>>> ONE OF OUR FAVORITE CHARTS ON "ALL IN" IS THIS ONE. WE CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF IT. IT SHOWS HOW MUCH SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS HAS BENEFITED FROM OUTSIDE GIFTS. CAN I SEE THOMAS? GO THERE IT IS, RIGHT. THE BAR ALL THE WAY ON THE LEFT, THAT'S IT. THAT'S CLARENCE THOMAS. ALL OF THE OTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE JUST TO THOSE LITTLE KNOBS. CLARENCE THOMAS HAS RECEIVED AN ESTIMATED $4 MILLION IN GIFTS, MUCH OF WHICH YOU SEE, ALMOST HALF OF WHICH, WAS NEVER DISCLOSED. THAT IS ALL WE KNOW SO FAR. BY THE WAY, THERE MAY BE MORE UNDISCLOSED. NOW TWO DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ARE ASKING ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND TO APPOINT A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE HIM. WRITING, WE DO NOT MAKE THIS REQUEST LIGHTLY. EVIDENCE THUS FAR PLAINLY SUGGEST THAT JUSTICE THOMAS HAS COMMITTED NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS AND RAISES SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE AND HIS WEALTHY BENEFACTORS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THEIR FEDERAL TAX OBLIGATIONS. PRESENTED WITH OPPORTUNITIES TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS CONDUCT, JUSTICE THOMAS HAS MAINTAINED A SUSPICIOUS SILENCE. ONE OF THOSE SENATORS IS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE. HE JOINS ME NOW. SENATOR, WHAT GOT YOU TO THIS POINT? YOU HAVE BEEN OBVIOUSLY CONCERNED WITH THE OBVIOUS AND APPARENT LAPSES FOR A WHILE. WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO THIS MOMENT? >> REALLY GETTING FRUSTRATED WITH THE ABSENCE OF ANY POP YOUR -- IN EFFECT FINDING AT THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FAILURE TO ANSWER WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE BASIC QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE LOAN FOR HIS MOTORCOACH, WHICH IT APPEARS NO PRINCIPAL WAS EVER REPAID ON, SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT TOOK PLACE? ALL OF HIS LAWYERS WOULD SAY THAT THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WERE SATISFIED IN WHOLE, WHICH YOU WILL RECOGNIZES WHAT LAWYERS CALL WEASEL WORDS THAT DON'T ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THE FACTS. HAVING RUN UP AGAINST THAT WALL, WE HAVE NOW ASKED PEOPLE WITH REAL INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO LOOK INTO CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF THE DISCLOSURE LAWS. FALSE STATEMENT, POTENTIAL FELONIES, AND TAX VIOLATIONS POTENTIALLY BY JUSTICE THOMAS OR BY DONORS AND LENDERS. >> YOU KNOW I WANT TO STAY WITH THAT THIRD THING FOR A SECOND. IN THE CASE OF THE RV, THIS IS A SORT OF LAND YACHT RV. A QUARTER OF $1 MILLION. HE WAS LOANED THE MONEY TO PURCHASE IT BY A WEALTHY BENEFACTOR WHO SUBSEQUENTLY, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, FORGAVE THE ENTIRE LOAN WITH NONE OF IT BEING PAID BACK, SO ESSENTIALLY A GIFT. AGAIN, I AM NOT A TAX LAWYER, BUT I HAVE TO DO MY TAXES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. IF SOMEONE GIVES YOU A $250,000 GIFT, I'M PRETTY SURE YOU HAVE TO REPORT THAT, RIGHT? AM I CRAZY? >> THERE IS A VERY CLEAR AND SPECIFIC REVISION -- SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE TAX LAW AND DISCLOSURE LAW THAT SAYS FORGIVENESS OF A DEBT IS INCOME AND MUST BE DECLARED AS SUCH. AND THIS WAS A DEBT. HE BORROWED $250,000. AND HE PAID INTEREST ON IT FOR A WHILE AND THEN THE INTEREST PAYMENTS STOPPED