>> i would like to keep that friendship. >> the massive ethics scandal unfolding at the supreme court as clarence thomas copps to the luxury chips he took with his billionaire buddy. tonight, the amendments to his financial disclosures, the reporting that led to it, and the ongoing issues with justice thomas. >> it really is good to be me, it really is. >> that is his former chief of staff gets arraigned on charges of trying to steal the election. trump takes his vengeance towards dr. phil. >> well, revenge does take time, i will say that. and sometimes revenge can be justified, but i have to be honest, sometimes it can't. plus, new data on just where americans are getting misinformed about immigration. and another huge day for the biden jobs market. >> 272,000, everybody, the estimate was 185,000. and, by the way, that blows even the top of the range from economists going on. >> all in starts right now. it evening from new york, i am chris hayes. we are currently in the midst of the biggest supreme court scandal of the modern era, possibly ever. today justice clarence thomas admitted he was caught specifically that he skirted the most basic, obvious ethics standards for any judge anywhere, which is to report gifts. it has annual financial disclosure filing, thomas finally fessed up to two luxury trips he was treated to by his right-wing billionaire benefactor harlan crow five years ago. one 2019 trip was to bali, indonesia. thomas and his wife flew on the private jet and went island hopping on his 162 foot super yacht. the other trip, also in 2019, also using crow's plane was to the secretive bohemian grove club in california. notably, thomas still did not disclose the private jet travel and only disclosed one night in the bali hotel, rather than the more extensive five-day yacht trip. so, why is thomas partially finally admitting to the strips now, half a decade after they took place? the answer is he got busted. it started with the dog and reporting of propublica, who first uncovered those trips more than a year ago. in addition to the lavish trips, propublica also reported that crow paid the private school tuition for thomas's grandnephew, who the justice raise like a son. that crow bought thomas's mother's house, where he allowed his mother to live rent free. propublica also uncovered an incident in 2000 were justice thomas made it known to influential conservatives he was dissatisfied with his salary, and might resign under democratic president bill clinton if things did not change. in response to that great reporting from propublica, other outlets hopped on the thomas gift to beat. which is how we learned that a different benefactor gave thomas a loan to buy a $267,000 luxury rv, and then, get this, subsequently forgave the loan which, yeah, do the math in your head a bit. effectively means the rv was a gift for thomas. even just looking at what has been disclosed, according to an analysis from earlier this week, thomas is still a person on the court who seems to benefit the most from outside largess. when you say, looking at that chart? let's see, where is thomas? at the bar, all the way on the left, towering over everyone else's gift. it was reported by republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, everything in between. that bar there, the tower looming over everything, that is justice clarence thomas. but then, when you factor in undisclosed gifts, not reported by other sources, that is even starker, bringing the total amount to more than $4 million, or roughly the total amount thomas has made in his actual salary that he is paid by the u.s. government during his decades on the court. it is an enormous scandal that one of the nine most powerful jurors in the country is raking in millions of dollars in gifts, many of whom go undisclosed, and less some reporter ferreted out. many of these gifts are from that man, his personal benefactor, harlan crow. not a disinterested party in the direction of the court, in fact, a right-wing titan with an incredibly invested ideological interest in the direction of the court. a man who is undoubtedly currying favor with thomas by whisking him away to the secretive clubs in california among many other previously undisclosed gifts. he is the guy's mom's landlord for free. here's the thing. we have actually seen a scandal like this rock the court before. it is not totally unprecedented. would supreme court justice abe fordyce. it was a long time ago, we might not remember. he was appointed to the court by old bj in 1965 and he did not last long. >> today and fordyce was the first supreme court justice in american history to resign under attack. he insisted he had done nothing wrong, and there was no public evidence he had violated any law. but the criticism of his private financial dealings was so intense he sent president nixon a letter of resignation, and the president accepted it in a curt reply of just one sentence, 16 words. he admitted to a deal with the foundation set up by lewis wilson, a stock manipulator who is now in jail. the deal was to pay $25,000 a year for life, then to pay it to his wife if he died. >> he was friends with that jailed stock manipulator, this was the family foundation. at $20,000 a year was about $150,000 in current dollar currency. so he was getting another salary from a rich friend. it was an enormous controversy at the time, as you can see from that a nightly news clip. fordyce was even on track to become chief justice on the supreme court before his career was derailed by a number of ethics scandals. most damning was when he agreed to the 20,000 legal retainer for life to provide unspecified counsel to financier lewis wilson. at the time, wilson was already under investigation for security fraud. he was ultimately convicted a year later and served nine months in prison. again, this was, correctly, a huge deal. you can't have a justice sitting on the supreme court, even though he did not violate any laws, as the report indicated, be dependent on the largess of some rich buddy. just as fordyce resigned in disgrace. in fact, the american bar association then introduced a new code of conduct for all judges, including new regulations on, wait for it, outside income. although it did not apply to the supreme court itself. but at the end of that scandal there was a public reckoning in response to a crisis of legitimacy at the court. and i don't think it is crazy to say we need another public reckoning like that right now. because the supreme court is contemplating some of the most