1 00:00:00,360 --> 00:00:04,640 Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. For earlier access to these episodes, access 2 00:00:04,680 --> 00:00:08,160 Speaker 1: to Ask Me Anything sessions, and extended breakdowns of historical 3 00:00:08,160 --> 00:00:12,760 Speaker 1: and current events, Please consider joining our Warning Premium community 4 00:00:13,320 --> 00:00:20,560 Speaker 1: by clicking the link in the description to this episode. 5 00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:24,439 Speaker 1: Very pleased to be joined on the Warning by Justin 6 00:00:24,480 --> 00:00:34,199 Speaker 1: Elliott of Pro Publica, the investigative nonprofit journalistic digital What 7 00:00:34,680 --> 00:00:38,120 Speaker 1: is it? What is the best way to describe Pro Publica. 8 00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:41,920 Speaker 2: It's a nonprofit investigative news organization. You know, we publish 9 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:45,559 Speaker 2: on our website, but then we also are almost all 10 00:00:45,560 --> 00:00:48,920 Speaker 2: of our stories are under Creative Commons license, so often 11 00:00:49,120 --> 00:00:52,240 Speaker 2: my stories will be republished in newspapers around the country 12 00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:55,720 Speaker 2: and sometimes with radio and TV as well. But yeah, 13 00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:57,360 Speaker 2: nonprofit news organization. 14 00:00:57,440 --> 00:01:00,480 Speaker 1: And you're not corporately owned, nope. 15 00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:04,319 Speaker 2: Five o' one c three nonprofit. We disclose our donors. 16 00:01:04,360 --> 00:01:08,400 Speaker 2: You can look them up on our nine to ninety foundations. 17 00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:10,959 Speaker 2: Small donors, wealthy people. 18 00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:14,800 Speaker 1: Right, So it's just transparent as it gets. And there's 19 00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:19,000 Speaker 1: a concept that undergirds the journalism at Pro Publica, the 20 00:01:19,040 --> 00:01:21,839 Speaker 1: public interest, the public good. Can you just talk about 21 00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:25,119 Speaker 1: that for a concept or as a concept for a minute. 22 00:01:25,120 --> 00:01:28,520 Speaker 1: When you sit around you have meetings among the reporters, 23 00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:32,080 Speaker 1: among the editors at pro Publica, the concept of the 24 00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:33,360 Speaker 1: public good comes up. 25 00:01:33,440 --> 00:01:36,480 Speaker 2: How yeah, I mean it sort of goes back to 26 00:01:36,760 --> 00:01:40,120 Speaker 2: our founding and I've been there since twenty twelve, but 27 00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:42,800 Speaker 2: we started around two thousand and seven, and we were 28 00:01:42,959 --> 00:01:46,560 Speaker 2: founded by Paul Steiger, who had been the managing editor 29 00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:50,120 Speaker 2: of the Wall Street Journal for many years, and in 30 00:01:50,320 --> 00:01:52,680 Speaker 2: you know, in the context of the kind of mid 31 00:01:52,800 --> 00:01:56,880 Speaker 2: to late oughts that was when the newspaper business model 32 00:01:57,040 --> 00:02:00,840 Speaker 2: was really starting to be destroyed by the inner and 33 00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:05,720 Speaker 2: investigative reporter jobs, and newspapers were often the first jobs 34 00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:09,239 Speaker 2: being cut because people that do this kind of work 35 00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:11,760 Speaker 2: are not writing stories to put in the paper every 36 00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:15,440 Speaker 2: day because the work takes time. And so Paul and 37 00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:19,000 Speaker 2: the other folks that started republic I had the idea of, 38 00:02:19,040 --> 00:02:23,079 Speaker 2: you know, essentially having a news organization that only had 39 00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:26,640 Speaker 2: investigative reporters that would do stories that had some kind 40 00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:31,680 Speaker 2: of accountability angle something in the public interest. So you know, 41 00:02:31,720 --> 00:02:34,080 Speaker 2: we don't write If I pitched a story that's just 42 00:02:34,120 --> 00:02:41,120 Speaker 2: a really interesting profile of somebody, my editors would say no, 43 00:02:41,600 --> 00:02:44,639 Speaker 2: unless there was some kind of harder edge to it. 44 00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:49,160 Speaker 2: Somebody doing something wrong, either an institution or a person 45 00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:53,320 Speaker 2: betraying the public trust in some way. You know, we're 46 00:02:53,360 --> 00:02:58,800 Speaker 2: totally nonpartisan. Both I and many of my colleagues have 47 00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:03,480 Speaker 2: written about republic and Democrats. Actually, my first story of 48 00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:09,639 Speaker 2: Republica was about a Democratic member of Congress, Bill Owens, 49 00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:14,280 Speaker 2: violating the ethics law by taking a trip to Taiwan 50 00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:18,480 Speaker 2: that was organized by lobbyists. He ended up getting censured 51 00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:21,800 Speaker 2: by the House Ethics Committee. So I've been writing about 52 00:03:21,840 --> 00:03:22,720 Speaker 2: travel for a while. 53 00:03:23,600 --> 00:03:27,280 Speaker 1: So you have two colleagues who wrote this story we're 54 00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:30,320 Speaker 1: going to talk about today, which are the revelations about 55 00:03:30,440 --> 00:03:35,800 Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito, josh Kaplan and Alex Meyer JASKI. Now, 56 00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:40,760 Speaker 1: is this the same Pro Publica team that also reported 57 00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:43,840 Speaker 1: on Harlan Crowe and Clarence Thomas. 58 00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:48,080 Speaker 2: Yep, it's been the three of us, and starting back 59 00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:51,480 Speaker 2: in December January, we were sort of poking around on 60 00:03:51,840 --> 00:03:54,839 Speaker 2: thinking about writing about the judiciary more broadly, actually thinking 61 00:03:54,880 --> 00:03:58,480 Speaker 2: about writing about the circuit courts, state supreme courts. But 62 00:03:59,040 --> 00:04:02,560 Speaker 2: we ended up getting a couple of leads on the 63 00:04:02,640 --> 00:04:06,960 Speaker 2: travel Supreme Court justices and did not set out to 64 00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:09,760 Speaker 2: spend you know, six or seven months writing about this, 65 00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:13,600 Speaker 2: but it's really snowballed, and starting with the stories about 66 00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:14,880 Speaker 2: Justice Thomas and Harlan. 67 00:04:14,680 --> 00:04:18,800 Speaker 1: Grow Okay, So I think there's a couple of things 68 00:04:18,839 --> 00:04:21,400 Speaker 1: before we kind of go into the reporting and the 69 00:04:22,080 --> 00:04:25,640 Speaker 1: facts of this. I just think to table set about 70 00:04:25,640 --> 00:04:30,719 Speaker 1: this moment in time that I think are fairly indisputable. One, 71 00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:38,640 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is broken as a function of its 72 00:04:38,760 --> 00:04:42,880 Speaker 1: level of trust and the faith the American people, haven't it. 73 00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:47,800 Speaker 1: The Quinnipiac poll came out yesterday. Interestingly, there are a 74 00:04:47,839 --> 00:04:53,160 Speaker 1: lot of Supreme Court stories out yesterday, including yours. Thirty 75 00:04:53,240 --> 00:05:00,919 Speaker 1: percent of the American people approve of the Supreme Court comepartisan. 76 00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:06,120 Speaker 1: It's taken a long time to get there. I played 77 00:05:06,120 --> 00:05:09,640 Speaker 1: a role in modern Supreme Court history in the Bush 78 00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:14,640 Speaker 1: White House. I led the Supreme Court confirmation process for 79 00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:20,480 Speaker 1: both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. There's a there's 80 00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:25,320 Speaker 1: a forgotten piece of history to this, which is that 81 00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:29,560 Speaker 1: there was a woman named Harriet Myers who was nominated 82 00:05:29,640 --> 00:05:34,960 Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. Harriet Myers was taken down and 83 00:05:35,080 --> 00:05:40,520 Speaker 1: knocked out in part by opposition from Leonard Leo, who's 84 00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:42,880 Speaker 1: going to play a role in your story. And then 85 00:05:43,000 --> 00:05:46,520 Speaker 1: I came back. I had a temporary duty in Iraq, 86 00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:50,600 Speaker 1: and then I came back and took up the Alito confirmation. 