Senate graybeards like Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer want Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving the 2021 Capitol riot, but that’s not good enough for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The “squad” leader said Tuesday that Justice Thomas needs to step down over his wife Virginia Thomas's ...
Republicans have been trying very hard to shift to a pro-Ukraine stance since Russian autocrat and far-right hero Vladimir Putin invaded the country and began a systemic program of war crimes, but it has been hard going. The Republican talking points of the Donald Trump era were that Ukraine was a hopelessly corrupt country and that we needed to support whatever crackpot schemes Rudy Giuliani and other party toadies came up with to put the screws to its corrupt-but-not-in-the-right-way government. Also oh-by-the-way maybe it was Ukraine, not Russia, who attacked our 2016 presidential elections, and maybe it was Donald Trump's political opponents who orchestrated it rather than a laundry list of Donald Trump's grifting underlings and kin.
No matter how hard walking lie dispenser Sen. Mitch McConnell or other Republicans bluster that actually the party has been pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia all along, it regularly goes to hell again when some pro-Trump House Republican pipes up with a new defense of how Donald Trump had every right to block military aid from reaching Ukraine until the Ukrainian president did him, personally, an election favor.
Sure enough, here comes Oklahoma's Rep. Markwayne Mullin, and with impeccable timing. Mullin is taking this moment to introduce a new House resolution that would "expunge" Donald Trump's first impeachment. It would officially, according to, uh, this document, never have happened. And Mullin is doing this because, he told Fox News, Democrats were "manipulating a perfect phone call with a vulnerable nation" for their "political gain."
It is possible this bearded gas station bollard was drunk when he was saying that, because nobody in full possession of their faculties would still use the phrase "perfect phone call" in the year Dickety Dickety Two unless Donald Trump was standing behind them with a gun to their back. It is a level of maudlin sycophancy that even Sen. Lindsey Graham shies away from these days.
Though we have never once said this and will never say it again: Markwayne Mullin is right. The House of Representatives should absolutely be taking time out of whatever the hell they are currently pretending to do to revisit the debate on whether Donald Trump's extortion of the Ukrainian government was, as they have insisted ever since, how the Republican Party believes their foreign policy should function. Whether it is reasonable for a president to make congressionally mandated military assistance contingent on an allied government announcing false accusations against Republican enemies. Whether the timing of Trump's delay, which took place as Russian cutouts and Russian forces were stepping up military attacks inside Ukraine as part of the overall plan to annex the eastern side of the nation outright was coincidental or conspiratorial.
We should again all be pondering whether the near-entirety of the Republican Party, its lawmakers, its allies, and its pundits sought to immunize Trump from consequences because they genuinely do not feel that a president corrupting foreign policy to gain personal, nongovernmental benefits is out of bounds—or if they believe only that Republican elected officials ought to be able to commit such crimes.
And, of course, the House needs to come to terms with the most consequential question of all: whether the near-unanimous Republican decision to immunize Trump against charges of corruption against our democracy led directly, a short time later, to Trump attacking our democracy even more directly with a propaganda-premised coup attempt that turned violent inside the halls of the U.S. Capitol. By. All. Means.
Come to think of it, Mullin's request that Trump not just be immunized from consequences for extorting the Ukrainian government, but the records "expunged" of any mention that Congress even objected, is something that would fit well with the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 insurrection. Donald Trump clearly believed that in a showdown between this nation's written Constitution and his own personal ambitions, Republicans would choose him. Why did he think so? Why was he so certain that the Republican Party would, so long as a little bit of preemptive violence was added to the mix so that all parties would understand the consequences for opposing him, fall in line and demand that the election be erased rather than acknowledge his loss?
Which, in fact, happened: The majority of Republican lawmakers did vote to nullify the election. But Democrats, at that particular moment in time, happened to outnumber them anyway.
Why would Trump think that the Republican Party would back him even if he committed sedition itself? Why was he so certain?
Mullin, author of a new resolution calling on Congress to "expunge" the impeachment charges Trump faced after an international extortion scheme looking to boost his own power even if it directly conflicted with laws passed by Congress: Do you have any insight as to why Trump would believe House Republicans would allow him to commit any crime he wanted to?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a problem for the court, for the nation, and for democracy in general. That’s been true for decades, as long as his deep ties to the dark money swirling around the judiciary, and doesn’t even take into account the extremely partisan activities of his “best friend” and wife Ginni. Since those activities now include attempting to overthrow the government, the problem of Clarence Thomas just got a whole lot more glaring—and congressional leadership has been caught just a bit flat-footed.
