. they told the ceo stockton rush in a letter that the company's,

quote, experimental approach and decision to operate without third party testing could lead to a catastrophic outcome in its mission. that, quote, experimental approach, end quote, that the experts warned about was clearly in the waiver. the waiver described the titan as, quote, an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approve or certified by any regulatory body which could result in physical injury, emotional trauma, or death, end quote. even stockton rush, the ceo of the company, who is currently onboard the titan as its pilot expressed some concerns about the possibility of diving to the titanic wreckage and not making it back to the surface in an interview last year. but he later said, quote, at some point you're going to take some risks and it really is a

risk reward situation. i think i could do this just as sifly as breaking the rules, end quote. for those comfortable with taking on that risk it may be worth a descent into the depths of the ocean to experience few people have ever had a chance to see up close, few people may have had the chance. and one of those people was aaron newman, a passenger aboard the titan in 2021. he shot these photos and videos on a visit to see what remains of the titanic nearly 13,000 feet below sea level. joining us now is aaron newman, the man who took the video in 2021 while aboard the missing ocean gate submersible, the titan. mr. newman, thank you for taking the time to talk with us this evening. i've got to ask you how you're feeling right now. it's got to be tough knowing you were on that and there were people on the titan right now. what have you been going through? >> certainly three of those people on there are people that

i knew and were friends with. so it's certainly a challenging time to think about what they could be going through or have gone through. but, you know, at the end of the day while there's a lot that you said that is maybe perhaps taken out of context, when i went through it, it was a very, very safe -- safety was priority number one. there was a lot of effort gone into engineering and training to make sure it's as safe as possible. these type of adventures are pushing the limits of where humanity goes, so there is risk involved. but i don't know whether i believe the context that you put all that safety questions in place. >> talk to me about that, because i think i used the terms, risk, preparation, risk-reward. what's the issue you got with it? >> well, understand first, for instance, putting out there

about the lawsuit, that was actually pertaining to an entirely -- that was a prototype of this ship, not the current ship. so it's probably not genuine to say that has anything to do with the current titan submersible. >> do you take the view that this is a risk-reward question as the ceo who's piloting that ship says you know it's possibly more risky than walking down the street or getting on an airplane, but that's a decision that people make? >> and these are people -- for instance, the people on this craft, people like hamish are people that are -- they live on the edge, right? hamish has been to space, been to the bottom of the ocean. for him this is probably not even one of his more daring adventures. these are actually some really good people who all would have been in any scenario very calm. these are the type of people you

want and would be able to handle any kind of scenario you threw at them. so that's perhaps why we're optimistic and happy to keep hearing something banging down there, whether it is something else or them, this is something really experienced type of people like p.h., stockton, hamish, they would keep the search going and get as much evidence and clues as possible. >> risk and mitigation of risk are just important things for explorers. what's the mitigation of risk that takes place in a case like this, if this submersible has lost contact with its surface boat, but there is a letter that indicates that's happened in the past. what's the risk mitigation that would normally occur? what would the company be saying, hey, if we lose contact with this thing, what's supposed to happen? >> yeah, i mean typically if you

lost contact you'd come back up. but sometimes you lose contact for a couple of hours or a half an hour because for instance you're going through a thermo climb, right? this is technology very -- it's not perfect technology, so you might go through an area, you know, the same way when i go down to the trench, there were times through the trip you would lose communication. worldwide gps doesn't work down there the same way, so communication can go in and out. now, if it goes out for extended periods of time, there are protocols you need to follow and such. >> got it. so you're saying the loss of communication even though it's reported -- and just to be clear i wasn't talking about a lawsuit, i'm talking about the criticism that's come from industry experts who said it's not ready for prime time. this is a conversation we've had about rocket ships all the time,