87 00:05:50,680 --> 00:05:55,159 Speaker 1: And I'll talk about some stories interspersed in this from 88 00:05:55,720 --> 00:06:00,080 Speaker 1: from throughout that, from throughout that process. So, so you 89 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:06,719 Speaker 1: look at the question of travel, gifts, things that Supreme 90 00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:11,120 Speaker 1: Court justices are getting that they should disclose or supposed 91 00:06:11,160 --> 00:06:15,000 Speaker 1: to disclose. But while you talk for a minute about 92 00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:21,080 Speaker 1: how Supreme Court justices are different under judicial ethics, they 93 00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:24,920 Speaker 1: have a fairly loose standard that is that is completely 94 00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:29,039 Speaker 1: built on this is the Supreme Court trust us and 95 00:06:29,240 --> 00:06:33,000 Speaker 1: for a long time that probably held up with the 96 00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:36,160 Speaker 1: comportment of the justices. There wasn't this type of this 97 00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:39,080 Speaker 1: type of behavior. But I'm hoping you can talk a 98 00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:39,960 Speaker 1: little bit about that. 99 00:06:41,080 --> 00:06:44,080 Speaker 2: Yeah, so there's there's sort of a few interesting categories here. 100 00:06:44,160 --> 00:06:47,200 Speaker 2: So first of all, when it comes to gifts, one 101 00:06:47,240 --> 00:06:50,160 Speaker 2: thing that's struck us, as we've gotten really deep into 102 00:06:50,200 --> 00:06:53,320 Speaker 2: this is if you talk to your average federal government worker, 103 00:06:53,400 --> 00:06:56,960 Speaker 2: and you know, I have friends that work for various 104 00:06:57,680 --> 00:07:02,360 Speaker 2: federal agencies, just a you know, normal job, non political appointees, 105 00:07:03,360 --> 00:07:08,359 Speaker 2: they'll tell you that the rules around taking gifts are 106 00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:11,200 Speaker 2: incredibly strict. I mean, some might even argue they're too strict, 107 00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:13,560 Speaker 2: but like things like you if you go to a conference, 108 00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:16,360 Speaker 2: you can't have somebody at the conference, even by you 109 00:07:16,480 --> 00:07:20,840 Speaker 2: lunch over, like you know, thirty forty bucks something like that. 110 00:07:21,640 --> 00:07:25,040 Speaker 2: There's some variants, but basically like you can't take anything. 111 00:07:26,040 --> 00:07:31,640 Speaker 2: And even Congress, you know, not always known as sort 112 00:07:31,640 --> 00:07:35,880 Speaker 2: of a paragon of ethics, actually has fairly strict rules 113 00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:41,600 Speaker 2: around taking gifts over a relatively low dollar threshold, even 114 00:07:41,640 --> 00:07:44,560 Speaker 2: when it involves friends. If you're taking significant gifts like 115 00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:48,840 Speaker 2: for example, free trips, you're not allowed to in many 116 00:07:48,880 --> 00:07:51,760 Speaker 2: cases unless you get pre approval from the ethics Committee. 117 00:07:52,880 --> 00:07:56,480 Speaker 2: When it comes to Supreme Court justices, there are very 118 00:07:56,600 --> 00:08:01,720 Speaker 2: very few rules about what gifts they can accept. There 119 00:08:01,720 --> 00:08:05,480 Speaker 2: are some rules if there's an actual lawyer at the 120 00:08:05,800 --> 00:08:08,200 Speaker 2: who's arguing cases at the court, then there are rules 121 00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:12,160 Speaker 2: about what gifts you can accept, but but in terms 122 00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:15,960 Speaker 2: of you know, taking gifts from other people, there's very 123 00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:21,679 Speaker 2: very few rules. There's the one thing that the law 124 00:08:21,920 --> 00:08:26,120 Speaker 2: asks and in fact requires, of Supreme Court justices is 125 00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:30,200 Speaker 2: to disclose most gifts that they get. And this is 126 00:08:30,200 --> 00:08:32,760 Speaker 2: a law that goes back to the nineteen seventies was 127 00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:35,880 Speaker 2: passed after Watergate. It's called the Ethics and Government Act, 128 00:08:36,640 --> 00:08:40,200 Speaker 2: and the kind of short version of it is, you know, 129 00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:44,280 Speaker 2: gifts over four or five hundred dollars, most gifts over 130 00:08:44,320 --> 00:08:48,680 Speaker 2: that that amount, justices have to disclose on their annual 131 00:08:48,840 --> 00:08:52,800 Speaker 2: filing that comes out every year. That's public. So what 132 00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:56,320 Speaker 2: we've been writing about are these trips taken by Justice 133 00:08:56,320 --> 00:09:02,560 Speaker 2: Thomas and Alito and scale the late Justice scalia in 134 00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:06,200 Speaker 2: which they got you know, free rides on private jets 135 00:09:06,200 --> 00:09:10,120 Speaker 2: that are very very expensive, free stays at fishing lodges, 136 00:09:11,120 --> 00:09:15,760 Speaker 2: you know, cruises on super yachts, all things that you know, 137 00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:19,960 Speaker 2: ethics experts, ethics law experts told us are clearly gifts 138 00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:23,160 Speaker 2: that are you know, cost thousands, tens of thousands of 139 00:09:23,240 --> 00:09:27,680 Speaker 2: dollars in sub cases, and they just haven't been disclosing 140 00:09:27,679 --> 00:09:32,600 Speaker 2: these gifts. And there's a big dispute now about whether 141 00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:35,480 Speaker 2: they should have. And we can get into the weeds 142 00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:36,200 Speaker 2: on that if you want. 143 00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:39,319 Speaker 1: Let me let me just like a couple of quick 144 00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:44,480 Speaker 1: questions for purposes of clarity. As you as you tell 145 00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:50,720 Speaker 1: this story, Harlan Crowe is the man who is the 146 00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:58,160 Speaker 1: gift giver, Uh to Clarence and Genny Thomas right, okay, 147 00:09:58,559 --> 00:10:02,360 Speaker 1: And Harlan crow among other things, has taken them to 148 00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:06,280 Speaker 1: remote excuse me, to remote corners of the world via 149 00:10:06,480 --> 00:10:11,360 Speaker 1: private jet, to travel via super yacht. 150 00:10:12,200 --> 00:10:17,559 Speaker 2: Yeah, all over the world. Indonesia, you know, undisclosed, the 151 00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:23,360 Speaker 2: Greek Isles, the Caribbean, Russia, undisclosed, all un disclosed. Yes, 152 00:10:23,360 --> 00:10:25,680 Speaker 2: for you know, well over twenty years now. 153 00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:30,000 Speaker 1: And Harlan and Harlan Crowe has had business before the court. 154 00:10:31,600 --> 00:10:36,280 Speaker 2: Actually not really, or well, not in as direct a 155 00:10:36,320 --> 00:10:39,800 Speaker 2: way as the story we just wrote about Justice Leedo, 156 00:10:39,840 --> 00:10:46,000 Speaker 2: I mean Harlan Crowe. Harlan Crowe's business itself has not 157 00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:50,280 Speaker 2: been a livingan at the court. But Harlan Crowe is 158 00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:54,200 Speaker 2: involved as a board member on a lot of organizations 159 00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:56,960 Speaker 2: that regularly file amicus briefs at the court. So not 160 00:10:56,960 --> 00:10:59,320 Speaker 2: not as direct a connection where it's not like Harlan 161 00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:01,560 Speaker 2: there's no if you look up, you won't find a 162 00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:03,000 Speaker 2: case that's like Harlan Crowe. 163 00:11:03,040 --> 00:11:09,360 Speaker 1: The but let me let me, Harlan Crowe spends a 164 00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:12,880 Speaker 1: lot of money and a lot of effort, as is 165 00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:17,600 Speaker 1: his right like any Americans, to affect the outcome of 166 00:11:17,640 --> 00:11:19,480 Speaker 1: our political system. 167 00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:23,640 Speaker 2: Absolutely, and and and with a specific interest in in fact, 168 00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:26,640 Speaker 2: in the law and the courts. Uh, you know, giving 169 00:11:26,640 --> 00:11:28,280 Speaker 2: to groups like the Federal Society. 170 00:11:29,040 --> 00:11:32,400 Speaker 1: So he is he is an activist. It is fair 171 00:11:32,440 --> 00:11:36,720 Speaker 1: to say that Harlan Crowe is an activist supporting outcomes 172 00:11:37,400 --> 00:11:38,160 Speaker 1: from courts. 173 00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:39,200 Speaker 2: Absolutely. 174 00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:46,800 Speaker 1: Okay, Sam Lolito, let me let me come back to 175 00:11:46,840 --> 00:11:51,920 Speaker 1: Harlan Crowe. He paid the tuition for Clarence Thomas's. 176 00:11:51,280 --> 00:11:55,800 Speaker 2: Nephew, Yeah, and and grand nephew. And but but saying 177 00:11:55,800 --> 00:12:00,880 Speaker 2: grand nephew understates the relationship because just as Thomas had 178 00:12:01,120 --> 00:12:06,079 Speaker 2: taken in his grand nephew, Thomas raised him, raised him 179 00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:07,880 Speaker 2: from from the age of I think five or six 180 00:12:07,960 --> 00:12:10,559 Speaker 2: through adulthood. And and so you know, had to pay 181 00:12:10,920 --> 00:12:13,520 Speaker 2: or would have had to pay all of his you know, costs, 182 00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:16,720 Speaker 2: including private school tuition, except that Harlan Grove paid for 183 00:12:16,760 --> 00:12:17,400 Speaker 2: at least some of it. 184 00:12:18,040 --> 00:12:22,760 Speaker 1: Right now, a member of Congress, right, cannot have somebody, right, 185 00:12:23,800 --> 00:12:29,280 Speaker 1: the president cannot, the Defense Secretary cannot cannot have, for example, 186 00:12:29,320 --> 00:12:36,240 Speaker 1: a defense contractor or somebody who has a disruptive technology 187 00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:40,080 Speaker 1: who wants to sell something to the Defense Department pay 188 00:12:40,120 --> 00:12:42,240 Speaker 1: for their kids tuition. 