forward so too does jack smith's other case, the one in washington, d.c. today special special prosecutors revealedsp when the hope to schedule that trial. jack smith's team told the court they want to begin the 2020 election case against trump on january 2nd. prosecutors argued starting the trial on the second day of the new year before any of the nominating contests would vindicate the public's strong interest in a speedy trial. now, we do not know whether or not the court willno agree to tt date, and trump's legal team will almost certainly push back, but if the court heeds the government's wishes here, then, wow, donald trump has a very busy dance card in the month of january. take a look at this. a potential criminal trial on january 2nd and then four days later the anniversary of the capitol insurrection, january 6th. nine days after that it is the iowa caucuses, which of course is the first contest of the 2024 republican presidential primary. and then some time around then, likely the very next day, trump's legal team is scheduled to be in court for his second defamation case against journalism e. jean carroll. and less than two weeks later trump's legal team is due in court again for a class action lawsuit brought in his role for an alleged grift involving videophones in the early 2000s. just so we are clear here, in the same four-week period donald trump could be facing legal jeopardy for alleged attempts to overthrow democracy and conning people into buying crappy videophones that really looked a lot like portable dvd players. he is truly one in million, america. whatever the judge decides the special counsel's team is wasting no time preparing for an early trial. just minutes after requesting that early trial date, doj prosecutors issued a separate filing a saying their 2020 election case may include a small amount of classified information. they asked the judge here, tanya chutkan, to discuss this matter at a hearing at the end of this month, which is interesting information. now, keep in mind that all of this is happening the day before a very important hearing in this federal case against mr. trump. tomorrow judge chutkan is going to hear arguments from both the defense and the prosecution about whether to grant a protective order here. and that order would prohibit trump from sharing evidence in this case with the public. now, so far there is very good reason to believe that trump would want to do just that. i mean, donald trump has spent the last weeks very publicly attacking thepu prosecutors in this case and other cases. his comments have not been subtle. here he was last night in an interview with newsmax. >> fani willis, the prosecutor in georgia, what are your thoughts ofre her? is not a capable woman. jack smith, he's like a deranged individual. he's like a deranged human being. he's a sick puppy. >> those kinds of comments, those kinds of comments are a real challenge for trump who cannot seem to stop saying them and his legal team it is also a challenge for them because they cannot convince him to stop saying them if they even want to. but those w kinds of comments a also a challenge for the judge overseeing this case, a judge who has to balance trump's legitimate first amendment right as a presidential candidate with the reality that trump is already very much targeting the judge and the prosecutors in advance of a criminal trial. and he appears to have a predetermined strategy here, which is to take as much and as loudly about this case as possible to shore up his defense. joining me now is chucks s rosenberg, former attorney and senior fbi official, and glenn thrush. i know, chuck, you are an important legal asset for all of us here at msnbc in terms of your understanding of the nuances of the law here, and my question to you is how difficult a position is judge chutkan in right now in what seems to be fragrant abuse ofs a defendantn any case, and trump's legitimate right to talk about what may be aay potent political weapon goi into a presidential nominating contest. >> very difficult, alex.y i think you framed it exactly right. we've never had as a criminal defendant somebody who is also likely to be a major party nominee for president. so judge chutkan has to balance those first amendment rights and his interest in campaigning, his right to speakn publicly about his campaign and his promise for office with the needs of a criminal trial, which include a lot of restrictions on a lot of defendants in ordinary cases around the country. and as you well know there are restrictive rules in this particular federal court that limit what a defendant can say let alone lawyers can say and give the judge aca right to impe strict conditions on them. a whole separate question, of course, is whether mr. trump would abide any of those restrictions. he's not veryse good at that as you know. >> glenn, there's -- i mean, i don't think i'm getting ahead of myself here in saying i don't predict that trump has any inclination to stop doing what he's doing as evidence by the behavior of his own lawyers, right? john lorro, his attorney in this case was out on the sunday shows doing what you're not supposed to do. you can bet he's not getting legal advice to the contrary. upe until this point trump's general position has been to flout authority, and i have a time imagining it's going to be different in this scenario. >> i mean it's morass, right? there are two reasons a judge issues a protective order. to keep the jury pool from being tainted so the defendant can't be out there talking about information that makes it very hard to choose a jury pool and the third here seeking to intimidate witnesses through public statements, which is something we've also seen crop up in the mar-a-lago cases. the one thing we know is jack smith, the special counsel, doesn't want to s get into this trap, into sort of