but the other part of it is, their argument is it doesn't matter if trump's lenders aren't complaining, but what matters is he has distorted the marketplace, and that is a harm to the general public in new york. >> thank you. that does it for me, everybody. i'll see you right back here tomorrow, sunday, as well. i'm going to keep going. 2:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. for now, "deadline: white house" starts. ♪ ♪ hi there, everyone. happy friday. it's 4:00 in new york. if there is such a thing as a breaking point, a last straw to break the camel's back, we must be pretty darn close. because how many more times can the american people be expected to go through this with supreme court justice clarence thomas?

this afternoon, yet another major news story to add to our growing list of serious ethical questions about perhaps undue influence and seeming impropriety to the nation's highest court. pro publica breaking thor toy that thomas has attended two koch summits, putting him in the extraordinary position of having help admit call network that's brought multiple cases before the supreme court. as you are likely well aware by now, the koch network for decades has grown and wielded its influence to shape the course of american policy and law on a steeply rightward trajectory. so you can understand why such a years long relationship, almost entirely out of the public eye, is so concerning. particularly when the court is expected to hear a case brought by that network, one of the most closely watched of the upcoming

term. we'll tell you about chevron in a moment. but first, we should note that msnbc news has not independen ly verified the reporting. although we reached out to justice thomas for comment. so far we have received none. in the past, thomas contended he always sought to come my with the disclosure guidelines. but it doesn't appear he's done all of the time either. today's news is the latest in a series of revelations. drip, drip, drips if you will, casting new doubt on the impartiality inside the supreme court, a body currently experiencing historic low of confidence with the american people. with me, reporter justin elliott.

so glad you're at the able. legal correspondent and senior editor for "slate" and author of "lady justice" is also here. and gabe roth is here, executive director of the nonpartisan judicial watch dog, fix the court. take us through some really detailed reporting, the hallmark of all of pro-publica's reporting seems to be documents, documents. when you go through your fact checking, no one denies it. >> the basic facts here are that justice thomas, as you mentioned, attended and participated in multiple of these koch donor summits. basically, every winter, the koch political network, which is a set of nonprofit groups and hundreds of millions of dollars they spend on elections. and they get together in california for strategizing, planning sessions. and what we found is that justice thomas has gone to multiple of those events. most recently, back in january

2018, the justice was flown out there on a private jet, attended a dinner for major donors to the koch network, people who have given over a million dollars. and, you know, the reason this is significant is that judges are not supposed to be involved in either politics or fund-raising, and this is arguably both. and the other reason is, as you mentioned, these koch groups have brought cases to the supreme court. major cases this upcoming term. so we talked to a number of other judges and ethics experts who said, you know, at the very least, it raises questions about whether justice thomas can be impartial in that case, given that it's a case brought by the koch family. >> let me start with something a little to be nitpicky. even a denial that justice thomas wasn't part of fund-raising implies that he wasn't the one running the credit cards.

he was there for the donors. that is fund-raising. >> right. you know, my colleagues and i, we reported this story, talked to probably dozens of people that have worked for the koch political groups, which heardry petedly this was a tactic given donors to high-profile people, essentially as a perk once you go up to a certain level of donations. even if, you know, they weren't passing the hat at this dinner, this is still seen internally extremely clearly as, you know, a fund-raising event. >> right. it's not how it works anymore. you take the guest list and the monday after the champagne has worn off and you call and ask everyone. so that is the heart of fund-raising for these groups. >> right. i think it's often considered unseemly to ask for money while you're at the dinner. to be clear, we haven't confirmed whether that statement is accurate ourselves. >> so all right.

i want to ask you about -- i want to pull the thread forward now. tell me about their interest before the supreme court. >> yeah. so the head of big cases a couple of years ago about whether nonprofits could keep their donors secret. they won and in this upcoming term, there's a major case on this legal doctrine, a lot of people haven't heard of called chevron doctrine. without getting into the weeds, it's essentially about the ability and power of federal agencies to issue regulations on, you know, everything from the environment to worker safety, food and drug administration, everything like that. the koch network, you know, is very libertarian, they oppose a lot of government regulations and for years have been trying to overturn this long standing precedent, chevron, and this case, a lot of legal observers

who are smarter than i am about these things expect that this could be sort of the moment that happens. >> my understanding, and, again, i'm not a lawyer, is that it could render toothless laws passed, right? it could make it harder to enforce things, for example, to protect the environment or protect water or protect the air. >> this is the death penalty for the administrative state. this is really as consequential as they say in the article as brown v. board or roe v. wade in terms of this decades long process of dismantling government's ability, whether it's the epa, worker's rights, whatever it is. if you are not going to chevron demands, and a statute is ambiguous, you refer to the agency's interpretation of the statute. that has to be the case. to dismantle that is to say every agency decision could be wrong. we'll let you know. so there's no way that you can

run any regulatory agency if you always have the court about to say no, no. your interpretation of the statute is wrong. so i think you have to see this as a piece with this major questions doctrine. this is another version of the same thing, which is like, no, no. this is a big deal, then it has to be written really clearly. it's all of a piece with an effort to essentially end government as we know it. >> it's unbelievable. i want to ask you about the fact that, you know, this is the eighth year i've been covering trump. my sense, when we sort of gather as a team is there's never a new trump story. there's never a new pattern or new behavior. i'm starting to feel that way about clarence thomas. there's never anything that cuts against the revelations. again, hat's off, you guys have done an unbelievable body of reporting, but there's never a denial of the substance, just an effort to recharacterize it.

he never denies taking a private jet, he just said i didn't do the dialing. i didn't run the credit cards. how much more is there? >> certainly, he has a notion of who his friends are and what hospitality is, and what it means to try to sell your book at a fund raiser, right? i think it is an astounding thing for a person whose job is to read statutes and interpret them as they were intended to be understood, who then, in applying them to himself, is like oh, no, those words don't mean what they say, right? they mean something else. so i think part of why this is so destabilizing is this is the same clarence thomas. if you have a death row petitioner, and he's very happy to send them, you know, to their death for making tiny, trivial errors. then he simply says, you amended the disclosure form earlier this year, oh, i made some minor

omissions. death penalty defendants acting pro se makes lots of minor omissions and they get executed. >> such a chilling, a chilling -- not even a parallel, a chilling contradiction. gabe, i want to read you a little bit more from the great new piece we have now to sink our teeth into. "a former fund-raising staffer for the koch network said the organization's relationship with wasvaluable, offering the high level donorf the experience of meeting somne like that, that's huge the donors found it fascinating said ather senior employee, recounting a thomas appearance at one summit, where the justice discussed his judicial philosophy. donors want to feel special, they want to feel on the inside." and thomas gave them that. his friends at the koch network. wow. >> yeah, no, it is totally astounding. you don't want the justices of

the supreme court to be completely menastic. you don't want them sitting in their ivory tower nine months of the year issuing opinions. you want them to be out in the world, out in the country, talking to people at legal events, universities, law schools, just right now, justice kagan is speaking at the university of notre dame. justice jackson was at harvard club in d.c. last night. so you want the justices to be part of the larger community, part of the legal community. but it's very different when it's a political organization, and the judicial code of conduct, which as we all know at this point, we can sing it chapter and verse, does not apply to the supreme court. the judicial code of conduct that applies to lower courts says yes, go to legal and educational events, go out and talk about who you are and what your judicial philosophy is, but it prevents you being near a fund-raiser or a partisan organization. whatever justice thomas'

apologists are saying, they can't deny the fact that he's flouting these very basic tenants of judicial ethics. >> gabe, these seem to be contradicting their own statements about what they will abide by when it comes to ethics. this is a portion of a letter from april signed by the supreme court justices. in deciding whether to speak before any group, a justice should consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the mindsf reasonable members of the public. there is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person, who is aware of all relevantfacts, would doubt that the justice could fairly dischargeis or her duties. e quote again.ad a little bit of "offering a high-level donor the experience of meeting with someone like that, clarence thomas, that's huge." i think they impeach themselves here. >> they definitely do. that language that you quoted

mirrors a federal law. a federal law says a judge or justice shall recuse themselves, so it's a requirement, shall, if their impartiality might be questioned. we are all reasonable people here questioning his impartiality in some of these upcoming major administrative state cases. it can't be if justice thomas owned -- it's not a chevron case per se, but if justice thomas owned one share of chevron stock, he would be required to recuse. but if he's best friends with someone who could be making, you know, millions oh of dollars like the koch industry, he doesn't have to recuse after the fact that those same industry titans have hosted him year after year at these fancy resorts? that's preposterous. the appearance of impropriety has been established and recusal should be in the offing.

