donald trump's trial on charges he tried to steal the 2020 election. in a court filing today, special counsel jack smith asked for a start date of january 2nd, 2024. he said this would vindicate the public's interest in a speedy trial, that will ultimately be decided by the judge presiding in that case, judge tanya chutkan. but even assuming she chooses a somewhat later start, there may be some delays along the way, donald trump is probably going to face trial in this case before the presidential election next november. though he does have one critical possible hail mary remaining. he and his lawyers could try to somehow find a way to kick the case up to the supreme court, where the conservative majority would rescue him. that was one of the last desperate plans for donald trump's coup back in 2021, to get the supreme court to rule in his favor. we know there's at least one very conservative justice who one of trump's coup plotters thought would be particularly inclined to help out. i speak of this man, clarence thomas. justice thomas is probably the most right-wing member of the supreme court in living memory. he's fully committed to remaking the country and its jurisprudence in his conservative vision. the other thing you need to know about clarence thomas, and there's a lot about him, is that he has always wanted to be rich. it is part of what drove him from a childhood in abject poverty to an ivy league law school, as a recent pbs frontline documentary explained. >> after holy cross, clarence thomas was off to a very different world once again. yale law school. it was a chance to leave pinpoint far behind, to find his grandfather's prophesy and get positioned to make real money. >> he had thought well, you know what, i'm gonna go make a bunch of money, maybe go to new york and be a lawyer. >> in time thomas did work in the private sector, vermont santo, but then he was nominated for a position in the reagan administration and president h. w. bush nominated him to the supreme court. thomas chose to take that path. he was for going a lot of potential income that he could've made outside of government in some fancy firm. supreme court justices are paid well but nowhere near as much as a top-flight corporate lawyer. in fact, thomas himself said in a 2001 speech to the savannah bar association that it is not our job to do for money. >> the job is not worth doing for what they pay. it's not worth doing for the grief. but it is worth doing for the principle. >> the other thing is, being a supreme court justice is not also not a job that you leave. thomas has been on the court for more than 30 years now, and he has been making a very good upper middle class salary. certainly enough to live comfortably. take nice vacations, all that stuff. but not enough to be really rich. you do not get to be a flamboyantly rich guy if you're a supreme court justice, not for what they're paying. but there are a lot of flamboyantly rich guys who do have a real interest in keeping clarence thomas on the court. people who share his vision, his right-wing ideology, who want him to rule in line with that vision. and so some of these people seem to have created a way of letting thomas kind of have his cake and eat it too. thomas stays put on the court in a supremely important public sector job and his wealthy right-wing supporters pay for him to live like a rich guy. in fact, new reports from propublica today reveals the thomas has received gifts under written by benefactors who share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence, including, and here we start to get to the numbers, at least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the bahamas, 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter, a dozen vip passes to professional college sporting events, typically purchased in the sky barbs, one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the lantern coast. to be clear, that comes on top of previous investigations revealing details about the billionaire republican donor who purchased property from thomas, including his mother's home, where she now lives rent free, and paid for the private and school tuition of his grand nephew, who thomas raised as a son, none of which thomas has ever disclosed. so when you take a step back, this is what appears to be the deal, if you will, between clarence thomas and his right wing benefactors. you want yacht? we got yachts. you are private jets? we got private jet. you want a fancy lead education for your adopted son? we've got. we will give you the life of luxury you want if you stay on the court where we need to, pursuing the ideological project we are all committed to. this is why gifts, particularly to judges, or to any public official, but do judges, are supposed to be at the very least disclosed and hopefully regulated or a band. it can be shockingly corrupt for a judge to be dependent on a wealthy benefactor giving him lots of stuff. but this deal has meant that clarence thomas is essentially a kept man. one of the most powerful men in the country, who sits on the highest court in the land, lifetime tenure, essentially no way to dislodge him, and apart from the dangers of this as it relates to his day-to-day job, and they are significant, ruling on the most important cases in the country to come to the supreme court, it has set up real implications as it set out up to what don trump was trying to do on january 6th. so we already know that clarence thomas's