weeks. the israelis want a campaign. with lebanon even with yemen, we have seen the increased tensions. deploying troops and naval forces. none of that will stop until there is a cease-fire in gaza.'s almost there is a line drawn, diplomacy on any of these friends continue. the biden administration's credit has been cleared. they don't want to see a war but it is not up to them as we have seen with the israelis on the hostage cease-fire deal as well. so i think the risk is extremely high. and lebanon is the war of another magnitude. >> thank you so much. . there is a lot going on tonight. the former president of the united states and presumptive republican nominee had a meeting with the probation officer today, which i guess is the sort of thing we just have to get use to seeing these days. we will talk about what may have come up during the meeting and how it could impact his sentencing coming up in a month. pennsylvania governor josh schapiro was going to join me to talk about one of the biggest political questions of the moment. how should joe biden and democrats be talking about trump's conviction and how much? we will start with the supreme court. in a mountain of ethics scandals that just got bigger, and just get bigger because of a woman named lauren winsor. in case you don't know who she is, she is a progressive activist known to approach her public and figures and pretend she is an ally, statements and then record her targets making candid comments. comments recorded by lauren winsor at the supreme court historical society's annual dinner earlier this month, the supreme court justice samuel alito offered his assessment of the political and ideological struggle in america. >> i don't know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end. i think that it is a matter of, like, winning. >> i think your probably right. on one side of the other, one side or the other is going to win. i don't know. i mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. they really can't be compromised. so it's not like you can split the difference. >> one side or the other is going to win. now heard in a vacuum by someone, those comments may not seem particularly striking. but remember samuel alito is one of nine justices on the supreme court. the highest court in our country. it is supposed to conduct itself with utmost fairness and impartiality in interpreting our constitution and adjudicating the laws. and one of the justices, samuel alito, you just heard him, as telling a stranger at a crowded event, that he believes that one political side is going to win. that there is no place for compromised. and for anyone who has followed samuel alito's time on the court, there is no secret to what side the justice firm and thinks he is on. look at the past few weeks. he has refused to recuse himself from a generous six case in the trump immunity case sitting before the court currently. even after reports that his homes displayed flights with right wing political symbolism including an upside down american flag in the days after january 6th. samuel alito, who built a reputation over the course of years, has been tough on crime and generally unser but that it to criminal defendants and also has a newfound empathy for generally six defendants of all people and donald trump. during or go arguments in two cases. take for example, the case of a january 6th defendant. sim allele used costumes the justice department to question people in the capital attack. he suggested that if the court does not intervene, prosecutors could seek to use it against people involved in these will demonstrations like those that take place in a courtroom from time to time. but the protest is clearly not at all same as people are smashing windows and doors to invade the capital and causing members of congress and the republican vice president of the united states to flee for their lives. in the face of multiple ethics scandals, we have been talking about involving undisclosed gifts from her publican mega- donors to members of the supreme court, samuel alito has been unapologetic telling the wall street journal late last year that the quote "no provision in the constitution gives congress the authority to regulate the supreme court period." look, fairness and impartiality in both appearance and action are the principles judges are supposed to follow. especially in the highest court of the land. and at least at some point, samuel alito knew that. take a listen to an answer from his confirmation hearing back in 2006. >> to believe there is any room for a judge's own value or personal beliefs when he or she interprets the constitution? >> judges have to be careful not to inject their own views into the interpretation of the constitution. and for that matter, into the interpretation of statutes. that is not the job we are given. that is not the authority we are given. >> that is not the authority we are given. it is not the job we are given. alito knows or at least knew then what his job entailed. and despite all the actions and statements, he also apparently can't stand those who claim he is not living up to those standards. as he told the wall street journal, "everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. but saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity cross is an important line." see, justice alito wants to be revered as an impartial judge. just call balls and strikes as they are supposed to. but as this new tape and his time on the bench have shown, especially over the last several weeks and months, he is actually more of a player, actively engaged in one side's struggle to win. so is giving us every reason to expect this from him, given all the actions. it also doesn't mean it is something we should or need to accept. this is the former president of the naacp legal defense fund and joins me now. i always want to know what you are thinking. but as i listen to these tapes today, i wanted to know, what is share anable thinking. we talk to a becoming two things. how big of a deal is this? >> i think it's a big deal. i think it's a big deal in the cumulative sense and as you point out in your opening, this is not a colloquy that floats around in the air that is surrounded by plenty of context. we have seen all these statements from justice alito, not only in his decisions but when