189 00:12:44,120 --> 00:12:46,240 Speaker 2: That's all the ethics lawyers we spoke to said that 190 00:12:46,400 --> 00:12:48,240 Speaker 2: clearly that's a gift. 191 00:12:49,080 --> 00:12:50,520 Speaker 1: Okay, there's a lot of. 192 00:12:50,440 --> 00:12:52,079 Speaker 2: You know, in that case, we're talking when we're talking 193 00:12:52,080 --> 00:12:54,120 Speaker 2: about real money, at least for any ordinary person. We're 194 00:12:54,160 --> 00:12:56,760 Speaker 2: talking like, I believe, around one hundred thousand dollars in 195 00:12:56,800 --> 00:12:58,360 Speaker 2: total on the tuition. 196 00:12:58,720 --> 00:13:01,480 Speaker 1: Right, And so this is an amount of money, right, 197 00:13:01,520 --> 00:13:05,920 Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollars intuition is approximately two hundred thousand 198 00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:09,640 Speaker 1: dollars after taxes. Right, This is an after tax amount 199 00:13:09,640 --> 00:13:12,160 Speaker 1: of money. Right. So these are amounts of money, and 200 00:13:12,240 --> 00:13:16,880 Speaker 1: these trips that are adding substantially to the two hundred 201 00:13:16,960 --> 00:13:21,360 Speaker 1: some thousand dollars that a Supreme Court justice makes income. 202 00:13:21,480 --> 00:13:23,800 Speaker 1: None of it disclosed, none of it. 203 00:13:23,840 --> 00:13:27,480 Speaker 2: Taxed, right, certainly as far as we know on the 204 00:13:27,520 --> 00:13:29,800 Speaker 2: tax front. Yeah, exactly. 205 00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:35,320 Speaker 1: Okay. And the Chief Justice, and we won't go too 206 00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:41,160 Speaker 1: deep here yet, but his position thus far has been 207 00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:46,920 Speaker 1: the Court is trusted, don't worry about don't worry about it. 208 00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:52,880 Speaker 1: We got this Supreme Court handle its own ethical issues 209 00:13:53,760 --> 00:13:54,240 Speaker 1: pretty much. 210 00:13:54,320 --> 00:13:57,440 Speaker 2: I mean, the closest Chief Justice Roberts has come to 211 00:13:57,640 --> 00:13:59,760 Speaker 2: sort of addressing this head on as in a speech 212 00:13:59,760 --> 00:14:03,319 Speaker 2: again a week or two ago in which he made 213 00:14:03,400 --> 00:14:07,240 Speaker 2: kind of an aside saying that he's sort of aware 214 00:14:07,480 --> 00:14:10,160 Speaker 2: of the discussion about the Court's ethics. And I think 215 00:14:10,200 --> 00:14:12,720 Speaker 2: the phrase he used was it there, is that he 216 00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:16,000 Speaker 2: is looking at ways to give more quote practical effect 217 00:14:16,600 --> 00:14:22,280 Speaker 2: to their generalized commitment to ethics. Not at all clear 218 00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:24,960 Speaker 2: what that means, if it means anything at all in 219 00:14:25,000 --> 00:14:28,800 Speaker 2: a concrete way, but you know, we're watching closely now. 220 00:14:29,680 --> 00:14:38,760 Speaker 1: Now, Samuel Alito, different set of facts. His relationship is 221 00:14:38,800 --> 00:14:43,680 Speaker 1: with a hedge fund billionaire name Paul Singer, right. 222 00:14:43,800 --> 00:14:44,040 Speaker 3: So. 223 00:14:46,320 --> 00:14:50,320 Speaker 2: Yeah, So the basic facts here are that Paul Singer 224 00:14:50,560 --> 00:14:53,640 Speaker 2: is a you know, very wealthy I think top top 225 00:14:53,680 --> 00:14:57,200 Speaker 2: five hundred wealthiest people in the country billionaire. According to Forbes, 226 00:14:58,080 --> 00:15:01,200 Speaker 2: he is the founder and head of a hedge fund 227 00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:04,760 Speaker 2: called Elliott Management based in New York were actually it 228 00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:06,200 Speaker 2: was based in New York for a long time. I 229 00:15:06,200 --> 00:15:10,480 Speaker 2: believe they moved to Florida during the pandemic. And what 230 00:15:10,520 --> 00:15:12,920 Speaker 2: his hedge fund is sort of most famous for, besides 231 00:15:13,360 --> 00:15:17,200 Speaker 2: making a huge amount of money every year, is making 232 00:15:17,280 --> 00:15:25,080 Speaker 2: investments that require complex litigation. So the most famous case 233 00:15:25,800 --> 00:15:29,120 Speaker 2: was this, you know, ten plus year fight between Paul 234 00:15:29,200 --> 00:15:33,600 Speaker 2: Singer's hedge Fund and the Nation of Argentina. The very 235 00:15:33,640 --> 00:15:39,880 Speaker 2: short version is that Singer had purchased Argentine government debt 236 00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:42,600 Speaker 2: for pennies on the dollar around the time Argentina that 237 00:15:42,680 --> 00:15:46,000 Speaker 2: defaulted and then was pursuing them in the US courts 238 00:15:46,040 --> 00:15:49,280 Speaker 2: for full repayment. And there was literally billions of dollars 239 00:15:49,320 --> 00:15:53,240 Speaker 2: at stake. And what are the brief version of our 240 00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:57,000 Speaker 2: story is that Paul Singer flew Justice Alito on a 241 00:15:57,000 --> 00:16:03,560 Speaker 2: private jet to Alaska for fishing vacation. Justice Leader didn't 242 00:16:03,600 --> 00:16:05,960 Speaker 2: pay for any of it, didn't disclose any of it, 243 00:16:06,040 --> 00:16:09,280 Speaker 2: including the private jet ride. And then Paul Singer's hedge 244 00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:11,360 Speaker 2: fund had a series of cases at the Court in 245 00:16:11,400 --> 00:16:15,080 Speaker 2: which Justice Alito did not recuse himself, including one case 246 00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:19,280 Speaker 2: at the court actually heard in which Alito voted with 247 00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:21,240 Speaker 2: the majority for Singer's hedge fund. 248 00:16:21,560 --> 00:16:24,360 Speaker 1: Okay, I want to I want to stop you right there, 249 00:16:24,440 --> 00:16:29,080 Speaker 1: and I just want to walk very slowly, sure through 250 00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:33,600 Speaker 1: this for people that are watching, most of whom have 251 00:16:33,880 --> 00:16:39,040 Speaker 1: never had any interaction with an investigative journalist, I am 252 00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:43,560 Speaker 1: not one of those, one of those people in my career, 253 00:16:43,640 --> 00:16:45,240 Speaker 1: so I want to I want to go through this, 254 00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:48,240 Speaker 1: so so how do tell me about your initial reach out? 255 00:16:48,480 --> 00:16:50,520 Speaker 1: Who do you? Who do you pick up the phone 256 00:16:50,640 --> 00:16:51,200 Speaker 1: or email? 257 00:16:52,920 --> 00:16:54,960 Speaker 2: You mean at the beginning of the reporting process or we're. 258 00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:58,160 Speaker 1: Getting of the reporting process to to sam Alito's office, 259 00:16:58,200 --> 00:16:59,800 Speaker 1: and I don't, I don't, I don't want to be 260 00:17:00,200 --> 00:17:03,520 Speaker 1: ed and the details, but this will ladder up to 261 00:17:03,640 --> 00:17:07,040 Speaker 1: where you know where that he will he will disclose 262 00:17:07,119 --> 00:17:09,280 Speaker 1: this himself in an unusual manner. 263 00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:12,520 Speaker 2: Yeah, So, you know, we've been working on this for months, 264 00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:14,600 Speaker 2: and I won't go into all the details, but we 265 00:17:15,680 --> 00:17:18,600 Speaker 2: originally planned to actually publish this a while ago, but 266 00:17:18,680 --> 00:17:23,359 Speaker 2: then the stories about Clarence Thomson Harlan Crowe generated a 267 00:17:23,359 --> 00:17:25,679 Speaker 2: whole series of follow ups, including the you know, we 268 00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:28,080 Speaker 2: got a tip about the tuition and so we got 269 00:17:28,119 --> 00:17:30,920 Speaker 2: distracted for a while. And so but we've been looking 270 00:17:30,960 --> 00:17:33,480 Speaker 2: into this for months and doing a lot of difficult 271 00:17:33,800 --> 00:17:37,119 Speaker 2: reporting to piece this together. Once we got to a 272 00:17:37,160 --> 00:17:40,880 Speaker 2: place where we thought we're close, we think we're close 273 00:17:40,920 --> 00:17:44,600 Speaker 2: to being able to publish something. But we we do 274 00:17:44,640 --> 00:17:47,680 Speaker 2: what we always do, and we you know, Republica we 275 00:17:47,800 --> 00:17:50,080 Speaker 2: refer to this as the kind of no surprises rule, 276 00:17:50,480 --> 00:17:55,080 Speaker 2: which is anyone who's a significant subject in a story. 277 00:17:55,480 --> 00:17:57,959 Speaker 2: We do not want them to be surprised by anything 278 00:17:57,960 --> 00:18:01,359 Speaker 2: in the story. And that's both for ethical reasons of 279 00:18:01,480 --> 00:18:04,000 Speaker 2: just we you know, we genuinely want people to respond 280 00:18:04,000 --> 00:18:06,359 Speaker 2: and tell us if we have things wrong or if 281 00:18:06,400 --> 00:18:11,600 Speaker 2: they disagree with some conclusion, and also, you know, we 282 00:18:11,600 --> 00:18:14,520 Speaker 2: don't want to be in a situation where somebody is 283 00:18:14,560 --> 00:18:17,520 Speaker 2: coming out after stories published saying you got things wrong. 