the ex presidents of free speech is not absolute in his upcoming election interference case. plus, unethical and possibly eagle. clarence thomas's acceptance of luxury gifts and travel might finally force the court to take action. and breaking developments in the georgia election probe, excuse me. strongest indication yet that a grand jury could indict donald trump in a matter of days. i'm ayman mohyeldin, let's get started. >> we begin with that breaking news out of georgia. fulton county district attorney, fani willis, will be presenting her election interference case against donald trump and his allies to a grand jury early next week. the atlanta general constitution is reporting that the timeline came into sharper focus when former georgia lieutenant governor jeff duncan independent journalist, george deede, separately confirmed that they can receive notifications that they will testify on tuesday. this means the public might know by tuesday whether jurors indict the ex president and others, tuesday evening, to be specific. willis is expected to begin her presentation to grand jurors on monday. we're gonna have more on this breaking development later in the show. but we first begin with a reality check for the now the thrice indicted ex president. donald trump, quote, as a criminal defendant. he's gonna have restrictions like any other criminal defendant. those were the words of judge tanya chutkan. the federal judge overseeing special counsel jack smith's election interference case against trump, and in hearing yesterday that she rejected trump's request to be able to speak more broadly and publicly about the investigation. in a new protective order, chutkan limited the ex president and attorneys from publicly discussing, any, quote, sensitive material -- that includes, quote, any personally identified information concerning witnesses. information that had emerged from a grand jury. and any materials turned over from other government entities. during that hearing, trump's legal team argued that too strict of a protective order would stifle the candidates constitutional rights. but judge chutkan, well, she basically shot that down. quote, mr. trump, like every american has a first amendment right to free speech. but that right is not absolute. it is an early blow to what is expected to be the centuries of trump's defense in the trial. since this lays indictments dropped in june, rather -- well it's kind of making the rounds. they've been arguing that the government's entire case is simply nothing more than a brazen attack on trump's first amendment political speech. >> this is a free speech killing indictment. killing free speech, that's what it is. >> criminalizing speech for this reason. what the president saw in the 2020 election was all these irregularities going on. >> he had every right to comment on that and act politically. you are entitled to question whether it was honest about. that was the uniqueness of the first amendment. that is the uniqueness of america. but you know what? you shouldn't be prosecuted for your thoughts. >> yeah, so here's the thing with that, according to legal experts, that's not actually a defense that will hold any water. legal experts say that there is little legal merit to that argument, particularly since the breadth of steps taken by the ex president and his allies to overturn the election transformed mere speech into action. trump isn't being indicted for what he said about the 2020 election. he's actually being indicted for what he did, allegedly engaging in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of american voters. trump's first amendment fallacy isn't just a shaky defense in the courtroom, there is actually a growing risk that his refusal to remain silent could derail candidate trump and all of this could be before it even gets to hit the campaign trail in earnest. earlier this week prosecutors from the special counsel's office put forward a proposed trial date, landing on january 2nd. however, during friday's hearing, judge chutkan cautioned that the more either party makes, quote, inflammatory statements about the case, the greater the urgency and the speed of the trial date. the judge warned that even, quote, arguably ambiguous statements could be construed as intimidation or harassment of potential witnesses. judge chutkan ended the hearing with this promise, quote, i will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of the case. so there you have it, plain and simple. judge chutkan has laid it out in black and white. the exact parameters by which trump must abide. which leaves us with this question. will the ex president actually listen? will the judges warnings fall on deaf ears? right now donald trump is playing with fire. and with every new speech or social media post he makes, he runs a risk of getting burned. let's bring in my panel for the evening, jennifer taub is a professor at western new england university school of law. she's the author of big dirty money. molly jong-fast is a special correspondent for vanity fair and the host of fast politics podcast -- bloomberg opinion and msnbc political analyst. this evening, jennifer, i'll start with you. our own lucy reuben was inside that courtroom yesterday. she noted that the judge chutkan used the trump lawyers markup of the protection order us as the baseline of the document for the hearing making mostly opportunists based on their proposed added 's. and this order isn't nearly as restrictive as the government had hoped. but how do you view the results. is this a win for team trump or not? >> i don't see it as a win for team trump. what this is is a fair and balanced protective order which is designed to make sure that donald trump can't intimidate witnesses. and i expect that he