It's here. The Ford it's a big. Not yet. The Ford is a big deal.
Oh guys, just wait. The Ford it's a big deal event is on. Really now Hurry up. At least a 2026 Maverick SLT Hybrid all wheel drive for 197 by weekly at 5.79 APR for six months with 29.95 down.
That's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal. Events. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford CA here It's Thursday.
Another ethics controversy hits the Supreme Court. Calls for accountability grow in the new reporting that a conservative billionaire mega donor wasn't just treating Justice Clarence Thomas to luxurious vacations. He wasn't just paying a salary to his wife. He was also paying the tuition for one of his closest family members.
Plus policing the AI revolution. Top tech execs are called by the White House as the administration rushes to address artificial intelligence and the new security risk it poses before it's too late. But is it? And a federal jury finds four out of five former Proud Boys members guilty of the charge of seditious conspiracy or their actions tied to the insurrection at the Capitol.
Including the far right group's former leader. Happy Thursday. Welcome to Media Press. I'm Chuck Tide reporting in Washington.
We're going to begin today with a crisis of confidence the highest levels of our government. A system too broken by hyper partisanship to dole out any real accountability. New reporting from Proplicant today reveals yet another troubled financial arrangement we between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his conservative billionaire megadonor friend Harlan Crowe. ProPublica is now reporting in addition to the luxury vacations they previously reported on, in addition to the nonprofit group Crow funded that paid Jenny Thomas salary.
In addition to buying the home of Clarence Thomas's mother, Colin Crowe is also paying school tuition for a close family member of the Thomases who he was raising as a son they had essentially adopted and raising them in their own house. The price tag on those tuition payments could be as high as $150,000. Thomas has never mentioned the tuition payments in his federal disclosure. So ProPublica notes that he once did disclose a smaller $5,000 gift from another friend that indeed did go towards the tuition.
This new reporting is just the latest and a long string stories about the political financial entanglements of both Justice Thomas and his wife Jenny Thomas. And everything as I noted from accepting luxury vacations, rising private jets to Jenny Thomas, conservative political activism and funding from big money donors. And these are just the latest credibility issues facing this conservative court, after years of partisan nominations, confirmation controversies, extraordinarily unpopular abortion ruling and the leak of that ruling, and today we heard some rare bipartisan agreement in the halls of Congress that the Supreme Court has a reputation problem, a big one. Take a listen.
The perception of the American people is important to me. And I do think that there's work that the Supreme Court should do to address this perception problem. You know, the Article 1, Article 2 branch is always going to have politics robbing people's perceptions of ethics. But in the Article 3 branch, that one needs to be a gold standard.
I hope that Chief Justice Roberts reads this story to understand something has to be done. The reputation of the Supreme Court is at stake here. The credibility of the Court when it comes to its future decisions is at stake. It's and his reputation as a leader of this court, it is really an issue as well.
But now the question of what to do about it. Lawmakers retreat to their familiar partisan corners on the questions facing Justice Hanes. Republican senators forcefully defending disagreeable behavior at a recent hearing. A potential code of ethics for the court.
This assault on Justice Thomas is well beyond ethics. It is about trying to del. Delegitimize a conservative court that was appointed through the traditional process. This is all just a thuggish shakedown.
Nice Supreme Court you've got there in America. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it. Democrats can have disagreements based on law, but this attempt to delegitimize the court, this attempt to personally sneer Clarence Thomas is dishonest. And everyone in the media echoing it is participating in a shameful reprise of 1991 high tech lynching.
Just ask yourself this. Imagine the reaction from those same very senators if a liberal justice was accused of taking money from a donor, oh let's say George Soros and he was paying the tuition, say the niece of Sonnest Meyer. Ask yourself what the reaction would be. It is fair to ask.
With Democrats he is forced on their calls for accountability. Justice that works. Compromised as Clarence Thomas clearly is, folks, now more than ever, and particularly on the right, the political jersey color seems to be open insulation from the accountability in government. So many people on the right now say yeah, but the left is more crooked, so it's okay if the crooked ones are on our side.
And any way you look at it, hyperpartisanship of our politics has led to this crisis. Accountability across virtually all branches of government. Nobody trusts any investigation coming out of that Capitol building. That's next.
Order. ZNBCU senior leg correspondent Laura Jarrett So, Laura, it is a very opaque building, the Supreme Court. It's a very opaque branch of government. Justice Roberts had a chance.
He was invited to testify to the Senate District Committee. He declined. He is, on one hand, supposedly worried about the credibility of the court, and on the other hand, has been very hesitant to even embrace or at least accept the premise that the court has a perception problem. Yeah.
His general position on this check has been the court knows what it's doing. Just trust us. We're good at policing ourselves. We look to the ethics code that doesn't apply to us the way that applies to every other federal judge on the bench for guidance.