284 00:18:17,520 --> 00:18:18,800 Speaker 2: You didn't tell me you were gonna put this in. 285 00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:23,480 Speaker 2: So we The way it works with the Supreme Court 286 00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,919 Speaker 2: is each justice does not have their own press office 287 00:18:26,960 --> 00:18:28,920 Speaker 2: in a way that a member of Congress would or 288 00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:32,719 Speaker 2: a political campaign would. They all share the same press office, 289 00:18:33,119 --> 00:18:39,040 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court Press office. So we called them and 290 00:18:39,119 --> 00:18:43,280 Speaker 2: emailed them a long list of questions that included a 291 00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:48,600 Speaker 2: preamble saying, you know, we would welcome the opportunity to 292 00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:51,919 Speaker 2: do an interview on the phone or in person with 293 00:18:52,080 --> 00:18:55,520 Speaker 2: Justice leto and here if you want to sort of 294 00:18:55,520 --> 00:18:58,320 Speaker 2: engage in writing instead. Here's a long list of questions. 295 00:18:58,320 --> 00:19:00,560 Speaker 2: I can't remember how many, but covering everything that we 296 00:19:00,560 --> 00:19:04,080 Speaker 2: were released considering putting in the story. And you know, 297 00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:06,760 Speaker 2: at that point the story is not fully written yet, 298 00:19:06,760 --> 00:19:08,679 Speaker 2: but we're kind of moving in that direction. 299 00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:12,640 Speaker 1: Okay, So so just real, real quick. So that person right, 300 00:19:12,680 --> 00:19:16,680 Speaker 1: same person if it's Justice Sodo mayor, if it's Justice Kagan, 301 00:19:16,960 --> 00:19:22,199 Speaker 1: if it's Justice Alito, if it's Justice Thomas, same person, 302 00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:23,520 Speaker 1: same same. 303 00:19:23,240 --> 00:19:25,600 Speaker 2: Group of people exactly, yep. 304 00:19:25,640 --> 00:19:29,000 Speaker 1: Okay, So so what happens next? Do they do? They? 305 00:19:29,480 --> 00:19:33,480 Speaker 1: Do they? Is there a difference in the response between 306 00:19:33,880 --> 00:19:37,080 Speaker 1: Thomas and Alito from the same group of people? 307 00:19:38,440 --> 00:19:39,919 Speaker 2: You know, it's a very good question. What I mean, 308 00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:41,960 Speaker 2: I can tell you what happens next from our perspective, 309 00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:47,359 Speaker 2: what happens next at the court is a very interesting question. 310 00:19:47,440 --> 00:19:53,920 Speaker 2: And how that all works is very opaque. So how 311 00:19:54,000 --> 00:19:56,480 Speaker 2: much the Supreme Court Press Office, which has you know, 312 00:19:56,520 --> 00:20:00,679 Speaker 2: a handful of h employees who were for the court, 313 00:20:02,720 --> 00:20:05,800 Speaker 2: how much they are in the driver's seat versus the 314 00:20:06,040 --> 00:20:09,600 Speaker 2: justice or the justices chambers, you know, where they have 315 00:20:09,680 --> 00:20:13,679 Speaker 2: their clerks and their own assistants, and what those interactions 316 00:20:13,720 --> 00:20:16,320 Speaker 2: look like between the press office and the justices chambers 317 00:20:16,400 --> 00:20:20,240 Speaker 2: are It is totally opaque, And I wish I knew 318 00:20:20,280 --> 00:20:23,320 Speaker 2: more about how that worked, because again, normally, when you're 319 00:20:23,320 --> 00:20:28,080 Speaker 2: dealing with let's say a senator, the senator's press office 320 00:20:28,080 --> 00:20:31,760 Speaker 2: works for the Senator right, And so there's no there's 321 00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:35,800 Speaker 2: no potential divergence of interests or question about how it's working. 322 00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:37,119 Speaker 2: It's all one unit. 323 00:20:37,440 --> 00:20:41,600 Speaker 1: So is there a divergence in tactics in an approach 324 00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:49,560 Speaker 1: between your inquiries around Thomas and your interrogatories around Alito. 325 00:20:50,600 --> 00:20:53,720 Speaker 2: Not really. For us. It's about again, like a totally 326 00:20:53,800 --> 00:20:58,640 Speaker 2: good faith attempt to get some kind of substance of engagement. 327 00:20:58,640 --> 00:21:00,320 Speaker 2: Obviously we'd love to have an interview, and if we 328 00:21:00,320 --> 00:21:03,560 Speaker 2: don't get that, well, we're happy to take answers. 329 00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:07,760 Speaker 1: There's no difference in the response from the court side 330 00:21:08,040 --> 00:21:11,080 Speaker 1: from the pr office reper That's what I'm asking between 331 00:21:11,720 --> 00:21:15,920 Speaker 1: between Alito and Thomas. That's material where you're like, wow, right, 332 00:21:15,960 --> 00:21:21,520 Speaker 1: you're playing this set of questions very very differently from 333 00:21:21,600 --> 00:21:25,399 Speaker 1: that set of questions unique to the two personalities. That 334 00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:30,560 Speaker 1: might be suggestive that it's the justice who is directing 335 00:21:30,600 --> 00:21:35,960 Speaker 1: the response that's being executed as opposed to the way 336 00:21:35,960 --> 00:21:38,959 Speaker 1: it would work with the political staffer. In defense of 337 00:21:39,000 --> 00:21:44,480 Speaker 1: the senator, right, there's a broad remit to defend right, 338 00:21:44,640 --> 00:21:50,720 Speaker 1: to expolicate, to question motives, and to hold the line 339 00:21:50,960 --> 00:21:53,720 Speaker 1: as a job, which I don't get necessarily that that's 340 00:21:53,760 --> 00:21:55,000 Speaker 1: the job of these people. 341 00:21:56,080 --> 00:21:58,639 Speaker 2: So in my experience with the Supreme Court Press Office, 342 00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:02,120 Speaker 2: which again has only been six for seven months, I've 343 00:22:02,119 --> 00:22:06,439 Speaker 2: gotten very little engagement. Sometimes if you call, you know, 344 00:22:06,480 --> 00:22:10,520 Speaker 2: a spokesperson for a senator, they might you know, yeah, 345 00:22:10,520 --> 00:22:12,359 Speaker 2: I kind of argue with you, or engage with you 346 00:22:12,520 --> 00:22:14,560 Speaker 2: and or have a conversation with you, which is good. 347 00:22:16,400 --> 00:22:19,080 Speaker 2: With the Supreme Court Press Office, I mean with the 348 00:22:19,200 --> 00:22:21,560 Speaker 2: questions for Justice Thomas, I mean, we just never gotten 349 00:22:21,600 --> 00:22:26,120 Speaker 2: a response period, and you know, I think I called 350 00:22:26,119 --> 00:22:27,760 Speaker 2: them up a bunch of times just to make sure 351 00:22:27,760 --> 00:22:30,600 Speaker 2: they've gotten the questions, because it was, like, you know, 352 00:22:31,480 --> 00:22:36,760 Speaker 2: I wasn't even getting an acknowledgment of receipt. Justice Thomas 353 00:22:36,760 --> 00:22:40,720 Speaker 2: has put out one statement that he actually released after 354 00:22:41,000 --> 00:22:43,680 Speaker 2: our first story about his travels with Harlan Crow, like 355 00:22:43,680 --> 00:22:46,280 Speaker 2: a very brief statement which we you know, which we 356 00:22:46,320 --> 00:22:51,680 Speaker 2: published of course, in terms of the response on this 357 00:22:52,080 --> 00:22:55,080 Speaker 2: story about Justice Alitos. So what happened was we reached 358 00:22:55,080 --> 00:23:01,280 Speaker 2: out to them last week these detailed questions. We uh 359 00:23:01,680 --> 00:23:05,000 Speaker 2: the deadline. The deadline was tuesday, although we told them 360 00:23:05,000 --> 00:23:06,480 Speaker 2: what we sort of always say, which is, if you 361 00:23:06,480 --> 00:23:09,159 Speaker 2: feel like you need more time and you're going to 362 00:23:09,200 --> 00:23:12,159 Speaker 2: work on substantive responses where we're like very willing to 363 00:23:12,840 --> 00:23:17,399 Speaker 2: negotiate an extension of our deadline. And we had a 364 00:23:17,400 --> 00:23:20,840 Speaker 2: phone call, you know, on the record on Tuesday, I believe, 365 00:23:20,840 --> 00:23:25,240 Speaker 2: around noon, with the chief spokes woman for the Supreme 366 00:23:25,280 --> 00:23:29,240 Speaker 2: Court who just told us Justice Alito is not going 367 00:23:29,320 --> 00:23:32,760 Speaker 2: to be responding to your questions. And then the other 368 00:23:33,920 --> 00:23:36,399 Speaker 2: thing about that interaction, and I honestly don't know how 369 00:23:36,480 --> 00:23:40,200 Speaker 2: much to read into this is the spokeswoman asked us 370 00:23:41,600 --> 00:23:45,200 Speaker 2: when will you be running your story? And that's a 371 00:23:45,280 --> 00:23:48,199 Speaker 2: question that you know, usually we're pretty happy to be 372 00:23:48,200 --> 00:23:53,600 Speaker 2: transparent about. And we told we told her this was Tuesday, midday. Well, 373 00:23:53,760 --> 00:23:55,520 Speaker 2: we don't have an exact day yet, but it could 374 00:23:55,520 --> 00:24:00,760 Speaker 2: be as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, might be Thursday, but uh, 375 00:24:00,840 --> 00:24:03,080 Speaker 2: you know, and she said, but it's definitely not going 376 00:24:03,119 --> 00:24:05,520 Speaker 2: to be today Tuesday. And we said, that's right, it's 377 00:24:05,520 --> 00:24:08,640 Speaker 2: not gonna be today Tuesday. And then about about five 378 00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:11,840 Speaker 2: hours after that phone call, I was on Twitter and 379 00:24:12,760 --> 00:24:15,400 Speaker 2: saw that the Wall Street Journal had published a op 380 00:24:15,560 --> 00:24:20,760 Speaker 2: ed from Justice Alito responding to our questions and sort 381 00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:21,679 Speaker 2: of attacking us. 382 00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:26,000 Speaker 1: Okay, has that ever happened? To you before that you've 383 00:24:26,119 --> 00:24:28,480 Speaker 1: that you've that you've run and well, I'm gonna I'm 384 00:24:28,480 --> 00:24:30,840 Speaker 1: gonna talk about the tactic there for a minute in 385 00:24:30,880 --> 00:24:31,400 Speaker 1: a second. 