will have trouble following guidance here. because i think he is going to take notes, i think he's gonna write down personally identifying information. and i think it is gonna be very hard for him not to attack the key witnesses when he is on the campaign trail. and then i think judge chutkan is going to have to find a way to enforce it, and i think he is already hinted about what her remedy will be. >> molly, there are two courts that this trial is taking place in. one is the actual court itself, d. c.. the other is the court of public opinion. i mentioned that legal experts view trump's first amendment defense when it comes to his election interference efforts. they pretty much dismissed that -- they know it is not really a legal argument. but with that argument play in court of public opinion? >> so i think it's interesting, because you are seeing trump world -- they have decided they are gonna work the raps. they're gonna try to get the base excited, they are gonna say that this is not a case. they're running against me. they are running to hurt me. not a legal case, but really a political case. and i think that that is going to run counter to what the judge is ordering. but i do think you are going to have a problem where it may end up being that the judge -- you're not gonna lock him up, you can't lock him up. there's no mechanism for a case like this against the political candidate running for president. i think she's gonna get into some trouble there. >> yeah, it's either the shes's boxed herself in, i mean not yet, but obviously the doors open if you wanted to take severe measures against trump. we saw a little bit, they approved a clause that the protective order prevents trump from having access to electronic devices while reviewing this discovery documents. that came after one federal prosecutor told the judge that trump, quote, has shown a tendency to hold on to material which he should not. how do you think the ex president will react these restrictions? what are the chances that he gets reprimanded going forward? >> as jenn said, i think he will completely ignore them. donald trump is a 77 year old man who has been squarely in the public eye for about five decades. and he said whatever he wants to say, whereever he wants to say it. the difference now is that he is a target of a very robust federal investigation. criminal investigation. he has never encountered before. he hasn't been in this situation before. and the sort of mythos that has developed around him that he has nine legal lives, and you can escape the long arm of the law. the reality is that this is new territory, and is untested. but he isn't actually gonna fall back on his own tricks. to try to poison the public's view of the court system, of prosecutors, and essentially of the rule of law. once an insurrectionist, always an insurrectionist. in terms of, you know, the judge. i don't think that she -- she is exercising her proper duties as a judge. i don't think she is boxing, i would disagree -- with molly about boxing herself in. she has to deal with a defendant who is ignoring the rule of law and ignoring court orders. the reason those orders exist so he can't intimidate potential witnesses. can't poison the views of potential jurors, undermining that legal process every time we think about the evidence -- and she's going to warn him many times, i do not think this is the last time she is gonna warn him. but ultimately she's gonna have to decide whether or not she puts him in jail for ignoring court order. and i don't see that as boxing yourself in. i think if push comes to shove, she should put him in jail. >> all right, just to be clear, that was me who made that comment that she might be boxing herself in. and i totally appreciate you, you know, having a different opinion. but what could she possibly do, jennifer? i mean, let's say trump does file this protective order by discussing sensitive material in public or making inflammatory statements about being a witness. she has promised to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the integrity of the process. proceedings. but to molly's point here, he is the front runner of the republican party, and yet she still has to abide by the rule of law to make sure that he is not treated any differently. so could we potentially see donald trump breaking these rules and ending up in jail? >> so she hinted, or she always explicitly said, here is what i'm gonna do. if this information gets out there, and taints the jury pool or undermine's integrity of these proceedings, he will speed up the trial. now, i don't know if that is her way of saying, hey, i hope you stay quiet. because we are coming back here on the 20th to set a trial date. or if she would actually be willing to, you know, if the date were set, let's say january 2nd she would be willing to say, no, we're gonna go sooner. i'm not sure. i agree that right now, it looks like he can't and won't comply. but i think we have got a couple of weeks to see. i also agree that it will be similar to judge kaplan in terms of escalating before she gets to the point of incarcerating, just like he did with -- sam bankman-fried yesterday. >> earlier today the ex president was on the campaign trail in iowa doubling down on his election lies once again. watch this. >> you know, we did great in 2016, we won,, we did much better in 2020, the election was rigged. so we'll be back and will be taking any chances. will be up over the country. over 50 points, that's a lot. but we don't want to take any chances. we'll be back. >> so as i was saying, there is an interesting dilemma here. i mean, if the judge does sign off on the prosecutor's proposal date for this trial, january 2nd, it could affect his ability to campaign ahead of the states