there were people who go on these things like you who are prepared to say may not be ready for everyone just yet, but ready for some people who deemed themselves explorers or early adopters. >> right. >> let's talk a little about the space and what's going on. did you when you were down there, did those things go through your miemd, or did you sign the waiver thinking there's risk to everything? did that happen when you signed the waiver? >> for instance, let me give you an example. probably the most important system from a safety perspective on this craft is the weight system. and the idea is when you go down you're negatively going, you're dropping when you get to the bottom, you adjust yourself. and when you're ready to go back up, you drop these led weights at the bottom of the craft, and you gain positive buoyancy and come back to the surface. that system right there is the key to safety. right, so it's designed with

three mechanisms to make sure you have fail saves. so you rock the boat, you rock the craft to knock them off or you have a hydraulic lever independent of the necklace system and finally you have a -- that dissolves so it's design today come back up to the top as long as something catastrophic doesn't happen. so -- but we don't know what's going on. that's the problem. this is all a lot of speculation and second guessing and armchair quarterbacking, when really the focus right now is how do we get these -- how do we locate whoever we can right now? and if there's any possible chance to make it happen. >> what sort of resources are there on board? let's assume the best, that they're down there and they're going to be found some time soon, what have they got? >> in the submarine itself or on

the ship? >> in the submarine itself. >> they don't -- oxygen important stuff. obviously after four days water becomes problematic. food is probably not going to be particularly problematic. i could go a couple of days without food standing on my head. but they take down lunch, they take down water with them, so obviously this is a crew that's going to be very intelligent and know they're going to conserve their resources and make them last. they knew well they had four days of oxygen although you don't really know what that really means. these are estimates and just guidelines. and you're going to have co2 buildup along the way and who knows how that's going to affect different people at different points. and for them they're going to be cold down there, too. the temperature outside at the bottom would be 28 degrees

fahrenheit. and they have layers, but they're definitely going to be in the dark and layered up and huddled together to try and maintain warmth. this is a crew that would be smart enough to know ow to the do that kind of thing. when you look at p.h., he's been in some rings for 60 years, so nobody has the level of experience this guy does. so if there's any way they can manage, this is a team that can do it. >> let's keep our hopes alive. thanks for being with us, aaron, i appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. i want to talk to brian, a senior fellow for defense concepts and technology and also an expert in naval operation. mr. clark, thank you for being with us. i appreciate your time. you tell us a bit about what this type of search looks like, whether they can determine sort of where the last known location was of this submersible? is that likely where we start the search? >> absolutely, ali.

you'd start with the last mace they knew where the submarine was. and it looks like because they maintained communications with the ship, that's how they tracked the submersible and guide it as well as the wreckage. in this case they'd be using passive sonar to try to identify sounds coming from the submersible. as we know there's been some sounds that might be coming from it. then you would use multiple sensors you put in the water on sonar buoys to geolocate it, and then you identify the specific location where you think the sounds is coming from, and then you'd focus your search on that area, which is evidently what they've done. and you begin the search the area with active sonar, which is what the vehicles are doing now. >> the sounds -- there was a moment today we thought they identified sounds. they seem today be at regular intervals that suggested they wouldn't be random or even

animals, and then the navy and coast guard pulled that a back a bit to say we don't really know these are sounds coming from humans. what do you make of that? the idea an airplane can determine sounds from 2 1/2 miles under the sea and try to determine what those sounds are. >> when you listen to sonar information coming in, it can sometimes because digitized it can sometimes be difficult to interpret exactly what the source of the sound is, but you usually can determine if it's mechanical or organic, so you can tell it's a shrimp or fish, or you can tell if it's some metal noise. and it's hard to determine whether this is man made or wreckage under the water. but it definitely suggests

something mechanical or something man made. >> what happens when they locate this thing, because in theory it's deeper than we can send divers, so what do you do? how do you help people? >> once you've located it, you'd use the rovs we've got out there with active sonar. those rovs would tell the operator on the surface exactly where they are, and we'd be able to begin a salvage or rescue operation using a crane-type apparatus. the navy has one of these. they've flown it to canada and it's getting ready to move out to the potential crash site. so they use that crane to pull the vehicle up out of the water the same way we pull f-18 fighter that falls into the ocean and then drops to the bottom. so you can definitely pull it out with this crane, but you've got to locate it pretty