>> we had this conversation, and we go around and around. and you usually dampen my wide-eyed idealism that john roberts could change anything. maybe i'll stop asking. they clearly are what they do, not what they say they want to be, right? they are this, because this has come out through this undeniable, unobjected, uncontradicted scoop that they have had stands on the record unquestioned and not disproven by any documented record or denial from justice clarence thomas. >> my podcast director calls me broken tigger. i think the reason this is so important is at every turn you can see the secrecy, including security guards on golf carts

chasing ubers, you know, off the property, because this is top secret. justice thomas amended his disclosures where he failed to disclose in other instances, didn't amend to include this, right? so all we're doing is actually, you know, creating sort of more and more and more work for propublica and other reporters because it's evident they're not going to -- i mean, he's been caught and caught and caught. and one would think if not in his own self-interest and the interest of the integrity and the esteem of the court, you disclose everything now. and yet, we keep having stories, and maybe the other thing that's really important here is that when -- usually when we talk about this, we talk about harlan crow, we talk about paul singer, we talk about all of the revelations that have been manifest. we hear back, but oh, those people don't have business before the courts. they don't necessarily have a one-to-one base before the court

that justice thomas is going to rule on. the koch's business is the court. they have been waiting for decades to reshape the court. >> and the regulatory state in the united states of america, decades, decades. i want to ask you about the efforts -- "wall street journal" seems complicit in alito's laundering of what campaign people put, sort of mid level coms people. alito has said, let me rapidly respond. it hasn't worked. the approval ratings are lower than they were when we started paying a whole lot of attention to some of the investigative journalism that propublica started doing about the court. do any figures in and around the court try to engage with you on the facts? >> yeah, you know, it's interesting, the justice alito op-ed in "the wall street journal" you are referring to, i

took objection to the headlines that propublica misleads readers. >> it's called rapid response. again, we can ask "the wall street journal" to plain why they're participating in this. >> it was a surprise to us to get that -- to see that about our story after they said they weren't going to comment. but i have to say, he did -- even if we don't agree on all the points, he did actually engage with a -- many ethics experts from both parties say he was wrong about it, but with justice thomas and i believe he's issued one short statement after our first story in april that just said, harlan crow is a dear friend that i have taken family trips with him. since then, i don't think we've got an single statement directly from justice thomas. i guess we got something from his lawyer a couple weeks ago

when he filed that amended form. but, you know, i think on -- especially because there is this case coming up in the coming term, you know, we're very curious to see if anything happens with that or anyone involved with that raises questions about this, because there is just nonambiguous connections. the koch network, koch political group, lawyers have brought that case that brought in the district court, they brought it up to the supreme court, something they've been working on for years. and so, you know, we're interested to see how that plays out. i will say a few justices, including most recently justice kavanaugh has said they're working in some way an ethics code or rules or some sort of ethics effort. they also said that five or six

years ago and nothing happened. >> i want to push on this. i want to get why it matters. the supreme court, having historically low approval ratings in the entire country is a crisis for democracy. it's not good if they feel targeted. but they feel targeted because of the way they act and the lack of transparency. i mean, the criticisms are not threats. the criticisms are a lack of a give and take, and a lack of engagement, which is why i asked you about that. at the root, i want to know from all three of you, if they understand that the sort of public approval lows are a crisis for the whole country. so i'll let everybody think about that for 3 1/2 minutes. when we come back, we'll stay on this. we'll look back at just how long justice clarence thomas has been pushing the boundaries of what is allowed and not allowed and what is proper, what reflexes

well or not on the supreme court itself. a big announcement today from the white house. this is welcome news from the biden administration for millions of americans who agree, 85% that something, more than nothing, has to be done. later in the broad cast, lawyers for donald trump and new york attorney general letitia james squared off in court today ahead of that civil trial. the ex-president's business gets underway. the judge in this billion dollar fraud case this afternoon, visibly frustrated with the legal team. don't go anywhere. th the legal team don't go anywhere.

♪♪ we're not writers, but we help you shape your financial story. ♪♪ we're not an airline, but our network connects global businesses across nearly 160 markets. ♪♪ we're not a startup, but our innovation labs use new technologies to help keep your information secure. ♪♪ we're not architects, but we help build stronger communities. ♪♪ we're not just any bank. we are citi. ♪♪ pain was keeping me off my game. and now i'm winning again. blue-emu is the powerful relief i need. shop our expanded family of products at major online retailers. i have lots of monthly subscriptions. streaming, music, news sites.

then i went to experian. now i can see them in one place. and the ones i forgot about? experian can cancel them for me. see all you can do at experian.com/save now.

♪ ♪ wake up, gotta go! c'mon, c'mon. ca-gracie, c'mon.e. let's go! guys, c'mon! mom, c'mon! mia! [ engine revving ] ♪ ♪ my favorite color is... because, it's like a family thing! [ engine revving ] ♪ ♪ made it! mom! leave running behind, behind. the new turbocharged volkswagen atlas. does life beautifully.

so we have an update to our top story. since we've been on the air, senator dick durbin has called on justice clarence thomas to recuse himself from the case we're talking about, the one having to do with that legal doctrine chevron. "once again, justice thomas' gaggle of fawning details expands on their influence and the court grows larger. the koch brother are influening all levels of governments and the court. justice thomas hid the extent of his involvement with the koch political network, and never reported gifts associated with these engagements. the koch network has invested tremendous capital to overturn long-standing legal precedent, known as chevron deference, which would handcuff regulators and serve the interest of

corporate fat cats." as more details are revealed of justice thomas' undisclosed involvement with the koch political network, there are serious questions about his impartiality in cases squarely confronting the chevron doctrine. for these reasons, i'm calling on justice thomas to recuse himself." again, that was a statement issued from u.s. senate majority whip dick durbin, the chair of the senate judiciary committee. gabe, we are happy to have that statement to add to our conversation. do you think there's any chance that justice thomas heeds durbin's advice? >> i don't. but i do think it's important, the statement that judiciary committee chairman durbin made. we want stronger recusal rules and stronger rules governing the ethics and conduct of the supreme court. and congress has every right to do that, just like they control their budget and how many seats they have and whether or not they have gift and disclosure

rules, congress can pass stronger recusal rules. and there's a bill right now that the judiciary committee passed that would allow parties in cases to say, okay, justice thomas, it's not just you deciding if justice thomas participates in a case. that decision would be kicked to the rest of the justices, the eight other justices who could then decide if a justice is partial. the larger point is, you can't have an individual who has a clear conflict in the case being the only person deciding whether or not they have a conflict in the case. so i think it's great that chairman durbin is getting more active and vociferous in his efforts to rein in the excesses of the supreme court. i'm hoping for more hearings in the coming weeks. but i think it's good when our political branches take a look at something. and i think also just real quick, it's going to be very stark in the coming days when we have a bunch of democrats lining up, telling senator menendez to

resign, who received hundreds of thousands in benefits and no republicans are calling on justice thomas to resign who similarly received hundreds of thousands in improper benefits. >> i know there was the fourth estate, i never like to be part of the story, but this is the chair of the senate judiciary committee responding to your reporting. do you have any thoughts or comments? >> yeah. it's interesting what -- you know, doing this reporting has been an education of the rules of the supreme court. it turns out like many of the other ethic rules that apply to lower court federal judges, the recusal decisions at the supreme court level are made entirely by the justice him or herself. so, you know, i think this is significant. i don't think i have seen this before in response to any of our previous reporting, but it's entirely up to justice thomas whether he will recuse himself