386 00:24:31,440 --> 00:24:33,520 Speaker 2: But It's never happened to me quite like that. I've 387 00:24:33,560 --> 00:24:38,520 Speaker 2: had people create websites responding to a story after it's 388 00:24:38,560 --> 00:24:42,720 Speaker 2: published to kind of lay out their their views, which yeahs, 389 00:24:42,880 --> 00:24:46,080 Speaker 2: you know, is totally their right, of course, but has 390 00:24:46,119 --> 00:24:48,880 Speaker 2: never happened to me that I've gotten a pre buddle 391 00:24:49,240 --> 00:24:52,960 Speaker 2: published somewhere else. And also the headline of which and 392 00:24:52,960 --> 00:24:55,520 Speaker 2: I don't know if Justice Leader wrote the headline said, 393 00:24:56,200 --> 00:25:00,240 Speaker 2: I believe the headline is Republican misleads its readers. And 394 00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:02,520 Speaker 2: we hadn't even published the story at that point. So 395 00:25:02,640 --> 00:25:04,920 Speaker 2: that's kind of a strange. 396 00:25:04,720 --> 00:25:06,760 Speaker 1: Right, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna set the table 397 00:25:06,800 --> 00:25:08,600 Speaker 1: here because we have a lot of things going on 398 00:25:08,680 --> 00:25:12,800 Speaker 1: in the culture and politically in this moment right now 399 00:25:12,840 --> 00:25:15,520 Speaker 1: that are that are pretty remarkable. So just as a tactic, 400 00:25:15,600 --> 00:25:17,679 Speaker 1: and you know, I think a lot of people watching 401 00:25:17,800 --> 00:25:21,000 Speaker 1: know that I spent about a decade as the vice 402 00:25:21,080 --> 00:25:23,879 Speaker 1: chairman of the biggest public relations firm in the world, 403 00:25:23,960 --> 00:25:28,080 Speaker 1: but you know, experience in the communications and the combat 404 00:25:28,119 --> 00:25:31,919 Speaker 1: of American politics at the at the highest level. And 405 00:25:31,920 --> 00:25:34,920 Speaker 1: what you're talking about here really is a nuclear option 406 00:25:35,760 --> 00:25:40,520 Speaker 1: for a subject of a story that isn't looking for 407 00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:46,399 Speaker 1: a transactional relationship, isn't isn't looking to move on, isn't 408 00:25:46,480 --> 00:25:49,040 Speaker 1: looking at this through the prism of well, this is 409 00:25:49,119 --> 00:25:53,080 Speaker 1: part of the incoming that comes along with the officer job. Right, 410 00:25:53,080 --> 00:25:57,080 Speaker 1: this is the nuclear strategy, This is the existential response. 411 00:25:57,240 --> 00:26:00,400 Speaker 1: What and what the tactic is? Right? The part launch 412 00:26:00,560 --> 00:26:04,600 Speaker 1: is this is your scooping the story. So the most 413 00:26:04,640 --> 00:26:07,160 Speaker 1: classic way to do this is, let's say the New 414 00:26:07,240 --> 00:26:11,880 Speaker 1: York Times is working on some investigative piece a lot 415 00:26:11,920 --> 00:26:17,760 Speaker 1: of credibility, and the subject takes the information packages it 416 00:26:17,880 --> 00:26:21,440 Speaker 1: leaks it themselves to a paper let's say that has 417 00:26:21,520 --> 00:26:27,679 Speaker 1: no credibility, like the Washington Examiner. The Washington Examiner runs it, 418 00:26:28,160 --> 00:26:31,520 Speaker 1: and now the New York Time says, well, we risk 419 00:26:31,760 --> 00:26:37,439 Speaker 1: our integrity and reputation running an old story published here, 420 00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:42,480 Speaker 1: no matter how long, how hard, how much investigation has 421 00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:47,359 Speaker 1: been has been done. So what Alito did is get 422 00:26:47,440 --> 00:26:52,000 Speaker 1: out ahead of the story by going to the Wall 423 00:26:52,040 --> 00:26:55,919 Speaker 1: Street Journal, which is of course owned by News Corps, 424 00:26:55,960 --> 00:26:59,359 Speaker 1: which owns Fox News, which just had to write a 425 00:26:59,440 --> 00:27:03,240 Speaker 1: check for nearly a billion dollars for lying and the 426 00:27:03,359 --> 00:27:09,040 Speaker 1: lying cascades NonStop, all night, every night, regardless of whether 427 00:27:09,160 --> 00:27:14,760 Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson is out. Alito, a Supreme Court justice, uses 428 00:27:14,920 --> 00:27:23,440 Speaker 1: this very harsh, hardball pr tactic, goes to the Murdoch 429 00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:28,480 Speaker 1: Empire and gets published in the Wall Street Journal a 430 00:27:28,600 --> 00:27:34,280 Speaker 1: story that says, what this is really about is pro 431 00:27:34,280 --> 00:27:37,920 Speaker 1: public is lying about Alita. Do do I have that right? 432 00:27:39,720 --> 00:27:39,960 Speaker 2: Yeah? 433 00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:43,199 Speaker 1: I mean anything incorrect? 434 00:27:43,920 --> 00:27:47,080 Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think it's a slate variation. No, 435 00:27:47,280 --> 00:27:49,000 Speaker 2: I think that's basically I think the trust of that's right. 436 00:27:49,040 --> 00:27:51,440 Speaker 2: I think it's a slate variation on the like going 437 00:27:51,440 --> 00:27:53,800 Speaker 2: to the rival publication because in this case, he actually 438 00:27:54,480 --> 00:27:58,280 Speaker 2: published a column under his own name. Right, you know, 439 00:27:58,320 --> 00:28:00,199 Speaker 2: we sometimes have a freight, you know, like the the 440 00:28:00,240 --> 00:28:03,160 Speaker 2: strategy of going for the going to the ravel publication. 441 00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:04,960 Speaker 2: I don't know if you've ever heard this, but we 442 00:28:05,000 --> 00:28:08,720 Speaker 2: sometimes call that like, you know, spitting in our soup. Like, 443 00:28:10,080 --> 00:28:13,119 Speaker 2: but this wasn't. This is a sort of twist on that, 444 00:28:13,280 --> 00:28:17,919 Speaker 2: and like, look, I will defend, I mean it defends 445 00:28:17,960 --> 00:28:19,560 Speaker 2: not ready to write verb because I'm not I don't 446 00:28:19,560 --> 00:28:20,040 Speaker 2: think you're. 447 00:28:22,280 --> 00:28:23,679 Speaker 1: He wants exactly he has. 448 00:28:23,960 --> 00:28:29,000 Speaker 2: He has every right to publish this. And I don't think. 449 00:28:29,280 --> 00:28:32,200 Speaker 2: I don't think the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and 450 00:28:32,200 --> 00:28:36,320 Speaker 2: and you knows, as many people listening probably know, is 451 00:28:36,359 --> 00:28:39,000 Speaker 2: a completely separate entity from the Wall Street Journal news 452 00:28:39,000 --> 00:28:43,200 Speaker 2: pages that you know employs a lot of responsible reporters. 453 00:28:44,360 --> 00:28:48,640 Speaker 2: The one thing I take issue with is putting a headline. Uh. 454 00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:50,520 Speaker 2: And again I don't know if Justice Leader wrote the 455 00:28:50,560 --> 00:28:56,479 Speaker 2: headline or who wrote the headline, but it is I 456 00:28:56,560 --> 00:28:59,400 Speaker 2: strongly object to the headline Republic of misleads its readers 457 00:28:59,440 --> 00:29:01,880 Speaker 2: about a story that has not been published. And part 458 00:29:01,880 --> 00:29:04,120 Speaker 2: of the reason, one of the main reasons we're going 459 00:29:04,160 --> 00:29:08,400 Speaker 2: to him for comment is so he can tell us, uh, 460 00:29:09,600 --> 00:29:12,760 Speaker 2: a word for that X y Z fact is wrong. Uh. 461 00:29:12,840 --> 00:29:15,959 Speaker 2: And and if we get convinced, and this happens all 462 00:29:15,960 --> 00:29:19,200 Speaker 2: the time like sometimes we have, things will will change 463 00:29:19,200 --> 00:29:19,760 Speaker 2: the story. 464 00:29:19,960 --> 00:29:23,080 Speaker 1: There's a word for that for that headline. Do you 465 00:29:23,120 --> 00:29:24,880 Speaker 1: know what the word is, I'll let you. 466 00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:25,560 Speaker 2: I'll let you. 467 00:29:26,120 --> 00:29:30,120 Speaker 1: It's Orwellian is what it is? Orwellian? 468 00:29:31,120 --> 00:29:34,440 Speaker 2: Right? I mean it's there's some sort of there's something 469 00:29:34,440 --> 00:29:36,360 Speaker 2: going on. I don't know if it's like time travel, 470 00:29:37,400 --> 00:29:39,880 Speaker 2: some sort of multi multi dimensional dynamic. 471 00:29:40,480 --> 00:29:44,240 Speaker 1: Do you have any sense from reporting in the court 472 00:29:44,360 --> 00:29:49,800 Speaker 1: that anybody who's on the bench reads about this escapade 473 00:29:50,040 --> 00:29:55,680 Speaker 1: and just loses their ship completely, loses it as a 474 00:29:55,880 --> 00:30:03,920 Speaker 1: member of the institution, from the uh laxity of standards 475 00:30:05,680 --> 00:30:08,680 Speaker 1: in the disregard for the reputation of the court. 476 00:30:10,320 --> 00:30:13,320 Speaker 2: No, I don't know. I think we've seen a little 477 00:30:13,320 --> 00:30:16,080 Speaker 2: bit and but you know, I wish I was more 478 00:30:16,600 --> 00:30:18,960 Speaker 2: plugged in the court, and if if anyone out there 479 00:30:19,080 --> 00:30:23,560 Speaker 2: is plugged in, please get in touch. I mean, we've 480 00:30:23,560 --> 00:30:27,360 Speaker 2: seen a little, uh sort of schism open up in 481 00:30:27,400 --> 00:30:31,480 Speaker 2: the last few weeks, and what or what appears to 482 00:30:31,480 --> 00:30:36,320 Speaker 2: be a little schism, which is Justice Kagan, I think 483 00:30:36,360 --> 00:30:41,680 Speaker 2: a couple times now has put out statements when she 484 00:30:41,760 --> 00:30:48,360 Speaker 2: has recused herself from cases. And traditionally the justices when 485 00:30:48,360 --> 00:30:51,200 Speaker 2: they when they recuse themselves, there's just a little notation 486 00:30:51,280 --> 00:30:54,600 Speaker 2: on the docket that says Justice Alito has recused himself 487 00:30:54,720 --> 00:30:57,920 Speaker 2: or Justice Kagan has recused herself and doesn't tell you why. 488 00:30:59,600 --> 00:31:01,760 Speaker 2: We've now I've seen a couple times in recent weeks 489 00:31:02,120 --> 00:31:05,840 Speaker 2: Justice Kagan changing her practices on that and it says 490 00:31:06,360 --> 00:31:08,240 Speaker 2: it'll give you a little bit of detail about why 491 00:31:08,280 --> 00:31:12,480 Speaker 2: she's recusing himself herself. So say Justice Kagan recused herself 492 00:31:13,080 --> 00:31:16,200 Speaker 2: and then it cites part of the recusal law that 493 00:31:17,160 --> 00:31:19,000 Speaker 2: you know that allows you to kind of figure out 494 00:31:19,000 --> 00:31:22,920 Speaker 2: why she's recusing herself. And Justice Alito, for example, has 495 00:31:22,960 --> 00:31:25,760 Speaker 2: not been doing that. And so that seems to be 496 00:31:26,440 --> 00:31:28,320 Speaker 2: or at least, you know, there's been some observers of 497 00:31:28,360 --> 00:31:32,240 Speaker 2: the Court who believe that that's there's beginning to be 498 00:31:32,320 --> 00:31:36,960 Speaker 2: a kind of divergence in practices there. But no, I 499 00:31:36,960 --> 00:31:41,160 Speaker 2: mean to answer your question directly, I don't know what 500 00:31:41,200 --> 00:31:43,240 Speaker 2: the reaction has been inside the court. I mean, it's 501 00:31:43,320 --> 00:31:45,400 Speaker 2: it's an incredibly opaque institution. 