But given our unique role in the constitutional system, there is no ethics role for the outsiders to look at for us. And so basically just allow us to keep doing what we're doing has been his general position thus far. The question is whether there's gonna be public political pressure that the court eventually feels that they actually have to do something to maintain any sort of accountability and probability. Is there any.
The Supreme Court justice, all nine of them signed that letter last week. Yeah. I mean, you just have to wonder. The other eight gotta be sitting there.
Are they thinking there but for the grace of God go they? Are any of them at all concerned about the tarnish? I mean, this is a cancer on the Supreme Court now. It's a full on cancer.
Yeah. Right. And so I think there's a couple things going on. One, I think the disclosure rules have allowed all of them not to be nearly as transparent as I think the American people would want to see.
The issue, though, with Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crowe is, I think, materially different. And it does appear that what's happening there is unusual. And the amount of financial entanglements between them, as you, as you reported, Chuck, not only just the gifts and the jets and all of the opulence, but now down to the tuition payments, payments and Jenny Thomas's salary. There's so much there, and I do think that is materially different than what you've seen from some of the other justices.
What would happen if a circuit court judge had these kind of. Didn't failed to disclose these arrangements? They would be investigated. There's a process for that that is very unlike what the Supreme Court has to go through, which is nothing.
Right. So, you know, every other judge would be subject to an investigation and it would be onerous. And, you know, there's a general principle that federal judges are supposed to avoid any appearance of impropriety, which means even putting aside the disclosure issue and why or why not he didn't disclose these payments? The idea is there that in order for the public to have trust in the court and believe in this institution, you would want to avoid any appearance of anything that looks at all questionable.
And the question is, why doesn't the. Why doesn't Claire and Thomas or any other justice want to hold themselves to that same standard, even they're not technically under the same set of rules? Well, if we can't expect ethical conduct by the highest court in the land, how does anybody expect ethical conduct from any elected official in the land? It's a rhetorical question.
I'm not going to. Thank you. It's a fact that. Anyway, thank you.
As I put up a little chart of this whole numbers, let me show you something. 2002, two years after the single most controversial thing the Supreme Court has ever done, decide the outcome of presidential election, half the country had a great deal of private confidence in the spring Court. So that's why I put that in context. 2002, two years after the single most political decision they ever made, divisive decision they ever made, arguably.
And they had a 50% essentially confidence rating. It's cut in half 20 years later. In half. At some point, Chief Justice Roberts, who I think we all believe wants to improve the professional court, needs to step up.
And I do think these numbers are very challenging our own polling, too. NCRS News I'm here is to poll two very similar results that people have very little, I think the majority of the public has very little confidence in the Supreme Court. Look, and I think the challenge for the Chief justice, though, is that ultimately, I mean, these are public perception problems and the court has been, I think, immune by nature, given who and what the Court is, from responding to public pressure and public perception. So how does he invade and step into that territory now?
I really don't know. I mean, the court has never had to be answerable to the public. You know, Doug, I think if the Republicans want to be taken seriously in their investigations of the Bidens, they gotta take this seriously. And obviously we know church of color indicates that won't be the case.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. And everything that you laid out was defined in your earlier intro where you talked about the tribalism and the jersey color wearing. And that's ultimately it. And it's why we see, even after Bush versus Gore, the numbers of the court following because every justice is illegitimate.
If they're not US justice. Guess what? Guess what. The biggest difference of Iborg between O2 and F.
Back then we knew it took 60 votes to get a justice in the Supreme Court. And there's something about that. I do think we have politicized and polarized entire judiciary by lawyering to 50 because it's a different kind of judge that gets nominated. Now duck to folks and white old folks.
White House counsellors, office of Bush, Bushes. Oh, so entirely different set of people. Yeah, absolutely. It changes the complete dynamic.
But we still go back to that place of my justice is amazing and every justice is legitimate and we see that infecting our politics. Everything is tribal. And the Hunter Biden comparison, I think, is that so. I think part of the challenge is that you also have the backdrop, increasingly seeing receipts of Claire Thomas and wrongdoing and Justice Robertson saying, you know, we are holders because our institutions are vulnerable right now.
I think that's what we're getting to. Our institutions of governance, people's trust in the system. But at the same time, what we have is a court that is increasingly dictating, legislating because we have a dysfunction in Congress. So instead of Congress legislating Owens right to choose, we're expecting the courts to do that, which is not where it was meant to be.
And I think it's the juxtaposition of one, people saying it's not my justice because of what you're saying regarding the 50, 52 is we're finding receipts of corruption. And three, the court's change has changed in the way they determine really big issues that were less relegated to Congress. And this was something that I do think we're asking for the Senate to be outraged. I think we should be outraged.
The United States Senate created this catastrophe. They are the creators of this catastrophe. And if the Republican claim Harry Rean and the Democrats want to claim great, you collectively have destroyed the judiciary branch. I think that's an excellent point.