caucuses, which are scheduled right now for january the 15th. how do you think the trial will play generally, will it disrupt trump's campaign. is this going to have an actual material impact on his ability to campaign? even if it doesn't necessarily impact his standing with voters? >>, right and this is just one of many. right? i mean, there is the federal -- this is the second federal -- one state indictment, and another one probably coming next week. so yeah, i mean, look, he is going to play this politically. it has worked with the gop base so far. the other candidate, you know, with the person who was his sort of competition, what, 30, 40 points behind him? i mean, he can barely get 20 points. we know, barely come in at 20 points desantis. and so i do think ultimately that it has been quite, you know, it has been quite good for trump. he has used these indictments to sort of make a case against -- against biden as opposed to what they really are, which is, you know, him being held accountable for things he did when he was in office. i do think that, this is gonna be hugely expensive. -- this is largely time consuming, people, you know, to have four of these going at once while running for president and being 77 years old, it's quite a lot. but again, you know, you -- you count trump out of your own peril, think he is really a danger, and i think he is quite smart and weaponizing things that he's done and making them seem like they're about joe biden it's a problem. >> to molly's point him, what about his rivals. i mean, as this race heats up, more indictments against the front-runner appear to be piling up. do you see the tide turning? do you see anyone finally besides asa hutchison or chris christie actually taking the gloves off -- and really trying to land a punch on trump over these indictments? >> chris christie is already taking the gloves off. i think nobody else in the field stands a chance right now, displacing the front runner. i think he owns the gop, the gop is essentially a hostage video with him right now. it cannot escape him, they don't want to be with him. and they are stuck together. and desantis tried to be trump light, he wore trumpism on his sleeve. the reality is that donald trump is an unusually charismatic person. and other people in the gop can't emulate that, even if they try to emulate all of his dark arts. >> i was gonna say hostage videos exactly the best way to describe it. and who would have thought that this is where the republican party would be in 2023. jennifer taub, tim o'brien, thank you to the both of. you please stick around, we will catch up with you a little bit later on in the hour. after the, break we are gonna continue the conversation which harvard constitutional law professor laurence tribe, whose scholarship was misrepresented by trump allies in their attempts to overturn the 2020 election. we are gonna explain that. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ subway's now slicing their meats fresh. that's why subway's proffered by this champ. and this future champ. and if we proffer it, we know you'll proffer it too. he's cocky for a nineteen year old. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com. there's no one else we'd trust. their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ salonpas lidocaine flex. a super thin, flexible patch with maximum otc strength lidocaine that contours to the body to relieve pain right where it hurts. and did we mention, it really, really sticks? salonpas, it's good medicine. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv it ain't my dad's razor, dad. ay watch it! it's from gillettelabs. this green bar releases trapped hairs from my face... gamechanga! ...while the flexdisc contours to it. so the five blades can get virtually every hair in one stroke. for the ultimate gillette shave. the best a man can get is gillettelabs. >> kenneth chesebro, a trump ally, lawyer, nbc news is a coconspirator filed the first scheme in the fake electors scheme to support the 2020 election in a previously unknown internal campaign memo that came to light in last week's criminal indictment. prosecutors are portraying that memo as a crucial length in how the trump team's efforts involve into an actual criminal conspiracy. according to a copy of the memo dated december six, 2020, which was obtained by the new york times. chesebro outlined that plot with detailed instructions and a messaging strategy that cited the work of his former harvard constitutional law professor, laurence tribe. professor tribe is gonna join us in just a moment. but chesebro once worked as tribes research assistant while he was a law student. and later helped him represent al gore during the 2000 election. the times reports that in the memo, and a previous memo drafted weeks earlier, chesebro quoted a clause from a law review article, by mr. trump about bush v. gore, asked for supports that only real, only real legal deadline is january the 6th. in an essay published this week on the legal website just security, professor tribe says chesebro work, quote, relied on a gross misrepresentation of my scholarship. adding that chesebro was citing my work in support of the very opposite conclusion to undercut the constitutional status of the electoral counts act. professor of constitutional law at harvard university, lawrence tribe joins me now. first, it is great to see you again. thanks for coming back. back on the show. we can't speak to a better person about this than you. as i mentioned, kenneth chesebro played a key role in this fake electors plot. could you expand for us and our viewers on how he misrepresented your work in his memos? how he used to how he misrepresented it? >> to put it in perspective, my work it's really not all that