the worse it tends to be. it's worrying to have all that energy sitting as a repository as a battery for storms in the ocean. >> we've already seen a couple of tropical and depressions formed in the atlantic, which is very early for this season. >> very. >> we will see, as you, say you can't really predict a season with much precision, but it's not a good sign. you don't want to be heading into a hurricane season with such warm waters as we are seeing now. >> david wallace-wells, thank you so much for that. that is all in on this thursday night. thursda night.

by early january most of the fake elector votes had arrived

in washington except those from michigan and wisconsin. undeterred the trump team arranged to fly them to washington and hand deliver them to congress for the vice president himself. quote, freaking trump idiots want someone to fly original elector papers to the senate president, wisconsin republican party official mark jefferson wrote to the party chairman andrew hitt on january 4th. hitt responded, okay, i see a have a call and a text from someone else. the next day trump campaign director for election day operations g. michael brown sent a text message to other campaign staffs suggesting that he was the person who delivered the fake votes to congress. after sending the group a photo of his face with the capitol in the background, brown said, quote, this has got to be the cover of a book i write one day

and i should probably buy mike roman a tie or something for sending me on this one. hasn't been done since 1876 and only three states that did it, end quote. all right, as to the photograph that i just described that brown sent to trump's campaign staff, this is it. it was sent with a caption that reads, quote, mission accomplished, about to uber home. mr. brown was spotted leaving the courthouse today, a member of the media asked him if he was there to talk to the grand jury. he ignored the question and instead said he was starving and looking for a sandwich. but about an hour and a half earlier nbc reporters had seen him heading to the third floor of the federal court building which is where the grand jury meet accompanied by stanley woodward. now, woodward is an attorney who's representing several trump aides including walter nauta, trump's alleged coconspirator in the mar-a-lago documents case. so make of this what you will, but for many legal experts

seeing mr. brown leaving the courthouse today is just another sign special counsel jack smith is continuing to look into the events surrounding jan 6th with an increasing focus on the fake electors scheme. whether that investigation leads to criminal charges time will tell. time, however, is already giving us something, a lot of things actually about special counsel jack smith's other investigation, the mar-a-lago investigation, which has led to a 37-count indictment of the former president. take a look at this. these are some of the donald trump's truth social comments from this morning, all sent over the course of an hour, many of them in capital letters. this one is particularly telling in all caps, quote, congress please investigate the political witch hunts against me.

it's also a sign things might not be going how trump expects or hopes. right now we expect when trump blows smoke on truth social might mean there's a fire in the justice department. last night special counsel jack smith turned over the first batch of evidence in the classified documents case to trump's legal team. that batch of evidence that was made available in three parts include documents obtained via subpoena, transcripts of grand jury testimony taken before grand juries in washington and florida, memorialization of agents write ups of witness interviews conducted last month, statements from some witnesses associated with the case, and copies of closed circuit television obtained by investigators. this means that trump is now in a position to know the identity of certain witnesses that have spoken to jack smith's office including some that have promised leniency and/or

immunity. we, on the other hand, do not know the names of those witnesses, and if donald trump listens to his lawyers, he will not disclose them to the public. disclosing those names would put the former president in direct violation of a protective order filed last week by magistrate judge bruce rinehart. another important thing we learned from jack smith yesterday is the evidence shared by trump's legal team contains interviews, plural, that trump did with nongovernment entities including the one he had with a publisher and writer back in july 2021 at his golf club, this is the one where he reported showed a classified document detailing the intent to attack iran. we had no official confirmation that more than one recording existed. cnn is reporting that trump's legal time itself turned over those recordings to the special counsel but that they don't believe that, quote, these

additional recordings are as inkraminating in the indictment unsealed this month. joining us now is mary mccord. she's now the executive director of the institute for constitutional advocacy and a professor at the georgetown university law center. she's also the co-host of the msnbc podcast, prosecuting donald trump. ms. mccord, thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. >> of course. >> tell me what you make of this. the justice department seems to have provided a whole lot of information to the trump defense team, in fact more than they would otherwise be obliged to provide and more than the trump team had asked for. what does this signal to you? >> well, i think this is consistent with everything we've seen jack smith and his team do since they brought this case in the southern district of florida. they knew they were going to be on a tight clock if there was any chance of getting this case to trial before election and