Right. That there is some. I don't think your point was exact, that when you lower the threshold and the number of senators who have to approve of justice, you are going to require less bipartisanship to likely get a justice through. Look, and I don't think those rules in the Senate are changing anytime soon.
The reality is right now, I don't, I don't mean to be so negative about this that I don't entirely see a pathway out. That's what's so frustrating about Aspect. I am just generally as a citizen, just frustrated and angry. Like I don't understand, you know, if I'd be fired for behaving this way.
This man is a Supreme Court justice. I mean, he is. This is embarrassing to the United States of America, but that's exactly what the public should be outraged around. And that's where Justice Roberts says, you know what, you're actually right.
We have to have a house. The regular person would be treated differently. And that is what's happening now. Well, I mean, the regular member of Congress will be treated differently.
The rules are going to jail. Some of them did. Chris Collins. They're held accountable, at least in some forms in some.
And look, you know, we still have some members of Congress who haven't gotten through that process yet. Obviously, George Santos being a good example. But these are, these are credible questions that have been coming up. And the one question I do have, and I've said this is legitimate Clarence Thomas for a long time, Clarence Thomas is getting a lot more attention than eight other justices.
You know, Justice Roberts is Chief Justice Robertson. And I don't think we know is this specifically a Clarence Thomas question, which is a problem? Is this a larger question and not a perception problem for the court, but a substance of problems? I would argue that Clinton's Thomas thing is actually is bigger because you do have a spouse who's a political activist.
I mean, this is something we have not seen before. And it's something that you see in a number of other countries in the United States often hold itself up to this very high standard in terms of the responsibility of its judiciary. And there is, I think it's a sense of whether it's deserved or not. But entitlement.
Right. In terms of our institutions being so beyond everybody else. And these are the things that you see. I mean, I think anyone that you have great roots will say like this reminds you of what you see in another country.
We also know what happens with the generation of the other country. That's why we are the beacon of the future, that we are standard barriers not just in United States but worldwide and at the single most important of those three institutions. Because that's what sort of keeps us all on the, on this wobbly level playing field. It's not level.
It's a little wobbly, but it kind of sort of has kept us a little bit above the frame compared to everybody else. Not anymore. No. And look how many times have we had conversations what conservatives say publicly and privately about Donald Trump.
Those conversations are happening right now on the same level. Oh, that client sounds. Everybody knows this is egregious behavior. They just can't get clock saying that.
I don't know, I mean, you tell me that the conversation, not saying it publicly. I mean, I don't, I don't know. Their political calculations are zero. Something like that is going to be the report by many people on.
Right. But I do think that if we are. We recognize that our democracy is in the vulnerable position. Check.
We recognize that the judiciary is the one that allows us to play equally in the same sandbox. If we don't hold it accountable, we are actually unraveling this incredible country. And that's what the problem is. And that's what Justice Robert really needs to recognize.
Is it party or country? And I would encourage him to consider country above all else. Some of you think the polarization though, to me is, is it symptomatic or is it actually the cause? Right.
We talk about this all the time. But we talked about. Look at the House districts. Look how uncompetitive paving Jenny House district is now compared to what it was 30 years ago.
Right. It's the incentive structures. Right. If what it takes to win is to win a moderate, you're moderate.
If what it takes to win is to be magna, you're magalate. Right. I mean, it is. And there's very few districts where you actually have to be moderate.
Every incentive structure is for partisan hackers. I'm sorry. That's where the argument that lifetime appointment should get rid of all the politics. But what have we learned?
It doesn't. Not if you. Not if you play at the very end. And I think that's a challenge.
There's no accountability for crossing the line of corruption. That's a shame. All right, Doug. Very Teresa.
That's. This was quite uplifting anyway. Coming up, speaking of uplifting, AI fears top check execs meet with top Biden administration officials of the White House attempts to find some ways to rein in a potentially perilous technology. I'll talk to the White House science advisor.
We call these executive steps. Who helped design these executive steps. Plus the former leader of the far right proud boys group has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy. It's a landmark.
The 19 6th prior love details on them for all five members watching this. Welcome back. The White House is now signaling its support for some rules and regulations surrounding the launch, if you will, of artificial intelligence. As new technology begins to disrupt a number of industries with some experts warning and end up wreaking havoc on society if not properly constrained by administration.
Host a meeting day with a number big tech executives to discuss the risk posed by AI while also discussing potential safeguards In a statement, the Vice president Kyle Harris, department of the meeting, warned that AI has the potential to dramatically increase the rights to safety and security infringed on civil rights and privacy and public trust and faith in democracy. Not exactly uplifting. Today's meeting comes days after the so called Godfather AI says he left Google to more freely speak out about the dangers that technology can pose. In addition to security concerns from AI, there's also the potentially wide scale disruption it could have on all sorts of issues.