and also whether he'll explain whatever decision he makes. >> i just want to go back to this larger frame of the why. it is not good for the country to have 20% of the country think highly of the united states supreme court. we have no idea where we're headed in terms of our politics or what will end up before the supreme court. the supreme court is 40 points less popular than the day it ruled on bush v. gore. >> there's a couple of things. one is, gabe mentioned there was a judiciary committee hearing where some of this was aired. it was really interesting to see that the republicans on the committee, their stance was, all you want to do is destabilize the court. all the reporters who criticized the court simply want there to be no rule of law. you're burning it all down. and it's such a -- first of all, it's shooting the messenger. second of all, it's claiming we are monarchic, and nobody gets to regulate us, and if you criticize us, you're destroying

democracy. and the most important part of it is it is entirely self-owned. this is the court stepping on a rake, stepping on a rake. this can be fixed. this isn't existential. adopt an ethics rule, disclose your errors, promise that you won't do it anymore, and model behavior. one justice was forced off the court for behavior so trivial compared to what we have now. liberals understood of a liberal justice this is destroying the reputation of the court. here we are 50 years later, and we're incapable, seemingly, of having the court own that they are the architects of their own misery right now. >> i love that, architects of their own misery. gabe, they also don't equally share blame. most of the disclosures are about undisclosed excesses

enjoyed by clarence thomas and his wife, ginni thomas. most of the bad feelings people have about disclosure are related to revelations about one justice. how do the rest of them feel about that? >> not great. it's clear that there is some dissension in the ranks. there are some justices who want to move forward a little more aggressively on reining in some of these excesses, whether it be with travel rules, more disclosure rules or a formal code of conduct, and there are some justices who are pushing back on that. that's pretty much as much as i can disclose. but the court wants to speak as a group of nine when it changes internal policy. you saw that back in april, the letter that you highlighted to chairman durbin earlier in the show. that was signed, that statement of ethics principles and practices just restated things

already done, all nine of them signed it. so i think that it's a real challenge absent congressional action, which we know in the house and senate in different hands, absent congressional action, it will the difficult to get them to agree to something. just one thing, i know justice kagan mentioned, yeah, we should probably adopt an ethics code she said on stage at notre dame law. i want to see what's in the ethics code first, if that's something they go forward and do. this has not been said by many people, but it would be worse if they just adopted some random ethics code and say we're done. i think there are strong standards that they need to adopt that go beyond the big generalities of the lower court's ethics code. so that will be something to watch, as well. >> so you dangled something in front of me. gabe, safe to assume that kagan, sotomayor and jackson are for more ethics. would you put roberts and kavanaugh in that block?

>> yes. >> oh, wow. anybody else? >> so i'm having some trouble beyond the five. i think there's some -- you know, it's interesting. "the wall street journal" reported in 2019 when this was being talked about, the head of the office of the court, justice alito made edits to that document. so i think while we all think, okay, alito might be against something, at least he's been engaged on this. we haven't seen any engagement on thomas in this area. barrett hasn't mentioned this head-on in her public appearances. so i don't know if it's necessarily 7-2 or 6-3 or 8-1 right now. but historically, look, in recent history, the justices have all acted as a team of nine when they changed internal policy. historically, justices, whether it be chief justice warn burger

being the first to say okay, we're putting out our financial statements before that was passed. he said okay, we're putting out our financial statements. he said that unilaterally. so i think that chief justices can act unilaterally. i would like to see chief roberts do that and institute stronger policies. but i'm concerned he doesn't have the cajones to do it right now. >> i love it. i got you to say cajones on live tv. a win for me. thank you all so much for starting us off on a fantastic piece of reporting, a fantastic response from the chair of the senate judiciary committee, and a fantastic scoop from gabe. up next for me, gun legislation seems to have hit a wall in congress, so the white house is today out with a big new announcement on how to get something done. we'll tell you about it, and the key role for kamala harris when

we come back. hen we come back wayfair has nice prices, so you can have nice things. um kelly? we have champagne taste... on a hard seltzer budget... wayfair's got just what you need! what... y'all this is nice. salad plates? kelly clarkson? i'm fancy now! i have always wanted statement lighting. get nice things at nice prices at wayfair! ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪

(ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... ...in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) with verizon business, we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) so our customers get what they want, when they want it.

(jen) it's not just a network. it's enterprise intelligence. (vo) learn more. it's your vision, it's your verizon.

rsv is out there. for those 60 years and older protect against rsv with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. because of all of you here today, all across the country, survivors, families, advocates, especially young people who demand our nation do better to protect all, i'm proud to announce the creation of the first-ever white house office of gun violence prevention, the

first office in our history. >> that's joe biden earlier today on the major step forward taken this afternoon by the bidministration in the fight against gun violence in america. with the creation of the first federal office dedicated to g violence prevention. the office will be led by kamala harris. its creation is a win for advocacy groups that have been pushing biden for yea to designate an office to coordinate gun violence prevention measures across the federal government as gun safety legislation remains stalled in congress. according to the gun violence archives, so far this year, 31,392 people have been killed from gun violence. joining our conversation, executive director of moms demand action is here. and with me at the table, president of the national action network and host of "politics nation" here on msnbc, the

reverend al sharpton. we're happy to get to have you at the virtual table, if you will. take us inside your reaction and your hopes for this new white house office. >> well, this is incredible. good to see you. i just came from the announcement at the white house. i say this time and time again. this is the strongest administration this the history when it comes to solving or making attempts to solve this public health crisis in this country. we're so proud of that. not only are they strong with this, but they're lock step with the majority of people in this country. this is a number one issue for them is the safety of their communities, knowing that this is a leading cause of death for children and teens and young adults in this country. so i'm extremely excited about this. not only are they doing everything in their power to address this crisis, as you noted, we have been working alongside many advocates of gun

violence prevention across this country to ensure that there is attention brought to this health crisis. this was a show today that they mean business, as they have been doing great work. they're going to continue to do everything in their power to solve this crisis. >> and our friend was there, angela. i want to just share some of the names of the powerful people that the president has put on this committee. people that are very important and close to the president, and people that are very effective in advocacy space. stephanie feldman, a long-time aide to joe biden. greg jackson, a gun violence survivor and executive director of the community justice action fund. and rob wilcox, senior director of government affairs. i want to ask you, angela, public opinion is -- if you put the assault weapon ban on the list and go through all of the

policies that are sort of discussed and debated. public support is at 61, that's the lowest, to 85 for things like universal background checks and red flag laws. you have persuaded the public already, 61% of americans don't agree on anything. and the strictest to you think the easiest gun policy have 61% to 88% public support in this country. how do you change the politician's conduct? >> well, look, we're going to continue to -- this is why elections have consequences and matter. we're so proud. not only are we going to be supporting folks aligned with the american people on this issue, our very own volunteers across the country have been running and winning. so this is not just good policy, but it's good politics. we saw that in 2020 when we elected this administration. we saw this in the midterms when we -- there was an anticipation of a red wave, and what we saw was gun sense all up and down

the ballot across this country. so, you know, i think it's just a matter of time, and all the good work that's being put in. and also one of the things that i'm excited about is the work of the young leaders, young people. we saw congressman cross that was here today in the white house rose garden. it's incredible. the first gen-z'er in the white house. it shows the power of the young people, as well. this is what they are impacted every single day, thinking about their communities, schools. safety drills and things they have to go through. this is traumatizing this generation. they are standing up and making their voice heard. i have no doubt we'll continue to lead in this, when we think about gun violence prevention in this country with this administration and across the country, as well, with our advocates. >> rev, kamala harris will lead this effort. she spoke today about witnessing firsthand the impacts of gun violence during her time as a prosecutor and attorney general. she now has her finger on the pulse and the levers of white

house policy and sort of agenda on two of the most salient issues among voters right now as we head into another contest with abortion and gun safety. >> absolutely. the fact that she has an effective background as a prosecutor, she wasn't just holding the title, and dealt with this in california, dealt with it when she was d.a. of san francisco. it was a good choice of the president to put her there. and i know she'll be all in. just three weeks ago when we had the march on washington and met with the president and vice president, she brought up the concern of gun safety and gun violence in the meeting. and they had not even decided yet that they were going to announce what they did this morning. and martin luther king's granddaughter, yolanda king, who was in the meeting, a whole segment of the march was around gun violence. and she had other young activists her age. she's 15 years old. this is the most dangerous time,

particularly for young people, that we have seen in american history. and yet, you have almost a wall there of people saying, no, we're not giving up our ar-15s, we're not giving up not even background checks. we just had the hate killing in jacksonville, florida. this guy had an ar-15. so even whether you want to look at it from advocating in terms of civil rights, advocating just on guns, it weighs in because people cannot do mass killings, unless they have mass instruments. we are arming by gots and arming people that are not respectful of the united states citizenry. all these people are being armed by our lack of legislation. >> i have to get in a break, but i want to show you this, and ask you about something vice president harris said about the disproportionate impact on kids and communities of color. angela and the rev will be right back. stay with us. rev will be right back stay with us

when i was diagnosed with h-i-v,

i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today.