precisely first. >> one of the things we talk about is the amount of oxygen that's in that vessel. how are those estimates made because there's a range obviously how long they can survive under water. >> yeah, so you have standard factors and how much carbon dioxide they generate. you do those numbers and five people in the craft and they do have some supplemental oxygen. now, if they're careful, they could be trying to take some action to maximize their use of oxygen or minimize their use of oxygen and even manage the carbon dioxide being produced, so they could be getting

creative and try to maximize the time they can operate in that four-day window. >> thanks for your time and expertise. we should note while this race against the clock to save five people trapped below the water has been dominating news coverage for the last couple of days, there's another story of another vessel lost at sea last week. hundreds of migrants were on a fishing boat which sank last wednesday while en route from libya to italy. about 100 people were rescued, more than 300 people dried. there's clear coverage difference on that fishing boat and the missing sub. there's lots of people at some, at any moment some of them whatever their station in life or when they setout could meet the world's urgent attention. we should be doing all we can to save those who are on the titan, but it is also during moments like this we ask ourselves how

we as a society martial and supply our resources to all who might need them when the time comes. a lot more to get to tonight including a report that raises new ethics questions about a supreme court justice's ties to a billionaire, and this time it's not about justice clarence thomas. plus, why democrats in the house erupted in chants of shame earlier tonight. here's a hint, it's about what republicans did to the congressman adam schiff who will join us live next. n adam schiffl join us live next. he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night... every night. okay... i'll work on that. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is now only $899. plus, 48-month financing on all smart beds. shop now only at sleep number

ah, these bills are crazy. she

has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or

was there anyone you wanted to indict that you were prohibited from indicting by

attorney general garland? >> no. >> so if you wanted to, you could have indicted hillary clinton, but you never asked, is that right? >> if i had the evidence, yeah, could have for sure. >> you only brought two cases to trial, correct? >> correct. >> and you lost all the cases you brought to trial, correct? >> correct. >> trump's former campaign chairman paul manafort was convicted, right? trump's former advisor to the campaign george papadopoulos was convict, correct? >> correct. >> trump's national security advisor michael flynn was convict, correct? >> that's correct. >> roger stone was convicted, correct? >> correct. >> that was the special counsel john durham testifying on capitol hill today. he was a man they hoped would expose some nefarious plot in the justice department. republicans had hoped durham

would prove it was in their words a big hoax. john durham did not do any of those things after a four-yearlong investigation and two failed prosecutions, john durham's final report now a little more than a few process criticisms about the fbi's investigation and one guilty plea with no jail time. today's hearing was supposed to be a victory lap for republicans but instead ended up being an opportunity for democrats to highlight the very findings of the investigation john durham was supposed to describe it. here's adam schiff. >> they released stolen e-mails through cut outs, did they not? did they release information, information through cut outs. the answer is yes they did.

more important than mine, mueller's answer was yes. that information was helpful to the trump campaign, wasn't it? >> i don't think there's any question that the russians intruded into -- >> i just want to -- >> hacked into the systems, they released information. >> and that was helpful to the trump campaign, right? >> and the conclusion of the ica and the mueller investigation was that the russians intended to -- >> will you answer my question? that was helpful to the trump campaign, right? and trump made use of that as i said by touting those stolen documents over the campaign trail over a hundred times in. >> as i said i don't really read the newspapers or listen to the news. >> you're totally oblivious to donald trump's use of the stolen e-mails in the campaign trail more than a hundred times? >> i'm not aware of that. >> there's moments like that that have made congressman adam schiff a target of retribution