But of course, first and foremost might be the job market. In fact, Hollywood screenwriters are striking right now in part over words that AI can be used to take their jobs. Hey ChatGPT, write a sitcom in the mind of Larry David, right? IBM says that you use the technology to replace nearly a thousand jobs at the company.
And a new report from the World Economic Forum finds that nearly a quarter of all jobs are said to be disrupted in the next five years with AI playing a key role. Of course, the same thing was said at the advent of the Internet, is that should that give us comfort or not? Join me now is Aarathi Prabh Bahar, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. More importantly, she's a veteran of darpa, which of course essentially gave the world the Internet.
And so she joins us now. Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. Mr.
Bahar, let me start with what these rules do and what don't they do. It feels like this is just a set of guidelines. Is that fair? The president, vice President met today with the four CEOs of leading AI companies.
And that was to underscore what the Biden Harris administration has focused on from the beginning, which is the idea that AI is a very powerful technology, that if we're going to seize its benefits, we have to start by managing its risks. And this meeting was to focus on the company's responsibilities in that regard. That's an important part of getting to a place of futurely responsible AI. Most of these companies believe they should be trusted.
Why should we trust them? Well, I think that they have such an important role to play because they are driving this technology, they're putting it out into the world. And that's one part of what needs to happen. This administration, from the beginning, before this wave of AI happened, has been on the job putting out a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights last fall.
And we've announced a set of actions. You'll see more from us. But this particular meeting was about making sure the companies are responsible for their role Again, how do you ensure that the companies are responsible? I mean, you know, thanks to this section 230, they really have no liability on AI yet, should they?
You may have seen an announcement last week from four major enforcement agencies, the eeoc, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Department of Justice, the ftc, reminding companies that they're holding them accountable even as they start to use AI. And I think that's a great example of using existing laws and making sure that companies understand that they're responsible, that they are still on the line. There's much more to do, but I think that's an important example. You don't think 230 will protect them from regulation, civil rights violations that a machine may make?
I think we have to sit back for a minute and look at this technology because it is so broad and so powerful. I think there will be issues to resolve about Section 230. But this technology is about, it is about what content gets generated, but it's also about many other uses and many other risks. So that is one part, but it's a much more broader, a much more complex landscape.
Let's go back in time for me a little bit. If we had the same fear about social media that we all do right now, but AI, would a meeting like this have happened 15 years ago and should it have with social media? I think we all believe there's a lot to be learned from the social media generation. And of course, what's happened with social media is an example of artificial intelligence that's already in our lives.
Because when you get an ad targeted to you, or when you do a search, or even if you're using facial recognition to unlock your phone, those are examples of AI today. What's happening now is this much more powerful wave of AI that's going to have broader applications. It's going to come into Americans lives in more and more ways. And this is really why the President's been clear from the beginning that if we're going to seize its benefits, we have got to start by managing its risks.
Let me ask you this. These tech companies, you know, they don't, they don't have too many conversations about the morality of some of the things they're making and the ethics of what they're making, where do those conversations come in and who should play that role? You know, what I find is everyone who's involved in the business of AI understands the bright side, but also these very concerning risks. And the issue is what are each of us going to be able to do to get us to A better place.
The President's been clear from the beginning that what we need is there are government actions that are underway. There's more that's been contemplated. Today's meeting with the CEOs was to focus on their responsibility because they are responsible. They are responsible as actors in the market, but they do have ethical and moral responsibilities.
So underscored by the Vice President, I think those are important messages for them to hear from us. When the Internet first sort of became a thing, this was in some ways the American government gifting the world. Right. I mean, it was research that was done.
In that sense, this is different. Right. This is private sector created here, private sector driven. Should there be any extra concerns we have about that?
You know, the parallel I see that I think is really important is these are very powerful raw technologies, but they don't come with morals or rules or values. That's our job. And that's why this administration came out with a blueprint for AI Bill of Rights last October. At a time when the technology is as powerful and as fast moving, no more important time to be clear about your values and that that's the starting point.
And then implementing the right measures on our side in the government, but also in companies, but doing it in line with our values, that's how we're going to navigate this. 24 years ago, if America made a set of guidelines, the world would likely follow on a new technology. That's not going to be the case anymore. What do we do about, about, you know, the bad actors that are also playing with this new technology?
Yeah, I think first we just have to recognize that it is a globally competitive landscape. President Biden likes to talk about how important it is for democracy to prove that it can work in today's complex world. And I think AI is just a perfect example of that computer complexity. But we and our like minded allies, I think have a lot of work to do, but a great opportunity to come together and manage these risks in a way that chart you a better future.
