>> ERIC: IN THE NEXT HOUR, WE'LL TALK WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL KEITH ELLISON ABOUT THE BIG MEDICAID FRAUD CHARGES ANNOUNCED EARLIER THIS WEEK.

MIKE OSTERHOLM HAS AN UPDATE ON COVID VARIANTS AND FALL BOOSTERS.

AND KAOMI LEE INTRODUCES US TO A DANCE TROUPE THAT WILL BE AT THE STATE FAIR ON SATURDAY.

>> CATHY: WE START TONIGHT WITH THURSDAY'S NATIONAL POLITICAL NEWS.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PLED NOT GUILTY TO TRYING TO OVERTURN THE 2020 ELECTION RESULTS IN GEORGIA.

AND U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS HAS DISCLOSED MORE PRIVATE TRIPS WITH TEXAS BILLIONAIRE HARLAN CROW.

THOSE ARE JUST TWO OF THE TOPICS WE'LL EXPLORE WITH DAVID SCHULTZ, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR AT HAMLINE UNIVERSITY AND A VISITING LAW PROFESSOR AT THE U OF M WHERE HE TEACHES ELECTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

WELL, LET'S SEE.

JUSTICES THOMAS AND ALITO ASKED FOR EXTENSIONS, BUT JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR WAS SORT OF CAUGHT UP IN ALL OF US.

GOSH, HAS THIS ALWAYS HAPPENED, WHERE JUSTICES WERE TAKING TRIPS AND GETTING MONEY FOR SHEECH SPEECHES?

>> AT LEAST GOING BACK, OVER 30 YEARS, ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO, THURGOOD MARSHALL WAS DOING THIS.

IT TRANDZ SCENEDS POLITICAL PARTY.

SO T'D NOT LIKE IT'S DEMOCRAT VERSUS REPUBLICAN.

BUT IT'S VERY FREQUENT.

THEY VISIT LAW SCHOOLS, THEY GO TO CONVENTIONS AND SO FORTH.

BUT IT IS A PROBLEM.

>> Eric: ARE THERE ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, AND IF SO, ARE THEY ENFORCED?

>> WELL, THERE ARE ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR LOWER COURT JUDGES.

FOR HE SUPREME COURT, THEY WOULD LIKE THEM TO FOLLOW THESE RULES, THE SAME RULES AS JUDGES, BUT IT'S LEFT UP TO THE JUSTICES THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF POLICING THEMSELVES.

AND FOR THE MOST PART, WHAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE HERE IS THAT THE JUSTICES MAY ANOTHER BE DOING A VERY GOOLD JOB.

>> Eric: WHEN WE WERE KIDS, THE SUPREME COURT I THINK GENERALLY IN MERICA WAS HELD IN HIGH REGARD.

>> CORRECT.

>> Eric: BUT I WONDER IF STUFF LIKE THIS IS ERODING CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT.

>> IT IS.

WE CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT IT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

IF WE TAKE US BACK LET'S SAY ABOUT 16 MONTHS AGO BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED ROE VERSUS WADE, STILL THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION TRUSTED THE SUPREME COURT.

MUCH BETTER THAN CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENCY.

POST-DOBBS DECISION, IT'S COLLAPSED QUITE A BIT AND WE HAVE POLLING DATA NOW THAT IS REALLY SUGGESTING THAT -- JUSTICE IS BLIND.

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

THAT I CAN GO STAND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

AND HAVE A FAIR HEARING AND WALK AWAY FEEL LIKE EVEN IF I DIDN'T WIN, I HAVE MY FAIR DAY IN COURT.

AND THAT'S INCREASINGLY DISAPPEARING, WE RESPECT KNOW, WE ALSO KNOW THERE'S IND OF THIS MYTH THAT WE'VE ALSO SHATTERED NOW.

THE MYTH IS THAT THEY'RE POLITICALLY NEUTRAL.

WE NOW KNOW THAT THERE'S VERY GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THE BEST PREDICTOR ABOUT A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILL VOTE IS TO LOOK AT WHICH PRESIDENT APPOINTED THEM.

SO OF THROW IN THE GIFTS.

THROW IN, THE I WANT TO CALL IT POLITICAL REALISM OR JUDICIAL REALISM.

THEY'RE LOOKING AN AWFUL LOT LIKE LEGISLATORS WEARING ROBES AT THIS POINT.

>> Cathy: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

>> WHAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO HAVE ARE BINDING ETHICS CODES UPON THEM.

MUCH IN THE SAME WAY I WOULD ARGUE WE PROBABLY NEED BETTER BINDING CODES OF ETHICS FOR CONGRESS TOO.

BUT WE NEED SOMETHING IN TERMS OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE IN A TIMELY FASHION TOO.

NOT EXTENSION, EXTENSION.

AND ALSO SOMETHING THAT IS ATTACHED WITH IT, RULES ABOUT RECUSAL.

WHAT I MEAN BY RECUSAL, THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU'VE TAKEN A TRIP, IF YOU HAVE A FRIEND WHO'S GIVING YOU SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OU RECUSE YOURSELF FROM DECIDING THE CASE.

AND THIS IS IMPORTANT NOT JUST BECAUSE OF REAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BECAUSE IN SOME CASES THESE JUSTICES ARE TAKING GIFTS FROM PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE ARGUING BEFORE THEM.

BUT IT'S THE PERCEPTION.

REMEMBER, FOR THE PUBLIC, PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

>> Eric: IN THE HAD TRUMP SITUATION IN GEORGIA I SUPPOSE IN PARTICULAR, CAN ATTORNEYS THAT ARE INDICTED SAY, HEY, I'M DOING WHAT I DO EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK WHICH IS GIVE ADVICE AND MAP OUT SCENARIOS FOR MY CLIENT?

>> NO, NO, IN THIS SITUATION HERE, THERE'S A GENERAL RULE.

I'VE TAUGHT LEGAL ETHICS FOR A QUARTER OF CENTURY.

CALLED THE CRIME FRAUD EXCEPTION, THAT IF A CLIENT COMES TO ME AND SAYS I COMMITTED A CRIME IN THE PAST, CAN I S AN ATTORNEY PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO THEM?

YES, I CAN.

BECAUSE N OUR SYSTEM, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

EVERYBODY'S ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION.

BUT IF A CLIENT COMES TO ME AND SAYS I WANT TO COMMIT A CURRENT CRIME, WE CANNOT DO THAT.

BECAUSE IF WE HELP THEM DO THAT, WHAT ARE E?

ACCESSORY TO CRIME.

COCONSPIRACY TOMORROW, ET CETERA.

SO THEY CANNOT HIGH SCHOOLED BEHIND ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN THIS SITUATION.

>> Cathy: THE CASES ARE PILING UP.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SO MUCH NOISE.

DO YOU THINK THE PUBLIC IS PAYING ATTENTION?

BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT, WHAT?

FOUR INDICTMENTS?

WHAT IS IT, NEARLY 100 CHARGES AT THIS POINT?

I THINK IT'S OVERLOAD AT THIS POINT.

IT'S GETTING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW, INSIDE BASEBALL OR SOMETHING.

NOW, WILL THE PUBLIC START TO PAY MORE ATTENTION NEXT YEAR?

IT'S GOING TO BE FASCINATING.

TODAY WAS ANNOUNCED ON FRIDAY THAT THE TRIAL IN GEORGIA WILL BE TELEVISED.

I MEAN, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE O.J.

SIMPSON ALL OVER AGAIN IN TERMS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WATCHED THAT.

FASCINATING.

>> Eric: