Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Today on CBS’ Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan asked J6’s Adam Schiff about the subpoena for Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. I have It has already been written How requests for the resignation or impeachment of Judge Thomas are grossly inconsistent with ethical and constitutional standards. What was interesting, however, was how Schiff justified such an unprecedented subpoena: He asked him about one of Thomas’ comments regarding Congress’s authority to investigate what happened that day.

It was home According to Ginny Thomas’ messages earlierincluding 29 messages from November 2020 to mid-January 2021. Part of more than 2300 SMS White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was sent to the committee. That was the return of the messages Subject of press coverage in December 2021 Prior to the January 19, 2022 comment, with Thomas dissenting only.

This is the exchange:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Your colleague Liz Cheney was on two other networks this morning and said that you all are discussing the possible subpoena of Ginny Thomas, who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Are there lines that should not be crossed when it comes to the Supreme Court? Because one of the objections to the assumption of subpoena here is that by placing Adli’s wife on this political platform, it creates a dangerous precedent.

fornication Schiff: There are lines that should not be crossed, but those lines include Supreme Court Justices being present, not presiding over or attending or acting in cases where their spouses might be involved. And in this case, for Clarence Thomas to issue a decision, in a case, to object to a case where Congress is trying to obtain documents, and those documents may implicate his own wife, that’s a line that’s been crossed. And I think that Congress needs to address these issues and issues of conflict of interest. But here, looking into the issues, whether it’s the wife of a Supreme Court judge or anyone else, if they have information or a role in trying to nullify the election. Yes, they are not exempt from examination.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It sounds like you’re saying you’re in favor of that subpoena?

fornication SCHIFF: Well, if he has relevant information or research, hopefully he’ll come forward voluntarily. But if he doesn’t, we should take it seriously. And, yes, I think those who we decided have important enough information should be subpoenaed.

Schiff makes it clear that the committee’s interest is in using Thomas’ wife to review a prior opinion in an election-related case. Rep. Liz Cheney (R., Wy.) has also announced that the committee may subpoena Ginny Thomas.

Various politicians and pundits have suggested that Thomas could be impeached for violating judicial ethics rules because he voted against a challenge to the commission’s access to White House messages and emails. (For the record, I publicly stated that the Commission should prevail on these demands). In January, the parliament won 8-1 victory at the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the release of White House material. There was only one dissenting vote: Thomas.

However, judges have long insisted that they are not bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct. I have long opposed this view and called on Congress to mandate the application of this code in the courts. However, the Court has held that such conflict rules are not mandatory and many have refrained from using them in situations where they have been flagged as potential violations.

However, Schiff dropped the pretense of subpoenaing Ginny Thomas about her messages to the White House. This is about her husband, not her support for electoral challenges or what happened on January 6.

Thomas, a prominent Republican activist and Trump supporter, encouraged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to pursue legal and legal challenges to what he saw as a stolen election.

The reason Ginny Thomas’ messages were seized is not because she was a key figure in the investigation, but because the commission wants any messages that deal with such challenges or aggregation – a scope that has been criticized as broad. Congress then leaked the messages and the media did the rest.

There is no evidence that Ginny Thomas ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol during the riots. Thomas said he attended the Ellipse rally on Jan. 6, but left early before Trump spoke and never made it to the Capitol.

Schiff, on the committee tasked with uncovering the events of January 6, now says the committee’s jurisdiction will extend to what the Supreme Court did a year later. This is more than a case of “mission creep”. This is a radical departure from past and long-standing interbranch practices. This could set a dangerous precedent as members use such committees to probe lawyers about the motivations or connections leading to their opinions.

Once again, members like Schiff appear to be throwing caution to the wind to appeal to core constituencies. How exactly will Schiff and the committee investigate Justice Thomas’ motives and actions? He should demand disclosure of his wife’s communications. It also threatens charges of perjury or contempt if Ginny Thomas is not accurate in her details.

The use of the J6 committee in this way confirms criticism of the committee as a partisan exercise. The fact that Cheney joined such calls only highlights the slight lack of balance on the committee. It is also one of the most intrusive actions ever taken against the court outside of the formal impeachment process.

This is a threat that must be universally condemned and withdrawn immediately.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.