All right, President Science Advisor Rathi for Bob Carr. Hopefully I didn't mingle that too badly. Also, of course, experience on darpa, which essentially gave us the Internet. Appreciate you coming on and explaining what the White House is up to.
Thank you. Thank you. Our technology correspondent here at ndc, he's also the author of the Loop How Technology Is Creating a World Without Choices and How to Fight Back. Essentially, before there was AI, there was algorithms.
And that is essentially, you know, I guess initial AI is probably the right way to describe it. I've been waiting for the White House to come out with something, believe it or not. It feels like where is that convening of the tech companies? And here they're trying to get there.
But this feels small and late. It does feel small. People I'm speaking to who have been raising alarms on the incredible potential power of this definitely say this is not adequate in their view. We're talking here about a move to fund additional research that doesn't really seem to be.
Funding is not something that AI community is lacking currently. Money's not the issue. We also know that they are opening up a DEFCON Village kind of hackathon to try and test some of the models that are out there. I've attended these deep foundation hackathons in the past.
A bunch of well meaning people. But that is a pretty small event as things go. Doesn't necessarily feel like something. And of course the Office of Management of Budget is coming out with these guidelines around how the US government can use this technology.
But it is not the all in one regulatory kind of philosophy philosophy that we're looking for. And especially since we've been talking so much about China, right? What if China goes ahead and does something? What Russia goes ahead, does something, leaves us behind.
But China just issued a bunch of draft regulations on AI that are extremely sweeping. They say that all synthetic media needs to be watermarked. They say that you've got to make your data models transparent. They also of course say those data models need to be based on pro Chinese state, you know, data.
So there's some previous authoritarian stuff there. But it's very interesting to see if anything, not only are they being as technologically, they're kind of in front of some regulation too. Let's talk about it through the prison of the tech companies. Look, the last thing they want, you know, they never want Washington in their way.
We know this. Yo, but I was thinking about the movie Contact today. What I loved about it is here was how would the US government handle actually a formal ability of an alien life trying to make contact. They said science advisors, we need philosophers.
That was a little facetious, but I was thinking about that, you know, maybe we ought to have a room where those tech execs ought to talk to sociologists. Can I say this? I was sitting once in a room full of people, I'm not allowed to say the word, but a bunch of sociological political scientists, not researchers on one side and a bunch of AI people on the outside of it. AI people had been literally building this model which they said, okay, we're going to have a fill in the blank for AI in which it's going to say it would be unethical for me to do X.
And then AI is going to fill in the blank. And if we do enough times, we're going to arrive at a set of universal human values. Do you have any questions? And this political scientist, everybody's hand goes up in the room and this political science person, she says, I have just three questions.
What is universal, what is human and what are values? Right. These machines are walking right in to some fundamental questions that we are nowhere near answering in the academic sense among political science, among societies. And the fact that these things are going to, this technology is conceivably going to utterly upend society and play on all our humanistics when we barely understand how to get along anyway.
I don't know man, that's a lot. Let me ask you this though, how much of this, and this is where I do think we've talked about this before. I think my own level of concern, AI goes to the lack of concern we have for social media and the Internet created a lot of disruption and displacement at first. We had to rewrite laws and you know, a bunch of early people made money off of things that probably weren't their rights.
Like think of how markup is on these technical Broadcast.com, not even sure. We hadn't decided how sports rights even worked around streaming back then. He didn't do it legally. He was, you know, he was, he was ahead of the game.
He just was ahead of the game today. He never would have gotten all those rights for as cheaply as he did. So we're gonna have a little bit of that. Are we overreacting?
Well, I think, you know, one thing that struck me in the conversation you just had with ms, I have tremendous respect for her and her background. She mentioned there that the technology companies understand that it with moral complications and ethical complications. What it does not come with right now is legal liability. And I think we live in a world right now where those companies literally have no legal liability in this.
They are utterly protected by section 30 and that is protecting specifically the fuel supply of AI, which is the data. If you want to read between the lines of the fact that she said maybe we need to re look at that. Just the fact that she opened that up, it shows you, I think that everybody realizes this is you reading this world better than I. No, no, she has a great job.
Unless it is. I mean the fact that she said, well some changes have to be pondered, I think we all realize. Okay. Like, oh, don't tax the Internet.
Well, what happens with all conversations on the Internet? Oh, yeah. Maybe that was unheard. You're reading about it.
Always want to watch. We'll say take a report to see. Appreciate thanks for stay tuned this year in the very near future because Jacob's upcoming episode of our brand new season, the first episode of season six of Meet the Press Reports. We'll let's start Episode one is focusing on a deep dive into the anti drag movement.
It's really about the anti LGBTQ laws that have been circulating around the country. And you can sneak peek at that tomorrow right here on the show. Next week, we'll tackle the future of artificial intelligence and that will be with Jake Ward. You can catch that episode and every episode again on Sunday mornings and on streaming VIP and YouTube.