oh, oh, oh...i'll be the judge of that. oh, that's nice... oh!! searchable, verified reviews. that's better than the ham, and i've never said that. booking.com booking.yeah if we want a more viable future for our kids,

we need to find more sustainable ways of doing things. america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars in new technologies and creating plastic products that are more recyclable. durable. and dependable. our goal is a cleaner, healthier planet for generations to come. for a better tomorrow, we're focused on making plastics better today. i'm part of generation z, the mass shooting generation. when i go to high schools and elementary schools to talk with people, what they tell me is that they're scared of being shot. they go through more school shooting drills than fire drills. i'll tell you something we do here in congress is we often times meet with elementary school students while they're here on field trips. something i like to ask, if you got to pass a bill, what would it be?

you would expect, no homework or ice cream at lunch or something like that. the last time i did this about a month ago in the capitol steps, the students, these are 8 to 9-year-olds looked at me and said gun reform because i don't want to be shot in class. >> wow. >> this is what's going on right now. >> we're back with angela and the rev. rev, i want to pick up in this conversation we're having about the vice president's role here. there are two things that she brings a lot of institutional and policy knowledge to. her portfolio around reproductive health care and her newport folio around gun safety legislation. there are two things deeply and emotionally that tie voters, especially the members of the voting democratic coalition to this white house. two very important hats she's wearing right now. >> probably the most important in many respects, because both of them violate and threaten people's lives. it's not an option, whether you

want to be involved or not. and i think she brings a unique perspective given her own background, and given one, she's a woman when you talk about abortion rights or women's right to choose. and when you talk about gun safety. she's probably the only one in the hierarchy of the white house that has actually, as a prosecutor, gone and seen victims, and their families when they were victimized. she knows the pain of what that is, and to bring that passion, combined with her perspective, i think that is unmatchable. i think it was a natural for her to be at the forefront of both of these initiatives. both of these initiatives. and it will speak to the heart of the american people. i don't think the president or she is doing it for political reasons, but i think they will benefit politically because people have to be turned on to turn out. this will help turn out.

>> last word. i want to ask you, what is in reach, in your view, in terms of a policy goal or a piece of legislation? >> there's so much that we can do. i will first say, nicole, i've had opportunity to travel all across this country and visit with our volunteers and advocates. but also families that are -- i'm talking red state, blue state, it doesn't matter, that are tired of this. they're tired of their children going to school and knowing they have these drills that happen that traumatize children. they're tired of the devastation in their communities. we are here to do everything and attack this problem from every angle possible. some solutions that we've already been working or things like extreme risk protection orders, which are really important. make sure that someone that is in a crisis moment and poses a threat to themselves or others is separated from that firearm. we also -- background checks, of course. we want to continue to make sure

we are funding leaders on the ground that are doing violence interruption work across this country. they're often the first there, the first resort. they're also the people that are helping to stop the cycles of violence in communities, which is really important. and there's so many other solutions. secure storage. we know that having an unsecured firearm is a danger to children. it poses a danger, it's also that something that means that we have our -- access to a firearm that someone isn't supposed to have access to. there's lots of thing we're going to be doing and run our folks for office and make sure we're doing exactly what the american people want us to do, which is keep communities safe from this gun violence. >> our thanks to angela farrell zavala and the reverend al sharpton. queasy. ♪ ♪ but now i've found a way that's right for me. ♪ ♪ feels more easy. ♪ ♪ my doc and i agreed. ♪ ♪ i pick the time. ♪ ♪ today's a good day. ♪ ♪ i screened with cologuard and did it my way! ♪

cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ i did it my way! ♪ family is just very important. she's my sister and, we depend on each other a lot. she's the rock of the family. she's the person who holds everything together. ♪♪ it's a battle, you know

i'm going to be there. keytruda and chemotherapy meant treating my cancer with two different types of medicine. in a clinical trial, keytruda and chemotherapy was proven to help people live longer than chemotherapy alone. keytruda is used to treat more patients with advanced lung cancer than any other immunotherapy. keytruda may be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you have advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer and you do not have an abnormal “egfr” or “alk” gene. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irregular heartbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ

or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation, or have a nervous system problem. it feels good to be here for them. living longer is possible. it's tru. keytruda from merck. ask your doctor about keytruda. the new iphone 15 pro is here. built with titanium, and featuring the most powerful iphone camera yet. get it with boost infinite and transcend to a wireless utopia. the new titanium iphone 15 pro. on us, no trade-in needed. enjoy unlimited wireless and the latest iphone every year for $60 a month. (vo) you were diagnosed with thyroid eye disease a long time ago. and year after year, you weathered the storm and just lived with the damage that was left behind. but even after all this time

your thyroid eye disease could still change. restoration is still possible. learn how you could give your eyes a fresh start at tedhelp.com. democratic senator bob menendez was indicted this morning on federal charges. it was earlier today in manhattan. the senior senator from no one and his wife were charged with taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to benefit and enrich several businessmen from his state and the egyptian government. those bribes included cash, gold bars, and a luxury vehicle, among other things. senate majority leader chuck schumer confirmed this afternoon that senator menendez has "rightly decided to step down temporarily as chair of the foreign relations committee until the matter is resolved." menendez for his part has called

the allegations baseless, saying prosecutors have, quote, misrepresented the normal work of a congressional office. the senator and his wife are expected to appear at a new york court on wednesday. up next, the state of new york versus donald trump. just one of the many criminal and civil cases facing the ex-president these days. a fiery day in court to tell you about and another big hour of news straight ahead. i was on a journey for a really long time to find some relief. cosentyx works for me. cosentyx helps real people get real relief from the symptoms of psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis. serious allergic reactions, severe skin reactions that look like eczema, and an increased risk of infections, some fatal, have occurred. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to or if ibd symptoms develop or worsen. i move so much better because of cosentyx. ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx.

(ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. i move so much better because of cosentyx. we need to scale with customer demand... ...in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) with verizon business, we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) so our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) it's not just a network. it's enterprise intelligence. (vo) learn more. it's your vision, it's your verizon. i've spent centuries evolving with the world. that's the nature of being the economy. observing investors choose assets

to balance risk and reward. with one element securing portfolios, time after time. gold. agile and liquid. a proven protector. an ever-evolving enabler of bold decisions. an asset more relevant than ever before. gold. your strategic advantage.

