♪♪ tonight on "the reidout" -- >> right now at 11:28 eastern, i'm asking you to step out to begin deliberations. >> the jury has been dismissed to begin deliberations. >> the jurors are now leaving the courtroom to deliberate. >> and we are told they are expeditiously to begin deliberations. >> for the first time in american history, a jury is deciding whether a former president of the united states committed felonies. and as the deliberations began, the jury made several requests to the judge. meanwhile, trump and his defenders are bracing for the verdict by attacking the judge, lying about the jury instructions, and increasingly portraying trump as a martyr. reporting on justice sam alito's insurrectionist flags. he's now throwing his wife even further under the bus. and refusing to recuse from trump cases, earning a pat on the head from trump himself. after 22 days in cord, following 22 witnesses, giving more than 80 hours of testimony, plus more than seven hours of closing arguments, and just over an hour of jury instructions from the judge -- we are now in the final stage of the first-ever criminal trial of a former u.s. president. the 12-member jury made up of manhattan residents began their deliberations today behind closed doors in donald trump's hush money election interference trial. those deliberations began at 11:37 a.m., to be exact. for these jurors, who have been sitting side by side in the courtroom for weeks, this was the first time they were allowed to speak to one another about the case. up to that moment, the rules prohibited them from saying anything about this trial to one another as they listened to the prosecutors and the defense make their cases. the jury sent two notes to judge juan mar chan this afternoon, going to hear sections from various witness testimonies read back to them. three involving the former national enquirer publisher david pecker, one from trump's former lawyer, michael cohen. that includes the testimony pec trump tower meeting where the caption kill scheme was discussed with trump. they asked to re-hear the jury instructions that the judge had read to them this morning. judge marchan released the jurors after more than four hours of deliberations and told them to return tomorrow morning, at which point the testimonies will be read back to them. then they will continue their deliberations over whether they believe trump is guilty or not guilty of the 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection to the hush money payments made to adult film star stormy daniels near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign. before the deliberations began, the judge carefully and in detail walked the jury through the charges, making it clear what trump was being charged with and what was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. some of those instructions could be seen as helpful to the defense, including the judge telling jurors that when weighing a witness' testimony, they could consider whether the witness had a motive to lie and an interest in the outcome of the case. and if the witness had been convicted of a crime or engaged in criminal conduct. and perhaps helpful to the prosecution was marchan's jury instruction that when it comes to proving the underlying crime that would raise the falsification of business records to a felony, new york election law 17-152, which prohibits a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he told them, quote, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were. and while we await a verdict from this jury, one thing we do know at this point, counter to all the whining coming from the defendant and his maga followers, that is donald trump was given the same rights as every other american citizen in our judicial system. in fact, it could even be argued he was given preferential treatment, especially given his repeated violations of his gag order. but like every other defendant, he was given his day in court. he was given the opportunity to testify on his own behalf, which he ultimately chose not to do. and now his fate is being deliberated by a jury of his peers. joining me now is lisa rubin, msnbc legal correspondent, who i ran into in the courtroom today because she was there. andrew weissman, msnbc legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. katie phang, trial attorney and host of "the katie phang show." lochlan cartwright, special correspondent for "the hollywood reporter" and "the national enquirer," a permanent captive at msnbc. we keep you around. lisa, i did get to see you today. i found the jury questions interesting. the things that they actually asked that they wanted to see more of. talk more about that. >> i thought it was absolutely fascinating. so joy, let's start from the presumption that the jury doesn't have these instructions with them. in fact, the second request was to have some of them or all of them read back. we don't know exactly what yet they have to clarify in the morning. but if you take on faith that they are moving through these instructions in the order that they were given to them -- >> yes, that's what struck me too. they seem to be going in order. >> one of the things i find interesting is that there are obviously a bunch of instructions that are not specific to this crime. >> yes. >> when you get to the stuff that is specific