502 00:31:45,880 --> 00:31:47,720 Speaker 1: So so let's get to the let's get to the 503 00:31:47,760 --> 00:31:52,080 Speaker 1: facts and the story that that Alito is is disputing, right, 504 00:31:52,240 --> 00:31:59,520 Speaker 1: and so so first, right, the seat on the airplane, right, 505 00:31:59,600 --> 00:32:02,040 Speaker 1: this is how much does a Supreme Court justice make 506 00:32:02,080 --> 00:32:02,480 Speaker 1: a here? 507 00:32:03,280 --> 00:32:05,840 Speaker 2: I think I believe now it's around three hundred thousand. 508 00:32:06,280 --> 00:32:09,760 Speaker 1: Okay, And and the airplane costs how much the. 509 00:32:09,800 --> 00:32:14,760 Speaker 2: Charter, the whole thing, we understand like well over one 510 00:32:14,800 --> 00:32:17,240 Speaker 2: hundred thousand in this case, because there's a long flight, 511 00:32:17,360 --> 00:32:19,840 Speaker 2: one way, one way. This is a long flight from 512 00:32:19,960 --> 00:32:22,920 Speaker 2: the East coast to you know, Alaska, and. 513 00:32:22,880 --> 00:32:26,520 Speaker 1: It's one of the remote most remote parts of the country. 514 00:32:26,840 --> 00:32:31,760 Speaker 1: Is a salmon fishing lodge exactly. And that lodge is owned. 515 00:32:31,520 --> 00:32:40,280 Speaker 2: By Rob Arkley, who's a California owns a California mortgage business. 516 00:32:40,760 --> 00:32:43,520 Speaker 1: Okay, he was in the subprime mortgage business. 517 00:32:43,560 --> 00:32:47,760 Speaker 2: I think, yeah, subprime and purchasing distress mortgages and then 518 00:32:48,640 --> 00:32:52,719 Speaker 2: servicing them and trading them and doing some other real 519 00:32:52,800 --> 00:32:55,480 Speaker 2: estate development as well. But yeah, some prime stress mortgages. 520 00:32:55,600 --> 00:32:57,800 Speaker 1: I have a I have a I have an interaction 521 00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:02,880 Speaker 1: with Robin Arcley through my years working for Governor Schwarzenegger. 522 00:33:03,000 --> 00:33:08,400 Speaker 1: After his reelection he was governor, I was involved in 523 00:33:08,480 --> 00:33:14,160 Speaker 1: a project that Robin Arkley was involved in, and I 524 00:33:14,240 --> 00:33:17,880 Speaker 1: was very very clear always with any clients that I 525 00:33:17,960 --> 00:33:23,000 Speaker 1: just didn't lobby the governor's office. I wouldn't do anything 526 00:33:23,120 --> 00:33:27,080 Speaker 1: for you with the Governor's office. I wouldn't interfere, intercede 527 00:33:27,280 --> 00:33:30,320 Speaker 1: in any way. I didn't think it was appropriate. And 528 00:33:30,480 --> 00:33:36,440 Speaker 1: Robin Arkley became the first person to demand uh of 529 00:33:36,600 --> 00:33:41,440 Speaker 1: me a quid pro quote. He demanded a seat on 530 00:33:41,480 --> 00:33:46,160 Speaker 1: the Coastal Commission in California, saying he bought it in 531 00:33:46,240 --> 00:33:50,040 Speaker 1: the election. And the result of that, as I fired 532 00:33:50,120 --> 00:33:52,600 Speaker 1: him as a client. I called the chief of staff 533 00:33:52,640 --> 00:33:55,080 Speaker 1: to the governor and I said he can never meet 534 00:33:55,640 --> 00:33:59,120 Speaker 1: with the with the governor, cancel it. And and that 535 00:33:59,360 --> 00:34:03,560 Speaker 1: was that, whatever decision you need to make to refer 536 00:34:03,640 --> 00:34:06,400 Speaker 1: this to the General Council, if it needs to go 537 00:34:06,440 --> 00:34:10,120 Speaker 1: to the Attorney General's office, which is, you know, in 538 00:34:10,160 --> 00:34:15,040 Speaker 1: my view, the appropriate way. But but this character is 539 00:34:15,120 --> 00:34:19,799 Speaker 1: I describe him over the years as a figure like 540 00:34:19,920 --> 00:34:24,600 Speaker 1: the evil boss from the Patrick Swayzey movie Roadhouse. Right. 541 00:34:24,640 --> 00:34:32,400 Speaker 1: He's the boss and the bully of this small town Eureka, California, 542 00:34:32,719 --> 00:34:36,960 Speaker 1: in Humboldt County, uh once famous is the weed capital 543 00:34:37,000 --> 00:34:43,960 Speaker 1: of California. But Robin Arkley bought the newspaper, was vociferous 544 00:34:44,000 --> 00:34:49,880 Speaker 1: in town affairs, had a reputation for bullying, for reprisals, 545 00:34:49,920 --> 00:34:55,080 Speaker 1: for throwing, throwing the money around, and really a figure 546 00:34:55,800 --> 00:35:01,239 Speaker 1: with deep, deep, deep connections to the far right, with 547 00:35:01,400 --> 00:35:04,560 Speaker 1: a woman who's worked for him for a long time 548 00:35:04,680 --> 00:35:09,320 Speaker 1: named Anne Corkery, who became very involved with Sarah Palin 549 00:35:09,719 --> 00:35:13,279 Speaker 1: that wing of the Republican Party, as well as with 550 00:35:13,480 --> 00:35:19,920 Speaker 1: Jenny Thomas, as well as with Leonard Leo who's also involved. 551 00:35:20,000 --> 00:35:24,000 Speaker 1: And Leonard Leo is the head of the Federalist Society 552 00:35:24,680 --> 00:35:29,480 Speaker 1: and is the architect of Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominations 553 00:35:30,040 --> 00:35:34,880 Speaker 1: and has grown in stature and influence as such, and 554 00:35:34,920 --> 00:35:39,440 Speaker 1: has just received a one billion, six hundred million dollar 555 00:35:39,560 --> 00:35:41,880 Speaker 1: donation to continue his work. 556 00:35:44,600 --> 00:35:47,279 Speaker 2: Yeah, right, so yeah, I mean it's really interesting cast 557 00:35:47,320 --> 00:35:49,719 Speaker 2: of characters here. And like before this reporting, I had 558 00:35:49,760 --> 00:35:52,319 Speaker 2: not heard of Arkley. I think my understanding is he 559 00:35:52,360 --> 00:35:55,319 Speaker 2: lost a lot of money in the financial crisis. He 560 00:35:55,400 --> 00:35:57,879 Speaker 2: was in the mortgage business. But back in the mid 561 00:35:57,880 --> 00:36:01,680 Speaker 2: two thousands, yeah, as you said, he he was he'd 562 00:36:01,719 --> 00:36:05,839 Speaker 2: been sort of a fixture in Eureka, California politics, and 563 00:36:05,880 --> 00:36:08,040 Speaker 2: you know, I think there was an incident where he 564 00:36:08,120 --> 00:36:10,920 Speaker 2: was alleged to have like physically gotten into a shoving 565 00:36:10,960 --> 00:36:13,719 Speaker 2: match with a city councilman over like development projects like 566 00:36:13,800 --> 00:36:19,480 Speaker 2: local stuff. Absolutely, But then he made a fortune in 567 00:36:19,520 --> 00:36:23,240 Speaker 2: the mortgage business and he had private jets, and suddenly 568 00:36:23,680 --> 00:36:30,719 Speaker 2: he became a significant national political donor, including two groups 569 00:36:30,760 --> 00:36:33,640 Speaker 2: affiliated with with Leonard Leo of the Federal Society, and 570 00:36:33,840 --> 00:36:37,920 Speaker 2: Parkley seems to have taken a particular interest in the court. Say, 571 00:36:37,960 --> 00:36:43,000 Speaker 2: he's an attorney himself, originally not practicing, and you know, 572 00:36:43,400 --> 00:36:47,360 Speaker 2: one of the things, so he ended up acquiring this 573 00:36:47,440 --> 00:36:50,680 Speaker 2: fishing lodge. It's called King Salamon Lodge. He doesn't own 574 00:36:50,719 --> 00:36:55,560 Speaker 2: it anymore. And this was a luxury fishing lodge, costs 575 00:36:55,560 --> 00:36:57,640 Speaker 2: more than one thousand dollars at night. They have a 576 00:36:57,680 --> 00:37:02,120 Speaker 2: whole fleet of bush planes and private chefs. And you 577 00:37:02,200 --> 00:37:07,440 Speaker 2: go there, and people like Larry Sanka Dan rather celebrities 578 00:37:07,480 --> 00:37:12,080 Speaker 2: go have gone there in the Arkley years, and you know, 579 00:37:12,120 --> 00:37:14,920 Speaker 2: you have a great time fishing for king salmon and 580 00:37:15,040 --> 00:37:19,080 Speaker 2: kind of eating well, drinking well. And one of the 581 00:37:19,160 --> 00:37:21,560 Speaker 2: kind of stunning things that we learned in our story, 582 00:37:21,560 --> 00:37:23,960 Speaker 2: and we still don't really have the full story of 583 00:37:24,000 --> 00:37:30,080 Speaker 2: how this happened, is that this kind of random businessman 584 00:37:30,160 --> 00:37:36,000 Speaker 2: in Eureka, California, seems to developed personal relationships with one 585 00:37:36,120 --> 00:37:38,719 Speaker 2: third of the sitting justices of the US Supreme Court, 586 00:37:38,840 --> 00:37:44,600 Speaker 2: right Alito, who he hosted for free at his fishing lodge, 587 00:37:45,360 --> 00:37:49,000 Speaker 2: Justice Scalia, who we also gave a free fishing vacation 588 00:37:49,120 --> 00:37:52,040 Speaker 2: to in Alaska. And we were also told by people 589 00:37:52,040 --> 00:37:53,719 Speaker 2: that know Arcley that he used to brag that he 590 00:37:53,800 --> 00:37:57,000 Speaker 2: had a relationship with Justice Thomas as well. So I 591 00:37:57,000 --> 00:37:59,319 Speaker 2: think one of the big picture themes that's interesting to 592 00:37:59,400 --> 00:38:02,120 Speaker 2: us here that we're still trying to kind of untangle 593 00:38:02,239 --> 00:38:09,920 Speaker 2: is these kind of random seeming wealthy businessman slash political 594 00:38:09,960 --> 00:38:14,560 Speaker 2: donors are getting access to the most powerful judges in 595 00:38:14,600 --> 00:38:16,560 Speaker 2: the country, at least in some cases by sort of 596 00:38:16,600 --> 00:38:19,080 Speaker 2: paying for their vacations, which is. 597 00:38:19,160 --> 00:38:22,319 Speaker 1: Well interesting that you know, it's like it's like looking 598 00:38:22,400 --> 00:38:26,560 Speaker 1: out on the ocean, we'll use the Alaska analogy and 599 00:38:26,719 --> 00:38:30,200 Speaker 1: looking for that whale spout, right, looking for that spray. 