the bond trap of having there being a revisiting of these very lenient bond terms. trump was virtually no conditions were imposed on his bond because smith understands the potential problems with this. i think the judge also in that case. so the question is is it okay for him outside the courtroom to beat the hell out of a judge, to demean a prosecutor without necessarily violating a protectivess order? i mean it might very well turn out as long as he stays within the confines of not discussing the substance of the case or witness intimidation, that, you know, saying these seemingly outrageous things about his main -- the arbiter in the case and his main opponent legally might be within the lies. the tire january 6th indictment and the legal indictment filed against him is one legal production and to expect it to end at the courthouse door is just not realistic. >> yeah, i completely agree. and the question is what sort of punishment awaits him on the otheron side? chuck? sort of throwing him in jail whichng seems a possibility it' fines? is that the legal recourse on the table here? >> i agree with glenn i don't think his bond will be revoked, and i think the practy of putting a former president with lifetime secret service protection in jail is enormous, but there are remedies. you touched on one, alex. a judge can hold anybody who doesn't obey a lawful court order in civil or criminal contempt,in but there's somethi else and i think we ought to mention it. look at what happened in the federal case in the southern district of florida. thect government super seeded wh additional counts including additional counts of obstruction of justice. so if mr. trump crosses that line, i think the government is just going have to accept they're going to be criticized and denigrated. but if mr. trump crosses the line and starts going after witnesses, intimidating, harassing witnesses, that's a separate federal crime. and the government has the authority to go to a grand jury and ask it to indict mr. trump for those additional crimes. look, it may be the case that nothing stops him. it may be the case that nothing slows him down, but there are remedies for the government and for the judge. >> yeah, i mean adding more charges to what he already has mounting, that could be an incentive. we may see. we may not see. glenn, i have to ask you about the other sort of -- i'll call it an easter egg. i'm not sure you think of it in the same way, this notion there may be some classified documents involved in the discovery. do you have any sense where we might going on that? >> onno, that was pretty interesting i haveo, to say. i don't know quite what that would pertain to. we have enough mystery with unindicted coconspirator number 6, we're all puzzling trying to figure out precisely who that might be. no, this is actually quite a surprise, the fact there are a small number of classified documents, you know, indicates it's not a big issue. the one b area i would say and scanned again through indictment to look for potential areas where that might be the case, there was some discussion about meetings in the white house involving national security, a meeting with s milley that took place before one of the infamous oval officef encounters with justice department officials. so there was bleed over between those b meetings and some of th doj meetings. and then the other issue is in the indictment smith also refers to the director of national security and other folks involved in the intelligence community giving trump counsel that all of these various schemes were illegal. so there is some -- there's some brushing of shoulders with areas that could be potentially classified, but your guess is as good as mine. >> well, yeah, it would be ironic if it was mark milley who of course was the subject of the bed menster document waving around that now has worked its way into the mar-a-lago case. truck, does the entrance of classified material into this, potentially slow things down given the fact trump's defense team was looking for any reason to delay, you know, these trials and will presumably make an argument, delay their classified certificationer, the seats of process. an d that slow us down in unfortunate way here? >>un theoretically, but really, alex, it shouldn't, the classified information procedures act, the act you use when you have classified documents that the government wants to use at trial can be a little bit cumbersome, but if you're talking about a small number of classified documents, it really shouldn't act as a break on these proceedings. and by the way, i think glenn is right. my sense is that when senior national intelligence officials come to the white house to brief theth president, they often bri with them memos or power points, sometimes charts or maps or diagrams. those are often marked as highly classified in part because they're going in front of the president.in and if those senior officials who were briefing mr. trump and were telling him he'd lost the election. if they're t giving him classifd information, some of it may be in writing and subject to the classified information proceduresas act. >> fascinating that it may all go back to fraudulent claims about international interference in the 2020 election. chuck rosenberg and glenn thrush, thank you for your time tonight. appreciate it. we have much more still to come this evening. brand new propublica reporting on luxury items lavished on justice clarence thomas. you're not going to believe the views. plus, republicans plow full steam ahead on the biden crime family boondoggle. there is a why in here somewhere, and we are going to get to it with claire mccaskill. that's coming up. caskill. that's coming up [bell dings] are you good? no, i think i'm late on my car insurance. good thing the general gives you a break when you need it. yeah, with flexible payment