to the crime, it starts with, on page 27, falsification -- >> this is like bible reading. turn in your hymnals to page 27. the gospel of falsifying business records in the first degree, haul lieu yaw. >> falsifying business records in the first degree. and it takes us through the required elements of falsification of the business records. it goes through all of that and various phrases that are important to that crime before it gets to the question of the underlying or the predicate crime that would bump it up to a felony, new york election law 17-152. that is the conspiracy to promote or prevent somebody's election to public office by unlawful means. >> right. >> all the questions that they asked today, those four questions for specific testimony, all go to the question of the existence of the conspiracy, the participation in certain acts that would have been in furtherance of the conspiracy. so one thing that you might be able to deduce, if they are going in order, they may have crossed the rubicon of the falsification and decided, yes, it did happen, and donald trump is responsible for it. but they have to satisfy themselves that he is not just knowledgeable about the conspiracy, but an actual participant in it. >> yeah. >> and someone with knowledge of critical steps along the way. >> yeah, and one of the things i did find interesting, listening to it, the judge is saying, just being knowledgeable about the conspiracy, knowing it happened, that does not make you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. he had to materially participate it in. but benefiting from it -- there are ways in which he was really out to helping the prosecution. i want to talk about this specific thing. they went right to david pecker's testimony. they wanted david pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. they wanted pecker's testimony regarding his decision not to finalize and fund karen macdougal's life rights. they wanted pecker's testimony regarding the august 15 trump tower meeting. they wanted michael cohen's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting per judge marchan's jury instructions. they went right to pecker's testimony. >> and two of those requests relate back to that meeting at trump tower in august of 2015, two months after donald trump announces that he is running for election. david pecker is called by michael cohen. he actually says he knew they wanted something, that's the only reason he ever heard from michael cohen. when he goes there they say what can you do for us, to help the campaign? he says, open the eyes and ears, i'll purchase negative stories off the market while running negative stories about your rivals and helping promote donald trump. that is the layering of this conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. and then what happens is the sequence of events that follows. the doorman payoff in the fall of 2015. in 2016, fast forward to the karen mcdougal payment. and then stormy daniels. and that one is crucial, obviously, because of the falsification of business records. that goes on because david pecker says, i'm not going to be the bank, i'm not going to step up the money here. 2017, they cook up this plot to falsify the business records. what is the layering of all of that? that meeting, and that is why david pecker is essential in that testimony because he then puts donald trump in the room, much like that phone call at the investor conference. he then illustrates to the jury that donald trump had knowledge of the karen mcdougal situation. >> this is where it comes to -- i'm going to ask you this question, because you are both a journalist and an attorney. it comes to the question of whether or not, what david pecker is doing is proper journalism, legitimate journalism that he would have done regardless of who donald trump is, or whether or not it was a campaign contribution. this is the law, the federal election campaign, fica. under the federal election campaign act, it is unlawful to levelly maim a contribution with respect to any election or office, including office of the president of the united states, exceeding $2,700. the question becomes, are these schemes david pecker is engaged in him doing what he would normally do, catch and kill, just a thing, or making a contribution? he pleaded guilty, basically, to doing that. >> yes. >> or made a deal. >> there was a conciliation agreement, a nonprosecution agreement. what's important is joshua steinglass touched on all of this. i was looking like the contrarian whichd, i didn't have a problem with the four hours from joshua steinglass. the reason is he had one bite at the apple. he was the last voice heard by the jury. he had to go through all the evidence. the reason why i bring that up is steinglass said in his closing arguments, the value of what was provided from these catch and kill schemes was invaluable. you couldn't actually put a price tag on it. because it helped him in a way you couldn't put a dollar sign on it. i think also, we need to remember, there have been 22 witnesses in this case. six weeks of trial. david pecker was the first witness that was called. >> that's right, yes. >> to and some extent, it could be as much as, i need to have a refresh of my recollection, to use a trial term, of what david pecker said. it also could go to the accomplice as a