by republicans in the house of representatives. earlier this year republicans voted along party lines to strip congressman schiff for his position on the intelligence committee, but apparently that wasn't enough because today house republicans once again used their control of that chamber to hold another vote on rebuking adam schiff. earlier this evening house republicans voted along party lines to censure congressman schiff, which is a move typically reserved for members who have committed some serious ethical violation. democrats chanted shame as speaker mccarthy officially gaveled in the vote. there's congressman schiff on the house floor moments before that vote took place. >> today i wear this partisan vote as a badge of honor, knowing that i have lived my oath, knowing that i have done my duty to hold a dangerous and out of control president

accountable. >> joining us now is congressman adam schiff. he's a democrat of california. congressman, good to see you. thank you for being with us tonight on your first night as a censured representative and a member of congress. what do you think this vote censuring you got them? >> well, it got them to continued gratitude for at least another day of donald trump. this is what this was about, showing their subservience to him, doing his bidding, and more than that for some of them and 1 out of 10 republicans last week voted against a resolution of censure. this week they voted for it because donald trump said if they didn't, he would make sure they have primary challenges. so this is the continuing devotion to this most unethical of former presidents. this is what this is about. it's also, you know, frankly a badge of honor because they're going after him maybe because they think you're effective. at the end of the day if they

don't think you're effective they leave you alone. but they want to make examples of people who stand up to their corrupt leader. they think they've maybe done too good a job of that so they're going after me again. >> was there something specific? because there's a lot of your colleagues who have done similar things. >> in terms of why was it particular to me, i led the investigation of donald trump's misconduct visa vi russia, and led the first impeachment trial to the first bipartisan vote to convict a u.s. president in history, and then i served on the january 6th committee, and that put me at the top of trump's enemy list. and so this is them doing their bidding, going after someone they think has been effective, but it's also their effort to try to silence and intimidate others. it's not going to work on me,

but it may chill others from being willing to be out front in defending our democracy, and in that respect it's really dangerous to the institution. >> i want to play a little of what former house speaker nancy pelosi said about this. >> today we're on the floor of the house where the other side has turned this chamber, where slavery was abolished, where medicare and social security and everything else was instituted, they turned it into a puppet show, a puppet show. and you know what, the puppeteer, donald trump, is shining a light on the strings. you look miserable. >> what's your sense, congressman, about what happens next? because there have been republicans who have been censured in the last congress. is this their way of limiting the playing field and diminishing their effect of those censures?

>> well, i think it's their way of saying if you use a process for a good and legitimate reason, we will use it for an illegitimate reason. that's who they are. mccarthy has no control over the house. he looked like he was being censured today more than i did. and he's turned over the house of representatives to the crazies. the speakers today on their side of the aisle were margery taylor greene and basically the extreme of the extreme maga frisk. that's who's running the house. a censure resolution has been introduced against benny thompson. they are determined to just drag that house chamber down, and it's a terrible disservice as the speaker was pointing out to the major people because we have serious challenges to address including homelessness and opioid epidemic and students

mired in debt, and of course they do nothing about these things. what they are doing is using two weeks of the house time to go after donald trump's enemies. >> all right, so good to see you again tonight. thanks for joining us congressman adam schiff. when we come back, what is fishy about this photo? according to some explosive new investigative reporting, an awful lot. we'll explain next. reporting, a awful lot. we'll explain next i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month.

i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system

eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot

figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music)

you just know a story is going to be good when a supreme court justice refuses to comment and instead races to get ahead of the story with their own defense before the news breaks, before the public has even seen the allegations. that's definitely the case here where supreme court justice amual aleto raced to publish this op-ed entitled prepublica misleads its readers, the story that got justice alito claiming defense is this one. showing that justice alito was treated to a major taste of the sweet life by a conservative billionaire who later had business before the court at least ten times. justice alito didn't recuse himself from any of those cases. okay, see the guy in red, in the middle of the picture holding the gigantic fish, that is

justice samuel alito. the guy on the right in green, that's the conservative billionaire paul singer. in 2008 mr. singer flew justice alito to alaska on a private jet for a multi-day luxury fishing trip. now, if justice alito had chartered the plane himself the cost would have exceeded $100,000 one way. alito never disclosed that flight and he never recused himself in the singer report. rather than simply replying to propublica's request for comment his defense was two fold. number one, he said that the seat he occupied on the private jet would have gone unoccupied if he didn't take it. now, alito's excuse here is hilarious for a lot of reasons. number one, being you could kind of use that excuse for anything, right? i mean this luxury hotel room would have been vacant.