this investigation revealed that donald trump engaged in years of illegal conduct to inflate his net worth, to

achieve, to deceive the great people of the state of new york. claiming you have money that you do not have does not amount to the art of the deal. it's the art of the steal. and there cannot be different rules for different people in this country or in this state. and former presidents are no different. and so today, we are making good on that promise, on our commitment. because no one, no one is above the law. >> it's 5:00 in new york. before manhattan d.a. alvin bragg issued the first criminal indictment against an ex-president, before special counsel jack smith indicted trump in two separate federal investigations, and before fulton county d.a. fani willis indicted trump and 18

codefendants over their roles in a criminal enterprise to overturn the state of georgia's election result, there was new york attorney general letitia james and the art of the steal. last year, james sued donald trump and executives at the trump organization, including his sons, for $250 million for what she describes as repeatedly committing bank, tax, and insurance fraud by inflating the value of the company's assets to get more favorable loans and deals. donald trump and the other codefendants have denied all wrongdoing, as they always do. today, a little bit more than a week ahead of the trial's expected start date of october 2nd, a pretrial conference was held, and it got spicy. new york state supreme court judge arthur n. goran hurd summary judgment arguments from both sides. on one side, attorney general james' office is arguing the evidence against the trump org

is so overwhelming that the judge doesn't even need a trial to decide liability. trump's lawyers are arguing the financial dealings were legal, that the valuations are always subjective, and the trial should be dismissed entirely. the hearing which lasted hours, as we said got tense at times, at one point the judge got so angry at one of trump's lawyers he said this. quote, you cannot use false statements and use them in business, and he pounded his fist on the bench when he said it. earlier this month the judge said this trial would te about three months. it remains unclear if trump is expected to testify. he was deposed by the a.g.'s office for eight hours earlier this year. this october 2nd trial will kick off a very busy year ahead for the exut. we're not talking caucuses busy. he's juggling multiple criminal and civil charges as well as the presidential campaign cycle that's picking up speed, although he has decided to forgo all three planned republican

debates. that's where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters. susan craig was inside the courtroom for the drama. former deputy assistant attorney general henry lippman is here. retired lieutenant colonel amy mcgrath is back. take me inside what happened today. take me through the legal issues at stake. >> okay, good. your word "spicy" was right. it was a bit crazy at times. both lawyers at one point said it was like stepping through the looking glass. i just got out of court, and it was something. i mean, they both laid out their side. and there's two -- we'll start with what the two issues are at play. one is, there's motions for a partial summary judgment from both sides. what that means is that both sides are saying that significant parts of the case should be thrown out. the attorney general is saying,

this fraud is so rampant that the judge could rule on that. when we talk about that, the accusations are that donald trump submitted false bank -- or false statements, financial statements, to both banking institutions and insurance companies to get favorable rates for loans and they were way off, you know, false business record argument. the other side, donald trump's team is saying, there's no case here. >> because they're not denying they did that? they're just everybody does it? >> that's right, and donald trump in the deposition that you mentioned said that his properties are the mona lisas. they're all priceless. we heard today in court over and over and over how subjective valuations are. at one point we heard doral could be worth over a billion dollars. it's not, by the way. they're saying, that's donald trump's view. they're also saying this happens all the time that people submit these sort of -- they're calling them subjective, i'll use their

words, values to banks. and then banks do their own due diligence. so they really don't mean anything. so trump's side is saying, this is just all for nothing and it should be thrown out because everything is subjective. then the second legal issue -- >> can i ask you about that? does that mean that no one can ever be successfully sued for fraud? >> well, they're saying that there was no fraud. >> the looking glass. >> yes. i mean, this was really something. i want to read it again. at one point the judge got -- he was pounding his fists on the -- on his desk, he was so fed up with hearing it. he says, "you cannot make false statements and use them in business, that's what the statute prohibits." this case will hinge on whether or not they were false or whether this subjective stuff happens all the time. it's going to be a very important issue should the case go forward. because now there's something else at play. i think it will, but the question is, how are the contours of the case going to look going forward? because there's been an

appellate court ruling that looked like it may narrow some of the time frame of what we can look at. and donald trump's side is arguing that it should start -- that some of the case should be thrown out because it just comes before a certain date and there's been rulings around that that they would interpret as that. the attorney general is saying, no, all those -- some of the filings initially came before the state in 2016. donald trump continued to make false statements to banks after that, so everything should come in. but what happens next week, what we're going to have -- you know, a ruling on the first issue there may be a ruling on the time frame, or that just may be picked up a year or two from now after the whole thing's over and come up on appeal. we don't know. it's messy, there's a lot of stuff. the judge at the beginning almost apologized for all this last-minute stuff, and he noted how many thousands of filings there have been. they're really doing this on the

eve, pretty much, of trial. but it was just -- it was a real looking glass feel at the end of it, almost dizzy when you walked out from the arguments that trump was putting forward on his properties, his lawyer. >> interesting analysis, though, as a looking glass. the refusal to agree on a set of facts is at the heart of his defense for both mar-a-lago and election. it's "i believe i won." so they're not arguing over the conduct. on documents it's, i could imagine them. it sounds like at the root of the judge's frustration was this inability to have a conversation rooted in shared sense of facts? >> right, and you saw -- this is sort of what i think the judge was -- not like we're all $10 million on a valuation. sometimes it's hundreds of millions of dollars. these properties aren't worth what trump in his mind at one point thought they were.

i think reasonable minds can disagree on valuations, and you see games with valuations depending what it's being valued for. if it's going into the state, the irs might be looking at it, you might put one price on it. if you're going to sell it, you might go higher on it. but this was crazy. at one point the trump triplex in new york is an interesting one. that was one where they had said gas 30,000 square feet, when it's 10,000 square feet. they were called on that today. and they finally said, "but that was an honest mistake." >> lying about the size and the value? >> the judge said, it's either 10,000 square feet or it's 30,000 square feet. and they said, "that was an honest mistake, but the other stuff is subjective." >> harry, it feels like this is another example that fits the pattern of truth being on the line in the legal outcome? >> yeah, it does.

and the overall effort, but of course it's through the looking glass perhaps around the edges. but it is crystal clear down the middle. and it's fanciful to say, when you sign something to a bank and say, this is how much it's worth, then it turns out to be worth one-quarter of that, that somehow there's some subjective intent defense. of course, you know, an apartment's either 10,000 or 30,000 square feet. this is, as you say, the really old stuff. this is what we heard about from michael cohen way back when before congress. it was an m.o. of the trump organization. by the way, one thing that really puts the lie to it, the valuations of some of the same properties would differ when they wanted to lowball, say for taxes. so as you suggest, if this point of view of, oh, it's just subjective, actually held, there could be no fraud. fraud means a lie. and that means when they wrote

that down and signed it, they knew it wasn't worth that and worth anything like it. they can try to argue that they did, but you know, there are facts here. and there are valuations here. and it doesn't help if the bank looked at it in a second way. they lied. they lied down the middle. that's fraud. everything else is just smoke and mirrors. >> there's also a backup for this if that first one doesn't work. the other one is, there were so many caveats on these statements that they were rendered meaningless. then they said in another argument that the banks never relied on them, and the judge pointed out, reliance isn't necessary. but they kept going. they were running through excuse after excuse after excuse on why this case shouldn't about forward. they didn't even have the one, they just kept going. donald trump in his deposition that he gave went on at great length about the fact that there was all these disclaimers on it. his friends apparently have told

him he has the best disclaimers in the world. how could we rely on this? this is going to be three months of crazy town. >> go ahead. >> so just very briefly, again, a lie is a lie is a lie. there are disclaimers. banks do their own stuff. the question for these violations, and their only preponderance of the evidence in a civil lawsuit is when they said it was this amount, did they know it was false? it doesn't matter and make it any less false if banks were to do their due diligence. it's not a general license to put down whatever the hell you want there. was it false? did they know it? end of story. >> i keep thinking of mark pomeranz who looked at many of the same facts in the bragg office before bragg was the d.a. for new york. and what he said when he looked at these facts -- i think he ended up writing in his book, he felt this was the strongest case

against trump, the financial statements case. that he came to the conclusion that to not bring it or to buy some of these excuses would be to put in place two systems of justice. this is the kind of fraud that other people are held accountable for all the time? >> yeah, i think that he felt very strongly about this case. sometimes you can understand -- i mean, there are -- people have different views about valuations. but these are just so far out. >> right. >> they're not within, you know -- >> they're not defensible? >> a story in 2008 on fred trump's wealth and the money that donald trump inherited and the tax fraud that enhanced that. we looked at documents that they had submitted to the irs. they got appraisals for that. and they got appraisals that were low. when you say you're going to do something for tax, there's an unspoken sort of thing, go low. when you're going to sell something, you go high. within that, there was still a range that the irs i think feels