important cases of our lifetime, including an eminent ruling on whether or not donald trump or any president has near- total impunity as president. and the american public cannot be expected to trust those decisions are legally sound if they cannot trust the court is acting without outside influence. a professor of constitutional law at georgetown university law center. michelle gord worked as an op- ed columnist writing the politics of the new york times. i just can't, michelle, get over that chart. it just tells such a story. there is a broader question about gifts, and there is something totally different, a difference in kind going on. >> right, it is so flagrant. and i think the thing you pointed out about him making it known that if his standard of living was not increased then he might leave his spot on the court and give democrats a chance to appoint someone in his place, i think is so significant. because it is not a direct quid pro quo, but it certainly has the flavor of one. and i have spoken on this show 1 billion times about minority role. part of the problem here is that there is such a crisis of accountability, there is a crisis of accountability in the court. three of those judges were appointed by this president who did not win the popular vote. and then the senate is almost wholly unable to hold them to account because of their own problem of minority role. you just see how we lose democracy in these cul-de-sacs. >> and we should know, when fordyce resigns, there is a move to impeach him, which he has to get out ahead of. and the chief justice calls them. professor, there are people, the argument, the best i can tell, on behalf of thomas here is that it was oversight or misinterpretation of the rules of disclosure, a. b, there is nothing illegal about having phenomenally rich friends who shower you with largess. in c, he believes what he believes, and this would have no influence on him. what do you make of that defense? >> well, a year before his confirmation hearing in 1990, the aba delegates convened in order to put together rules of professionalism and ethical conduct for judges. and the very first canon addresses matters such as this. which is that judges are not to engage in matters of impropriety, or even the perception of impropriety. this is a standard that law students learn about, this is a standard that lawyers must adhere to, this is a standard where the justices are not above the law, even though the supreme court has seen itself as being above the law. and clearly, justice thomas during his confirmation hearings and since that time has shown little regard for codes of ethics, either then or now. >> yeah, and this question about above the law gets back to the accountability question. you have uproar, political pressure, moves in congress. alito, for his part, is basically on the record of an interview saying congress does not have the constitutional authority to regulate the court. they can do whatever they want. and here the question is, well, the flagrant of this, and okay, i will go amid my financial. it almost feels like it is a taunt. >> it is certainly a taunt. yes, of course i'm not going to recuse myself. and the same thing with thomas. you have both the financial scandals, you also have the scandals of his wife's involvement in a coup attempt. i mean, we have become acculturated to such a level of miss doings by these people. and there is no longer a sense that it kind of matters if half the country believes that the court is legitimate. in fact, they almost seem to revel in that they can exercise this authority against people that they hold in contempt. >> yes, and it is interesting, professor, that the staunchest ideological allies of justice thomas, including some of the people in that really quite beautiful painting of him hanging out with harlan crow, just an incredible work of art, they have been rushing to his defense. yes, of course. of course you think this arrangement works. it works for you. >> well, i think outside the united states these would be matters of significant concern. it would look as if there is a branch of government that has been corrupted and that no longer serves the public. and that is not one where the justices are at an arms length differences from being influenced by powerful, potential benefactors. that is what we are seeing today, a court where many americans believe it is out of touch and one in which they cannot trust. >> there was talk about democrats subpoena, and the white house is correctly the republicans would filibuster it because of the numbers in the senate. do you think there should be more aggressive action by congress towards thomas? >> yes, although i take the white house's point seriously. i think there should be more aggressive action. but whether more aggressive action is possible in a system is broken and deadlocked as ours is, to me, the central question. it is kind of why this is not just a crisis of legitimacy and democracy, because there is very little way for people to, even if you have the majority of people, i don't know that the majority of people are outraged, but even if they are, there is very few avenues in which they can exercise sovereignty. >> can i ask you a personal question? have you ever in your career had a year where a gift from a rich friend equaled your other income? i am just asking people. >> you know, i had coffee with the governor recently and her aid went to pick up the check and i thought oh no, i cannot accept this. >> yes, that's exactly right. professor goodwin, you? >> no, no, of course. and this is absolutely absurd. it truly is, and i think michelle has made an excellent point, which is that americans have become adjusted to these kinds of irresponsible, unethical behaviors, and that cannot be tolerated. i mean, no other persons, none of the judges or lawyers could get away with this. this is really a problem that justice roberts, the chief justice, must attend to for the credibility of the court. it means he loses his credibility as well as other members of the court. >> it was the chief justice who called him up and told him he had to go. thank you both. still ahead, as his former chief of staff pleads not guilty in arizona, donald trump speaks to a tv psychologist about his plans for revenge. it is all coming up next. next. everyday, more dog people are deciding it's time to quit the kibble and feed their dogs fresh food from the farmer's dog. made by vets and delivered right to your door precisely portioned for your dog's needs. it's an idea whose time has come. ♪♪ ya know, if you were cashbacking you could earn on everything with just one card. chase freedom unlimited. so, if you're off the racking... ...or crab cracking, you're cashbacking. cashback on flapjacks, baby backs, or tacos at the taco shack. nah, i'm working on my six pack. switch to a king suite- or book a silent retreat. silent retreat? hold up - yeeerp? i can't talk right now, i'm at a silent retreat. cashback on everything you buy with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours. with the price of just about everything inflating these days, you may wonder why mint is deflating the price of mint unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. well, it's easy. we know a great price on a great product is better than one of those things. right? does big wireless really believe that these things actually work? ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ ) this one will never see the light of day. all right. no two bodies are the same. some pads, never got that message. but, always flexfoam did! it protects against different flows for up to zero leaks. and it flexes to fit all bodies, for up to zero feel. feel it yourself with always flexfoam. if you have chronic kidney disease you can reduce the risk of kidney failure with farxiga. because there are places you'd like to be. farxiga can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood sugar. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ annika. i found the bomb. ok johann. there should be a blue wire and a yellow wire. an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. cut the blue one. they're both blue! visionworks. see the difference. we're trying to save the planet with nuggets. because we need the planet. and we also need nuggets. impossible. we're solving the meat problem with more meat. donald trump's revenge tour continues. he is calling for prosecution of the january 6 committee members, vowing retribution as the defining feature of his campaign. even as tv personalities are publicly trying to coax him out of it. >> i think you have so much to do, you don't have time to get even. you only have time to get right. >> well, revenge does take time, i will say that. and sometimes revenge can be justified, i have to be honest. >> dr. phil is like come on, you're not going to have time as president to go after enemies and trump says no, that is mostly what i'm going to do. this is now the unifying principle of the trump campaign and the republican party, make them pay. and part of the reason for that is because they have nominated a criminal who surrounds himself with criminals and who attended to in the constitutional republic. in fact, just today in arizona some co-members of that plot had to appear for an arraignment. trump's white house chief of staff, mark meadows, and a campaign aide both pleaded not guilty to charges saying they subverted joe biden's win in arizona in 2020. joining me now is andrew weissmann, he now cohosts the podcast prosecuting donald trump. andrew, meadows is an interesting figure because he has been at the sort of center of so much of the coup plot. he gave over text and then stopped cooperating. he has been indicted in georgia. he now is indicted in arizona. he has kept a low profile at the surface, but he has a serious case against him in arizona. >> absolutely. so, he is alleged there, as well as in georgia, as being a ringleader of the so-called fake electors plot which was a scheme that people have now bled to, so it is not just alleged, it is proven as to various participants, to have people pose as the real electors when they were not. and doing that deliberately. so, it is a fundamental challenge to the rule of law, to our democracy, and here it is alleged to have been engaged in by the chief of staff of the president of the united states. so, you can't get more heinous than that, if proved. and, as you said, it is in keeping with what has now been proved as to the president of the united states in connection with his conduct, to do the exact same thing in the 2016 election, where our jury just found that that was proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to his boss. >> speaking of that case, the next step for the former president is to meet with a probation officer, who will sort of take his temperature, find out about his life experiences, see if he has any other cases open against him. judge merchan granted todd blanche permission to attend his presentence interview. i guess the probation interview is not mandatory, usually they do it. what do you see happening here? >> this is one where i am not sure if you are a defense lawyer here, you kind of don't want your client to talk, because that is brought, and on the other hand, if he doesn't talk, that is fraught because it is considered contemptuous and the judge can use that as an adverse inference in terms of what he would say. but, you know, it is hard to see that donald trump would come off terribly well. i suspect that most of the talking will be done by his lawyer, if he is at all good. but i do think that the way you started this program, this segment where you have donald trump talking about his revenge tour and he cannot be coaxed out of it, that is normally the kind of thing you might want to say after you are sentenced, not before. because judge merchan can consider all of that in sentencing him on july 11th. >> yeah, you said this, i was struck by this. he said the statements of retribution against bragg and other perceived enemies are facts the judge merchan can and should consider on july 11th when sentencing trump. what is the category of things the judge can and should consider in this circumstance? >> one of the things the judge can consider is remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and the reason it is correct to laugh is that this is sort of the poster child for lack of remorse. and there is a difference between someone who says you know what? i am appealing the conviction so i can't tell you that i did it, and someone who is brazenly saying not only did i not do it, but the people who are in charge of this, there should be retribution against them. yeah, the judge, the prosecutors, the jurors. that is the kind of thing that, to say that is going to rub the judge the wrong way is to put it mildly. that really goes to sort of a fundamental risk of recidivism, a lack of understanding about the rule of law, and it also fundamentally does not understand that facts matter. this is a jury that was assess