important. what is important is that the former president has been indicted for conspiring with six corrupt lawyers who helped him engineer an attempted coup to take over the government of the united states by preventing the lawful transfer of power. yes, one of the lawyers that helped do this was kenneth chesebro, and yes kenneth chesebro did it partly by saying in these memos that what i had said about florida in the case of bush v. gore could somehow be extrapolated to all the states, wisconsin, michigan, pennsylvania, arizona. new mexico, he completely twisted everything out of shape. and to get into the weeds of how he did it, it's really basically piling on. i don't think i need to do that, the indictment makes it clear. a lot of other scholars have now gone into it. there is an essay on msnbc. com by norm eisen and fred today that explains it all. i don't want to make it look like, oh, i am offended that chesebro did something to my work. that's really not what the important point is. the important point is that a number of lawyers unlike the great tradition of making even pretty bold arguments in court, in open court. just an adversary and a judge to weigh things. a number of lawyers and secret writing confidential memos, twisting the law, with nobody on the other side. it's a lot like what alan dershowitz did. in the senate, although, that was in, you know, in the wide open. there was really nobody who was going to make a judgment except for the senate, which had already decided that it would acquit trump. so he could just, you know, to make up all the arguments you want, likewise, chesebro and john eastman and giuliani and sidney powell and bush epstein, these people could just tell trump what he wanted to hear, and then he would then bring them into the fold. they would devise elaborate strategies for doing things that were absolutely fake, counterfeit electors, forged certificates. no, you know, it's not legal advice. this is using the tools of law to dismantle the country. that's what's important. it's not so important that a former research assistant of mine evidently didn't have any moral compass or conscience. >> so speaking of dismantling democracy, and that just security article you write, quote, removing the guardrails of electoral counts act as chesebro sought to do could ravenously endanger our entire system of self government under law. do you fear that chesebro and other trump allies have now laid the groundwork for another future attempt to overturn unfavorable election results. but they may have learned where the safety valves are. and next time around know how to manipulate the system and exploit the loopholes? >> absolutely. this was a dry run. and it is true that next time around, trump is not going to be president, not in november of 24, he won't have the tools of the presidency to work with. but if notwithstanding that, he manages to win the election. or manages to foment chaos and make it look like he has won the election. if he manages to get into power and people like chesebro and eastman and giuliani and powell have not been in prison for what they did, they will have every reason to join back into the sort of fleet of conspirators. and who knows when, if ever, someone like trump will leave office again. this is really a set up for a dictatorship. and that is not just an unfortunate thing because, you know, we know dictatorships are theoretically bad. every one of us, our freedom, our liberty, it's on the line. if there is someone empower in power who cannot be held to account, who even if he is voted out of office can hold on to power. then none of us of safe. so the narrative that trump is trying to tell when he says, i am being indicted for you, you are in danger. they might come for you next,, that is just projection. the person who might come for you next is trump. and those under his command. that is what is at stake. and that is why it is so dangerous that lawyers like chesebro and those who co conspired with him and with trump are still on the loose, haven't lost their law licenses yet, although they are being investigated. and they might be disciplined by the bar. it is entirely possible that they won't be held fully accountable. now i do think that they are likely to be indicted by fani willis next week. i would expect some of these lawyers will be, maybe they will be indicted by jack smith in separate indictments. but it's very important that they be held accountable so that they can't do it again and others undeterred. >> seeing that you are one of the most prominent constitutional scholars and lawyers in this country, i want to get your thoughts on trump's legal defense in this indictment. trump and his lawyers have cited his first amendment rights as a defense strategy against the criminal charges that he is facing in conspiring to overturn the election. in your expert opinion, is that a viable strategy? >> completely bogus as a legal strategy, because he is not being punished for his thoughts, his speeches, it was entirely free to say. and he is entirely free to say it. as long as he lives, that he thinks the election was stolen from him. what he is not free to do is to conspire with others to commit various crimes. like submitting false electoral states. orchestrating an overthrow of the government. that is not speech, that is action, that is conduct. and it is, there is no basis at all for this legal offense. but it plays well on tv, that is the point. when a guy like john lauro appears on tv and he is well dressed and he has got a suit and he has got a tie and he says my client is being punished for free speech, an awful lot of people have no way of knowing whether that is true or false. and certainly the people who will believe anything that trump and his advocates say will think, well, yeah, maybe that's what's involved here. that's also dangerous, and it's dangerous because it cheapens the meaning of the first amendment. if people think the first amendment gives you the right to rob a bank as long as you do it with words and holdup notes or to commit fraud as long as you use words, to think of it, it's impossible to do blackmail without words. it's impossible to have a conspiracy, almost impossible, to have one without speech. the fact doesn't mean that speech in the form of the freedom of speech is a shield. and if people think it is, then that's gonna make them think less well off the first amendment. >> very smart point to end on, that's exactly why i wanted to get your thoughts, and professor laurence tribe, it's always a pleasure, sir, thank you for your time and your insights as always. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you,. after the break jack smith's latest indictment reinforces that the threat to our democracy goes well beyond donald trump. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ mr. clean magic eraser powers through tough messes. so it makes it look like i spent hours cleaning, and you know i didn't. it makes my running shoe look like new! it's amazing. it's so good. it makes it look like i have magical powers. magic eraser and sheets make cleaning look easy. - the company goes to the firstborn, audrey. the model train set is entrusted to todd. mr. marbles will receive recurring deliveries for all of his needs in perpetuity, thanks to autoship from chewy. - i always loved that old man. - what's it say about the summer house? - yeah, the beach house- - the summer residence goes to mr. marbles. (mr. marbles chuckles) - plot twist! - i'm sorry, what? - doesn't make logistical sense. - unbelievable. - pets aren't just pets. they're more. - you got a train set, todd. - [announcer] save more on what they love and never run out with autoship from chewy. (fan #1) there ya go! that's what i'm talkin' about! - [announcer] save more on what they love (josh allen) is this your plan to watch the game today? (hero fan) uh, yea. i have to watch my neighbors' nfl sunday ticket. (josh allen) it's not your best plan. but you know what is? myplan from verizon. switch now and they'll give you nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv, on them. (hero fan) this plan is amazing! (josh allen) another amazing plan, backing away from here very slowly. (fan #1) that was josh allen. (fan #2) mmhm. (vo) for a limited time get nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv on us. a $449 value. plus, get a free samsung galaxy z flip5. only on verizon. ♪ chevy silverado has what it takes to do it all. with up to 13 camera views. and the z71 off-road package. ♪ you ok? yeah. any truck can help you make a living. this one helps you build a life. chevy silverado. cut! another health insurance commercial, another aqua-aerobics scene. yup. most health insurance companies see us all the same: smiley seniors golfing, hiking... don't forget antiquing. that's why i chose humana. they see me, not a stereotypical senior. i'm pre-diabetic, so i talked one-on-one with a humana health educator who really helped me. now i'm taking free cooking and meditation classes. not aqua-aerobics? better care begins with listening. humana. a more human way to healthcare. eddar better care begins broccoli recipe, you will want to delete all your delivery apps. because nothing beats a perfect combo of sweet tomatoes and smooth, silky zucchini. knorr taste combos. it's not fast food, but it's soooo good. ♪ ♪ my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. >> of all the trump indictments, the election interference charges address the most fundamental threat he has posed to american democracy. and that is because, as david cohen writes in mother jones, his alleged crime was not trump's doing alone, millions of accomplices, all those americans who bought his bogus claims about the election. now trump was only able to promote the biggest con of his career because there was an audience of republican voters who believed his bunk. now, corn continues, trump is not the main danger. he may be brought to justice by this prosecution. but that act alone won't protect the constitutional order. trump will return this indictment as he has done so with previous indictments, yet more proof he is the target of a corrupt and nefarious cabal aiming to destroy the country. so that means that if trump were able to harness this anger again and turn it into electoral wins or votes, his second term would be designed with one goal and one goal only. to make his legal troubles disappear. as david frum writes in the atlantic, the entire term would be consumed by the battle over trump's project to use the power of the presidency to protect himself from the consequences of his election crimes. with me, now ruth ben-ghiat professor of history at nyu and author of strong man, mussolini to the present. and molly jong-fass is back with us. ruth, i want to get your reaction to this argument from david corn. that this third indictment details the start starkest threat to our democracy. because trump enlisted so many others in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. and they believed the big lie. >> yes, i think that's right, i was very pleased to see so much attention paid not only to what we call the elite enablers, the lawyers, the coconspirators, and of course the recourse to violence. but propaganda. and they're all connected. this is it -- they worked together in the authoritarian playbook. and we have a kind of emergency of disinformation now. because new polls show that 70% of republicans believe that trump won the 2020 election. and one in six republican voters