really before it even heats up to get to its most significant parts next summer, and that means they had to be ready to provide mr. trump and his lawyers all of the discovery to which he is entitled, and i think they also leaned forward and said we're going to give even more after the we're required to give. they clearly had this all packaged up and ready to go probably before he was indicted. they were ready to get the protective order in place, the one you referenced that prohibits mr. trump or his attorneys from making public any of this discovery material. and they had it ready to go and they'll be able to say we were prompt in providing fulsome discovery. we even provided ways within that like the surveillance

videotapes. they've marked the places that are most pertinent. they're literally directing mr. trump to the things they want to make sure he sees so it's not a needle in a haystack and providing all the grand jury testimony of witnesses they expect to call at trial. so like you said, he will now know those witnesses, and he will know a lot of other things, too, about the evidence the government intends to use against him. only things now he hadn't yet been provided are the classified information, and that discovery will come under the auspices of the classified information procedures act after counsel are cleared. >> so you were the former assistant attorney general for national security. a lot of people talk about this as a documents case. it's not really a documents case. it's a national security issue, and now that trump's legal team has access to information who was interviewed, does that worry you? because a protective order for most people if i had one i would

abide by it. donald trump is donald trump. he could break the rules and get in trouble with the court for doing that, but if he breaks these particular rules as it relates to witnesses or the information involved here, the consequences are more serious. >> that's right. those consequences including being held in contempt of court, being ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. contempt of court can lead to civil penalty or lead to imprisonment. so it's a big stick to hold over mr. trump's head. the problem is with mr. trump is we've seen over the years he has almost an inability to control what he says, and so frankly if i were his attorneys i would be reading him the riot act before i provided him with any of this discovery and particularly before i provided him with witness names. i would even be thinking about ways to, you know, maybe talk to him about the contents without providing those names. but of course you can't really represent your client if you

don't share with your client who the witnesses are against him. so i don't expect him to do that, but i think he'll be worried about it. >> i guess the problem is anything they do out of the ordinary and the way you treat anybody else will be held against them. >> that's right. and they have a duty, an ethical duty as members of the bar to represent their client zealously, and that means you can't hide information from your client, but they have a tough task to keep their client under control. obviously he's already out and has been out speaking making admissions publicly, which i expect can be used against him in court. so he's a very uncontrollable client. >> let me ask you about the documents they've not handed over right now. you mentioned cifa. obviously at the center of this case are classified and top secret documents would be

awkward to have all these people know but the case has to be tried. >> it would be more than awkward. it would be a national security threat. for the government to prove up the 31 counts of illegal detention of national defense information means the government has to prove to the jury that the information in those documents is in fact national defense information. that means they have to prove it's information related to the national defense and that has been closely held by the government so it has not been disclosed to people who are not entitled to receive it. and in many courts they also require the government to show it would harm the united states -- at least it would have harmed the united states if it were released to people to receive it if it was retained and not returned. so that means the government has to make a decision, and i'm sure it's already made of some of those decisions with respect to those 31 documents. the intelligence agencies who own the information, who were responsible for collecting it using their authorities, those are the intelligence agencies

who would have to give permission to the justice department to -- for whatever proof the department wants to use to prove national defense information. just saying it's marked classified is not enough to satisfy the burdench so that means what's going to happen now is once the attorneys for mr. trump receive their security clearances, and those are already in train, judge cannon order them to do that process immediately and they did so. once they're appropriately cleared, the procedures for providing them discovery of that classified information will begin to take place. they will not be able to see that information in their offices or take it home with them. they'll have to view that in a sensitive compartment or facility, information facility or a skiff. and that for them is probably going to mean going to the courthouse and slewing those documents. they won't be able to give them to mr. trump to take home.

so that will slow down the review process but they'll also be entitled themselves to ask the court to make the government turn over what they suspect might be additional classified information that they might want to rely on as part of their defense. and that's where cifa comes into play. there are procedures for the defense to ask for more and say these are the things it wants to introduce in trial so that the government has the ability to say yes or no we can't introduce that. and there are also procedures for the government to work with the court and defense counsel how it is going to present its own affirmative evidence. and if at some point in time the judge decides that what the government plans to do is not going to protect mr. trump's constitutional due process rights because maybe they want to substitute something, they don't want to have something