was acceptable. we talked to experts. some of this stuff just goes way beyond that. there's a buyer and a seller, and what they will agree upon, and that's sort of where i think, from my understanding today in the courtroom, where it sort of lies. it's not even if it's at auction, if it's a distressed property. it's, what will a buyer and seller come together? he may think they're mona lisas and they're priceless, i can tell you they're not. we could find buyers tomorrow and find agreement on comps and what people want to pay and all that kind of stuff. >> that would force trump to accept he's not special. i want to show you one of the most public witnesses to this longstanding practice that is on the line here. this is michael cohen's congressional testimony in february of 2019. >> can you explain why you had these financial statements and what you used them for? >> so these financial statements

were used by me for two purposes. one was discussing with media, whether it was "forbes" or other magazines, to demonstrate mr. trump's cygnet worth. that was one function. another was, when we were dealing later on with insurance companies, we would provide them with these copies so that they would understand that the premium, which is based sometimes upon the individual's capabilities to pay, would be reduced. >> and all of this was done at the president's direction and with his knowledge? >> yes. because whatever the numbers would come back to be, we would immediately report it back. >> and did this information provided to us inflate the president's assets? >> i believe these numbers are

inflated. >> michael cohen getting right at donald trump's funnybone, right? things aren't as big as he says they are. trump is so triggered by this. his deposition is absolutely bananas. here's what he said under oath. he responded with a series of meandering political digressions and self-aggrandizing defenses. asked about his authority at trump org while he was in the white house, trump responded he considered the presidency the most important job in the world, comma, saving millions of lives, i think you'd have nuclear holocaust if i didn't deal with north korea, i think you might have a nuclear war now if you want to know the truth, end quote. those responses having nothing to do with the issues at hand, but this is donald trump we're talking about. i love the little engine that could story. and this case is sort of chugging along.

it represents a threat to everything trump likes to present himself to, to the country. that all of it was a fraud. >> yeah, and then -- this is donald trump. i mean, he's super honest. he is the most corrupt president that we've ever had. he's the most corrupt ex-president that we've ever had. and i think the good news out of all of this is that cases like this are continuing. we live in a country where no one is above the law. and if you break the law, whether it's at the federal level or the state level, you're going to be held accountable no matter who you are. and so -- and that's not true for all these other countries, lots of other countries around the world. but donald trump is delusional. and you know, he's going to try to -- every time something like this happens, he's going to call it a political witch hunt or try to change the subject.

i think the focus needs to be on making sure that this man never gets back in the white house again. >> you've got the most expansive body of reporting around the delta between the facts and the documents and what is asserted by trump and his attorneys. a question for you is, has that been sustained? do the lies continue as a defense? or are we down to sort of what you articulated that the defenses are through this looking glass? "well, i believed they were mona lisas." >> no, i think they're going to try and knock this case down on these properties not only are -- the values are subjective. i may think that this is clearly what we heard today. they are not. but i think that's what we're going to see. i don't think we're going to have a look into some of the larger questions about his wealth and not going to his heart, but this is part of that. really, when you step back, this case -- this may not all get

adjudicated in a courtroom, but this case is very much about what he thinks his value is. he has been lying about it for decades. this isn't something new. he's been making false statements about his wealth since he began appropriating his father's wealth when he was in his 20s and telling newspaper reporters that he was worth hundreds of millions on years when he had an income of $23,000 on his income tax returns. this isn't new. but it really is -- that is at the heart of him is the valuation of how much he's worth. and he's never worth as much as he's said, far from it. >> just from covering the whole sort of diaspora of legal woes, i feel this one doesn't get as much attention as some of the criminal ones. but it goes to the heart of what he presents himself as as a successful businessman. >> right. and the heart of what he ran for the u.s. president, that his type of thinking, his smart business thinking, that he could

do that for the country. the first part isn't true. but he ran on that. and it was successful, in part because of shows like "the apprentice" that built him out to be this businessman that he simple simply isn't. >> it's amazing. we're so glad that you were there. sounds like you have more stories to tell. >> it was an interesting day, that's for sure. >> will you be in the trial when it starts? >> i hope to cover some of it. i've got a lot of stories on the go. i'm excited to see it down there because it's been a huge part of my life for so many years. >> truly extraordinary. everything we understand about this story, we understand from your reporting. thank you very much. thank you for being here. harry and amy, stick around. when we come back, rudy giuliani's legal problems continue to stack up. what georgia election workers shea moss and ruby freeman are asking a judge to do about the disgraced ex-president's lawyer and his refual to comply with court orders in the case. our friend paul rykoff will join us to discuss new

revelations from general mark milley about trump's complete disdain for wounded veterans. an emotional moment on capitol hill while senator john fetterman choked up about the treatment in this country of people with disabilities. dryness and frizz that keeps coming back, could be damaged hair that can't retain moisture. you need pantene's miracle rescue deep conditioner. it's filled with pro-vitamins to help hair lock in moisture, visibly repairing six months of damage in just one use, with no weigh-down. guaranteed, or your money back. for hair that looks healthy and stays healthy. if you know, you know it's pantene.

liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. i was a bit nervous at first but then i figured it's just walking, right? [dog barks] oh. no it's just a bunny! calm down taco. sit duchess. stop! sesame no no. archie! walter don't, no, ahhhh. ahhhhh! you're lucky you're so cute. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists photographing thousands of miles of remote coral reefs. that can be analyzed by ai in real time.

♪ so researchers can identify which areas are at risk. and help life underwater flourish. ♪ nice footwork. man, you're lucky, uwatching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network.

the legal problems for rudy giuliani continue to mount this week. the latest, even after being found liable for defaming georgia election workers ruby freeman and shea moss, he is namelessly snubbing a federal judge's order to pay up. in a court filing yesterday, lawyers for freeman and moss say

giuliani, quote, failed to take any of the actions ordered by federal judge beryl howell last month, which included turning over evidence and paying $132,000 in legal fees for the workers. those legal fees will be on top of whatever damages are determined he will also have to pay on a december 11th trial date that was set wednesday. all this losing for rudy giuliani comes on top of news earlier in the week his own lawyer is suing him, claiming rudy owes him $1.4 million in unpaid legal bills. we're back with harry and amy. harry, the jokes write themselves. but i think the important little rub here is, one, the retraumatizing of ruby freeman and shea moss continues. that's probably the most important thing here. two, trump is raising money for rudy for a reason. because trump doesn't feel like he needs to be generous to rudy, obviously, or he wouldn't be getting sued. but trump's not letting him hang

out to dry either because rudy still seems to represent a legal threat to donald trump. >> it's true. but i don't know if he's raising enough. i mean, how low can you go? he's really in abysmal position. he is ducking everyone. the lawyer, it's not just his lawyer, it's his longtime kind of good friend and mentee, robert costello. he must be in desperate shape. on the other hand, he's trying not -- not simply not to pay, but also to hide his assets. and now that's where i think he will get hammered by the judge. we're seeing what could happen in other fields if trump continues to stay intransigent. giuliani could show and up say he's broke, and the judge could say, let's see it. the reason he got from this discovery scrape that made him pay this discreet amount of money he stiffed them on so far is because he didn't want to comply with the orders to open his book.