think that all of the indictments are just a ploy to keep him out of the white house. and this works together with the violence that is being incited by people like congressman matt gaetz, who said, oh, it's only through force that we can change things. >> yes -- >> >> so that's how the pieces fit together, which just makes it such a threat for our democracy. >> i am so glad that you brought up that point about matt gaetz's comments today. because, you know, if this was on the other side, if this was somebody who was a liberal or a progressive or democrat who said that the only way is through force? the right would be up in arms, this country would be talking about it, fox news would be going into a tailspin. and yet here we are, it's almost as if it has been normalized. and i think, molly, that is what is so dangerous about it. about a second trump term. but he could just, you know, normalize this behavior. clean house at the justice department, attempt to pardon himself. put us in a constitutional crisis in more ways than one, and, you know, that's a very real fear going into this presidential election. but i am not sure every american recognizes this. >> yeah, for me, what i find the scariest, is that donald trump has all of these other republicans who are supporting him. all these other republicans who are saying the things that matt gaetz is saying or the thing things that ron desantis is saying. we really are seeing a republican party that has been taken over by trump. so there are very few adults in the room very -- asa hutchinson, chris christie. largely, we have a group of republicans who really are turned against democracy. have embraced authoritarianism. hold up countries like hungary as the model of how they want to live. and that is quite scary for american democracy. and it's really -- i think this election -- i mean that, using the trump term, i don't think trump thinks this as a term. i think trump thinks of this, as i don't know what he needs. >> more for him a coronation -- if he does get it, i don't think he's gonna give it up, as we have seen with others democratically elected leaders in the past. even if he's not reelected, ruth, there's something scary about what the republican party has now become. we have republicans who don't really talk about defunding the police, constantly talking about a deep state conspiracy. republicans have followed trump's, lead urging for the doj, the fbi, -- and the cia basically to be shut down, even if trump were to get out of politics, trumpism has infested the party. it is here to stay. >> yes, it's become an autocratic party that is dedicated to not only wrecking democracy at home and proving it doesn't work, but taking down america as a global democratic power abroad. that's why, rand paul, who is so pro putin, is holding up all the diplomatic appointments. it's why tommy tuberville is holding up all the military appointments. there is a kind of desire to sabotage american democracy. but i want to go back to matt gaetz's comments which is part of this, and unpack it, because he said it's only through force that we can cleanup a corrupt, a city as corrupt as washington, d.c.. what he is saying is that they are not going to have change their elections or through legislation or through reform. they are going to have change through violence. and that's how fascists talk. so, even if trump is out of the picture, these are people who adopted methods very familiar, to me as a historian, of fascism, that violence and corruption and lying that's what the party is today. >> and as we have seen, or some they may dismiss it as rhetorical, but there are people out there who will hear that and take it literally, and we have seen what has happened. people showing up at former president obama's house with guns. or doing something else. ruth ben-ghiat, molly jong-fast, always a pleasure and thank you to the both of you for joining us tonight. next, experts say clarence thomas appears to have violated the law, again. we'll tell you about that. ♪ ♪ ♪ 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. >> harlan kuo was only the beginning, it seems. propublica just released another damning report detailing how supreme court justice clarence thomas has enjoyed a steady flow of luxury travels over the last three decades, while he has been on the bench. quote, a cadre of industry titans and ultra wealthy executives have treated him too far flung vacations aboard their yachts, assuring him into their premium suites and sporting events, and sent him private jets to fetch him, including on more than one occasion, an entire 7:37. thomas long list of generous gifts include at least 38 destination getaways, 26 private jet flights, eight more by helicopter, he doesn't vip passes to professional college sports games, and one standing invitation to an exclusive golf club situated over the atlantic coast. and these generous friends of thomas, friends who became close with him after he ascended to the nation's highest court include david sokol, a former top executive at berkshire hathaway. the late h wayne huizenga, a florida billionaire, paul tony novelly, a little oil baron. none of their names disclose -- which could be a violation of the law, according to ethics experts. joining me now is jeremy fogel, executive director of the berkeley judicial institute at the university of california berkeley and a former u.s. district judge for the northern district of california. judge fogle, great to have you with us. thank you for your time. as a former federal judge, would you have been able to keep your job if you engaged in conduct like clarence thomas? >> well, let me say this -- there are two different regulatory schemes here, one of them is the ethics and government act, which is the