wife, julie, was corresponding with mark meadows about the election and also corresponding with one of trump's lawyers, john eastman, that man there, after the election. now eastman is kind of in the thomas circle. he was the author the regional memo and he was also a former thomas clerk. december 4th, 2020, cheney asked eastman if he would proves it a status update to a group of great upstate leaders, presumably an update on eastman and other possible unindicted coconspirators efforts to have donald trump steal the election. we also know that john eastman spoke about his theory to overturn the 2020 results with a lawyer for vice president mike pence, mike jacob. in that conversation john eastman talked about he thought it would play out it's a dispute of election needed all the way up to the supreme court. this comes from jacob's testimony, to the january six committee, last year. >> mr. jacob, you discussed and even debated this theory at length with dr. eastman. dr. eastman ever tell you what he thought the u.s. supreme court would do if it had to decide this issue? >> yes. we had an extended discussion, an hour and a half to two hours on january 5th, and when i pressed him on the point i said john, if the vice president did what you are asking him to do, we would lose nine to nothing in the supreme court, wouldn't we? initially he said well, maybe you will earn only 72. and after some further discussion, acknowledged, well, yeah, you're right, we would lose 9 to 1. >> nine nothing or 7 to 2. i think i can come up with what those two would be. who were two justices who would be willing to transgressed the law so thoroughly that they would endorse a coup? they were really counting on clearance thomas, the kept man. surely he would be one of the two to vote in their favor favor. he couldn't be counted on to rule in their favor on an emergency appeal on circuit justice for georgia. this is another email from the -- this was written by another trump lawyer called kenneth chesebro, who wrote another memo recently uncovered by the new york times. she's pro rights to eastman, quote, possibly, as or spelling about how to steal the election, possibly thomas would end up being the key here. we want to frame things so that thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion, saying georgia is in legitimate doubt. realistically, our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by january 6th, which might hold up the georgia count in congress, is from thomas. of course it didn't play out the way they planned. it never got out of the court. the system held. the will of voters were heard. and i want to be fair here, i think the theory was so cockamamie that even if it had gone to the supreme court i would hope that jake was right in would've died a 90 death, i hope. in the end the coup did not work. to biden became president. but what happens if some aspect of long trump's election case ends up in front of this supreme court? what do they have an opportunity not to do anything affirmative, but just to delay, just to kick the can, maybe even silently, so that he is spared a trial before the election? would clarence thomas, the kept, man whose life of luxury subsidized by benefactors, deliver for the right? jamelle bouie is a opinion columnist for the new york times. melissa murray and join me now. first, jamelle, you read about, this melissa you run right about this a taliban cast, you also written about it. let's just start, general, with the arrangement of what it appears to be. i have never encountered anything like. it i'm searching for an analog for someone who is in a government job, a public sector job, making a good salary, who gets to live at this sort of level of luxury because there is just this unbelievable coterie of billionaires subsidizing his lifestyle. >> i can't think of anything else like it either. i think it's truly remarkable. i you think you had suggested that this was something of thomas remains in the court and he continues to rule in the favor of the conservative movement, and against live this high life. i don't think i disagree with that, but i also would add that i think part of the dynamic here is to completely wrap thomas and other justices as well, justice alito, within this alternative world of esteem and camaraderie, create these tight social ties, that are also bound up in fancy vacations and all sorts of nice stuff that will not even, that will just dissuade a justice from engaging in any of the ideological drift that can happen when you are effectively without accountability. they don't want another justice o'connor. they want someone who's going to be on the team, reliably, for the duration. >> melissa, what do you think, i mean, i guess the argument, to the extent there's an argument, on behalf of thomas, and sometimes people are on these trips with him will pop up on social media to defend, him which is kind of comical. it's like we're all friends, and i guess you don't like vacations with friends. i guess you lid zone like it when people who love each other and share each other's companionship get together in this spot. what's wrong with that? >> well, obviously, quiz it's not unconstitutional to have friends, even friends who are incredibly wealthy. but the supreme court isn't like any other entity in our system of constitutional design. it's, unlike congress it is and have the power of the purse. it's unlike the presidency. it doesn't have the power of the sword. for its