he went to rome after the dobbs decision. we heard him in very similar ways. what is it that is disturbing about this particular excerpt of the conversation? i think there are two things. one, i think is the way in which he was bantering back and forth with this woman who he did know was taping him in a way that suggested sympathy to her position. she was saying some pretty extreme things. probably the worst of it is when she said that we have to work to move this country back toward godliness. and he said, i agree with you. to me, that is just a very shocking statement. i don't think that is his charge as a supreme court justice to suggest that he believes the country needs to move toward godliness. she spoke often of what it was like in the past and that we need to return to some period in which things were more moral pick and he was agreeing with her. i don't know what period they were referring to. were they referring to a period in which there was much more religious talk in american life but there was also talk about keeping black people out of schools? what was the time period? i think the reason this is important is because the standard is a reasonable person standard. and justice alito refused to recuse himself from a variety of cases. said it is because a reasonable person, knowing all the facts of that is what he said about the flight controversy. but when we probe, we realize we don't know all the facts and the facts he has told us are not necessarily that accurate facts. we learned that from the flag flying issue when justice alito gave us a timeline that is not up. now, the reasonable person would reasonably believe perhaps that this justice was not impartial and that is the standard for recusal. but we will never get there unless parties actually file motions to recuse and that is i am hoping that this will show the united states, which is the party and the trump privilege case and others, that they have to have the courage to demand that these justices come forward in the context of recusal practice and explain themselves. we are not going to get it from sending letters to the justices we are not going to get it from having the justices just recuse themselves because they won't do it. we need to get really serious. and of course we need hearing from the senate judiciary committee so we can get to the bottom of this. it is quite serious. quite disturbing. quite alarming. and it is not a legitimate question the legitimacy of the court we have had this barrage of across the line conduct and misstatements and disclosures that would call into question the impartiality of any court. >> one of the things that was striking to me too is how he blames the erosion of trust in the court. what he blames it on. he blames it on all sorts of things. i was reminded of this today. he said this in 2023. and then talk to you about it on the other side. >> it is easy to blame the media. but i do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. >> it is pretty rich, given his actions in his own words. it is not the first time he blame somebody else. his wife. everyone attacking him. what is that about? you were talking about accountability. people watching, what should they be doing if they are just outraged about this as well? >> i find this just really mortifying. and embarrassed for the court. we hear it with clarence thomas as well when he talks about the nastiness in washington d.c. and we hear it with alito. it is the media that eroded trust in the supreme court. no, it is the supreme court that eroded trust in the supreme court. in this kind of teenage refusal to take responsibility for their own actions is really incredibly alarming and disturbing and i put that at the feet of chief justice roberts. he is running the court. if i were running in institution and something extraordinary happens and like what happened in the dobbs case, which is something that never happened before in the history of the court, and a decision was leaked out to the public, i wouldn't just be trying to get to the bottom of who leaked it as vigorously as possible. i would want to understand what i created or what we created in our culture that encouraged such a breach of culture and protocol. all of these things should require the court to self reflect. to look at themselves. why do you have a justice on the court like clarence thomas who is not making the appropriate disclosures? we know they are appropriate because he is making them now that he has been found out. this has nothing to do with the media. the media is doing its job. in fact, the media has often been quite kind to the supreme court including around this flag issue which we had not heard about until three years late. it is not the media. these justices have to grow up and stop being stubborn teenagers and take responsibility for their own actions. this is where the leadership of the chief comes in here and when the chief allows a code of conduct, a voluntary code, as he allowed several months ago, a code so much more weak than the code that holds all other federal judges, he is essentially allowing and creating this culture of impunity in which they create rules that accommodate the actions they have already taken. so we have a real problem, ethical problem on the supreme court appeared to be honest with you, i blame us. i blame congress. we have failed. we have counted on the good behavior and the norms of the supreme court instead of putting in place real rules that they have to follow. and congress does have the power to be able to issue a code of ethics for the united states supreme court and they should do so. we cannot blame this just on the justices. we can't blame it on trump. we can't blame it on anything else but our believes that norms were enough. they are not enough as we are learning across the united states government and we have to get serious about what kinds of protections we need in place for the integrity of our nation's highest court. >> a lot of homework, including for chief justice roberts. thank you as always for joining me this evening. really appreciate it. coming up, governor josh shapiro joins me live to talk about donald trump's promises of revenge. >> first, the nominee had a meeting with his probation officer today. we will tell you what he was likely asked about and how it could