one that requires the reporting, and the other is the code of conduct for the united states judges, which applies to all federal judges except for the justice, justice of the supreme court. to answer your question, i would not have been able to do this. on a number of levels. one is, i doubt, and i really don't know, time will tell -- but i doubt all of the gifts in question here were not reported. and the other point said under the cannons that apply to all the other judges in the country both state and federal, the volume of the gifts would create a problem in appearance of undue influence of the on part of the people who gave the gifts. judges are entitled to have friends, social lives. but when the scope of the large assets given to a judge gets so noticeable, and then it creates an appearance that the judge is so sucked into influence. and it's particularly, if the relationships developed after the judge became a judge. you know, lifelong friends, a somewhat different analysis. but i think there are really two levels to commit, coming to play here. >> let me ask you about that second level because i think some of our viewers might just think, that's kind of of. why would every judge in this country be held to a certain standard of ethics, but not the supreme court justices? is there from your expert opinion, any valid reason why supreme court judges are held to a different standard, do not have to abide by the same ethics standards as other federal and state judges in this country? >> well, these struggle reason that the court has given it is that they are unique from a constitutional point of view, that the constitution creates one court, the supreme court, and it gives congress the power to create other courts, which is all the other federal courts in the country. and the code is always taking a position, historically, that congress and the supreme court are coequal branches of government, so that congress is not in a position to describe how the court regulates itself or how the court is serving or how the courts to states with cases, an issue of judicial independence. i have said now for some months, and i continue to believe very strongly, that the lack of a code of conduct for the supreme court is a real problem. it's a problem of legitimacy. it's a problem of transparency because we don't know what rules the justices are supposed to follow. you know, there's a lot of focus on what happens with one justice or another, it could be justice thomas, justice alito, or justice sotomayor, or some other justice, justices throughout history of our country, ethical questions raised. but the lack of a code of conduct where you can say here are the rules, here's what you need to do, here are the standards that apply to everyone, that we all accepted that govern our behavior. the court doesn't have that. and whether or not it is its constitution require, i think it's a mistake for the court not to go there voluntarily because the court ought to simply do it as a way of saying to the country that we care about ethics, we care about our legitimacy. and we want to be transparent. the code of conduct for the court might look a bit different. they have some different issues around recusals because if it just, justice recusals, there is no other want to replace them on our system. there's really no reason why they can't have a publicly adopted and physical code of conduct. and i feel quite certain that if they did that, it would at least begin to restore some of the confidence that's been eroding over the last several years. >> would you say, to what extent you've been following all the reporting around clarence thomas, would you say based on the public reporting that is out there that clarence thomas violated either laws, or at the very least, ethics? >> well, the laws, i think that's where the judicial conference of the united states and the committee on financial disclosure, of which i was a member of for seven years, they are the ones charged with that responsibility. they need to look at each instance reported in the propublica and elsewhere, and it is signed whether disclosure was required. so i don't have an opinion about that because i haven't really investigated all the facts -- >> can i ask, when is disclosure required? maybe that would help answer that for us. >> sure, i'm sorry -- disclosure is required if you get a gift. there are some exceptions for gifts between social friends. there are some exceptions for gifts of minimal value. but what i think is a problem here, more of a problem of ethics, and you say it's a problem of appearances, the volume of the gifts that were reported here by propublica, if that volume of gifts is confirmed by investigations, and those facts are established, in my experience, and i have been doing ethics for 40 years, i started doing it in the 19 80s when i was a state judge in california. this is an unprecedented situation. i have never personally seen a situation where a supreme court justice received this kind of message from anyone, whether it happened in the past, i obviously don't know. i haven't studied every justice who ever served. but certainly in my experience, it's never happened before. >> as i was saying, 38 destinations, 26 private jet flights, it more by helicopter, it doesn't vip tickets to professional college sports games, i wish we had friends like this, but not if you are in the supreme court -- >> what to say one thing, though, and i really appreciate you are giving me the time tonight. i think if we spend all of our time looking at justice thomas or justice alito or any other justice and we make it about them, they are missing a larger point, the supreme court is a really important institution in our country. it has so much influence in our lives and