legitimacy it depends on its own integrity. like, the people have to believe that the court is illegitimate in order for them to continue to follow the courts pronouncements. when you have a situation like this one, where there is the appearance that one of the justices or more are in the pockets of billionaires, it really gives the court a bad look. the impropriety may not be actual, but the appearance of impropriety is very clear, and sometimes that's all you need. just the appearance of impropriety and that is certainly here in spades. >> and we should say, in terms of the regulation, there's essentially not. and this is all voluntary regulation at this point. there are some laws that guide is. what are you going to do if they don't do this. you wrote this back in april. after one of these stories. there have been now a number. the police is not gonna police itself, the courts corruption not sea of its power is subjected to the same checks and limits we associate with the other branches. you have sam alito, jamele, in an interview, with a guy who's gonna be arguing huge case for him this term, by the way, saying congress doesn't, the constitution says the congress can't do that. >> i read that and i need lead side it's just obviously wrong. it isn't just obviously wrong but it's a remarkable statement. it's a statement from a supreme court justice that -- they exist above the constitutional system, that's nothing that can touch them. that's frankly false, the constitution provides a number of mechanisms for congress to restrain discipline or strip the court from the power of the purse. there's nothing in the constitution this is the justices have to have officers, have to have clerks. that's all or congressional discretion. from the fact that in my view i think in an reading of article three section two, congress can put regulations on the court with regards to ethics. can say that if you're going to hear this kind of category of cases, you have to not have any conflict of interest. it's the only thing congress can do. the fact that alito would say that publicly, having speaks to the imperiousness that has developed in the court. the imperious that is self evidence that the court needs to be restrained by another institution. >> there's also, i mean, when you look at that email that you just cited, melissa, i want to be scrupulously fair here, kenneth chesebro speculating that thomas would be their best shot doesn't mean that he would have been. this is a speculation by chesebro, and maybe he wouldn't have been. but i have to say that if i were justice thomas, we know that his wife is communicating with john eastman. we know she's texting mark meadows about the coup. we know she favors the coup. we have people inside the coup plot counting on you. i would be mortified that they thought that of me. that they think that this guy is their guy, that when they are trying to pull off the first coup in american history, or the first since fort sumter, basically, that the guy that they might save them is justice thomas. >> coop cuckoo, chris. he doesn't seem to mind that he is known as their guy. he doesn't seem to. mine he revels in that. again, these are close associations with the kinds of conservative interests not only have business before the court but in the wake of january six we are lots of defenses of what happened in the capital and what happened on the steps of the capital. and again, that's probably by design as well. this is someone who they think is their man on the court. donald trump has said repeatedly that his favorite justices clarence thomas. this is someone who's sensibilities align with layers and apparently now his pockets also align with their, or least that's what this reporting is showing. >> jamelle bouie and melissa murray, thank you both. coming up, we'll head inside a michigan courtroom where the lactic acid buildup and liver problems can occur. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. dovato may harm an unborn baby. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this: i stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about switching to dovato. wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. i stay undetectable with fewer medicines. it's to die for. and it's all right here. streaming was never this easy, you know. this is the way. you really went all out didn't you? um, it's called commitment. could you turn down the volume? here, you can try. get way more into what your into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. >> we have a possible date, goli, taste your goals. january 2nd of 2024. that is a date that special counsel jack smith is proposing for donald trump's d. c. january 6th trial. in a new court filing today, ahead of tomorrow's hearing on that proposed protective order, jack smith's team writes, quote, the government proposes the trial began on january 2024 and estimates its case in chief will take no longer than 4 to 6 weeks. if that actually sticks, that would mean that the ex-president would have a very busy calendar, with motions through october, november, the jury selection starting in december. the trial would start in the beginning of the new year and would likely take place smacked dab in the middle of the all-important iowa caucuses, which go on january 15th. the six-week case would likely wrap up sometime in february, which, i have to say, i think this is a good thing. not just on the merits, but the first thing for the