600 00:38:30,920 --> 00:38:34,840 Speaker 1: So what you see through Arcley is the dark money surfacing. 601 00:38:35,400 --> 00:38:40,560 Speaker 1: He has these connections right, like a whole constellation of 602 00:38:40,640 --> 00:38:44,360 Speaker 1: people to Leonard Leo right, who is the steward of 603 00:38:44,440 --> 00:38:48,359 Speaker 1: the relationships, And none of this is transparent with the 604 00:38:48,400 --> 00:38:53,719 Speaker 1: American people. All of it is deeply, deeply, deeply corrupting. 605 00:38:55,200 --> 00:38:58,520 Speaker 1: You know, I had this experience with with Alita running 606 00:38:58,520 --> 00:39:01,720 Speaker 1: the confirmation that I that I haven't shared, but people 607 00:39:01,760 --> 00:39:05,440 Speaker 1: on the team know it. There was a issue, a 608 00:39:05,520 --> 00:39:11,400 Speaker 1: recusal issue that was being investigated by the Senate Democrats. 609 00:39:12,480 --> 00:39:17,400 Speaker 1: We did not evaluate it as being particularly significant or 610 00:39:17,560 --> 00:39:23,919 Speaker 1: meritorious at a substantive level. What Alito did was call 611 00:39:24,080 --> 00:39:27,600 Speaker 1: up a friend of his, Judge Becker, who was a 612 00:39:27,680 --> 00:39:31,960 Speaker 1: senior retired judge if I remember correctly, from the Third Circuit, 613 00:39:32,560 --> 00:39:36,759 Speaker 1: who was best friends with Arlen Spector. So I get 614 00:39:36,760 --> 00:39:39,880 Speaker 1: a call to come down from the White House to 615 00:39:40,280 --> 00:39:45,160 Speaker 1: meet with Spector, and we meet with Spector and Spector's 616 00:39:45,239 --> 00:39:48,200 Speaker 1: type guy, and he basically says, I got this call 617 00:39:48,320 --> 00:39:52,839 Speaker 1: from Judge Becker, who got a call from Alito who 618 00:39:52,920 --> 00:39:59,320 Speaker 1: said that Alito wants this recusal issue fully investigated. Now 619 00:40:00,000 --> 00:40:03,600 Speaker 1: I gotta do it now. This was very upsetting, right 620 00:40:03,680 --> 00:40:06,960 Speaker 1: because I'm the person who's running the Supreme Court nomination 621 00:40:07,080 --> 00:40:10,479 Speaker 1: and basically Supreme Court one oh one. If you want 622 00:40:10,480 --> 00:40:15,040 Speaker 1: to stop a Supreme Court confirmation, it's a lot like 623 00:40:15,200 --> 00:40:19,120 Speaker 1: hijacking or robbing a train. Right. The first thing you 624 00:40:19,280 --> 00:40:21,560 Speaker 1: have to do if you want to rob the train 625 00:40:22,200 --> 00:40:26,040 Speaker 1: is derail the train, or you have to stop the train. Right, 626 00:40:26,080 --> 00:40:29,680 Speaker 1: you have to halt the momentum of the confirmation hearing. 627 00:40:29,800 --> 00:40:32,480 Speaker 1: So this was our first delay. So I go when 628 00:40:32,520 --> 00:40:35,400 Speaker 1: I have this conversation with Alito, and I was completely 629 00:40:35,480 --> 00:40:39,360 Speaker 1: furious with him, and I and I said to him, Judge, 630 00:40:40,280 --> 00:40:42,600 Speaker 1: do you remember when the when the president asked you 631 00:40:43,000 --> 00:40:45,480 Speaker 1: to be to be on the Supreme Court and he 632 00:40:45,600 --> 00:40:48,239 Speaker 1: and he and he goes yeah, he goes yeah. I go, 633 00:40:48,520 --> 00:40:50,520 Speaker 1: who is there? And he goes, you know, I think 634 00:40:50,520 --> 00:40:53,000 Speaker 1: the Vice president was there, Carl rov was there, my 635 00:40:53,080 --> 00:40:56,920 Speaker 1: wife whatever. I go, was I there? He goes, he goes, no, 636 00:40:56,960 --> 00:40:59,680 Speaker 1: you weren't. You weren't there. And I go, I go 637 00:40:59,760 --> 00:41:01,759 Speaker 1: to your ever the moment when when when when I 638 00:41:01,800 --> 00:41:03,799 Speaker 1: got asked to make sure you get nominated to be 639 00:41:03,880 --> 00:41:07,600 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court justice? And he was like, no, no, 640 00:41:07,680 --> 00:41:09,239 Speaker 1: I wasn't there. I was like, do you understand how 641 00:41:09,239 --> 00:41:12,719 Speaker 1: this works? You understand how this works? Right, don't do 642 00:41:12,800 --> 00:41:15,960 Speaker 1: that again. Don't do that again. You're not a Supreme 643 00:41:16,000 --> 00:41:20,320 Speaker 1: Court justice again. But he was petulant, he was angry 644 00:41:21,200 --> 00:41:27,239 Speaker 1: and constantly affronted by the process. He was a he 645 00:41:27,400 --> 00:41:33,160 Speaker 1: was very, very, very difficult as a personality through that, 646 00:41:33,320 --> 00:41:36,160 Speaker 1: through that crisis. And I think that one of the 647 00:41:36,400 --> 00:41:39,359 Speaker 1: one of the features of the Supreme Court. And I 648 00:41:39,400 --> 00:41:42,440 Speaker 1: think there's this brilliant piece written in the New Yorker, 649 00:41:43,040 --> 00:41:48,200 Speaker 1: the Intelligence or column, and I'm completely blanking on the 650 00:41:48,239 --> 00:41:52,440 Speaker 1: on the author's name, but she's just a brilliant brilliant, brilliant, brilliant, 651 00:41:52,480 --> 00:41:58,200 Speaker 1: incandescently brilliant writer who writes this story about Clarence and 652 00:41:58,280 --> 00:42:03,320 Speaker 1: Jenny Thomas in every house, Yeah, Kerry, Yeah, great, great 653 00:42:03,360 --> 00:42:06,080 Speaker 1: writer if she gets to the last two paragraphs of it, 654 00:42:06,200 --> 00:42:09,919 Speaker 1: and and basically, you know, I think it explains so much. 655 00:42:10,080 --> 00:42:14,080 Speaker 1: Is you you have an Alito and you haven't Thomas, 656 00:42:15,000 --> 00:42:20,360 Speaker 1: and you have in Kavanaugh three really angry, aggrieved guys 657 00:42:21,120 --> 00:42:28,800 Speaker 1: through their confirmation process that have lifetime appointments and they. 658 00:42:28,680 --> 00:42:32,680 Speaker 2: Are Yeah, I mean the whole recusal thing. And without 659 00:42:32,680 --> 00:42:34,799 Speaker 2: getting into the weeds of it too much is but 660 00:42:34,840 --> 00:42:38,520 Speaker 2: it's really interesting in the context of our story because 661 00:42:39,200 --> 00:42:44,239 Speaker 2: again Paul Singer, the hedge fund guy who flew Justice 662 00:42:44,239 --> 00:42:46,600 Speaker 2: Alito out to Alaska of private jet, he then had 663 00:42:46,600 --> 00:42:50,120 Speaker 2: all these cases and Aledo didn't refuse himself. And the 664 00:42:50,320 --> 00:42:53,200 Speaker 2: episode I believe you're referring to during his confirmation was 665 00:42:54,600 --> 00:42:56,880 Speaker 2: Senate Democrats or some of them were going on the 666 00:42:56,920 --> 00:43:01,239 Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee. We're going after him about an issue that 667 00:43:01,800 --> 00:43:04,359 Speaker 2: as a reporter like reading back through it, I did 668 00:43:04,360 --> 00:43:07,400 Speaker 2: not find convincing at all. It seemed like a total 669 00:43:08,640 --> 00:43:13,120 Speaker 2: nothing basically or not nothing, but very minor issue. Involving 670 00:43:13,160 --> 00:43:17,719 Speaker 2: some Vanguard mutual funds that he owned, and a case 671 00:43:17,760 --> 00:43:21,759 Speaker 2: involving Vanguard where I don't think any person would van 672 00:43:22,040 --> 00:43:23,799 Speaker 2: owns a Vanguard mutual fund is going to be in 673 00:43:23,840 --> 00:43:26,960 Speaker 2: the tank for Vanguard. So it did not seem significant 674 00:43:26,960 --> 00:43:29,120 Speaker 2: to me at all. But what did seem significant, though, 675 00:43:29,200 --> 00:43:33,640 Speaker 2: is that it that whole episode produced some paperwork and 676 00:43:33,680 --> 00:43:37,799 Speaker 2: some comments from then Judge Alito about his refusal practices, 677 00:43:38,320 --> 00:43:41,880 Speaker 2: including a letter that we published republished that he wrote 678 00:43:41,880 --> 00:43:45,160 Speaker 2: to Arle Inspector in which he described his recusal practices 679 00:43:45,480 --> 00:43:48,320 Speaker 2: and he said, you know, I take this so seriously. 680 00:43:48,680 --> 00:43:52,000 Speaker 2: I go even beyond what the law requires, and my 681 00:43:52,120 --> 00:43:56,360 Speaker 2: practice is to recuse myself when quote any possible question arises. 682 00:43:57,360 --> 00:43:59,120 Speaker 2: And we asked him about this last week. You know, 683 00:43:59,160 --> 00:44:02,600 Speaker 2: we said it is still practice, and he didn't respond 684 00:44:02,640 --> 00:44:04,520 Speaker 2: to that in his Wall Street Journal out ed. But 685 00:44:04,680 --> 00:44:07,400 Speaker 2: you know, all of the you know, we talked to 686 00:44:07,400 --> 00:44:10,640 Speaker 2: all these judicial recusal experts who said, like, look, if 687 00:44:10,680 --> 00:44:14,200 Speaker 2: you're getting something of significant value from a party in 688 00:44:14,239 --> 00:44:18,120 Speaker 2: a case like a private jet flight, clearly there's some 689 00:44:18,480 --> 00:44:20,160 Speaker 2: kind of question that's going to arise there. I mean, 690 00:44:20,239 --> 00:44:22,239 Speaker 2: even as one of them put it to us Look, 691 00:44:22,280 --> 00:44:25,200 Speaker 2: if I was suing you in court and I learned 692 00:44:26,160 --> 00:44:30,480 Speaker 2: that you had just flown the judge to a fishing vacation. 693 00:44:30,600 --> 00:44:32,719 Speaker 2: There's pictures of you fishing together, how would I feel 694 00:44:32,719 --> 00:44:37,239 Speaker 2: about that? Like? Not good about the judge's fairness. So 695 00:44:38,120 --> 00:44:40,040 Speaker 2: I don't know if he still has that standard for 696 00:44:40,200 --> 00:44:43,319 Speaker 2: recusals or if it's changed now that he's on the 697 00:44:43,360 --> 00:44:43,960 Speaker 2: court or what. 698 00:44:44,239 --> 00:44:48,840 Speaker 1: But well, it doesn't measure up by the activity, right. 699 00:44:50,640 --> 00:44:52,040 Speaker 2: It doesn't know, it does not seem to. 700 00:44:54,160 --> 00:44:59,319 Speaker 1: Is there is there been any follow on reaction to 701 00:44:59,520 --> 00:45:01,799 Speaker 1: this story that you find surprising? 