know from "the washington post," i believe, that leonard leo directed a company to, quote, give ginni thomason of ginni, and because he's not mentioning her in all of these monetary transactions we don't know the extent of them. we know his organizations have worked with ginni thomas, presumably paying her for gosh who knows what, so that's some of the information that we could learn. and we don't know whether the justices' spouses have also received any of these gifts or trips, so that's some other potential information we could learn. >> yesterday, leah, senate republicans flew to the defense of these individuals. let's take a listen. >> y'all ought to be ashamed of yourself. because you're the ones who always profess how you're defending our democracy. you're the ones undermining our democracy. >> the highest court in the land cannot have the lowest standard of ethics in the government. >> this is a fight you want, you're going to get it. >> can the senate republicans hinder this probe and keep more of this information from coming out? >> you know, there's always some possibility that the

. >> is there any thought of subpoenaing ginni thomas, the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomasbecause i said, we're taking this investigation one step at a time. the first step is to find out what is going on. there clearly was an unexplained payment directed to mrs. thomas by leonard, through one of his front groups of $25,000. it is not clear that any services were ever rendered for that $25, 000, but from the context, it looks like it wasn't the only time. so clearly there are questions to answer there. there are also questions about why he didn't recuse from the january 6th case. his spokespeople have said it's because he didn't know anything, but that's a fact question that deserves to be examined. and nobody has examined or even asked the thomas is that fact question. >> i'm going to try to squeeze in two more questions. one, about the 14 billion dollar israel aid package that just passed the house. which we know would largely to find the irs, no ukraine aid. it's dead on arrival in the senate. the president is going to veto it. >> they won't call it, up and the president

accuse, and let's remember, clarence thomas failed to recuse in a case in which his own life, ginni thomasthat hasn't changed. clarence thomas still gets to be the arbiter of whether or not he has to recuse. there is a huge thumb on the scale, as you know, that says that, now, there's only nine of us. people are going to be pushing for us to recusing, that's fundamentally political. overwhelmingly, err on the side of not recusing so that we don't have 44 splits. the minute you have created a resumption against refusal, all the recusal roles in the world, even if they were clear, and as you say, they are not clear here, go away. the presumption will always, be well, there's only nine of us, i guess that to stick around. >> delia left, white house, always it's been spectacular analysis, thank. you thank you for being, here we appreciate it. >> thanks, katie. >> ahead, we're going to preview a new msnbc documentary ending the stigma around menstruation and menopause. you don't want to miss it. stay with us. stay with us before my doctor and i chose breztri for my copd, i had bad days, (cough,

you have to remember ginni thomas's active complicity with donald trump and mark meadows back on januarymocrats have to do something on this, and no matter what is in the guidance and you look at the house and how republicans have been running sham oversights, the democrats have a serious issue here, they should be doing oversight. whether it's legislation, i think there should be more oversight on what's happening, particularly in the case of thomas. >> tim miller, thank you so much. i appreciate you coming in, having that for us with really moments to spare. we also have another big story that's developing out of new york city, the fbi looking at mayor eric adams' test messages to the fdny onf of the turkish government. adams hasot been charged out with wrongoing and yesterday released a statement saying quote, i have not been accused of wrong doing, and i will continue to cooperate with investigators. nbc investigations correspondent tom winter is following this story. so what do we know about this investigation, tom? >> well, chris, not a whole heck of a lot because it appears to be

clarence thomas, an even no less interesting story is connected with the fact that he has a wife, ginny thomas, she works at the heritage foundation, there is also a republican think tank, she also earns a lot of money, and from contacts, working with these same republican businessmen, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, that is, this money is spent through clarence thomas’s wife, and clarence thomas himself makes certain decisions that would be beneficial to them, so this is what the main scandal is connected with, the democrats, of course, are they are indignant, although... the democrats have a judge doing about the same thing, just at various other clubs, demanding the resignation of clarence tomos, his resignation from the supreme court, but he himself refuses to leave ; in general, there is no real possibility of him remove, no, there is another curious thing, the fact is that he is now the oldest judge in the supreme court of the united states, and is the so-called originalist of the constitution, this means that these are the people who actually guarantee compliance wi