Stepping into the void, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the first to use the “I” word. “Clarence Thomas should resign,” she tweeted. “If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment.”
By all means, the House should start talking about impeachment. That’s what Thomas deserves: the ultimate censure. That’s where to start: the maximum. There’s no real other leverage the other two branches have over the Supreme Court than pressure in the public eye and the threat of action. Chief Justice John Roberts has been aware enough about his personal legacy in his career thus far to make blowing up the Thomas scandal in public—and keeping it there with discussion of impeachment—a smart tactic.
Would the 50-50 Senate convict him? No, but that’s a valuable weapon for Democrats in the upcoming election. Republicans are protecting the Supreme Court justice who has refused to recuse himself from cases involving his wife’s efforts to overthrow the government.
The good news is that Democrats are inching toward something a little more concrete than demanding that Thomas recuse. That’s where they started. A group of House and Senate Democrats, spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), wrote to the Supreme Court requesting that Thomas recuse himself from any future Jan. 6-related cases, as well as provide a “written explanation for his failure to recuse himself” in previous cases.
“[G]iven the recent disclosures about Ms. Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election and her specific communications with White House officials about doing so, Justice Thomas’s participation in cases involving the 2020 election and the January 6th attack is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with federal ethics requirements,” says the letter obtained by The Washington Post.
The lawmakers also called on Roberts to commit to creating “a binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court—the only court in the country not currently subject to a judicial code of ethics—that includes (1) enforceable provisions to ensure that the Justices comply with this Code and (2) a requirement that all Justices issue written recusal decision.” They ask that he do so by April 28.
Campaign ActionWhich is a fine and appropriate next step, since Thomas will surely refuse to recuse. “He absolutely should recuse himself,” Jayapal told Politico. But, she added, “Clearly the Supreme Court is in need of ethics reforms.”
Jayapal is on the House Judiciary committee, so the ethics reform thing is another possibility. In fact, legislation to impose the Judicial Code of Ethics on the Supreme Court—which is currently exempt from it—would be a good concurrent step for Congress to be taking along with the public pressure campaign to get him to resign. That legislation exists in a bill written by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and should start moving through committee immediately.
After an ill-conceived dismissal of the issue on Monday by Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, who suggested there’s no urgency to the Thomas problem, there’s now some momentum there. Durbin had a day to think it over and is now joining Warren in saying lawmakers need to act. Durbin told CNN’s Manu Raju that imposing the ethics code on the Supreme Court is “long overdue.” Warren told him the legislation should include limits on stocks and “rules about other kinds of personal conflicts.” The Senate Democrats are expected to discuss Murphy’s legislation in their conference luncheon Tuesday, Raju reports.
That’s all fine and needs to move apace. At the same time, House Democrats should not rule out pursuing impeachment, which has to initiate in that chamber. Once again, Ocasio-Cortez is pushing Democrats to go there. Remember, she said, that pushing for impeachment of Trump on his extortion of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was initially deemed “unrealistic,” and the “debate was fierce & opposition real.” But, she argues, “When we look back at the decision to impeach Trump over Ukraine today, could you imagine if the naysayers and those claiming to be ‘politically savvier’ won? WE would be explaining why we allowed it to happen instead of the Senate explaining why they acquitted.” That’s on the Senate Republicans.
“Subpoenas, investigations, and impeachment should absolutely be on the table. We shouldn’t have to think twice about that,” she concluded in the thread. “We must go where the facts take us. A failure to act puts the imperiling of democracy squarely on *our* shoulders. It’s our duty to defend it.”
Let the Senate lead on the code of ethics legislation. How are Senate Republicans going to argue about that? The House needs to start those investigations toward impeachment. Both chambers should also be talking now about legislation to expand the court, and to put pressure on President Joe Biden to join as well. If there’s going to be any change, any accountability at the court, it’s not going to come without a big public stink. It’s the only way it’s going to happen.
RELATED STORIES:
House Democrats are outraged that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife pressed top White House officials to overturn the 2020 election. Yet they’re not ready to talk about the most tangible step they can take: impeachment.