matter of law jury instructions, page 22. >> let me turn in my hymnbook, hold on a second. >> this is the jury direction that a lot of us raised eyebrows when we heard it read to the jury today because it specifically identifies michael cohen as an an accomplice to a crime. it says under new york law, you cannot convict a defendant based solely on the testimony or evidence provided by an accomplice. so you'd ask yourself, how does that make sense? jurors should be allowed to determine the credibility of any witness in a trial. but new york law says you can't convict solely on the testimony or the evidence provided by an accomplice. however, if that testimony is supported by corroborative evidence tending to connect trump with the commission of that crime, then you can convict. so if you marry together david pecker, his testimony from the trump tower meeting, that with michael cohen, and then you also get to what i call the original sin. the original sin was that 2015 trump tower meeting. it was always, let's do the catch and kill, because we know you've announced your candidacy, unofficially at that point. we know that's what the ultimate goal is. so it's a very elegant way to tie it together. you'd like to think the jury took stein glass' closing, the last thing they heard, and walked into deliberations with it. >> what i love about the way this jury is working, if i were a juror, i'd do this because it's easier to go back to the beginning, back to the first witnesses, go back to david pecker, and proceed from there. that's what it looks like they're doing, being methodical. this is about david pecker's credibility. "you will recall that you heard testimony --" this is the judge speaking to the jury -- "while david pecker was an executive at ami, entered into a nonprosecution agreement with federal prosecutors as well as a conciliation agreement with the federal election commission. i would remind you that evidence will permit you to assess david becker's credibility and help provide context for some of the surrounding events. you may consider that testimony for these purposes only, neither the nonprofit agreement nor conciliation agreement is evidence of defendant's guilt. you may not consider them when determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty." it's a reminder. >> reminds me how well josh steinglass dealt with the same issue with michael cohen, who pled guilty to the same crime and said, that can't be used to say because michael cohen pled guilty, that means donald trump's guilty. he used it to say, you can understand why michael cohen is so angry. because he is left holding the bag. >> yes. >> he is not the top of the food chain. >> yeah. >> by the way, we are now in full tea leaf reading. >> we are, i know. >> my tea leaf reading is very much that this is chronology, as well as i'd add to your point about the chronology, josh steinglass, the last person they heard from, 8:00 p.m. last night, he pointed to this meeting and said, go back to this meeting. i cannot stress enough how important it is. part of it is because you have david pecker as a principal, donald trump as a principal, who is michael cohen? michael cohen is, nicolle wallace's term, a staffer. he is not a principal. he's being told at the meeting, you are donald trump's agent. you are going to be doing the work for him. but that -- he specifically said, focus on this. >> yeah. >> one way to look at this is, it's both chronological, but it was something the prosecution has to be happy about. >> that's right. >> doesn't mean it's going to be a conviction, but they have to be happy that he pointed to -- he really wanted them to focus on this. that's the first note. >> at that meeting, michael cohen is clearly not the principal. >> right. >> he is doing the work. and then he turns around and puts up his own money then gets his $35,000 -- it doesn't feel like it could be a retainer because he feels like a staffer. >> correct. the other thing that was interesting with what the jury is looking at is the karen mcdougal situation where they look to buy her life rights back. there's this conversation which is recorded saying, we're worried about david pecker being hit by a truck. >> right. >> we need to get all this material back. they start to come to a financial agreement with david pecker, and there is an amount, i think 125, to get it down from covers. and whatnot. then they go and get legal guidance, and the general counsel goes and gets legal guidance and realizes this as really bad idea, to be doing this. >> yeah. >> then they call it off. it shows that intent. it shows guilt in terms of what david becker and ami realize, that they're a part of an illegal campaign contribution. >> if i rob a bank and you work with me to rob a bank but i give you the money, in the end, i might be kind of mad if i go to jail and you make a deal and you don't. then i might be mad at you. you can take into account my anger. that doesn't mean you didn't do it. >> you're looking at me? >> why do i have katie phang robbing the bank? i had so many choices. >> i'm flattered, i guess. >> you're the ringleader. >> i feel like -- you're making you the main character. >> i'm the mastermind. >> no one's going anywhere, it's a hostage situation, everyone stays with us. we are awaiting verdict in the first criminal trial of a former