republican party and all of its voters would be for them to know, for everyone who is voting, for the nomination of president, if they are voting to nominate a man who has been cleared or a convicted felon. joyce vance is a former u.s. attorney from the northern district of alabama, now a professor of law at the university of alabama, and she joins me now. first, joyce, explain the context of this proposal by jack smith's team. this is kind of an opening bid, i imagine. what do you think of it as such? >> i think opening bid is a great way to characterize it. the judge has asked for a proposed trial dates and this is the government. it is a quick but not an unreasonably quick schedule, and the government imposes a lot of the pain in this calendar on itself. for instance, giving itself just a brief period of time over the thanksgiving holidays to respond to a certain set of pretrial motions. so the government is showing that it is willing to assume a lot of the burden of this quick pace. but chris, you may well be right. the judge may see this is an opening bid. they there may be back and forth. but hanging over the proceeding in the political calendar. and perhaps there is a trade-off here, that is the former president once a later date, then he may have to wave his ability to plead the political schedule makes it difficult for him to appear in court. at some point, there is going to be a period of time, the government says 4 to 6 weeks to try its case. defendants cases are usually significantly shorter. but that block of time will have to be set aside, just like anyone else has a job or has commitments. when they are put on criminal trial, this is not a voluntary exercise for donald trump. >> yeah. it's interesting because again, i do think, this is me bending over backwards, fairness on behalf of the republican party. it's one of two major parties. they're gonna have a nomination contest. the nightmare scenario is, you only counted, or he gets a nomination and right out of wrapping up the delegates, goes to sit in this trial with, you've got a guy who's the nominee and they're gonna find out what happens to him. that seems like a bad idea from a sort of public interest standpoint. >> it does seem like the folks who may like this scheduling proposal the most would-be folks in the republican party. i'm sure we won't hear them say that out loud. but look, it's complicated when you have a candidate running for an office like this and jack smith in this new motion identifies an additional reason for going early. the tone in this motion, and chris, i'm sure you noticed this, the tone is very different. the gloves are off. there is no longer in this sense of extra deference to the former president. he's got to go to trial like anyone else. and the government then says it is not only the defendant who has interest stake here. it's the public. the public has a right to a speedy trial, and that is very acute in the situation. >> that really jumped out at me as well. hey can propose later d. hat can they do? can they get this out of judge tanya chutkan's hands? can they get it to the circuit court? can we get it to the supreme court, summit him to delay? >> there are some types of motions that can be appealed pretrial, where you can go to a court of appeals and ask for a determination before trial. but those are for few and far between. in large part we leave questions the defendants have to follow a verdict if there is one against them in to be appealed at that point in time. but let's say trump does posture a motion into a form that is immediately appealable, the courts of appeals across the country are particularly good at handling these motions quickly. sometimes you will see a situation where a criminal trial can be delayed extensively while a court can consider the matter. but in this situation with so much at stake for the public as well as for the defendant, the courts should be able to push it through more quickly. >> right. that's the question. if he can come up with the plausible interlocutory appeal, that is what appeals or call that are exempt from the final judgment rule, appeals after final judgment. if you can find an interlocutory appeal and get up to the circuit, that seems to be the only hail mary procedural path to get him out of the trial before the election. joyce vance, as always, thank you very much. still ahead, they're the first people charged in long trump's fake electors scheme, but they are hardly the only participants. is this just the beginning of state level prosecutions for donald trump school attempt? next. [ tires screeching ] jordana, easy on the gas. i gotta wrap this commercial, i think i'm late on my payment. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. [ tires screeching ] jordana, easy on the gas. i gotta wrap this commercial, i think i'm late on my payment. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general. >> arguably for the first-time, you are seeing some kind of justice medo. folks on the frontlines of so-called fake electors. but i remember this when false electors in michigan were caught on camera trying to enter the state house to filed a fake document. effectively claiming that trump should win the state electoral votes. despite losing well by quite a bit there. in total, all 16 of the fake electors were charged. eight felony counts each by the michigan attorney general. today, some of the people who were trying to claw their way into the state house were filmed in a different context. people read their rights, finishing bail as a part of a virtual arraignment. >> who did unlawfully conspire, combine and agreed together with rodriguez, magic and other persons to falsely make, alter, ford or counterfeit a public record. with the intent to injure or defraud contrary to law. that is a felony eu attempted to defraud by the certificate of the votes of the 2020 electors from michigan. and that is a felony. maximum penalty of 14 years or $10,000. >> that's what it looks like and sounds like when the foot soldiers in the pot to the state election place today in court. at least the beginning of it. in addition to the charges in michigan, when a phone county district attorney finals has been investigating the thick electors in her state. now being reported that she is considering charging more than a dozen individuals related to trump's coup attempt. so if the fake electors scream, possibly criminal in georgia. it seems to me it would stand to region is likely criminally other five states where republicans filed those false documents. join me now is rick hasse. and professor of law ucla. director of its safeguarding democracy project. we're, what do you think about, obviously there has been all eyes on jack smith, the federal, government department of justice. there's the new york case which has nothing to do the 2020 election. what do you think, as somebody who is a scholar of democracy and election law about criminal charges against the folks in michigan and possibly other teams. >> well, every state has got their own laws. and each state path when it came to the fake electors looked different. at first, this looked like it was just a backstop. i quote if we file a lawsuit and it turns out that trump is declared the winner in our state. we need to have those electors picked or trump electors might not count on a technicality. that is very different from the memo we saw coming out later on. coming from one of trump's allies which basically said, yeah, we know we have lost but we are going to do this anyway. because it might be a way to stall things and keep biden from becoming president. so it's going to depend on the facts in each state, it's also going to depend on each state's law. >> you bring up one really interesting detail of returned to a few times on the program. in a few states, i believe it was new mexico in pennsylvania if i'm not mistaken. they added a caveat. there's one in pennsylvania. i like michigan, pennsylvania's alternate electors are unlikely to face criminal repercussions because of an important legal can be added to the document. saying the votes they were casting should only be counted if it court found that they were the duly elected qualified electors. i find that so fascinating. and some, ways it is just a sentence with a conditional clause. well lawyered i'd say. but it's also the difference between trying to commit fraud not trying to commit fraud. >> absolutely. it might well done very prudent for these electors to think about getting together. because we have a crazy byzantine system. transiting votes into the electoral college votes to get counted in congress. so good lawyering would tell you that you want to have a backup in case trump is declared by a court to be the winner in the state. and that does, to an extent that these fraud cases turn on people's state of mind their intent, this does show we do not intend to break the law. we're just trying to cover ourselves in the event there is judicial change the result. >> obviously you have been writing about election law for a long time. it is an area of law that has grown more contested and higher sale insides. it really interesting pieces that has been published by two conservative law professors. there south pluck land a regionalists. they are arguing the constitution requires trump to be barred from office. two prominent law professors concluded donald j trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the constitution that vice people who have engaged in an instruction from hold government office. professor summarize the conclusion that donald trump cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office unless two thirds of congress decides to grant him and nasty for his conduct on january 6th. that cost has been there in the 14th amendment of the constitution, written in the wake of the civil war in the insurrection against the union. what do you think of this? >> >> this is the big sleeper issue, most people are not paying attention to this by any number of states, there are actions already being taken, not just against trump but others to try to disqualify them from time. i think that the most important thing about this claim under section three, of the 14th amendment is that these issues have to get resolved pretty fast. because what happens if trump wins the election. and then when it comes time january 6th 2025. democrats in congress let's say they control house of congress, they say no so he's an eligible. that would be a huge crisis if we've had an election and trump declared the winner and now we've got this legal sticks that just gets pulled out. so however this gets resolved legally, i think it needs to get resolved sooner rather than later. >> that is a really, really good point for qassem. thank you very much. >> thank you. still to come, dozens killed as wildfires leave a hawaiian town in ruin. the latest disaster in a steadily heating world ahead. dily