Multiple Democrats said Monday night that Ginni Thomas’ conspiracy-laden post-election text barrage to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows — and potentially others in the West Wing — warrants serious alarm about Thomas’ involvement in cases related to the 2020 ballot. Several insisted Thomas should resign or recuse himself from anything to do with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and other litigation that may reach the high court in the coming months.
“He absolutely should recuse himself,” said Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), adding that it was “outrageous” and “stunning” that he hadn’t yet done so. “Clearly the Supreme Court is in need of ethics reforms.”
“I frankly think it’s time for Justice Thomas to resign,” added Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who, like Jayapal, sits on the House Judiciary panel, which oversees Congress’s impeachment powers.
But despite fervent calls for impeachment from the left, most Democratic lawmakers say they’re not yet prepared to consider that option — the only one with teeth that's in their purview. Instead, Democrats said they want more details about exactly what happened before settling on a potential punishment or remedy.
“I’m very concerned about it, obviously,” House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. When asked about his colleagues’ calls to censure or even impeach, he said: “It’s much too early to talk about either one of those. I think we have to wait and see what the Jan. 6 committee finds.”
At least one House Democrat has so far called for Thomas’ impeachment: Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar. Another progressive, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), cracked open the door to impeaching Thomas: “What we know, if investigated further, could absolutely be grounds for potential impeachment.”
Several Democrats, including Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), called on him to step down, while another, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), said Thomas “should be censured for having voted in cases related to the election.”
But the consensus among most Democrats when they returned to Washington Monday night was to largely defer to their investigators already probing the Jan. 6 insurrection, while urging Thomas to recuse himself of related cases on his own accord. The committee has obtained dozens of text messages from Ginni Thomas to Meadows, urging him to continue the fight to overturn the 2020 election and offering strategic advice. The select committee is considering whether to call Ginni Thomas as a witness and appeared to be leaning closer to doing so on Monday evening.
“I’ve always thought he should recuse himself,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol on Monday.
Other Democrats say there’s much more for the select panel to do before the House should take action on its own.
“To see something like this, it’s pretty damn outrageous,” said Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), an early advocate for the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump. “I don’t think it reaches to that level of impeachment yet.”
There’s no indication that Clarence Thomas was aware of his wife’s contacts with Trump’s West Wing or was influenced by them in his decision making. Still, the evidence of her voluminous outreach has raised new questions about the justice’s involvement in cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Thomas was already under fierce scrutiny on the issue: He cast the lone dissenting vote in January when the high court agreed to give the Jan. 6 select committee access to Trump’s White House records. He also joined Justice Samuel Alito in December 2020 as the only justices who said they would have considered a challenge some GOP-led states brought against election procedures in states won by Joe Biden.
“It’s very disturbing to me that those texts are being written by the spouse of one of the justices of the Supreme Court,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), noting Thomas’ sole no vote on the case seeking Trump’s records. “I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered by Justice Thomas and Mrs. Thomas.”
The panel might decide to call Ginni Thomas as a witness, a politically fraught choice as its members prepare to enter the investigation’s public phase as soon as this spring. But even that would not guarantee answers, as she could refuse to testify. The panel is currently fighting more than 20 lawsuits to block its subpoenas for phone records or testimony, and the litigation is ongoing.
Panel members met Monday evening to decide their path forward on Thomas.
“Based on the evidence we have in our possession, I feel very confident about inviting her to the committee,” select panel chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said. “And if she refuses, issuing a subpoena.”
The debate will likely intensify as Jan. 6-related litigation and prosecutions wind through the courts. Hundreds of defendants who breached the Capitol are facing criminal proceedings, and some issues connected to those cases are on appeal. Other litigation and grand jury proceedings connected to Trump’s 2020 election efforts have continued in federal and local courts.
For now, Democrats seemed content to wait for much of that to play out before formally urging their party’s leaders to take action against Thomas on the floor.
“I'm in the mode of reviewing what the facts are and to make assessments as to what our next steps should be,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), another Judiciary panel member, when asked about impeachment. “Certainly there should be accountability.”
Republicans in both chambers, meanwhile, have fully dismissed the Democrats’ complaints.
“This stuff is crazy. Mrs. Thomas is allowed to have her opinions,” said Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.). “She’s been in the conservative movement for a long time.”
And Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) warned broadly of blowback from probing a justice’s spouse too intently: “You want to strip constitutional rights from an individual because of who they’re married to?” she asked. “That opens up the floodgates.”
Olivia Beavers and Nancy Vu contributed to this report.