president. we have our bible, reading more from it when we come back. i can love my skin again. with bimzelx. only bimzelx targets and blocks il-17a plus f to calm inflammation. i can control my plaques, and start getting myself back. bimzelx helps adults with moderate to severe psoriasis control plaques, to deliver clearer skin fast, for results that last. i will give myself back the freedom of shorts. dare to wear black again from head to toe. (♪♪) most people got 100% clear skin. some after the first dose. serious side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behavior, infections and lowered ability to fight them, liver problems, and inflammatory bowel disease, have occurred. tell your doctor if these happen or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. (♪♪) start to get yourself back, with bimzelx. ask your dermatologist about bimzelx today. [crowd cheering] it may not seem like it, ♪♪ but this, is actually progress in play. a shell energy 100% renewable electricity plan lighting every soccer match at shell energy stadium. we're moving forward with the houston dash. because we're moving forward with everybody. ♪♪ shell. powering progress. back with me, lisa rubin, andrew weissman, katie phang, who is going to share when the bank is completely robbed. >> that's what we do with accessories. >> we've decided lachlan is the bank robber, we apologize for it. you'll go back to australia and be fine, you're good. we admitted in the break we shouldn't do, not really speculation because you cannot speculate, we don't want to do anything identifying. katie, you did a fascinating thing earlier where you talked about some of the things we know about these jurors. we know two lawyers, teachers. tell us more about this jury. >> yes, so i had my debut at the big board today. i said i was katie, not kornacki in khakis. what we're trying to do is trying to distill the information that we already know about these jurors that was limited to their answers to the 42 questions provided in the jury questionnaire, also their responsive answers. we're guarded because we don't want to disclose, they're anonymous. educational background, things like podcasts. one of them listens to "behavioral therapy" podcast. there's another guy who's retired wealth management who does yoga and teaches it. again, to andrew's point, we are reading tea leaves. there's a science to jury selection, but there's kind of just magic and voodoo when it comes to the deliberations process. but the purpose of doing the big board was to show, one, we really can't predict. two, to some extent, we can. we can look at certain situations. that's why when you look at your jury makeup and you read the questions that are provided or the notes, you can kind of advance your speculation. >> are they getting their news from truth social versus fox? >> i wanted to correct that. a lot of people freaked out saying there's this juror who gets news from truth social. that's not what he said. he said, part of what i read are trumps posts on twitter. heck, we all see them, sometimes they're inevitable to see. that's not indisha, necessarily, that the juror is a maga trump supporter, he just happens to see it when it comes across his feed. >> how much do prosecutors fret about this kind of stuff? probably a lot, right? we now know from reporting that trump's people are looking at their best-case scenario being a hung jury. and that they're hanging it on one juror they think got excited when he saw j.d. vance, maybe looked youery when they didn't -- they're trying to read tea leaves. there are people people are trying to read these jurors. >> the answer to, do prosecutors fret about this? the answer is, they fret about this and everything else that you could ask about, they fret about. i would be shocked if the defense did not have a jury consultant. the prosecution may have had one as well. i once as a prosecutor -- i was always, i don't need a jury consultant, i know how to pick juries, i've picked many juries, trial lawyers, we don't need that. but i had one big trial where was told, you're having a jury consultant. and they were fantastic. >> yeah. >> there really is something to -- it's not like they say we're sure. but i remember they helped -- they said, this one juror was both an "a" and an "f." and it was sort of this odd combination of somebody who had gone to berkeley and had a math degree, but also had a very anti-government streak. >> yeah. >> you know what? they were held out for ten days, not because they didn't find guilt, but because they were copying down each of the exhibits because they wanted to write a book. and i was like, "a" and "f." >> by the way, there was one juror that judge marchan praised, an alternate juror who took three notebooks full of notes, the good kid in class. is it meaningful that it is seven men, five women, a somewhat multi-racial jury, so not all-white jury, and does it start to mean something if they start talking together for a long time? >> not necessarily. but let me first go to the composition of the jury. you know that i watched both the e. jean carroll trials in person. the composition of those juries should have had the plaintiff's lawyers concerned. there were more men on those juries than on this jury. it was also a jury that, for other demographic reasons, shouldn't have necessarily gone in e. jean carroll's favor. yet both were unanimous verdicts because of the nature of the civil claims there. they had to be unanimous. and there was even a juror on the first e. jean carroll trial who said his media diet included tim poole, the right-wing podcaster. in fact, it wasn't heard accurately by any of the lawyers involved. there was no written jury questionnaire, it was transcribed wrong. had it been heard properly that juror would have been challenged for cause, likely. so i think it's hard to draw too much from demographics or occupational variability. there are some characteristics that some people have in common. do i think that the lawyers on the jury may be inclined fixate more on some of the legal elements, for example, than other people on the jury? maybe. but do i think that seven men and five women are going to be unlikely to convict? not necessarily. >> something tells me that two lawyers on the jury, it's going to be hard to go hung jury, they're going to try to negotiate. anything that stood out, anything that the jurors were doing? >> they've been punct actually. they have been attentive. some have been taking notes. no one's been goofing off. i kind of thought, this is an intense trial, when we started it. and it's coming at a pretty intense time. we're in an election year. there's a lot of pressures on these people. and i kind of felt to myself, yeah, i reckon that there's going to be -- people are going to need to skip days, we'll have a lot of breaks. we had a couple, but not many. people have been showing up. they've been paying attention. again, what showed me today was the request to have these read-backs. they want to have these instructions read again. they want to hear david pecker again. that was a month ago, i need to hear david pecker's testimony again, we all do. i've been struck how professional they have been in handling this. >> if this goes beyond friday, who should be worried, defense or prosecution? >> i think friday doesn't strike me as too long. obviously the longer it goes, the more you're worried about a hung jury. >> yeah. >> you know, there's always that problem, particularly -- in any trial, but particularly a high-profile case where people get wedded to views, they may have had views or tried to sneak on. the problem in high-profile cases, none of us are waking up going, "i can't wait to do jury service." but in high-profile matters, people might actually want to get on. one thing that's unusual about this jury is they haven't lost a juror. >> right. >> i don't think i've ever done a jury trial of any length -- >> people have expressed concerns that say, i don't know if i can do this, but they've stayed on. >> exactly. that's notable. you get a sense of commitment to the trial. >> maybe i'm weird. i want to be on a jury, they won't let me. >> also, the marchan has kept the alternates as well. normally, once you take the jury and put them in the deliberation room, you thank the alternates and they go. in this instance, they are there. >> the guy with three notepads, he's an alternate. >> they might be writing a book. lisa rubin, andrew weissman, katie phang, lachlan cartwright. it's like our version of "the view." up next, trump is already spiraling ahead of a verdict, attacking judge marchan, speaking live about the case, all that. only purple's gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other mattress cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam doesn't come close. get your best sleep guaranteed. save up to $800 during our memorial day sale. visit purple.com or a store near you hi guys! bill, you look great! now that i have inspire, i'm free from struggling with the mask and the hose. inspire? inspire is a sleep apnea treatment that works inside my body with a click of this button. where are you going? i'm going to get inspire. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. mother teresa could not beat these charges. these charges are rigged. the whole thing is rigged. >> remind me taken, donald, when mother teresa paid off a porn star to cover up an affair? trump sounds like a man who knows his fate rests in the hands of 12 jurors. while there's nothing he can do to sway the jury, he and allies are doing their best to prime the maga faithful for the verdict with an alternate universe of lies. he lied about judge marchan barring witnesses that his own lawyers decided not to call, and a host of other imagined grievances. he wrote on his social media, i don't even know what the charges are in this rigged case. literally moments after judge marchan's jury instructions detailed the charges against him. capping off a tear where he all caps screamed about a kangaroo court and claimed he had no rights because of his gag order, never mind the fact that he could have testified in his own defense but didn't. if this all seems familiar, it's a recreation of the constellation of election lies in the leadup to the january 6th, 2021 insurrection. trump's lies are going straight from his mouth into maga veins as evidenced by the signs i saw with my very own little eyes parroting his claims outside the courthouse today. tim o'brien, senior executive editor of "bloomberg opinion" and msnbc political analyst. one of the things i did notice between the first time i went and this time is that there were actually people there. the first time, no trump supporters, no protesters. >> it wasn't a lot. >> it seemed coordinated because he tweeted specific language. that language was on the sign. >> they haven't learned how to pronounce justice marchan's name. merchant! merchant marine. >> having dealt with him for so long, how fearful do you think he is tonight? >> i think everything he's doing i think indicates panic. he's got nonsensical capitalized truths -- i hate calling them truths. posts through his account. and i think he feels cornered. i think he has for some time. as the trial wears along and the evidence creeps up, i think it puts him in a real corner. i think he feels that. i think perhaps he's been sleeping during some portions of court. >> that's when he leans back and his eyes are closed. >> closes his eyes. i think he's in this fugue state and he's trying to pretend that what he's confronting in that courtroom doesn't exist. >> yeah. >> the same way a small child, if you tell a small child they've done something wrong, they stick their fingers in their ears, "nyah, that didn't happen." that's where he's at. >> fugue state. he tweeted a fund-raising email saying, i could be in jail tomorrow. okay, he, you know -- he's sort of freaking out. he's having his allies, j.d. vance and elise stefanik, calling for investigation of judge marchan. between the irony of what he did to persecute the central park five, he had no empathy, but he wants sympathy of feeling the same fear. the other one i think is so ironic is that if he is convicted, there's a question of whether he could actually lose his right to vote in the state of florida. where the current governor, ron desantis, he gleefully strips black people of their right to vote and sends election police after them. orange is the new black. >> that's right. and desantis looking back to prior efforts to enfranchise people who have been incarcerated and allow them to vote. >> yeah, yeah. >> and he's now undermined the person he's supporting in this election. >> yeah. it's pretty incredible that he would have to actually petition his former rival, who they went at it and fought, they would actually have to likely petition governor desantis, who doesn't like giving people their right to vote, for him to be able to vote for himself in november. >> well, you know, i think that is probably the least front of mind thing for donald trump. >> i'm sure. >> i think what he's really focused on is the idea he might lose his liberty. i didn't think going into this case that was necessarily going to be an outcome. >> sure. >> having sat there, i don't know if you went through this sitting there, but when you watch the prosecution methodically lay out an air-tight case that is really, i think, sitting there irrefutable, whether or not it elevates to a felony, whether or not the jury believes that this 34 currently misdemeanors become felonies because they were in the service of election interference -- i think that's still a wild card. but if we get there, you know -- i think that justice marchan is going to be obviously a pivotal figure. >> the thing is the way that he did these jury instructions was fascinating in the sense that it gives jurors ways to compromise and convict on some and not on others. there's a possibility of split verdicts, of compromised verdicts. it's very hard to get around the facts which the defense really didn't refute. >> and it's one of the many elegant and i think graceful aspects of the way justice marchan has presided over this trial. >> yeah. >> his daughter has been attacked. >> yep. >> he's been attacked. the entire process and the court system has been attacked. he's an american success story. >> yes, he is. >> he's an immigrant who is self-made. and he has sat in that courtroom and been very measured. i think only a couple of times he's lost his patience. it's never risen to shouting. but he's gotten upset at times at todd blanche, a court jester, no pun intended. throughout, i think marchan has been an exemplary person that most of us could try to latch on to maybe how to conduct oneself in the midst of chaos. >> indeed. it is fascinating he comes originally from the same place as judge 8 lien cannon. very different. >> very different. up next, stunning new reporting on justice samuel alito's flag controversy. plus his response to calls for recusal from key trump cases. do you want to close out? should i? normally i'd hold. but... taking the gains is smart here, right? feel more confident with stock ratings from j.p. morgan analysts in the chase app. when you've got a decision to make... the answer is j.p. morgan wealth management. we are learning more tonight about the upside down flag hoisted over justice samuel alito's home days after the january 6th insurrection. what alito told the "new york times" and fox news does not match the very different story being told by their alexandria, virginia, neighbor. alito claims his wife, martha, ann, flew the flag shortly after the insurrection in response to a dispute she claimed to have had with neighbors where she felt verbally attacked. well, that's not what the neighbors say. according to the "new york times," a text message and a police call corroborated by fairfax county authorities indicate that the name-calling took place on february 15th, weeks after the inverted flag was taken