admitted, they don't want the jury or public to see it, sometimes the government is put to the decision you either provide this to defense and allow it to be put into evidence or you're going to have to dismiss that charge. >> wow. >> yeah. and there's 31 documents here so there's some play. if they need to jettison some accounts they'll need to do that. but this whole process is going to take some time, and that's why i don't think the trial date of august 14th has any holding. >> mary, i'm glad you were here to help us through this. mary mccord, we appreciate your time tonight. >> my pleasure. we've got lots to get to tonight including republican members of congress drawing attention for all the wrong reasons. but first to extend the circus metaphor, president biden is walking something of a tightrope of his own tonight. we'll explain next. a tightrope of his own tonight we'll explain next

the event was called howdy modi. 50,000 people gathered in houston, texas, to see an event where former president trump was just the warmup act. the headliner was prime minister nurend rumodi. seeing the prime minister of the world's largest democracy getting this kind of welcome, being able to bring out 50,000 people in texas, to the casual observer this kind of pageantry paints a picture of a beloved democratic figure. but that's just part of the picture. the methodology has been carefully and brutally laundered and often with the help of the west. earlier this year police forcefully detained about a dozen students at a university in new delhi. the students said they had their internet and power cut off and were prevented from holding

class any of kind. their crime trying to hold a screening of a bbc documentary about prime minister modi. a few weeks later the bbc's own indian offices in new delhi were raided. journalist's phones were taken by police, likely intimidating their sources. what was in this documentary that made india's government use emergency powers to ban it and get platforms like youtube and twitter to take it down for indian audiences? the documentary detailed modi's role before he became prime minister, his role as the chief minister of the indian state of -- where in 2002 the state broke out into widespread violent anti-muslim riots that left more than a thousand people, mostly muslims, dead. at the time the u.n. human rights watch said the police under modi's government were, quote, at best passive observers and at worst they acted in

concert with murderous mobs and participated directly in the burning and looting of muslim shops and homes. the united states would not grant modi a visa to enter the country because of his role in that incident in 2002. that's the guy that president trump had his quote-unquote world leader bromance with while in office, the guy who enjoyed those cheering crowds in houston in 2019. the story modi does not want to see he's an actual card carrying member and he and the more main stream party have been cracking down on the rights of the muslim minority and on the dissent of journalism in general. modi doesn't want you to focus how raids on journalistic offices have become commonplace in india or how india leads the

world year after year in the number of selective government sanctioned internet shutdowns that cut off the flow of information in certain regions particularly in kashmir. modi doesn't want you to focus on how his government has passed laws that make it harder for muslims to become citizens to buy property or get loans or how his party ginned up a way to disqualify his top political rival from even running against him. there are more than 200 million muslims in india, nearly as many people as there are people who identify as white in the united states. modi and his party are actively denying that gigantic minority their rights while consolidating power for themselves. that's why u.s. leaders treat modi the way they do when he comes to the u.s. that's why it matters. but, and this is a huge but,

there's also a level of pragmatism here. the world needs him here. and india and modi know that. india surpassed china as the world's most populous country. while russia and china are fully authoritarian india is still ostensibly a democracy. a problematic democracy but still a democracy. right now as we speak modi's the guest of honor at a state dinner with president biden, this just a few hours after he was given the honor of addressing a joint session of congress and even posing for photo ops. while trump was fawning over modi as much as possible, biden will have to set a different tone and walk the tightrope keeping india on our side geopolitically while doing his best not to excuse his democratic and human rights

abuses. so how is he doing today? bobby, good evening and thank you for joining us tonight. i want to start with this. this is tightrope for joe biden. it's just not an easy one. he's got a fight going on with china at the moment, a big fight going on with russia. >> i'd push back a little bit to say just because you can't pick a fight with india doesn't mean you go overboard and fall over the indian prime minister who has such a questionable record and whose values are such contrast to biden's values and to values that we as americans think matter to us. it's one thing to do business with him, it's essential for the united states for the united states to do business in india for trade reasons, for geopolitical reasons, but that doesn't mean we have to bring the prime minister of india and give him as you describe it this

royal treatment. that's overkill. and what are we getting in return? well, there's a lot to be asked about that. we've seen with the war in ukraine that india does not line up with the -- with our democracies and the dem rockacies of the west when it suits its interests or how it defines its interests, it lines up with the bad guys. it lines up with putin against ukraine. that is india. and that is not a leader of a country who makes those kind of decisions shad not be given the vip treatment at the white house. >> earlier this week biden called xi jinping a dictator. the white house doesn't seem to like this. is it a carrot and stick thing