i was just using the -- but i want to look at justice alito's second argument and billionaire paul singer's response because the second defense sounds reasonable. at second blus if there's such a thing it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. singer says he didn't organize the trip and he didn't discuss his business interests while on the trip, which is possible. but singer also argued at the time of the trip neither singer or his companies had business before the court or would have anticipated they had business before the court in the future. propublica clearly debunks that last bit. it turns out the year before the fishing trip in 2007 there was a very specific case in which one of mr. singer's companies had asked the supreme court to intervene. and after the trip, that company and the opposing party kept

asking again and again. okay, so now this gets us to alito's second argument. when that case i'm just talking about eventually did make it to the supreme court in 20 # 14, alito claims he was, quote, not aware and had no good reason to be aware mr. singer had no good interest, end quote in the case. this is hard to believe. take a look at this. this is the prized ship of the argentinean navy. in 2012 it made international headlines because it was impounded, effectively held hostage by the government of ghana on behalf of a hedge fund, paul singer's hedge fund. it was an international incident. at one point guns were drawn. the whole thing had to be resolved by the u.n.'s international tribunal for the law of the sea. and paul singer -- >> that is the showdown between paul singer and, well,

argentina. >> argentina described paul singer as a vulture capitalist. argentina defaulted on its debt in 2001 and singer's hedge fund reportedly bought up argentinean bonds for pennies on the dollar like a fire sale. in fact, singer's fund purchased a majority of their argentine bonds june through november 2008 for about 20 cents on the dollar. a year after the supreme court denied their first appeal request and while singer was fishing with alito, that trip was july 2008. and they acted basically like a junk debt buyer would in a small claims court but on an international scale demanding full payment. and singer was public about this, pulling stunts like the one with the navy ship and at one point even tried to seize the arg tinnian plane. that was an incredibly public decade long fight that brought singer's hedge fund before the

supreme court. the court ruled in singer's favor 7-1, with alito in tow. and singer's firm ended up walking away with a reported $2.4 billion. $2.4 wrilian, a return on what was reportedly a $117 million investment. we're not done, by the way. the month after the supreme court ruling because of this hedge fund owned -- the hedge fund owned debt situation, the entire country of argentina defaulted on its debt a second time, and news outlets across the country frame the whole thing as argentina versus paul singer. so, sure, maybe it's possible that justice alito didn't know paul singer was involved, but alito really must not have done his research. ultimately that case was not decided by alito alone. the ruling as i said was 7-1. and it's impossible to know if anything singer did or said swayed alito at all. but between the $100,000 flight,

the lack of disclosure, the lack of recusal, the lame excuses, and the attempt to smear propublica in "the wall street journal," something here stinks and it ain't the fish. we're going to talk to one of the propublica reporters who broke this incredible story right after the break. broke this incredible story right after the break.

throughout his life, sam alito has shown himself to be a person of grace and humility, of composure and decency and of

fairness and civility. samuel alito is a model supreme court justice. please join me in welcoming him this evening. >> nice friendly introduction. the man introducing supreme court justice samuel alito at this 2010 event his name is paul singer, a hedge fund billionaire, a republican mega-donor and a figure behind an investigation pub published by propublica offering details of a luxury fishing trip he made to alaska in 2008 aboard mr. singer's ship, a trip mr. alito didn't disclose. around the time singer flew justice alito to alaska, he was trying to convince the supreme court, singer is, of a $2 billion dispute he had with the country of argentina. alito said he didn't do anything wrong by not disclosing the trip because he considered it to be personal hospitality, and because he says he barely new mr. singer.