down. the neighbor explains it was martha ann who actually initiated contact shortly after december. mrs. alito didn't like that her neighbors put a "bye don" and "f trump" sign up after the november election. she approached the neighbors about the signs. flash forward a few weeks later after the assault on the capitol and the neighbors decided to put up new signs that read, "trump is a fascist" and "you are complicit," which they say was not aimed specifically at the alitos. apparently martha ann didn't like that and drove past their house, glaring at them. that is what -- that is when the upside down flag went up. on inauguration day, the neighbors drove past the alito home, and according to the "new york times," mrs. alito ran toward their car and yelled something they did not understand. the couple continued driving. as they passed alito home again, mrs. alito appeared to spit toward the vehicle. weeks later, the alitos were on a neighborhood stroll when martha ann saw the liberal neighbors. she used an expletive and called them fascists. justice alito, who was present, said nothing. that is when the female neighbor responded with a vulgarity toward mrs. alito. justice alito has denied any responsibility for the flag flying in his front yard, feet from the front door of his home which he presumably exits and enters every single day. today in two new letters to members of congress, he rejected calls to recuse himself on both january 6th cases, while blaming mean old martha ann, in typically defiant and indignant tones. "my wife is a private citizen, and she possesses the same first amendment rights as every other american. she makes her own decisions, and i have always respected her right to do so. i am confident that a reasonable person who is not motivated by political or idealogical considerations or the desire to affect the outcome of supreme court cases would conclude the facts recounted above do not meet the applicable standard for recusal." as for the appeal to heaven flag outside their new jersey home that flag repurposed as a symbol of support for donald trump was flown during the january 6th insurrection. that flag alito shoves martha ann under the bus again saying the vacation house is in her name and adding, "my wife is fond of flying flags, i am not." joining me now with thoughts is melissa murray, nyu law professor, msnbc legal analyst. thoughts, my friend? >> okay, there's a lot here. let me go through it. first of all, this letter is nominally addressed to congress. it is a giant double-finger f-u to the american public. this man is not simply saying he's not fond of flying flags, he's basically trolling americans who know he is the author of "dobbs versus jackson women's health," the opinion that withdrew the right to abortion that roe v. wade established. he wrote that decision. he says three times, first to his wife as a private citizen is in possession of rights that allow her to quote, unquote make decisions that he has always honored and respects her choices to do so. again, this is the same man who withdrew from millions of american women the right to make decisions about their own body. this is a trolling, trolling letter. a giant f-u to the american public. he does not dispute the fact that the flags flew upside down at their home in fairfax county, nor does he dispute that the flag, the appeal to heaven flag washes was flying at their vacation home in new jersey. instead he seven says, she did it, i can't control her. that's the best part. what is going on among these conservative justices where they cannot seem to control their own wives -- clarence can't stop ginni thomas from texting mark meadows in the middle of an insurrection. justice alito can't stop martha ann from flying the american flag upside down at their home. nonetheless, they have decided they're going to write opinions that seek to control every other american woman. what is going on here? >> they're going to now essentially say they get to decide whether you can have mifepristone. i would not put it past him to write that decision. it is remarkable that what they're saying is, they want every woman to be under 19th century-style control of the state -- >> except these ladies. >> in their house, those women are in charge. >> these women are in charge, and they're proto feminists. he respects his wife's right. >> what if she got pregnant? >> he's pro-choice, but for flags, not other choices. i mean, it's boggle the point that we are at the point we can genuinely say, clarence thomas walked so sam alito could run. >> there's a mini scandal for "the washington post." they have this story after 2021 and did not run it. here is the story that happened back then. martha ann alito, visibly upset by the presence of their reporter, their "washington post" reporter, demanded that he get off my property. as he described the information he was seeking she yelled, it's an international symbol of distress, the upside down flag. alito intervened, he sees the flag, directed his wife to the car in the driveway, denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest. she brought out another flag, a novelty flag of the type that would decorate a garden and wasted it up and said there, is that better? so he is present. >> this is not newsworthy. >> they didn't drown it. >> again it boggles the mind and