We'll be right back with the latest on the landmark decision and the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial. You're watching ME Press now. After three trials, we have secured the convictions of leaders of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy, specifically conspiring to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power. Our work will continue.
Welcome back. That was the attorney general. Just a few moments of the Justice Department reacting to the news today that a jury has found four out of five members of the extremist group the Proud Boys, including Lear Enrique Tarrio, guilty of seditious conspiracy for their actions around the January 6th insurrection. In the last hour, the jury did acquit a fifth member of the group on that charge.
The fifth member, Dominic Bazola, was found guilty of multiple other charges, including obstruction of the division proceeding, destruction of government property and robbery. Earlier in the day, each defendant faced nine counts, but the jury could not reach consensus of two of the counts, leading the judge to declare a mistrial. Including Today's verdict, though 14 people have now been convicted of the charge of seditious conspiracy in response to the insurrection. Essentially the closest thing you have to isn't being tried as a traitor, being found to be traitor of the United States.
All of the members of extremist organizations, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Let's unpack this. Ryan Reilly is NBC News. As justice reporter, he's been breaking down these convictions all day.
So seditious conspiracy was something that the Justice Department knew was going to be hard to prove, and they got four out of five. Why did so many legal scholars thought it was going to be so difficult to prove? We Saw this insurrection. We kind of.
There's part of me that's like, well, stand back and stand by. Here they were. They tried to stop, you know, and yet a lot of legal scholars thought this was something difficult. What made it so difficult?
I mean, it's a really high bar I think you have to reach in order to find that conclusion of statistic conspiracy. You know, a lot of the evidence was more about that moment, you know, about this moment. This seems spontaneous right before the attack that a lot of this took place. Although there's a lot of this dates back.
And you remember the problem was came in November and December, but then they're mostly going back and forth with members of Antifa. It wasn't necessarily trying to topple the government at that point, but you know, on January 6th, when, you know, after Mike Pence was a traitor in their minds, right after that moment that Mike Pence said he was going to overturn the election, that is really when a switch got flipped, I think for a lot of people here. But, you know, further, it was Trump's will be wildfeed on December 19th, 2020 that really set a lot of this off. That's what brought the Proud Boys to dcs, brought all these extremist groups.
And then, you know, if you have a bunch of people who think the election is stolen and you direct them in one direction, you know, it's high inevitable to happen. Has anybody been convicted successfully sedidic conspiracy that was a member of the Proud Boys of the research? Not thus far. Yeah.
Was being a member of those groups. I mean, almost you couldn't get the charge if you wanted because the theory is, well, those groups intended to come, came to D.C. with the intention of disruption. Yeah.
Being in a group isn't such a part of conspiracy charge. You can't just get popped on sedition alone necessarily. You have to get a charge of. You have to be in the conspiracy with other people.
So that by definition sort of leads you towards more organized groups. So there are other groups that could potentially get these charges. But the problem is and yield theaters are the main ones that are really involved on January. Should we read anything into the fact that this charge was successful in front of a jury, Seditious conspiracy, then if the former president is charged with essentially inciting this, you know, he's the one that called for them to come.
Does this mean that this makes that charge easier to make? It does. I think the implications for Trump are definitely significant because remember the head of the Proud Boys, Rigid Terraria, who was found guilty of seditious and spirit. My honestly I thought he would be the toughest one to convict if I run a.
Because he was also an FBI source. Apparently at the time. He was an MVP source. Yes.
But more it was more because he was not there. Right. He was off site. He was in a Baltimore.
He got kicked out. Correct. Because the, because the police like he was booted from the city. Yeah.
And that was like intervene, I guess. Right. Like they sort of took this lone wolf approach to this entire January6 incident and sort of pick off extremists that they thought were, you know, that they weren't really considering that just having a massive mob is going to be the major threat here. They're just trying to take out the individual.
Actually I thought they took out the leaders that somehow that was going to disassociate the attack. Right. And did not have and I don't think that any map space which I think has that implication for these broader cases because if you can convict somebody who is not on the scene of the crime, who was in a Baltimore hotel. No, no, it's a lot closer than Baltimore hotel.
As the House White. Suffice to say that the FBI was worried enough about the proud boys and the okay person. They thought well let's at least see if we can decapitate the leadership in some way physically. Not decapitate in the technical sense, but obviously remove them from their leadership position.
That implies that perhaps as we're trying to figure out, they were onto this more than maybe even they. Yeah. I mean the raw intelligence was there for sure. It wasn't organized.
And there's a variety of reasons for that. But I think one of them is just frankly it was right before over the Christmas break. Right. You know, federal employees aren't really ramping up on those two weeks.
I think that, you know, is one of the reasons that we saw what happened in January6. I think it's a very fair point in observation. Ryan Riley, big day of justice. Thanks very much.