options to keep you covered. just tag us in. ouaaaahhhh! [bell dings] for a great low rate, go with the general. bridgett is here. ouaaaahhhh! [bell dings] she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and once-in-a-lifetime. i heard you yesterday refer to them as a crime family and and this was organized crime. so make it easy for us. what was the crime? >> well, the crime is that creating policy for money. >> which policy? >> well, we're going to get into that. >> for months -- months house oversight chair james comer and his republican allies have been suggesting they will finally be able to get into the evidence about the biden crime family, the biden crime family. and now the house oversight committee has released a memo showing more than $20 million in payments from entities from russia and ukraine and causic stn to the biden family and their business associates. but there are no direct payments to joe biden listed. there is no evidence even that joe biden was involved in any of this. in other words, they still haven't gotten into that. this is now the third memo that fails to show evidence linking president biden to his son's private business dealings, but the oversight committee says it doesn't have to show payments linked to biden to prove he is corrupt. joining me now is claire mccaskill, former democratic senator from missouri. claire, thank you for being here. i am trying to make sense of my position here because on one hand it seems so obvious that they haven't actually gotten into the substance of these very incendiary claims they're making about the biden family, and then another part of me thinks at your own peril ignore the machinations of the right-wing. where do you stand on this? >> well, first of all, what hunter biden did was dumb and i think had a great appearance of impropriety, may not be illegal, but joe biden didn't do it. by the way, we have a long history of family members playing off presidents to try to make money. going all the way back to fdr, we had richard nixon's brother. frankly, we had billy carter who was taking money from libya. what drives me crazy about this is the blinking red light around jared kushner. why does the senate not start a hearing? i mean let's just briefly walk through what jared kushner did. he was put in to run a huge port polio in a government where he had no experience, running foreign policy in the middle east process, no experience. what does he do first? he becomes best buddies with the crown prince of saudi arabia. he has -- he gets trump to go to saudi arabia for his first trip. he has the crown prince in the white house dining room. he does all that. and what happens the minute trump leaves office, he starts for the first time a private equity fund. he goes over and asks the crown prince for $2 billion. and you know what the committee said that runs the sovereign wealth fund for saudi arabia, alex, they said this is really bad idea. they did their due diligence and it failed miserably in every test of due diligence and management fees were excessive. and they remmed against making a $2 billion investment. of course the crown prince came along and overruled them and gave jared kushner $2 billion. compare and contrast that to steve mnuchin who was treasury secretary. he went to the crown prince to try to tradeoff his trump connectionsmism and instead even though he'd run an investment company, they only gave him 1 billion and paid him less in management fees. this is a huge scandal. i do not understand why the senate is not doing a hearing on all the trump grift, and i'm not even talking about the money they made on foreign government while they were in office. >> i hear what you're saying about -- >> i'm fired up on this. >> no, i think there's probably -- because i wonder if you think the answer to that question, if you looking at hunter biden, why not look at jared kushner? is the reason democrats, for example, are not leading the charge on that because there's a tacit acknowledgement in it that what hunter biden was doing was sleazily if not illegal and that democrats maybe in large part in deference to the white house are loathe to do that. do you think that's factoring in here? is that part of the strategy in not touching jared kushner? >> i don't understand that strategy. that's a good way to make every headline about hunter biden and have everybody forget about when trump family did. massive grift while they were in office, an even bigger grift trading off the influence of the name trump after they got out of office. so i really think that what hunter biden did, i disagree with what he did. i don't know if his father disagreed with what he did. i don't know if he was tormented by the death of his other son and his addiction with hunter. but the more we give them an open playing field to try to pretend like joe biden did something wrong because of what hunter did, the bigger mistake we make. we need to explain to the american people first that joe biden did nothing wrong, they have no evidence he did anything wrong. and secondly, hey, don't look over here. look at the real sleaziness that occupied the white house the last time republicans were encharge. >> and claire, i absolutely hear the urgency in your voice saying they need to explain because i think a lot of people have -- maybe democrats have ptsd, for example, swift vote veterans or donald trump trotting out bill clinton's marital infidelities, literally the women who were involved in all that at debates to scare hillary clinton. those tactics seemed absurd. they were patently false in certain respect, and yet they were rezinate. and i kind of wonder if the hunter biden thing as patently ridiculous as it is to tie it to joe biden, i mean republican voters seem convinced about it. they're using it to the defend the actions of trump visa vi his criminal indictments, and