quote, my recollection is i've spoken to mr. singer on no more than a handful of occasions. all of this during a fishing trip 15 years ago consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups, end quote. let's continue. on no occasion have we discussed the activities of his business and have never talked about a case at issue before the court, end quote. joining us now is josh kaplan. thank you for being with us. i want to get down to the bottom of this because alito is claiming he's got very peripheral tangental relationship with singer, but there was stuff happening with singer in 2006 and the argentinean government and this was still going on when this fishing trip went on. how did alito get on this fishing trip? >> yeah, it's a really interesting question because one

thing we learned they hadn't met before this billionaire and justice alito. so singer, the billionaire, was invited on this trip by leonard leo. he's the long time leader of the federalist society who helped hand pick trump's list of supreme court nominees. and singer was a major donor to leo. he invited him on this trip, and then he asked if leo and alito and fly on his private jet. and so, you know, there's a lot we still don't know about the genesis of this trip, but all roads so far point to alito. he's the only connection between these various prominent guests on the trip. it was a trip with the just that leo had just played a key role in confirming to the supreme court, a judge that leo had clerked for, and then two major donors to leo's network of political groups. >> so leo has responded to your article. he said, quote, i would never

presume to tell justices what to do, and no objective and well-informed observer of the judiciary honestly could believe that they decide cases in order to cull favor with friends or in return for a free plane seat or a fishing trip. leonard leo's incredulous that someone might take something in response for something else. you work for an organization and i work for an organization that has rules what you can take from people. the rule doesn't say i can't take a gift because i might fall under their influence. the rule says you can't take a gift so the public can understand i don't take gifts from people and you don't take gifts from people. it's a these guys don't seem to understand rules. >> yeah, exactly. there's no evidence this was a quid pro quo, that there was a specific ruling in exchange for a specific gift, but i think what this underscores here is that, you know, the rules you're talking about you and have as journalists are also rules that are very strictly in place in

just about every other part of the federal government -- >> correct. >> in terms of what gifts you can take from outside parties, what you have to disclose, and all manner of other things. the trips we're talking about here would be unheard of for virtually every other employee in the federal government. >> interesting way this happened. you guys write this article. you ask for response from alito. he then published an op-ed in "the wall street journal," which is odd. but then this evening "the wall street journal" published an editorial as well in which it says propublica's focus on recusal is the latest angle in the progressive campaign to cripple the court's new majority by imposing even tenuous associations as grounds for recusal litigants can exclude certain justices from hearing a case. with a court of only nine justices this could determine the outcome. call it court thinning rather than court packing, but the effect would be similar. so they are ascribing motive to

the fact you wrote this article. it's something that suggests you're trying to somehow hobble the supreme court. you're writing an article which is what you at propublica do. you research things, you uncover things, you report things, and you write the article. >> yes, so i mean to be clear we are covering the supreme court because last year my colleague justin and i were thinking about how it seems like the judiciary just doesn't get covered like other branches of government. there's bigger coverage of congress people of both parties, presidents, cabinet officials. and there's relative -- like there's not a history of investigative coverage of the supreme court or the lower courts, for mat matter. and, you know, it turns out as we started digging that there's a lot to find there i think because the rules that exist in these other branches just aren't

aren't in place -- >> which, by the way most of us didn't know but have you learned. you are bearing witness and "the wall street journal" reports you've got some effort to undermine the court. do you have some effort to undermine the court? >> there's absolutely no effort to undermine the court. i feel like there's a valence this is a partisan motivation as well, which i can say that we are actively reporting on all the justices, and we are eager to learn as much as we can about ethics on the supreme court with no regards to partisanship. >> thanks to your reporting. >> thank you. >> josh kaplan, thanks for making the time tonight. all right, i'm going to be right back. the time tonight. all right, i'm going to be right back

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance.

you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪

all right, that does it for us tonight. we're going to see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. on this vote the yeas are 213 and the nays are 209 with six answering present, the resolution adopted, without objection the motion to consider is relayed on the table. house will be in order. >> shame, shame,