going on here? >> if there's a stick i'm not describing it. modi is not described as an autocrat. i'm not seeing the stick. the united states has -- or the biden administration seems to have taken the view that we have to cozy up to india no matter what. it has not defined what it expects from india in return . india and china have very difficult relations. the country has fought a war and they have serious disputes over territory. that doesn't mean india is going to line up over the united states though. >> america has over 4 million american indians of indian

descent. is american domestic politics at play -- does it have any part to play in the way modi is being receive here? >> there's a little of that certainly. modi has a lot of supporters among wealthy indians, and let's remind ourselves the indian community in the united states, one of the wealthiest diasporas, people who give money to both political parties, both republicans and democrats, i'm sure biden has an eye on that community as he sort of gives modi this treatment. modi is popular with a large section of india, and that's certainly a factor, but the indian diaspora is not a major factor in american elections, not yet anyway. and there's got to be you think a point where american values or the values that biden himself

claims to hold dear should matter more than who's going to give how much money to his party. >> bobby, thank you as always for your analysis. we appreciate it. still more to come tonight. kevin mccarthy doesn't seem to be able to keep his house in order. more infighting among republicans today raising the question who exactly controls the republican party's agenda. also who bailed embattled republican george santos out of jail last month? today we learned the answer, but we've still got a lot of questions. that's next. we've still got a lot of questions. that's next.

i know there's conflicting information about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started.

okay, we finally know who's backing congressman george santos' bid to stay out of jail, the embattled congressman and serial fabulist was indicted on 13 felony counts including money laundering and wiring fraud. santos posted a half a million dollar bail bond in order to be released from trial, and ever since then santos has been fighting in court to keep secret the names of the people who guaranteed all that money to keep him out of jail. his lawyers told the court, quote, there's little doubt the people who handled the bond will suffer some unnecessary form of retaliation if their employment and identities are revealed. today the court revealed the names of santos' benefactors.

turns out the people who paid to get george santos out of jail are his dad and his aunt, which is kind of odd. why would george santos go to all that trouble to keep secret the names of two people or for better or worse were already associated with george santos? that strange revelation comes as republican members of congress continue to try to figure out how to navigate george santos. today the republican led house ethics committee announced it has issued dozens of subpoenas into the investigation yet republican mccarthy has steadfastly resisted calls to push for george santos' resignation. and that's probably -- he allowed a vote to censure the democratic congressman adam schiff. today republicans all got together to vote on another symbolic rebuke of democrats.

earlier today lauren bobert introduced a measure to impeach president joe biden. the conservative congresswoman charged the president with high crimes and misdemeanors of not doing everything that republicans want at the southern border. this was actually a policy matter. republicans tried to avoid the embarrassment of attempting to impeach a president over policy differences by voting to send that proposal to committee for further review, but avoiding embarrassment really isn't house republican style these days, so cue the fighting and the name-calling. in the lead up to the impeachment shenanigans, congresswoman boebert got into a fight with her one-time ally congresswoman marjorie taylor greene. cspan cameras captured the heated debate who could take credit for the bad idea republicans were actively trying to make disappear. at one point congressman greene

referred to little and a word that begins with a "b." . there's a universe the nancy mases and others talk about and then there's this world where kevin mccarthy is herding calfs around things even republicans don't want to do. it's nonsensical symbolic stuff and repealing obamacare and stuff. it takes the eye off the ball of anything you actually want to achieve. >> so it is this world, the marjorie taylor greene, boebert

world that is not only the whirling divish inside the party, right, just sort of knocking everything over and disorienting the members, but it is also the gravitational force that is pulling the party further and further away from, hey, can you put up a bill to anything, do something about health care. because the distraction is so great, the red meat is so real for a lot of the base, they don't know how else to escape this vortex, and so they sink further and further into it. what we saw, what c-span captured was basically boebert a little peaked that all of a sudden marjorie taylor greene figured out to make herself the fan girl for the speaker. probably if these things are what i hear throwing her weight around on the house, which really concerning to a lot of

members. this is what this is. this is that tension, and what it requires is a referee, a ringmaster, someone who's going to control it, and that's not kevin. because kevin has a four, five seat majority. he can't afford to lose a vote. he can't afford to piss them off, and here we are. >> so here's a week no matter how you feel about this issue in which the president's adult son has been charged with federal crime. so if one were to be united about something, the republican could make the news cycle about that all week. and yet we just saw about c-span, they're fighting about impeaching joe biden over the southern border. >> and they're not even fighting about impeaching joe biden. they're fighting about who's going to get the credit for impeachment, so this is where it is. we all agree, we want to impeach joe biden, all right, fine, we'll put that off until next year. all right, they want credit now,

and so you're absolutely right from a political standpoint, you know, if i'm at the rnc, if i'm at the other committees, the nrcc and the senatorial committee, you know, i'm gearing up the political narrative around, you know, hunter biden's problems, right, but instead the scenes captured on the floor in which two members who ostensibly should be on the same side are trying to aggrandize themselves for power. >> this impeachment move was about policy matters at the southern border. right, you can hate everything that democrats or republicans think about anything, but this is not impeachment for what we think impeachment is. they want to impeach joe biden because they don't think he

managed the southern border properly. >> impeachment implies there was some type of malfeasance in office, some maybe criminal behavior, something that is so -- so much of a problem the constitution otherwise that that is the only recourse. as you rightly note, this is policy dispute, so put an immigration bill on the floor. you run the office, for god's sake. you've been yapping your lips for so long about immigration, and you can't even produce a bill? put a bill on the floor. that's what leaders and managers do when they're in this situation. take advantage of not just the perceived but real weakness this administration has when it comes to the border and lay something on the table that will cleave off some center-right democrats in the house and certainly in the senate, right, that you can push forward.

put the pressure politically as well as policy-wise on the administration. but, no, we want to talk about, you know, who gets to impeach him first, and we want -- you know, you copied my bill, oh, you know, sorry "b." >> weird stuff. >> this is where we are. so there is nothing to expect other than what you're seeing because legislatively and policy-wise, the administration knows the gop's got nothing. so they'll weather the noise on impeachment, weather the noise such as it is about hunter, and they'll keep hammering the ground putting down new streets and roads and sidewalks. >> thank you as always. former chair of the republican national committee, thank you as always. still to come, the u.s. supreme court is set to hand down a number of major decisions set to cause ripple effects

around the country. that's not the only reason for the heightened interest of the court these days. dahlia knows all the ins and outs of the court. she's joining me next. outs of t. she's joining me next. 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)

all eyes are on the supreme court this week as justices make decisions on a series of high profile issues before their current term ends next friday. today the divided court ruled 5-4 against the navajo nation's claim an 1864 treaty required

the federal government to take steps to ensure the tribe's access to water. and we're expecting major decisions on affirmative action, student loans, and cases that could have big implications for first amendment preces. but some of the heightened scrutiny the court is facing this week has less to do with decisions inside the courtroom and more to do with the actions of certain justices outside of it. propublica's reporting on justice samuel alito's luxury fishing trip to alaska on paul singer's jet in 2008 and justice alito's attempt to get ahead of that reporting that by rather than responding to propublica, penning an op-ed that appeared in "the wall street journal" to explain if he hadn't taken the seat on the billionaire's jet, it would have gone to waste. and that brings to attention to another trip to it5e8 last july. notre dame's religious liberty initiative paid for the justice's trip to rome to deliver a keynote address at a

gala. during the speech justice alito praised the group for its hospitality and talking about staying at a hotel that, quote, looks over the roman forum. it was his first public appearance after the overturning of roe and the justice took opportunities to mock foreign leaders who had criticized the decision. there's another person who played matchmaker between conservative justice and billionaires, and that person is leonard leo. he's the guy on the left, conservative activist, cochairman of the federalist society. according to propublica's reporting it was leo who helped organize the fishing trip in 2008, invited paul singer, and asked singer if he and justice alito could fly on his jet. here's leonard leo on that luxury fishing trip. he's the guy in the center of that photo holding the fish in his left hand on the right side. remember this painting depicting crow and justice clarence thomas, the guy on the left,

second to the left with the steepled fingers is leonard leo. mr. leo refused to answer questions about the fishing trip but issued a statement lam baiting the reporting on the ethical lapses and says in part, quote, we all should wonder whether this recent rash of propublica stories questioning the integgy of only conservative supreme court justices is reeling in more dark money from billionaires by rupper stamping their disorder and highly cultureal practices. a senior editor for slate writes about the court, quote, the hilarity of hearing about dark money from woke billionaires from the guy who was connecting unwoke billionaires to justices it's amazing the level of projection, end quote. all right, what's left to do except talk to dahlia lithwick