roth about ginny thomas'connection. and clarence thomas. shouldn't he be regulated by the attorney general because of the amount of fraud that the supreme court has been committed? i hear you saying they are entitled to $150 million, but there should be paperwork sent in to our merrick garland, our attorney general, make sure that if it is not turned in at the right time then some charges should be brought on. host: let's let gabe respond. guest: that is a great point. in the federal law passed after watergate, it says for everyone -- the justices make about 300 thousand dollars a year and have financial disclosure requirements, their investments, their transactions. justice thomas has had plenty of opportunity to fix those errors, but he has willfully not. it says in the federal law of the judicial conference has reasonable cause to believe a justice or lower court judge has willfully omitted information about his disclosures, the judicial policymakers can refer that individual including a justice to the ginny -- to the attorney general. t

you read the scottis code and you're like, well, that's in there because of ginni thomas, that's in therefew years ago and he didn't report this gift. so it's very much reflective of the current situation and trying to give them excuses as to -- defenses of some of their more egregious ethics lapses. so i didn't love seeing that as i was reading it over the last few hours. it only came out about three hours ago. but at the same time i mean, i do want to very briefly give chief justice roberts some credit for at the very end saying, and i think senator whitehouse mentioned this, this is an iterative process, we're going to look into how other courts conduct their ethics rubric. so maybe there's a chance for future amendments where we have the inbox and the complaint process and the public reporting that i think all of us in the advocacy community as well as in the -- among lawmakers who care about this want to see. so the champagne's still on ice. we may be at base camp of everest. this is not the summit. >> yeah, and i use it because i know when you're inside an institution and you're pus

and leonard leo is in the harlan crow painting and leonard leo sent the money to ginni thomas, and he almost wherever you touch this network of right wing billionaires and the justices they put on the court, you see their intermediary there, a little functionary leonard leo. so he is a very, very important center of this little web of scheming. >> is your theory of the case that there is going to be -- because the subpoenas will go forward. you will hopefully have a chance to ask these questions of these gentlemen, that there is some smoking gun, sore it to reveal for the american people who are paying very close attention now to the supreme court, just ask sam alito who is super cranky about it every time "the wall street journal" dials his home phone, just to reveal to the american people how netted up and how corrupt it is? >> i think probably more the latter. we may turn up instances of law-breaking, particularly around tax filings or potential false statements that were made. but i think the bottom line here is that we simply cannot have a united states supreme court that is capt

roth about ginny thomas'connection. and clarence thomas.e be regulated by the attorney general because of the amount of fraud that the supreme court has been committed? i hear you saying they are entitled to $150 million, but there should be paperwork sent in to our merrick garland, our attorney general, make sure that if it is not turned in at the right time then some charges should be brought on. host: let's let gabe respond. guest: that is a great point. in the federal law passed after watergate, it says for everyone -- the justices make about 300 thousand dollars a year and have financial disclosure requirements, their investments, their transactions. justice thomas has had plenty of opportunity to fix those errors, but he has willfully not. it says in the federal law of the judicial conference has reasonable cause to believe a justice or lower court judge has willfully omitted information about his disclosures, the judicial policymakers can refer that individual including a justice to the ginny -- to the attorney general. the penalties

roth about ginny thomas'connection. and clarence thomas.e be regulated by the attorney general because of the amount of fraud that the supreme court has been committed? i hear you saying they are entitled to $150 million, but there should be paperwork sent in to our merrick garland, our attorney general, make sure that if it is not turned in at the right time then some charges should be brought on. host: let's let gabe respond. guest: that is a great point. in the federal law passed after watergate, it says for everyone -- the justices make about 300 thousand dollars a year and have financial disclosure requirements, their investments, their transactions. justice thomas has had plenty of opportunity to fix those errors, but he has willfully not. it says in the federal law of the judicial conference has reasonable cause to believe a justice or lower court judge has willfully omitted information about his disclosures, the judicial policymakers can refer that individual including a justice to the ginny -- to the attorney general. the penalties