After the break, another shake up the 2024 set just open the door for a crowded and likely hotly contested Democratic primary contest. You're watching. Welcome back. With the do decision, it means abortion is being fought in the states and the battle abortion rights in Wisconsin is where things are heated up today.
Today with a Wisconsin court oral arguments in a lawsuit that's likely to end up overturning the state's 19th century era abortion ban is a TR that went in place after the Supreme Court of Return, Wisconsin's governor Attorney general say the law conflicts with newer, less restrictive laws. Dasha Burns joins me from Madison, Wisconsin with more today's hearing. Dasha, the real question I have is everybody I've talked to expect to see this new court overturning. The question is what becomes the law law.
I know former Governor Scott Walker assumes it's the law he signed, which would make it 20 weeks. But I'm curious, where does this go once they decide this 19th century law is no longer enforceable? Well, it's a good question, Chuck, and I don't have a great answer, sir, for you. And that's been at the heart of the confusion ever since Roe v.
Wade was overturned. We've seen this in Wisconsin, we've seen this in Michigan with their 1931 law. Basically any state that has sort of these archaic laws on the books or conflicting or contradictory laws on the books have been in this gray area, this confusing area where, where doctors, where women seeking this kind of care have been unclear about what's okay, what's not okay and what the future is going to look like. And as you know, we've seen these battles play out.
They're not simple and they take a long time. And so right now, you know, today we saw these arguments play out in the Dane county district's court. And while what happened today, you know, is a more significant the reason it's important is because as you said there, we expected to head to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And what happened today is one step closer to making that most expensive judicial race in US History closer to paying off for proponents of abortion rights because this summer that the justice, the justice elect, Janice, is going to be sworn in and she is likely to repeal that law.
But what happens after that, that's still the question mark. And whether you talk to abortion rights proponents or anti abortion rights advocates, the thing that everyone's looking for right now is some clarity and it's probably gonna be a while before we had it checked. It is like I said, the best I could come up with in answer from various sectors. I talked to peers to be 20 weeks but we shall see Joshua Burns on the ground for some Dasha.
Thank you. Thank you all for being with us this hour. Back tomorrow morning, the Press now. NBC News now coverage continues with Carrie Hake sitting in for Al J.
Welcome back. Democrats are in for another crowded intra party battle for key Senate 2024. We've gone to see the fight heat up in California where three well financed Democratic House members, Barbara Lee, Katie Porter, Adam Schiff already are all duking out filled the seat of retiring Senator Diane Feinstein. Now Maryland, we also expect a robust Democratic primary in the race to succeed.
Democratic Senator Ben Cardinal announced this week that he's going to retire from politics after five decades in Maryland. Democratic Congressman David Trone, who was the founder of Total Beverage and Wine, as well as Montgomery county council member Will Chawando, have already thrown their hats in the ring. We expect many more hats to follow, although. So a lot of things could move depending on what happens with other things, including Jasmin.
But join me now for a little bit of a remembrance, if you will. His take on things is Marilyn Senior Democratic center, then card and Senator Cardinal, do I say congratulations? I mean, I don't know, is it condolences or congratulations? Which do you prefer?
Well, Chuck, first of all, thank you very much. I think it's a recognition that I will have served for 58 consecutive years as a legislator. It's time for me to look for other ways to help our community. I'm not gonna retire.
I'm gonna be here very actively for the next two years and then look for other ways I can help our community. But it's time for new people to come in. And I think the healthy primary is good. I think it's great that people are interested.
You know, it's interesting with six senators in the last 50 years, there's a lot of stability that comes with a Maryland sensei. Let me ask you this. A robust primary can come up a lot of positives. What are you most concerned about a big primary doing?
Well, I would hope that it will be positive. It's very important that Maryland maintain its Democratic memory. United States center for the balance of power in the United States Senate. So I hope those are running recognized that the real prize is November, not just the primary election.
And I must tell you that the names that have been floated, I think they're all sensitive to that. You know, I think about Maryland politics. You know, I first started covering Maryland politics. The the more Baltimore you had in your resume, the better over the last 20 years, the more D.C.
suburbs sometimes the better. I'm curious your take it and whether Maryland's political identity for you still is more at the Baltimore harbor? Is it more in Montgomery County? It's the entire state of Maryland.
For the beaches to the shore. I love the state of Maryland. My roots are in Baltimore. It is when you look at the four statewide state officials in Maryland, two have roots in Baltimore and two have roots in the Washington area.
So I think both the Baltimore And Washington urban centers are rich with population, particularly Democrats. But I represent the entire state of Maryland. Let me ask you a few questions that are coming up. I want to specifically talk today about the situation with the Supreme Court.
And frankly, I think the United States Senate, of which you've been a member for quite some time, bear some responsibility for are the makeup of a Supreme Court that the public just doesn't trust anymore. How do we reform the judiciary? Well, quite frankly, they need an ethics standard. This is outrageous.