about this. dahlia, good to see you. thank you for being here. this story gets stranger and stranger by the day, but what we didn't get to talk about last night when we went in depth was leonard leo. this guy is the where's waldo of conservative justices. he's always around. he's in the picture, he's there. so to the extent this was not a random fishing trip the guy in the middle, ostensibly the guy always in the middle is leonard leo. >> right, he's the travel agent who has no interest in reshaping the court, to be sure. he just likes traveling with justices and billionaires. i mean it's really amazing that quote you just read, that statement he gave to propublica talking about the woke dark money left here, and the idea that he doesn't have an interest in reshaping the court, i mean the reason the court is hearing those cases we talked about at the beginning rehearing

affirmative action and reliving denying service to lgbtq customers, that's because he reshaped the court. >> just to be clear leonard leo and the federalist society prepared lists of judges that donald trump could pick from, prevetted to say that conservatives will approve of these people if you pick them. leonard leo is not a casualty observer to the shaping of the supreme court of the united states of america. he is possibly the guy whose thumb has most been on the scale. not only that, but he brags about it. >> this is something that he has been lauded for, feted for, given awards that praised don megan. this is a thing that, you know, he gives elaborate interviews to "the washington post," to "the new yorker" saying i'm the guy, i did this. and the idea that he is then in photos with people and he says, oh, we're not talking about the business of the court, it's super weird that i'm sitting here with clarence thomas and

harlan crow and we're talking about sports. it's the fatuousness of the court. you match up a multibillionaire with a supreme court justice and you have them lavish them with gifts. take the win, you did it. >> here's the interesting. yesterday about 6:30 p.m. in addition to the idea propublica's reporting had already come out and this op-ed -- not the op-ed but it was an op-ed by justice alito had been printed in "the wall street journal," at 6:30 yesterday evening they came out and attacked propublica saying that they're trying to damage the court, right, by reporting on it. the language is very similar to leonard leo's language here, the idea that by reporting on justices and their ethics you are thereby damaging the court. now, as journalists that doesn't apply anywhere else. everywhere else it's holding people to account. but somehow with the supreme

court if you report on them in a negative way, you're damaging the institution. >> right, this is classic shoot the messenger. this is all of those us who love and care about the court and would like to function with love and dignity and like it to model sobriety and seriousness the way we're not seeing models on the floor of the house, we're not actually trying to take down the court. what we're saying is abide by the rules. all justice alito needed to do was disclose. >> he could take everything that was given to him. he just needed to disclose it. >> yeah, i mean he can't -- there's a whole fight going on about whether this plane was a facility for purposes of the statute because he's saying that this plane was a facility, which is clearly wrong. but the fact is when they say, oh, you know, justice ginsburg traveled and justice breyer traveled, we know that because they disclosed their travel. they disclosed it. so you can kind of go around the world and eat chicken at bad places, but don't tell us that

it's none of our business. >> so there's two issues. as you have said one of the issues with the court is that most people reporting on the court are there to report on the jurisprudence, the cases, the background of why these cases come to be. most times when i'm interviewing you it's about the cases. now it's become a little bit about the court, and that's a different role for a lot of reporters. so the thing that people need to understand is that there are ethics, and there are the rules that they have to follow. the rules are very few, but we don't have ethics -- ethics rules for supreme court justices the way we do for other federal courts. >> right. the supreme court justices are supposed to be policing themselves. there is no way to enforce this, they say, and so they're each sort of a law unto themselves, and that's why you get justice alito kind of looking around for dictionary where he can find somewhere a definition of air travel facilities, right?

there is not the ability for them to enforce it against one another. and that raises the burden on them to be scrupulous and meticulous the way every other government official is about abiding by the law. and the other thing i would just say is that it's really essential that when they say we're taking them down, what they're doing is making anarchic argument about how they're above the law. that's terrifying. >> dahlia, thank as always. we'll be right back. dahlia, ths we'll be right back. rsv could cut it short. ♪ rsv is a contagious virus that usually causes mild symptoms but can cause more severe infections that may lead to hospitalizations... ...in adults 60 and older... ...and adults with certain underlying conditions, like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. talk to your doctor and visit cutshortrsv.com.

how can you sleep on such a firm setting? gab, mine is almost the same as yours. like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. almost is just another word for not as good as mine. 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 (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) ♪ i know there's conflicting information about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started. i know there's conflicting information

about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. the debris is consistent with the catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber. >> the size of the debris field is consistent with that implosion in the water column. >> the update that many feared. all five people onboard