i wonder if you think it might be a problem within independents? >> i worry about it. i do think all those other times relatives tried to make money off the presidency, it didn't really hurt the presidents. bill clinton had a problem with hillary's brothers, and there were all kind -- billy carter was a problem. and richard nixon he had a different problem. he has the same kind of problem trump has. he did illegal stuff. i don't think it's really going to hurt joe biden, but i don't think we should allow them to get away with this. i just don't think we should allow them to get away with it. it is wrong what the kushners did, what ivanka and jared did. it's wrong what all of them did, and we need to talk about it more. >> claire mccaskill, i'm glad we had this conversation. i need your perspective here. thank you as always for your time this evening. >> my pleasure. still more to come tonight. the drip, drip, drip of revelations about the luxury gifts that justice clarence thomas has received from his billionaire friends. that drip, drip, drip is turning into a flood. that's coming up next. turning into a flood that's coming up 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. wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. next scene might take a while. 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. the football team at the university of nebraska is so popular that it has sold out every seat in its more than 85,000-seat stadium at every home game since 1962. and that is what makes this so significant. this is a photo of supreme court justice clarence thomas and his wife ginni in the end zone of a game in 2019. at that game the thomas' got to meet the team and they got to walk out of the player's tunnel before kick off, which is pretty awesome. they then watched the game from a luxury sky box access to which normally costs $40,000 a year. the thomases had all access passes but they didn't have to pay for anything. it was paid for by socle. he also flew them there in a private jet, and then after the game he flew them out to his private ranch in wyoming. that's a picture of it for an all expenses paid fishing trip. look at that view. nothing better. all of it must be nice, but justice thomas disclosed none of this, not the private jet or the player's tunnel or the swanky ranch, none of it. and it does not end there. propublica has identified at least 38 destination vacations, 26 private jet flights, 8 helicopter flights, and a dozen vip passes to sporting events that justice thomas and his wife received as gifts from wealthy friends who happened to have similar ideological perspectives as the justice. and this new story is deeply reported. the sourcing includes flight data and tax court filings and interviews with more than 100 eyewitnesses. what is unearthed here is a lifestyle that is very hard to fathom especially for a supreme court justice. crew members of this 126-foot luxury yacht told propublica that they recall having justice thomas onboard multiple times in recent years. a chauffeur in the bahamas recalled his company once picked up justice thomas from a private jet and then drove him to the marina where this yacht docks. the yacht and the private jet, by the way, are both owned by a billionaire oil barren named paul novelli. and we know the market price for a week on this thing is $60,000. justice thomas and his wife have also had the honor of flying on this custom private 737 jumbo jet that has been retrofitted with recliner seats and mahogany dining tables and also the miami dolphins logo. they got that privilege thanks to their friend wayne, another billionaire who used toown both the miami dolphins and florida panthers and apparently used the jet to shuttle the thomases to and from games because he was a really nice guy, especially if you were a supreme court justice. but maybe the most exclusive thing justice thomas appears to have been comped for was a standing invitation to this place, the members-only golf club, the floridian. it also used to belong to billionaire wayne and he didn't charge admission to it. all the 200 plus members were invited by him to eat and play and relax for free. the club has since been sold and now charges $150,000 just as the initiation fee. justice thomas has been spotted there multiple times. now, the supreme court effectively polices itself on disclosure for stuff like this. and propublica is upfront about the fact that not all the hospitality they report on here may have required disclosure. all the wealthy benefactors involved essentially say this hospitality shouldn't be judged so harshly because they are thomas' friends. propublica hasn't identified the legal factors at the time they were wining and dining and flying the justice all over the place. nbc news reached out to justice thomas for comment this morning but we've not heard back. in a statement justice thomas said he'd been advised this sort of hospitality from close personal friends who did not have business before the court was not reportable. but it should be said that optics matter here because the public's faith in the court matters, that belief the justices who sit on that bench are morally up right and are not, for example, in the pocket of anyone. so regardless of whether all of this had to be disclosed, it is still jaw dropping that justice thomas chose to disclose none of it. the only reason we know about it is that propublica decided to investigate. one of their senior editors who has overseen all of their recent supreme court coverage joins me next. eir recent supreme court coverage joins me next rsv is in for a surprise. meet arexvy. ( ♪♪ ) the first fda-approved rsv vaccine. arexvy is used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can severely affect the lungs and lower airways. arexvy is proven to be over 82% effective in preventing lower respiratory