our country. and decisions are extremely important and consequential. they need to be legitimate -- >> absolutely. >> and the lack of a code of conduct is a big problem. >> very important point that i'm glad you made. former federal judge jeremy fogel, sir, thank you very much. we'll be right back. >> thanks for having me. ving me. and papa is hungry. and while you're hittin' the trail, i'm hitting your cooler. oh, cheddar! i've got hot dog buns! and your cut-rate car insurance might not pay for all this. so get allstate, and be better protected from mayhem, like me. roar. (sfx: family screams in background) subway's slicing their turkey fresh like on the titan turkey. piled high with double the cheese and more meat. i proffer freshly sliced turkey. it's my favorite mouth guard flavor. mmmm. now available at subway. the sub, not the mouth guard. mlb chooses t-mobile for business for 5g solutions... ...to not only enhance the fan experience, but to advance how the game is played. now's the time to see what america's largest 5g network can do for your business. somebody would ask her something and she would just walk right past them. she didn't know they were talking to her. i just could not hear. i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair. but nobody even sees them. our nearly invisible hearing aids are just one reason we've been the brand leader for over 75 years. when i finally could hear for the first time, i started crying. i could hear everything. call 1-800-miracle and schedule your free hearing evaluation today. [stomach growling] it's nothing... sounds like something. ♪when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion♪ ♪upset stomach, diarrhea♪ pepto bismol coats and soothes for fast relief when you need it most. before my doctor and i chose breztri for my copd, i had bad days, (cough, cough) flare-ups that could permanently damage my lungs. with breztri, things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing. starting within 5 minutes, i noticed my lung function improved. it helped improve my symptoms, and breztri was even proven to reduce flare-ups, including those that could send me to the hospital. so now i look forward to more good days. 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. can't afford your medication? astrazeneca may be able to help. ask your doctor about breztri. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv >> reproductive rights continue to win at the ballot box, even if they're not actually at the ballot. this week in ohio, voters came out in force for a special election blocking a gop backed measure that would have raised the threshold of supports that passed amendments to the state constitution. the vote was held in august in the hopes of passing before a november vote to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. but ohio has rejected gop's efforts, 57% voted against the measure, 43% it voted in support of it. republican secretary of state frank la rosa who propose this message known as issue one was heard on video in june, acknowledging, quote, 100% about keeping a radical pro abortion amendment out of our constitution. and republicans like frank la rose had reason to fear. a recent poll found nearly 60% of voters back that proportion amendment. now after this week's vote, when ohioans go to the polls on november, a simple majority would be needed to protect abortion rights in the state constitution. ohio is now the seventh state to put abortion related measures on the ballot since roe was overturned. and every time, the result has been the same. all seven states have voted in favor of protecting abortion rights. on rights (fan #1) there ya go! that's what i'm talkin' about! (josh allen) is this your plan to watch the game today? (hero fan) uh, yea. i have to watch my neighbors' nfl sunday ticket. (josh allen) it's not your best plan. but you know what is? myplan from verizon. switch now and they'll give you nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv, on them. (hero fan) this plan is amazing! (josh allen) another amazing plan, backing away from here very slowly. (fan #1) that was josh allen. (fan #2) mmhm. (vo) for a limited time get nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv on us. a $449 value. plus, get a free samsung galaxy z flip5. only on verizon. my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com. there's no one else we'd trust. their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ (burke) a new car loses about ten percent of its value the minute you drive off the lot. or more. that's why farmers new car replacement pays to replace it with a new one of the same make and model. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ when migraine strikes, you're faced with a choice. ride it out with the tradeoffs of treating? or push through the pain and symptoms? with ubrelvy, there's another option. one dose works fast to eliminate migraine pain. treat it anytime, anywhere without worrying where you are or if it's too late. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. allergic reactions to ubrelvy can happen. most common side effects were nausea and sleepiness. migraine pain relief starts with u. ask about ubrelvy. learn how abbvie could help you save. >> this is the katie phang show live from miami, florida. we've got lots of news to cover and lots of questions to answer. so let's get started. heartbreak in hawaii. the death toll from the wildfires is still climbing as we learn more about the scope of the devastation, a desperate search for survivors and the mounting questions about the emergency response. we are live in maui for the latest. showdown in the south. donald trump staring down a possible fourth indictment as george's the fulton county d.a. prepares t