the judge won't tolerate that now. he can't both not pay and refuse to try to justify why. he is in a world of hurt. and you have to imagine, you know, maybe he can delay a few days. but he's first going to have to play an open hand, which he's tried desperately to avoid, then still have to pay. and this is just the prelude to the trial itself, which he now must attend and where his potential liability is stratospheric. >> we know he asked for a meeting with jack smith's investigators. can you just -- where does that degree of desperation or willingness to help intersect with financial despair? >> kind of right here. because, you know, what is he going -- he has one card left to play. doesn't want to play it. all he can do on the criminal side, and this doesn't solve his financial problems except to the

extent he doesn't have to pay his lawyers, is cooperate and give information. he's got a fair bit to give. by the way, he's a lousy witness. he's got all kinds of credibility issues. but just giving the details and the dirty dirt, as it were, on trump, would still be meaningful. but the main thing it would do for him in his currently apparently abysmal straits is keep him having to pay what would be seven figures to defend himself at trial. >> this is judge howell's opinion blasting rudy giuliani st month for noncompliance. quote, don ac cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage t certain audiences, but in a court of law, this performance has served only to subvert the normal process of discovery in a straightforward defamation case. you know who knew better would be a former doj official, which rudy embarrassingly is. what do you make of his sort of public posture and disregard for

orders and rulings? >> well, it's interesting. i think he's probably been hanging out in the political realm a little too long. because, right, this is what donald trump does. and, you know, it doesn't -- this type of thing, when you go to a court of law, doesn't always work. i think, you know, he's facing an enormous -- as many problems as trump has, rudy giuliani has right now. and the difference -- i think there's a lot of differences, but one big one is, as harry said, he can't go back to his millions of supporters and ask for more money the same way trump is using his political fund-raising operation to kind of pay for all this stuff. and so he's in a world of hurt. >> yeah, i mean, what's interesting about that is trump could easily dip into those funds for him. there's been some reporting in

"the daily beast" and other places that he plans to raise money for him. he hasn't erased any of these debts or liabilities and he certainly could have. this is the piece i don't get. he could have pardoned him, could have paid for his defenses. he's done none of it. harry levin, thank you for spending so much time with us. amy sticks around. it is a tradition as old as america itself. the honoring and the reverence that we have, that leaders have, for wounded soldiers who preserve our way of life in the united states of america. that fact makes the new revelations about the disgraced ex-president's disdain for those heroes all the more jarring. we'll have that conversation after a short break. to keep up with their finances. smart bankers. convenient tools. boom. one bank with the power of both. chase. make more of what's yours.

if you have heart disease and are on a statin, lowering cholesterol can be hard. and diets and exercise add to the struggle. it can feel never-ending. but today, it's possible to go from struggle to cholesterol success with leqvio. taken with a statin, leqvio is proven to lower bad cholesterol by over 50%. so, if you feel like you're getting nowhere... ...go with 2 doses a year of leqvio and keep bad cholesterol low.

common side effects were injection site reaction, joint pain, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, chest cold, pain in legs or arms, and shortness of breath. when you're ready to go from struggle to cholesterol success, talk to your doctor about twice-yearly leqvio to help you lower your cholesterol. lower. longer. leqvio. ♪ (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. lower. longer. leqvio. we need to scale with customer demand... ...in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) with verizon business, we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) so our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) it's not just a network. it's enterprise intelligence. (vo) learn more. it's your vision, it's your verizon. meet three students all learning to save and spend their money with chase.

freedom for kids. hungry? thank you, chef. control for parents. nice. one bank for both. chase. make more of what's yours.

this week the u.s. senate confirmed its first military promotions in months, taking up individual votes yesterday to confirm two four-star generals to lead the army and marine corps. a day earlier, the senate confirmed general charles q. brown for the nation's top military position whom president joe biden nominated four months ago. it's a very small dent in republican senator tommy tuberville's blockade of hundreds of military promotions in protest of a pentagon abortion health care policy. it has posed a grave risk to national security and is a symptom of a republican party still led by a former commander in chief who's astonishingly deep disrespect for the military

and veterans continues to seep out and emerge, revealing the ex-president as an outlier in a country with a tradition as old as its existence, of respecting and honoring and seeking to lift up wounded veterans and their families. from that stunning piece of reporting in "the atlantic" that we brought you yesterday on what general mark milley witnessed of trump's disrespect toward soldiers and wounded veterans. quote, "these sorts of moments which would grow in intensity and velocity were disturbing to millie. as a veteran of multiple combat tours in iraq and afghanistan, he had buried 242 soldiers who had served under his command. millie's family venerated the military, and trump's attitude towards the uniform services seemed successful, callus, and at the deepest human level, repugnant." founder of veterans of america, host of independent americans

podcast, paul rykoff is here. amy is still with us. since i read this, i've been dying to talk to you about it. your thoughts? >> i'm not surprised. i'm encouraged that the stories are starting to get out. i think these stories have permeated throughout the pentagon and military for years. it's an important distinction for democrats to take advantage of because millie is an honorable person. he's the kind of person your kids look up to. he's got integrity, he's a true leader. sharp contrast to the disgusting human being that is donald trump. i've struggled with how to communicate all of this to my kids. i say, don't be like that guy. don't be like that guy. i think the democrats have to push that harder. that's why i'm encouraged this week they got tough and pushed the vote on tuberville. we've been talking about it on the show. i think schumer did the right thing. he pressed a vote, let's go on the record, see who wants to stand opposite a true human hero in c.q. brown.

tuberville and his buddies voted no, and now it's on the record. they put politics first, patriotism second. they continued to undermine our national security and our troops. i think it's important to appealing to independence. 49% of the country is independent. they care about national security. they care about integrity. if they don't like both options, they're going to go with the one that's not disgusting, that's not detestable, that has integrity, will put country first. >> 100% of americans, i think, believe that a wounded veteran deserves at a bare minimum our respect. and the vast majority of americans, i think, believe they deserve, for the rest of their life, to be revered and thanked. they go and go do things the civilians haven't signed up to go do. if they pay that ultimate sacrifice with an injury, they deserve a lot more than what chairman millie's telling to "the atlantic" describes they got. the story of luis avila. we read it here yesterday. how do you -- i don't want to

minimize the treatment by politicians when someone in the military is given so much more on the battlefield. but how do you make sure that our politics don't retraumatize people who have given the country everything and more? >> leaders have to take hard stands. i think millie has been muzzled and hasn't been able to speak out. so many people in uniform haven't been able to speak out. he's retiring, we finally have a replacement, i hope he speaks out strongly, ferociously, and other military leaders. starting to organize these folks who can cut through the noise. for biden it's an opportunity to differentiate. for folks that don't like either of them or feel they're both too old, biden can say, my kid has been in combat, i understand what this is like. that's the best of biden, when he can be empathizer in chief, consoler in chief. i think this cuts to a strength they would be smart to elevate. i think the democrats took too long to take on tuberville. elizabeth warren was in front first. america wants to see people hold

the line, uphold the integrity of this country. every time we do that, the american people are going to stand with you. >> amy, there's something that i want to say about these stories. i've covered trump for eight years. i've heard these stories for eight years. a lot of them seeped into public when trump said about john mccain, i like soldiers who weren't captured i think was the i don't, shocked everybody. then we went on covering trump like he was just the republican nominee. then he disparaged the sort of wounded when he refused to visit a cemetery on a trip to europe in france. the story seeped out through "the atlantic" that he didn't want to go, why do i have to go, why do we honor them? there's been reporting about trump viewing the men and women who serve as, quote, suckers and losers. those who die or are wounded are the worst of all. it's not confirmed, it's not leaks, it's not whispers. he believes that wounded veterans are the lowest form. he, quote, doesn't want to see

them again. i don't know that our normal political sort of conversations can account for what a grave trespass that is for a former commander in chief. what would you like to see happen next? >> well, it's abhorrent. and, you know, like paul, when these rumors of this sort of thing were happening over the last four or five years, certainly during the trump presidency, every time one of these things came out, you know, we were taken aback by it. like, how can a commander in chief say that? think that? what do we do now? well, we speak out. and, you know, i mean -- a lot of military leaders don't always want to do this. of course, when you're in uniform you can't do this, and that is very, very important to our civil/military relations. but those people who are out can stand up and say, hey, you can't

treat our veterans this way. you can't treat our wounded veterans -- i mean, these are the people that gave enormous sacrifices for our country. and it's just flat-out unamerican. so from a political standpoint, look. i think that the democrats and the democratic party need to take the flag here and run with it. they are the party of national security anymore, because i'm sorry, but the republican party, as long as you have donald trump as your leader, who treats veterans this way, who treats our -- the folks who gave the ultimate sacrifice to our nation, all the way back to world war i and bella wood which you referenced there, treat them with such disrespect, you cannot be the party of national security. you cannot be the party of the military. you cannot be the party of veterans. so i think democrats need to stand tough here.