disease from rsv and over 94% effective in those with these health conditions. ( ♪♪ ) 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. rsv can be serious. talk to your doctor or pharmacist about arexvy today. rsv? make it arexvy. in early april we found out about supreme court justice clarence thomas' relationship with billionaire republican megadonor harlan crow and all the lavish trips he'd taken around the world on mr. crow's super yacht, trips he failed to disclose on his disclosure forms. apparently that was just the beginning. he failed to disclose nine years ago mr. crow bought the home his mother lives in and lives in today. and he failed to disclose he paid the tuition of his grandnephew, running a tab that may have exceeded $150,000. and today we learned of the dozens of destination locations and private jets and otherwise high roller experiences that clarence thomas has received from other billionaires who have basically kept justice thomas in a life of luxury. and we have learned all of this thanks to dogged investigative reporting from propublica. joining me now is the senior editor at propublica overseeing all the supreme court coverage. first of all, congratulations on really, really important reporting that must have been time consuming and invaluable. it is a public service. but secondly, i mean i was struck by the scale of this. and as a lay person that has not overseen all this coverage is there any parallel in history to a justice taking this much from a group of wealthy individuals? >> yeah, that's a great question and thanks for having me, and it's very flattering. and we were flabbergasted by that, too. where does the guy find the time? 38 vacations in fewer than 30 years, and on the court that is. and it's surely an undercount. we have lots of evidence that this is an undercount because we were extremely conservative about both the destination travel and the flights, 26 private jet flights. so what we were struck with after the harlan crow stories were that we got tips that indicated that the scale was much greater, that the circle of benefactors was wider and that there were so many more gifts and undisclosed travel, and that's what we focused on here today to emphasize this is a scale that is unprecedented in modern court history either from any federal judge or certainly from a supreme court justice. there is no precedent for this. >> what is also interesting you have as evidence is sort of christmas cards ginni thomas sent out featuring some of their lavish trips with billionaire friends. they weren't hiding this. this was holiday greeting card material and yet none of this finds its way into the disclosure forms. is that evidence to say it's consciousness of guilt maybe not in the legal sense but perhaps in the moral or ethical sense? >> i think it's evidence they were brazen or thought that they -- you know, the most generous interpretation is they thought they weren't doing anything wrong, or they really didn't care or thought they wouldn't get caught. and it is quite remarkable and a part of our massive trove of evidence from ginni thomas' own cards, the pictures saying they were hosted in this multitude of events. and there's some delicious details in there such as he's got a kind of buddy lawyer who's an attack dog, mark poletta and coletta and his wife serenaded the thomases with one of their own songs during the festivities. there are great detail. but you're right, it was in the open. it was kind of -- it was there to be seen and hasn't been for decades, which is a kind of remarkable in and of itself and a comment on how we've covered and perceived the court up until only very recently. >> yeah, i -- it's so good you brought up that mark poletta anecdote of his friends literally surnading him. i have friends. i love my friends. i think my friends love me. none of them serenade me singing me lyrics they've written in advance off their iphones. i don't think that happens in most circle of friends. >> we all need better friends. >> who would fly me around on private jets. but you make the point i think it's important here these are people who were not friends with him before he was a supreme court justice, and that is really relevant. the absolute adoration, the fealty, the deference to me that strikes me as an unhealthy imbalanced relationship and/or one that one wonders what clarence thomas is getting out of it beyond the ego stroking. they don't have business before the court, but it just seems wildly asymmetrical. did it seem that way to you? >> absolutely. and that's an extremely important point you just raised. crow, noveli, hizinga are all friends thomas made after he joined the court, and we have the top ethics official in the obama administration who served in other administrations saying that he actually told people, the wealthy friends that you have or the wealthy friends you had before you joined the government, you're not allowed to make new, rich friends. that's something that he actually said to people to emphasize their ethical responsibilities. and here thomas is flouting that in this extremely brazen way. and there's a question of why. why are these ultra-wealthy conservative donors inenveloping thomas in this life of luxury he couldn't afford on a public servant salary. and i'm going to leave it to others to speculate. we haven't found cases this man had before the court directly, but there is a way that thomas has become ensconced in a world, a protective world of adulation where all of his ideas are echoed back to him. maybe they are given to him or they're discussed in ways that -- and we don't have evidence for this, but it certainly is supposition that this is a chamber of as you say adulation and, you know, ideological closure that protects him from the outside world. and envelopes him in luxury at the same time. >> envelopes him in luxury like