shows you that this coupled with the stories we've gotten from propublica all year -- the supreme court beat, they haven't delved into this other topic. because they haven't delved into it we missed all of this. this institution that has taken an outsized role in the lives of so many americans is literally shouted in secrecy and the press is probably falling asleep on the job. >> we still don't know who paid off brett kavanaugh's debts for baseball tickets that was suddenly, miraculously wiped away in 2017. john roberts wife is a headhunter that places lawyers on firms before the supreme court. >> amy coney barrett's husband is representing fox. >> it is a graft. >> we don't know. it is not a crime for justices to be married and not problematic for their spouses to have paid employment, but it is problematic if that paid employment or the other activities causes the general public to wonder if justice is impartial or capable of sitting on cases and being unbiased and we have a lot of that right now. >> where is john roberts? to me it seems like he does not care at all. >> i have zero sympathy for john roberts. he is the chief justice, the institutional steward of this court, but he has also of this he is part of a conservative block with six members. he doesn't matter anymore. they don't need him to make a majority the way they did when justice kennedy was on the court. he is completely superfluous and the lunatics are running the asylum. >> it is the reason your former boss said sometimes she weeps at these decisions. >> because she can't fly up flag upside down. >> she would be impeached immediately. we will be right back. with. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪ type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ ♪ i got the power of 3. i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. i'm under 7. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. i'm lowering my risk. adults lost up to 14 pounds. i lost some weight. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. living with type 2 diabetes? ask about the power of 3 with ozempic®. slowing my cancer from growing and living longer are two things i want from my metastatic breast cancer treatment. and with kisqali, i can have both. kisqali is a pill that when taken with an aromatase inhibitor helps delay cancer from growing and has been proven to help people live significantly longer across three separate clinical trials. so, i have the confidence to live my life. kisqali can cause lung problems or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. avoid grapefruit during treatment. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. long live life and long live you. ask your doctor about kisqali today. we are learning more about america's role in the israeli strike that killed dozens of palestinians in a camp for displaced people in rafah on sunday. according to weapons experts and evidence reviewed by the new york times, the bombs used were made in the united states. meanwhile as israeli forces push deeper into rafah, the white house says that it's allied has not crossed the biden administration's redline. >> reporter: with israel stepping up its offensive in rafah and the number of palestinian civilians killed growing by the day, the white house is facing new questions about where exactly is president biden's redline and has israel crossed it? the line from john kirby, the spokesman for the national security council, is that president biden does not want to see a large-scale israeli ground offensive involving lots of units, involving the levels of destruction that we saw in northern gaza and the white house believes at this point we have not seen that happen. earlier today a senior official saying israel believes this war will continue at least until the end of the year and that likely means there will be more bloody days like what we saw on sunday night when an israeli airstrike ignited a firestorm in a camp for displaced people, killing at least 45, many of them women and children according to the emergency services in hamas run gaza. the idf releasing what it says is the initial investigation into that strike. they say they used two small bombs to target hamas leaders meeting at a structure inside of that camp, but they say there was some kind of secondary explosion, which caused that firestorm. they are saying the weapons they used are too small to have caused the fire itself. they are suggesting possibly there were hamas weapons hidden inside the camp that caused the secondary blast. they haven't provided any evidence of that and an official suggested to nbc news that it is possible a gas tank ignited. the pentagon is confirming a report we did earlier that the u.s. military has been forced to suspend the delivery of aid into gaza by sea after the temporary pier 1 is damaged in bad weather. that is a major blow to the humanitarian effort at a time when the rafah crossing, the main lifeline for food and aid into gaza remains closed. an israeli official tells nbc news that israel has drawn up a new cease-fire proposal and presented that to the american mediators, but at this point hamas says they have not seen that proposal and there is no indication right now that these talks, stalled for so long, are going to lead to significant progress. back to you. >> raf sanchez, thank you. tonight