AND OUR INFORMATION IS THAT NO PRINCIPAL WAS EVER REPAID. WHICH MEANS THAT IN SOME FASHION THAT THAT WAS EITHER FORGIVEN OR SOMEONE ELSE STEPPED IN AND PAID AND WHEN THERE WERE NO REASONABLE ANSWERS COMING BACK FROM JUSTICE THOMAS, WE JUST HAD TO ASSUME THE WORST. AND SO WE HAVE TURNED IT OVER FOR PROPER INVESTIGATION. UNDOUBTEDLY THE FORGIVENESS OF A LOAN, VERY SIMPLE LANGUAGE. ANYONE COULD UNDERSTAND IT. IT IS INCOME FOR TAX AND DISCLOSURE PURPOSES. >> I THINK THAT SEEMS CLEAR AS A BELL. IN TERMS OF THIS LETTER TO MERRICK GARLAND, I THINK HE WILL BLOW YOU OFF, IF I HAD TO GUESS ABOUT MERRICK GARLAND. SO THE QUESTION IS, WHERE DOES THIS GO? ONE OF THE THOUGHTS I HAD AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO, BUT THE HOLDING OF THE MAJORITY AND TRUMP THE U.S., AS WRITTEN BY JOHN ROBERTS, IS JOE BIDEN COULD INSTRUCT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF CLARENCE THOMAS TOMORROW AND THAT WOULD BE FULLY WITHIN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. IS THAT HOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE HOLDING OF THAT AS WELL? >> FRANKLY EVEN IF HE DID IT FOR A CRIMINAL PURPOSE. >> YES. >> EVEN IF HE DID IT IN ORDER TO COMMIT SOME ACT OF TREASON, IT REALLY DIDN'T MATTER, THAT HE WOULD BE PROTECTED IN DOING THAT. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO THINK ABOUT, HOW DOES THIS NORMALLY WORK? I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN INTERESTING STORY OUT OF ALASKA IN WHICH A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE WAS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. THERE WAS FACT-FINDING UNDERTAKEN BY A PANEL OF JUDGES. THERE WAS A REPORT ISSUED AND ULTIMATELY THIS JUDGE, JOSH KINDRED, WAS ASKED TO LEAVE HIS POST AND HE RESIGNED. AGAIN, REPORTS OF IMPROPRIETY. FACT-FINDING UNDERTAKEN. A REPORT ISSUED AND A RECOMMENDATION. WHAT WAS STRIKING TO READ THIS IS, ALL RIGHT, IT ISN'T ANYTHING GOES FOR THE REST OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE A QUARTER MILLION DOLLAR LOAN FORGIVENESS. YOU CAN'T SEXUALLY HARASS YOUR CLERKS. THERE IS SOME MECHANISM OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERYONE ELSE. >> YOUR KEYWORDS THERE WERE FACT-FINDING UNDERTAKEN. THAT IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WON'T PERMIT FOR ITSELF. THEY ARE THE ONLY NINE PEOPLE IN ALL OF GOVERNMENT FOR WHOM THAT IS TRUE. IF YOU GO TO STATE SUPREME COURTS, THEY ARE OVERSEEN BY PANELS OF LOWER COURT JUDGES WHEN THERE IS A LEGITIMATE ETHICS COMPLAINT AND THERE IS A FACT-FINDING PROCEDURE. FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES, FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES. THEY ALL HAVE FACT-FINDING. FACT-FINDING IS THE ESSENCE OF PROCESS OF LAW. IT IS ALMOST SO BASIC IN ESSENCE YOU DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. SO WHEN THESE JUDGES WON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THEIR WIVES ROLE IN INSURRECTION ACTIVITIES OR WHEN THEY MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FLYING MAGA BATTLE FLAGS, THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE TRUTH. OF ALL PEOPLE TO NOT BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE TRUTH, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WOULD SEEM TO BE THE WORST OF ALL. >> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE LIKELY UNDISCLOSED GIFTS, A FINAL POINT ON THE FACT CHECKING, THIS IS THE STUFF WE KNOW ABOUT FROM REPORTING. AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