a thick laura piano cashmere blanket which i'm sure has been in the offering along the way. thank you on behalf of the people who care about the integrity of the court. we really appreciate all the good reporting. good job. >> thank you so much. still ahead this evening, the deadly wildfires in maui right now have been leaving dozens dead, and they have been destroying priceless parts of hawaiian history. we are going to talk about what has been lost to those flames coming up next. lost to those f coming up next today president biden issued a federal disaster declaration freeing up funds for the devastating wildfires that have been sweeping across hawaii. officials say at least 53 people have died making it one of the deadliest u.s. wildfires in decades. in lahaina, which is one of the hardest hit towns on the island of maui, historically culturally significant sites have been effectively been reduced to ash and rubble. and that includes the famous 150-year-old banyan tree. it is now severely burnt but thankfully it is still standing. the historical baldwin home museum which is an 1830s era house once home to a medical missionary who vaccinated the island against smallpox and believed to be the oldest home in maui, that has burned down. the walls of a church, an 1820s house of worship where many of the early kings and queens of the kingdom of hawaii were buried, that was engulfed in flames, which you can see in that picture right there. and the lahaina heritage museum which sits in a historic courthouse and houses ancient hawaiian artifacts has been destroyed by the wildfires. joining me now is a professor of anthropology and professor of ethnic studies. our condolences to you and anyone you know on the island. for us on the mainland here we talk so little and honestly know so little about hawaii's precolonial history. what does it mean to have these artifacts and these structures destroyed by the wildfire? >> thanks, alex. and first, i'd like to lift up all of those who have been impacted by the fires on hawaii and maui, and our thoughts and prayers and appreciate all the good will that's going towards the islands. with regards to the past, the precolonial past of hawaii and the significance of lahaina and those objects there, it's central to understand how important lahaina has been in our history. it's the center of both political and religious power of the maui chiefly lines, precolonial times our islands were organized into chieftains, the maui lineage prominently related to the -- line. and the king unified the island maui in the 16th century. his daughter became a powerful lizard deity who became an important protector of waterways and her mana, her power is also what allowed -- the first to unify all of the islands of hawaii. so the place of lahaina and the power there is really felt across the islands. and to lose those representations of history is a really important moment for all of the people of maui, for hawaii and the world to think about what it means to carry on history and in what forms. >> yeah, and i -- when we talk about how we carry our history forward, i think that's i mean a huge question as it concerns what is actually maui today, right? this is a story in many ways about change, climate change, about change in terms of agriculture and agriculture practices. i wonder if you think there's enough of a conversation about how indigenous communities recover in the after effects of colonialism, industrial agriculture and of course how they are poised to weather the effects of climate change? all of those factors seem to have converged here. what's a discussion like on hawaii about how to protect this what i think is truly sacred land? >> thanks for that. the -- the conversation between your native hawaiians in dialogue with indigenous peoples across the world has always been that of making sure that our knowledge, our practices, our struggles are seen because struggles for our sovereignty, for the continuity of the people in the land are eely above our efforts to maintain our language, our responsibilities to steward the land in the right way to make sure that it's there for future generations. this is knowledge that we carry on from those times and try to bring forward into the present. unfortunately, as you noted those centuries of change have led to a kind of in some ways loss, in some ways departure from those good practices of good stewardship of land. and the knowledge is still there, though. and i think many of the carriers of that including those in lahaina who despite the fact they just lost structures such as you noted the museum, there's an important cultural center, despite the fact they've lost those physical structures and perhaps the objects there, they're nevertheless still committed to making sure that the world knows of the struggle to maintain these histories, the practices on the land, to restore the land in meaningful ways, fish ponds and the terraces have been prominent in the efforts to return us to a way of being in a proper relationship. >> it is a beautiful way of being and truly a magical place, and we wish you and all of hawaii a swift recovery with all the knowledge and grounding in history that one can have at this critical juncture. professor, thank you so much for your time. >> thank you, alex. >> that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. the judge can hold donald trump in contempt, surely, can sank him. there's a lot of things she has flexibility to do, and she will exercise it. she is a vdge, is going to set the tone very early in this that she's in charge of this case and that donald trump is not in charge of this case. >> just hours from now a federal judge is set to hear arguments in donald trump's protective order fight. will the court impose any restrictions, or will the ex-president be able to reveal whatever he wants about jack