702 00:45:06,680 --> 00:45:10,560 Speaker 2: I mean, it takes a lot to surprise me these days. 703 00:45:11,120 --> 00:45:18,319 Speaker 2: I think that we've been a little bit disappointed that 704 00:45:18,360 --> 00:45:23,200 Speaker 2: the reaction has been so partisan, because it doesn't seem 705 00:45:23,239 --> 00:45:26,560 Speaker 2: like it should be a partisan issue at least the 706 00:45:26,680 --> 00:45:32,440 Speaker 2: questions around disclosure of gifts and recusal once you've gotten 707 00:45:32,440 --> 00:45:35,719 Speaker 2: a significant gift from somebody. And you know, we've only 708 00:45:35,760 --> 00:45:39,680 Speaker 2: written about when we've been criticized for only writing about 709 00:45:39,760 --> 00:45:43,360 Speaker 2: Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, who are obviously both appointed 710 00:45:43,360 --> 00:45:46,160 Speaker 2: by Republicans. And what I keep saying is I've only 711 00:45:46,239 --> 00:45:48,400 Speaker 2: been covering the Supreme Court for six months and these 712 00:45:48,440 --> 00:45:52,720 Speaker 2: stories take time, and if anyone has information about justice's 713 00:45:53,080 --> 00:45:56,840 Speaker 2: appointed by Democrats, please get in touch, because it doesn't 714 00:45:57,239 --> 00:46:00,880 Speaker 2: I don't think this should be a partisan thing. It 715 00:46:01,000 --> 00:46:03,880 Speaker 2: seems like everyone would It seems like everyone would benefit. 716 00:46:03,920 --> 00:46:06,839 Speaker 2: It seems like everyone would benefit in terms of even 717 00:46:07,120 --> 00:46:08,280 Speaker 2: even including the institution. 718 00:46:09,080 --> 00:46:12,839 Speaker 1: I have an opinion. I have an opinion about this, right, 719 00:46:13,080 --> 00:46:15,840 Speaker 1: but it but it does bag the question, right, which 720 00:46:15,920 --> 00:46:19,759 Speaker 1: is is it these two guys that are doing this 721 00:46:20,440 --> 00:46:24,520 Speaker 1: or is it all nine of them that are doing this. 722 00:46:24,680 --> 00:46:27,520 Speaker 2: It's a very good question, and I don't think we uh, 723 00:46:28,760 --> 00:46:31,040 Speaker 2: I don't think we can conclusively answer at this point 724 00:46:31,080 --> 00:46:34,560 Speaker 2: because it's taken a lot of hard reporting to bring 725 00:46:34,600 --> 00:46:37,040 Speaker 2: these things to light. Sonna's a good question. 726 00:46:37,120 --> 00:46:42,919 Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna suspect that the answered will 727 00:46:42,960 --> 00:46:49,440 Speaker 1: be a partisan answer unfortunately. But but but we'll see, 728 00:46:49,480 --> 00:46:50,440 Speaker 1: like through the reporting. 729 00:46:50,520 --> 00:46:55,360 Speaker 3: But it's it's But what we do know, like indisputably, 730 00:46:56,360 --> 00:47:00,920 Speaker 3: is is that you have Supreme Court justices who are 731 00:47:00,960 --> 00:47:08,840 Speaker 3: playing hardball pr A sailing the integrity of fact matters 732 00:47:09,920 --> 00:47:13,720 Speaker 3: in the court of public opinion around. 733 00:47:13,400 --> 00:47:19,680 Speaker 1: Recusal issues that they were crystal clear about as they 734 00:47:19,760 --> 00:47:24,960 Speaker 1: were about their commitments. The story decisis and precedent during 735 00:47:25,000 --> 00:47:32,760 Speaker 1: their confirmation hearings that would seem to contradict very fundamentally 736 00:47:33,400 --> 00:47:38,520 Speaker 1: every core tenant of judicial ethics as most ethesists understand them. 737 00:47:38,600 --> 00:47:41,400 Speaker 1: I think is the plane meaning of your story. 738 00:47:44,640 --> 00:47:47,200 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean certainly the recusal experts, you know, people 739 00:47:47,280 --> 00:47:50,480 Speaker 2: that study judicial the term they use for it is 740 00:47:50,800 --> 00:47:56,960 Speaker 2: the disqualification statute. That was their view, I mean, with 741 00:47:57,040 --> 00:47:59,480 Speaker 2: the actual loss said. I mean, this is another interesting 742 00:47:59,480 --> 00:48:03,120 Speaker 2: thing about the court. If if a lower court federal 743 00:48:03,239 --> 00:48:07,640 Speaker 2: judge uh doesn't recuse himself and there's a party himself 744 00:48:07,680 --> 00:48:09,799 Speaker 2: or herself, and there's a party who's upset about that, 745 00:48:10,960 --> 00:48:14,680 Speaker 2: they have recourse. They can appeal the decision with the 746 00:48:14,719 --> 00:48:18,560 Speaker 2: Supreme Court, you know, for better or worse. Uh. The 747 00:48:18,640 --> 00:48:24,279 Speaker 2: setup is that each individual justice decides completely for themselves 748 00:48:24,400 --> 00:48:27,239 Speaker 2: whether to recuse. The full court. The chief Justice, the 749 00:48:27,239 --> 00:48:32,040 Speaker 2: full Court has nothing to say about it. And uh, 750 00:48:32,080 --> 00:48:34,120 Speaker 2: there's you know, there's been some bills introduced that would 751 00:48:34,200 --> 00:48:38,279 Speaker 2: change that, and there's there's the Chief Justice Roberts has 752 00:48:38,680 --> 00:48:41,680 Speaker 2: made some public statements that suggest the Supreme Court would 753 00:48:41,680 --> 00:48:45,760 Speaker 2: resist that and suggesting. Some people argue that Congress doesn't 754 00:48:45,800 --> 00:48:48,480 Speaker 2: even have the power under the Constitution to impose rules 755 00:48:48,480 --> 00:48:55,880 Speaker 2: on the court. So, uh, you know, I can't remember, 756 00:48:55,880 --> 00:48:58,320 Speaker 2: I can't remember what the question was, but yes, uh, 757 00:48:58,560 --> 00:49:01,680 Speaker 2: you know, many of the judicial refusal experts we spoke 758 00:49:01,719 --> 00:49:04,400 Speaker 2: to said that this was not a close call. And 759 00:49:05,000 --> 00:49:06,759 Speaker 2: the thing that was most convincing to me was just 760 00:49:06,800 --> 00:49:08,240 Speaker 2: like to think about if you were in a lawsuit 761 00:49:08,320 --> 00:49:10,640 Speaker 2: yourself and you found out the person on the other 762 00:49:10,680 --> 00:49:14,880 Speaker 2: side was jetting the judge around on private jets and 763 00:49:15,239 --> 00:49:16,920 Speaker 2: going on vacation with them, how would you feel It 764 00:49:16,920 --> 00:49:20,080 Speaker 2: doesn't seem like a tough call. Well, I wouldn't feel 765 00:49:20,080 --> 00:49:21,160 Speaker 2: I wouldn't feel good about it. 766 00:49:21,640 --> 00:49:26,680 Speaker 1: No, no, no, not at all. I think that you 767 00:49:26,719 --> 00:49:32,040 Speaker 1: and your colleagues have written some remarkable stories. We talk 768 00:49:32,120 --> 00:49:36,319 Speaker 1: a lot about this podcast and on the Warning Platform, 769 00:49:36,840 --> 00:49:41,239 Speaker 1: about the collapse of trust, about the crises that spreads 770 00:49:41,280 --> 00:49:48,160 Speaker 1: across our politics, our businesses, including the media business. But 771 00:49:48,280 --> 00:49:52,640 Speaker 1: this is what journalism is and should be and is necessary, 772 00:49:53,760 --> 00:49:58,279 Speaker 1: which is to expose public officials doing things that they 773 00:49:58,280 --> 00:50:03,359 Speaker 1: should not be doing. And there's no question whatsoever. And 774 00:50:03,719 --> 00:50:07,399 Speaker 1: I'll say this, you know, with regard to the confirmation, 775 00:50:08,040 --> 00:50:11,120 Speaker 1: if you had sat around in the confirmation prep rooms 776 00:50:11,960 --> 00:50:16,040 Speaker 1: with sam Alito in two thousand and five and said, 777 00:50:16,040 --> 00:50:19,200 Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you a hypothetical, how would you 778 00:50:19,280 --> 00:50:24,760 Speaker 1: respond to this situation, judge right, pretending that it's twenty 779 00:50:24,840 --> 00:50:27,840 Speaker 1: years hence and you're now on the Supreme Court? What 780 00:50:28,080 --> 00:50:32,200 Speaker 1: say you? Right? And his answer would have been very 781 00:50:32,239 --> 00:50:37,640 Speaker 1: different and not something I suspect, but that I know 782 00:50:37,800 --> 00:50:42,080 Speaker 1: for certain. Then the drivel that he wrote in the 783 00:50:42,120 --> 00:50:46,839 Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal, which was, as I said, we're well 784 00:50:46,880 --> 00:50:55,560 Speaker 1: in because in fact, Pro Public reported facts about several billionaires, 785 00:50:56,719 --> 00:51:02,960 Speaker 1: massive political donors, people with frequent business and issues before 786 00:51:03,000 --> 00:51:07,800 Speaker 1: the Court, whether they be commercial or ideological, who are 787 00:51:07,920 --> 00:51:14,799 Speaker 1: establishing deep, deep relationships with these Supreme Court justices that 788 00:51:14,880 --> 00:51:21,239 Speaker 1: are secret, that are in the shadows, that are at 789 00:51:21,400 --> 00:51:27,239 Speaker 1: the world's most exclusive places where you arrive in the 790 00:51:27,280 --> 00:51:34,319 Speaker 1: most exclusive style imaginable. And the American people who these 791 00:51:34,360 --> 00:51:37,000 Speaker 1: people work for, have a right to know this. So 792 00:51:37,080 --> 00:51:42,360 Speaker 1: I applaud you for the excellence of the of the 793 00:51:42,440 --> 00:51:47,960 Speaker 1: journalism and the service you've done in illuminating what I 794 00:51:48,000 --> 00:51:51,200 Speaker 1: think is an act of corruption on the United States 795 00:51:51,239 --> 00:51:54,320 Speaker 1: Supreme Court that needs to be addressed very very urgently 796 00:51:54,719 --> 00:51:55,799 Speaker 1: and very seriously. 797 00:51:57,320 --> 00:51:59,840 Speaker 2: Well, I really appreciate it and again. We there's a 798 00:51:59,840 --> 00:52:02,000 Speaker 2: whole well, a team of three of us on this stuff. 799 00:52:02,000 --> 00:52:04,080 Speaker 2: So if anyone has anything we should be poking around on, 800 00:52:04,160 --> 00:52:05,000 Speaker 2: please get in touch. 801 00:52:05,360 --> 00:52:09,520 Speaker 1: You get it again. It's josh Kaplan, Alex Meyer Jeski, 802 00:52:10,600 --> 00:52:14,040 Speaker 1: three of the Pro Publica reporters who wrote these astounding, 803 00:52:14,160 --> 00:52:19,440 Speaker 1: astounding series of articles about the United States Supreme Court 804 00:52:20,120 --> 00:52:25,279 Speaker 1: and the scandals of gifts and lavish gifts at that. 805 00:52:26,239 --> 00:52:28,359 Speaker 1: We'll leave it there, thank you very much. 806 00:52:29,000 --> 00:52:29,560 Speaker 2: Thanks Stiff,