also says that the exemption does not include such as transportation, that a substitute for commercial presentation, does that mean that the rise in the private jet are the ones that are at issue here? jet are the ones that are at issue here? . ., issue here? yeah, we went of this very issue here? yeah, we went of this very carefully issue here? yeah, we went of this very carefully with - issue here? yeah, we went of this very carefully with a i this very carefully with a couple of ethics lawyers who specialise in this and, yes, they told us that the rides on they told us that the rides on the private jet, they told us that the rides on the privatejet, you know, this particular private jet, the privatejet, you know, this particular privatejet, if the privatejet, you know, this particular private jet, if you charter it, and cost between $10,000 and $50,000 perflight hour, so this is not cheap, rides on the private jet, plus the cruises on the yacht, for example, a trip in indonesia
talking about, it s bombardier global fact as in these things one for anywhere between ten t $15,000 per hour so, if you re flying t indonesia like one of thes flights that clarence thomas stuck with harlan crow, th donor, that could be a multi hundred dollar flight alone. but here s the thing that will cause people to set their hair on fire as unethical or reprehensibl as this may be, if it s true is it technically against th rules? did clarence thomas, was h required to disclose it? we looked at that questio very closely with ethics lawyers, and they told us, yes he had - there s a law that was passe in the 1970s, after th watergate scandal that cover supreme court justices that requires him to repor gifts on their annual financia disclosure and it might some technical. but the reason for that law is so members of the public, in
talked to, you know, we re told that if you were to charter that jet and that yacht yourself, it could easily cost over $500,000. and it s not just the gift, though, right? it s the fact that he didn t declare almost all of this. yes all of this. everything we found since the year 2000 happened in secret. none of these trips were disclosed, and that matters to lawyers because it affects their ability to understand potential conflicts in a case, but it also matters in terms of the law that thomas appears of violated so there was a there was a law passed after watergate that requires most like high level government officials from members of congress. two supreme court justices to disclose most gifts and report them to the public, and we talked to ethics lawyers and they told us that but not disclosing these trips. thomas pearce, who violated the law just how out of the norm are are these trips, i see a lot of supporters of thomas on social
from the committee today. what are we learning from those? we re still playing the waiting game here, for a second day, on if we re going to get this final report. but we have been seeing drips and drabs of the transcripts that we think are going to be the most interesting. yesterday, we got a series of 4 transcripts, mostly of people who pled the fifth, but today we re seeing cassidy hutchinson, two depositions, from september of this year, after she had switched her counsel, and that s important, because what we ve seen in these is the pressure that she may have been under from her original counsel, one of the top white house ethics lawyers, who was representing her, and basically telling her, say you re a low level secretary, don t tell them if you remember everything, and it s not perjury because they don t remember what you don t remember. that was the advice that she was initially being given. then, when she switches her counsel though, we see her become much more transparent w
going to be a deterrent in the midterms. this is not what americans are mostly caring about. the democrats believe this is so important to establish the historical record. that s right, andrea. really, this is a political calculation by democrats to say in the grand scheme of history, this will matter. even if it doesn t change people s votes in the midterm elections, democrats think this is an existential crisis for american democracy and that people really need to understand just how far what they call a sweeping conspiracy to undermine u.s. democracy. i have been talking to ethics lawyers who say there could be criminal implications here if lawmakers lay out evidence that could possibly lead to charges. that being said, the political stakes here are that democrats understand the priority for democrats running this year has to be the economy. has to be inflation. talking about frankly the every