affect his sentencing. christie greenberg is a former deputy chief of the criminal division in the southern district of new york and joins me in 60 seconds. seconds. let's get the rest of these plants in. organic soil from miracle-gro has grown me the best garden i have ever had. good soil, and you get good results. this soil will blow you away. it's the martha stewart of soil. today, donald trump met with the probation officer had of his sentencing for his 34 felony convictions in new york city. and the biden campaign cochair reminded me yesterday that this is one of those times where we need to pause and reflect on the extraordinary moment we are in. >> can we just stop on that fact. i will talk about the debate and a second. a guy that wants to be president of the united states first test to go sit down with his probation officer. that is just an astounding statement that sometimes people walk by. i don't think most americans are going to walk by that. >> he is completely right. we cannot just breeze by this stuff. trump's probation interview today happened virtually from mar-a-lago which is not typical. these meetings typically happen in person. but he is not a typical person who was just convicted either. but the interview itself is standard procedure for anyone convicted of a felony in new york. and one standard question trump may have been asked is whether he associates with criminals. you know, other convicted felons like steve bannon and oliver stone and his other buddies. we should not forget how extraordinary this moment is. kristi greenberg is the former deputy chief of the criminal division in the southern district of new york and joins me now. thank you so much. you tweeted today. i will start there. that trump would try to convince the probation officer not to recommend a jail sentence. but you said probation should reject the argument. how does that conversation exactly go down during one of these meetings? >> i think what you probably saw -- this was just 30 minutes. a short interview. you probably saw todd blanche taking the lead to try to highlight positive aspects of donald trump's character that they think or mitigating circumstances and things that they think will show he is amenable to supervision. so they will say, look, this criminal conduct which he denies, there is no victim here. but they need to look closer. we are victims. the american people are victims, not getting information that he was paying off a pornography start to make sure she didn't share that could have affected the election outcome. other things i think he will focus on are, i was the former president of the united states. i performed a great public service and you should take that into account. but it is also aggravating in the circumstance because he committed some of this crime like signing the checks to reimburse michael cohen right in the oval office. you could argue that. and he will point to the fact that he is a first-time offender. you know who else is a first- time offender? michael cohen, and he got sentenced to jail for the same conduct. allen weisselberg is essentially the same old -- one year apart. a lot of the factors that i expect todd blanche tried to highlight today in his interview, really it is going to be on the prosecutors to make their case separately to the probation office in presenting the fact that the trial record shows all the gag order violations and to show he is not following the court orders and he certainly won't follow the orders of probation. >> a lot of things to argue. i wanted to ask you, i mentioned one of the standard lines of questioning during one of these probation meetings. whether or not the person convicted of a felony associates with criminals. trump has a number of people who happen to fall into that category. i presume he is going to say no. i don't know what he said but what happens if he does associate with convicted criminals? are there repercussions? >> there are. there -- if he were sentenced to probation, there would be conditions to that probation term. among them is he cannot associate with other convicted felons. and so, steve bannon for example, is somebody that was convicted for criminal contempt charge and it has a trial that will start in a few months before the judge on a separate fraud case. with someone like that, someone who he has not pardoned because he is pardoned a number of his other criminal associates, for someone he is not pardoned, i would think he would not be able to associate. these are people that like we are involved with his campaign and that he would want to associate with. so we figure he will try to do that through intermediaries if he is sentenced to probation. >> quite a time to be alive, kristi greenberg. thank you for explaining this to us. that is always helping us to understand. i appreciate it. donald trump is not going to be able to append democracy on his own. he will need help. and a lot of help is available. we will introduce you to someone who could be his chief of staff and who has chilling plans for a second term. later, governor josh shapiro joins me to talk about all the ways the rule of law will be on the ballot in 2024. we are back after a quick break. so i can feel and see that my lines have gotten deeper just from a year out in the sun. i'm still marie and i got botox® cosmetic. i did not want a dramatic change. i wanted something subtle. and i'm really, really happy with the results. it's still me, but with fewer lines. botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping, and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, and medications, including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com. they say we should stop eating so much meat. as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. so we made meat out of plants. because we aren't quitters. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. i bought the team! kevin...? i bought the team! i put it on my chase freedom unlimited card. and i'm gonna' cashback on a few other things too... starting with the sound system! curry from deep. that's caaaaaaaaash. i prefer the old intro! this is much better! i don't think so! steph, one more thing... the team owner gets five minutes a game. cash bros? woo! i like it. i'll break it to klay. cashback like a pro with chase freedom unlimited