heating world ahead >> bidenomics, it's a-term you've. probably heard by now. i'm sure you have. for the first two years in the administration it was regularly used by joe biden's critics as a shorthand to criticize the administration's policies, particularly in 2021 and 2022 when inflation was high. recently things have been looking much much better for the u.s. economy. inflation is down dramatically from its high in 2022, ticked up slightly last month but the trends are all going the right way. crucially as of july, wages are rising against inflation, which is what people care about, that they have purchasing power? many significant gains made among working class people in this country. in other words, things are getting better and that's why the administration has put a concerted effort into reclaiming that term bidenomics as a point of pride. yesterday the president touted his bidenomic record in new mexico as part of a victory lap for his administration's historic infrastructure investments. he also took some time to poke some fun at the republicans who railed against the infrastructure bills in congress but are now happy to reap the rewards. >> -- in what will be the world's largest manufacturing plant. and coincidentally congresswoman lauren boebert, you know that very quiet and public lady? it's in her district. who along with every other republicans voted against this bill. and that's making all this possible. she railed against its passage, but that's okay. she's welcome anytime. and this senator from the state of alabama who used to be a pretty good football coach. he railed against this legislation, and then i noticed. alabama's gonna get a billion $200 million! and i said wait a minute, didn't he rail against that for a long, long time? i was inclined to go down and help him celebrate! [laughter] >> president biden thought better about celebrating with senator tommy tuberville in alabama. of course tuberville doesn't really live in alabama it appears, but there is real cause for celebration. attention... are you suffering from hearing loss? the fda has finally approved hearing aids to be sold over the counter. and now, rca, introduces their revolutionary otc hearing aids... starting as low as $99. delivered, free...right to your door. they're affordable, they're not the cost people associate with hearing aids or hearing devices. the old fashioned hearing aids were a serious hassle. my old fashioned ones cost me $5,000 and these actually work better. the rca hearing aids are more than $5,000 less. act now and reclaim the joy of hearing with rca otc hearing aids. from as low as $99. you will not find hearing aids of this quality at this price anywhere. the first moment i received my hearing aids from rca, i popped them in my ear, and it was like bam, i could hear everything! you know rca. the quality is there. you got a company behind it that is the leader in the industry in sound. with completely adjustable volume, built in. simply slip on rca's rechargeable otc hearing aids and instantly hear your world again! i love you. never miss a moment again. after you get your hearing aids you realize how much you were missing, you know. i can't wait to get home and hear my grandkids playing. no more missed moments. that's right. don't wait any longer to finally hear what you've been missing. no doctors. no tools required, and no batteries to fumble with! it's not worth waiting. oh my gosh if i had only known, i would have gotten these years ago. you cleared up decades of frustration in a second. i hate that i waited this long. order now for the low introductory price of just $99. you get a carrying case and accessory kit, plus free shipping. add a second hearing aid and we'll include a bonus deluxe charging cradle free! it is the hottest summer on order now...call this number, or visit rcahearingaids.com record in hawaii is burning. the islands and one of the most remotely inhabited places knowing tire were, sitting 2300 miles from california's east. right now wildfires are ravaging the state you've probably seen some of these terrifying scenes it come out of california the past few years that are now tearing through the island of maui. this is what it looked like yesterday as the fires destroyed businesses in lahaina, and area with native hawaiian heritage. nearly 2000 buildings have burned down, 53 deaths confirmed in maui, and number the governor says he expects to rise in updates just later tonight. state office of emergency management set is trying to get a handle on the fires, since thousands of tourists and residents rushed to evacuate. airlines are canceling flights to bowie, repurposing those flights for evacuation. and -- they come as atmospheric carbon is producing record heat. climate far more extreme and unstable than any of us have experienced in our lifetimes. senator mazie hirono is a democrat representing hawaii and she joins me now. senator, first of all i just want to say that everyone in the country is watching these scenes appalled and sending support to the state of hawaii. i know it is brutal there. what's your read from what you are hearing from the folks even touch with? >> first of all, we want to thank everyone for the support that they have provided to the people of hawaii. it can certainly go to maui county. gov and they will direct you to a site where you can get help. but chris, it is very clear that we are seeing the frequency and severe severity of nature like hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes floods. we had hurricane dora that created tremendous windy conditions that caused the flames and maui to spread in unpredictable ways. so climate change is something that we are experiencing on a regular basis and is certainly exasperated the damage that is happening in maui, but we thank everyone for their good wishes and support. >> and maui, you've got an entire town with rich obviously native hawaiian history. it was once a violent or stand correctly the capital of the hawaiian kingdom that is been essentially leveled. obviously, the islands are going to be meeting a lot of help in reconstruction? >> very much so and that's why it's all hands on deck with the county, the state, the federal government and right now we have what we call a family of federal agencies that are either on the island or this would be fema, the department of defense, transportation, energy, agriculture, army corps of engineers and i expect the sba administrative guseman to be on maui island. i will be accompanying her if she is able to come because the recovery is going to be long and we won't need all the support that we can get for our homeowners and our businesses and as va it is very much part of that type of recovery. >> i've i got to go to hawaii for the first time this year. i was in ohio for a week it was magical and wonderful and obviously everyone who's been there says that. but i spent some time talking to view people, policy makers and so forth who talked about just a degree which the hawaiian islands are exposed to climate risk unlike any other place in the united states. and it's been a focal point and imminent threat as understood by hawaiian policymakers almost two decades now. >> definitely climate change, global warming, rising sea levels and the destruction of coral, we in hawaii are the tip of the sphere of those types of impacts of climate change. so yes, we are not immune from all of these devastations and as i said we are at the tip of the spear. i'm really glad lad chris that you said how historically heinen is, it was once the seat of the government of the monarchy. very important historic buildings. lahaina is a focal point for our cultural support, i have maui and many of us have been to lahaina which is a tourist destination in itself. we need to restore power to some 11,000 residents including the ability to communicate via internet. so the devastation continues. we are only today assessing the extent of the damage. the search and rescue process is still happening and the wildfire itself is about 80% under control, but these are unpredictable situations so we are of course being very wary about what else is going to happen. but we are going to need rid of the presidents declaration of national natural disasters and bring all sorts of federal resources to help us recover. >> you talk about a federal natural disaster declaration. i saw some hawaiian politicians and public leaders calling on the president to declare a climate emergency. this is something number of folks have been calling for, their various emergency powers under a variety of statutes. a lot of people want the president to declare climate emergency. it's unclear what that would effectuate and what that would allow him to do, although there are interesting arguments about the power of that. is it something you are looking for? do you think there's some sort of climate tipping point that there is some executive urgency necessary that is currently not present? >> this administration and the democratic congress truly has focused more on fighting climate change than any others. three some 300 billion dollars was in the inflation reduction act with not a single republican voting for it to combat glass global warning of climate change, and -- and yes of course there is more that we can do. but i have been announcing grants to fight climate change brought to us by the epa for example. all of these kinds of efforts need to continue. but chris there are some states where you can't even use the term climate change. they're running away from it and putting your head in the sand, but it's very clear that what we are experiencing in hawaii and so many other parts of the world. there's a severity and frequency of major climate events. we're not for hurricane dora and the 16 80 mile per hour winds in the white big island and maui, then this firestorm would not have been i would say, it would not have burned them so much of now is it did. that is the view of our climate scientists here. climate change is upon us in the more we recognize it and spend the resources and the focus that we need to do the better off we all will be. this is a worldwide position. >> senator mazie herman of hawaii. again everybody is sending the best thoughts to a truly special place in this world in this country. thank you very much. that is all in on this thursday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening. alex today mr. trump's alleged coconspirators in the mar-a-lago case, that would be walt naughto and carlos de oliveira, they appeared in a florida courtroom to address the new charges against them by special counsel jack smith the new defendant here, trump's property manager carlos de oliveira did not enter he still needs to lock in local legal representation. but both trump and his valet walt nauta pleaded not guilty to deleting security footage down at mar-a-lago. and while this classified documents case continues to move