The most recent revelations, it is shocking to me that they do not have the basic disclosure laws and standards that are pretty common sense. And that has clearly been violated by the Supreme Court. I think Congress has the ability to respond to that. I think we should respond to it.
And I know that the Judiciary Committee, Inc. How do we take a partisanship out of the judiciary? My thesis is the minute we lowered the threshold of 50 votes for all judges, we made those robes red and blue. They no longer are black.
And, and you know, that to me has been the unintended consequence of, quote, getting through this process faster and all of that, that how do we take the partisanship out if we don't raise the voting threshold? Well, I think it was a major mistake to lower the threshold from 60 to 50 for the Supreme Court appointment all over. I mean, I, you know, I understand you saying that exception because it was a Democrat that lowered the threshold for lower courts. It was a Republican that lowered the threshold for the upper court.
Why has this been good for any of the courts? Well, it's interesting. Before we lowered the threshold, it was unheard of to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. We allowed it to have an up or down vote.
As you know, Justice Thomas was confirmed with less than 60 votes. We should not be using these partisan tools to block the selection and confirmation of judicial nominees. I would just point out now the way that President Trump submitted his nominees, in some cases, not even allowing Democrats to interview the nominees was outrageous. It was very partisan.
It was a restricted list. I think it's not just the confirmation process in the Senate. It's a way that the Trump administration politicized the appointments of the Supreme Court to a level that we've never seen before. I understand that, but I've talked to members of Bush's White House Council's office who said, boy, had the threshold been 50, not 60, would have been an entirely different set of nominees.
They would even offer the Senate. So we really have remade the judiciary in a more political activist way that I, I don't think was the intention. I think we should be elect appointing judges who are not going to be with a partisan agenda, whether it's our Democrat or Republican. How do you do that if you have a 50 vote threshold?
Shouldn't don't you? I mean isn't the irony that without the 60 votes that that is what forced you know, essentially compromise on us? Jock, I would hope that we would have leadership in the White House and the leadership of the United States Senate that recognizes this and calls it truce to these partisan nominations. No question Donald Trump took it to a new low level.
We got to restore that. I, I think the 60 vote threshold would help but quite frankly I think majority rules, I think we can work on a 50 vote threshold and still be able to achieve an independent judiciary because quite frankly as a Democrat I want an independent judiciary. I don't want a partisan judiciary even if we can't control those appointments. Let me ask you about the debt ceiling.
You've been through many a fiscal crisis. You're better than many fiscal crisis I hear here and I know you and your colleagues have been talking about how ridiculous all this is and yet we go through this process over and over whether you know, arguably Democrats that controlled Congress that they could have eliminated change the rules of how the debt ceiling is even dealt with, you know, a negative resolution or something like that. Why allow this to sit out there as a, as a tool to be weaponized? Well it shouldn't be a tool to be weaponized.
We should take the paying of our debt, our debt and default off the table. It should not be an issue if we approve the appropriation bills and then we incur the debt. We should pay our bills and there shouldn't require any additional action of Congress in order for that to take place. We've made some suggestions to do that.
I've been have suggested some. We should remove this all time the together we have enough leverage on each political party during the appropriation process. Use that United States. At this point though, President, should he be sitting down with Speaker McCarthy?
I think not on the, on the budget for next year but certainly let's get this debt issue behind us on default. It should not be we should not use that threat a gun at our heads literally on paying our bills that we don't reward that and we don't have the bill that passed the House is not a bill that even allows us any opportunity to talk in any rational way. So and President Biden has already submitted his spending plan for this year, his budget. Let's sit down and talk about that, but not whether we're gonna pay our bills.
He seeking re election. You chose not to. There's been a lot of chatter about age limits in the federal government, whether it's Supreme Court, whether it's the Senate. Considering the situation with Senator Feinstein, I'm curious, do you have a personal opinion on that?
You think there should be some sort of limit? No, I don't think there should be an age limit. I was looking, of course, a six year term. President Biden's looking a four year term.
So it's a different length of commitment. But I think each person has to make their own judgments and the voters should have that choice. So no, I don't think there should be an age limit. At the end of the day, the voters can decide whether or not you're up to the job, right?
Absolutely. Senator Ben Carden, Democrat from Maryland. Been there a long time. Good to see you.
No, I'll see you again before the term's over. Thank you, sir. Thanks. Still to come, abortion battles in background states for rival Wisconsin where the argument has begun.
Case that is likely going to end up before the state's newly left leaning Supreme Court challenging the state's 170 year old abortion ban. You're watching me press as a new wraps up at the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the new podcast from NBC News. With your host Gas in the studio, we'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalists. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and it's informative.
Bringing closers to headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. From front page to the zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on SiriusXM.