and all americans need to stand tough here. >> i'm going to put you on the spot, amy. you brought some former leaders who are in a new role now. entering the political fray because of the extraordinary threat they believe trump represents. chairman millie has spoken out, put this story on the record, it's in "the atlantic." we know from that reporting and other reporting over the last eight years that secretary mattis had to have seen and hear these things. that trump had an edict to never, ever, ever see a wounded veteran appear. his chief of staff would have known that, the four or however many there were. what in your view is the obligation of people who saw something to say something? >> i personally wish they would be more public. i think the american people deserve that. i respect what they've done. i respect that their office was very high. and i'm sure that they want to

be in private life now. not have to deal with this. but the fact of the matter is, this is a big deal. and, you know, not just his mistreatment of veterans and military personnel. but it's even deeper than that. it's his disregard for the constitution itself. and i think that's what prompted so many national security leaders who have been speaking out for a long time to even be more vocal right now. it's this -- we swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states. and when it's undermined, when you have a president -- in this case, a presidential candidate -- who has said over and over again that he would throw the constitution away, you've got to stand up. you've got to say, look, i know our tradition and norms have been that we kind of are silent, we don't really want to get into politics.

but this is bigger than politics. it's not about red or blue. it's not about tax policy. it's not about any of that stuff. it's about the constitution. it's about our democracy itself. that's why you're seeing so many people say, hey, i got to be out there, i got to be vocal. >> and i need to sneak in a break. i want to put to both of you the contradiction between, quote, never wanting to see them again, a wounded veteran, and then wanting to reach deep into the justice system, inside the military, and pardon someone that millie described in "the atlantic" as a worker mill. we'll be back with that next.

♪♪ we're not writers, but we help you shape your financial story. ♪♪ we're not an airline, but our network connects global businesses across nearly 160 markets. ♪♪ we're not a startup, but our innovation labs use new technologies to help keep your information secure. ♪♪ we're not architects, but we help build stronger communities. ♪♪ we're not just any bank. we are citi. ♪♪ when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler

for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. i've spent centuries evolving with the world. vision changes, or eye pain occur. that's the nature of being the economy. observing investors choose assets to balance risk and reward. with one element securing portfolios, time after time. gold. agile and liquid. a proven protector. an ever-evolving enabler of bold decisions. an asset more relevant than ever before. gold. your strategic advantage. frustrated by skin tags? dr. scholl's has the breakthrough you've been waiting for. the first fda-cleared at-home skin tag remover clinically proven to remove skin tags

safely in as little as one treatment. back with paul and amy. paul, the part of the reporting that i was aleading to is -- it starts with this harrowing tale of trump saying, i never want to see that again, about a wounded veteran. it goes into millie's one-on-one conversation with trump aboard air force one about trump's desire to intervene in the military justice system for someone that millie is explaining what he did wrong, slitting the wrist of an isis prisoner. says those actions are wa crimes. trump says, "you're all killers." >> the ultimate test for america, for the military, for voters, is the commander in chief test. do you trust this person to keep america safe, to make the right decisions, in issues of war and peace? that's the most important issue that voters think about at the end of the day. i think it's the thing that we can push on frump.

he is a danger to our national security. he undermines our military. he cozies up with putin. he's incredibly unstable. you've got to ask yourself, are you really comfortable with him having his fingers back on the nukes again? i think if you listen to folks in the military, they're telling you no. we had a commander in chief forum on this network in 2016, asking the country to compare trump and clinton, veterans pushed that issue forward. i think that's the issue that has to continue to be put forward. can you trust this man being in the white house, controlling our nukes, controlling the military? the answer is no. everybody in the know says no. can democrats go on the attack, push that message, put that question before the american people? they've struggled to do that. i think now they're making headway, pushing tuberville. they've got to do it even harder. >> this is how old i am. it used to be the only question in front of the american people. on the question of the nukes, that's answered by millie in this reporting in "the atlantic." the answer is no. the quote about the nukes is he has i think singular control --

he's the only one with control but he can't launch them on his own. even the nuclear arsenal by millie's telling was not completely secure with donald trump as commander in chief. i wonder if you could just take me through what you would like to see people like chairman millie do when he leaves next friday in terms of helping the american people understand what he saw? >> well, you know, i think that the chairman should say as much as he thinks he can. i recognize that there is a strong tradition of, you know, not wading into political matters. and that this is obviously a political matter, but it's a matter of national security. the american people need to know this stuff. because we cannot elect a commander in chief that would hurt our national security.

and really, as paul said, make us unsafe. again, with all the things that are going on, the republican party, of course, used to be the party of national security. but now they're disqualifying themselves almost on a weekly basis with all the antics with senator tuberville, but also the most basic fact that they still are following this ex-president who clearly has zero respect for veterans, zero respect for the military. he never even knew what the triad was when he became the president. you know, the day that joe biden took the oath of office, lots of democrats were happy. you know why i was happy? because donald trump didn't have the football, the nuclear codes next to him anymore. and that to me -- i breathed a sigh of relief just as an american. as an american who knows

something about our national security. that's a big deal. and so, you know, what i would hope the chairman does is, you know, take some time off, but then allow folks, the american public, to know how unfit this guy is. and how he does it, i mean, obviously he's a super-professional guy, and i think he will do that. >> there's safety in numbers are i made a quick list of the national security people who saw trump up close. corker, tillerson, millie, kelly, gaits, h.r. mcmaster, esper. there are no outliers except michael flynn. right? >> yeah, and i think you have to talk about, how do we stop trump? by movinging independents. in key swing states. it's going to be with general kelly, mac masters, mattis, millie, and mike pence. it can come from inside. if pence starts to really talk,

he can damage trump probably more than anyone. that's who i'm looking to. i'm looking into the camera and saying, do it for america, speak out, we need it now. >> good for luis avila. >> absolutely. >> thank you for spending time with us. another break for us, we'll be right back. for strength and energy. woo hoo! ensure, complete balanced nutrition with 27 vitamins and minerals. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. ♪ ♪

planning to move? join the 6 million families who discovered a smarter, more flexible way to move, with pods. save up to 30% now for a limited time. whether you're moving across town or across the country. save up to 30% at pods.com today. -dad, what's with your toenail? whether you're moving across t-oh, that...? i'm not sure... -it's a nail fungus infection. -...that's gross! -it's nothing, really... -it's contagious. you can even spread it to other people. -mom, come here! -don't worry about it. it'll go away on its own! -no, it won't go away on its own. it's an infection. you need a prescription. nail fungus is a contagious infection. at the first signs, show it to your doctor... ... and ask if jublia is right for you. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. its most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness... ... itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters and pain. jublia is recognized by the apma. most commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 copay. go to jubliarx.com now to get started.

if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now... i'm 65. and really smart later i'm 70-ish. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs. which makes planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind with the aarp name. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. meet three students all learning to save and spend their money with chase. freedom for kids. hungry? thank you, chef. control for parents. nice. one bank for both. chase. make more of what's yours.

♪i'm hearing different ways for me to screen for colon cancer.♪ ♪it's time to use my voice,♪ ♪i've got a choice, more than one answer.♪ ♪i sat down with my doc.♪ we had a talk. ♪knew just what to say.♪ ♪i asked for cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪ uaw president shawn fain announced a major expansion of

the auto workers strike. the union president believes they are, quote, serious about reaching a deal. this is the first expansion since the strike started last friday at three plants in michigan, missouri, and ohio with workers demanding higher wages, a return to traditional pensions, and an end to compensation tiers. in the last hour, president joe biden tweeted that he will travel to michigan on tuesday to join the picket line alongside those striking uaw workers. we want to thank you for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times for another week of shows. we are so grateful. "the beat with ari melber" will start after a quick break. cou? oh my goodness... this whole journey has been such a huge gift for our family.

(ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. this whole journey has been such a huge gift we need to scale with customer demand... ...in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon to take our operations to the next level. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. (ella) with verizon business, we get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) so our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) it's not just a network. it's enterprise intelligence. (vo) learn more. it's your vision, it's your verizon.