We're going to get to the bottom of this. And as we're seeing in Ukraine, people are willing to die for democracy. We at least have to be willing to put careers on the line for the same cause.
He's got a point there... Sadly, he didn't offer much of value, other than his lack of confidence that Mark Meadows, the recipient of the texts in question, has been fully forthcoming. There's a reason why he's been turned over to the DOJ for a potential contempt prosecution.
I mean, he was cooperating with us for a little bit, and then... to make Donald Trump happy, he stopped cooperating. We gave him plenty of space to come back to resume that. He has not. And, in fact, he's waived executive privilege a thousand times by presenting us what he already has. So, no, I'm not convinced he's handed over everything to us.
Next up? Bob Woodward (WaPo) and Robert Costa (CBS), who broke the story the texts. Dickerson asked for an explanation on the importance of the messages. Woodward compared them to Watergate, which was tampering on the front end of the election process. This is different because "they come after the election is over."
Costa noted this "campaign, spearheaded by then-president Trump," crossed all three branches of government "in at least tangential ways." It wasn't just pressuring Pence and Congress to overturn the results, and pressuring the states to invalidate the votes.
... you had the executive branch doing everything possible to have a legal challenge that would maybe go all the way, as Trump said, to the Supreme Court. This was Trump pulling every lever of power. And one of those levers, it appears to be...his own chief of staff at least communicating on legal strategy with the spouse of a justice.
Woodward said that Chief Justice John Roberts "really has grounds for being worried" about the Court being seen as political. He pointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's "remarkable speech" a few months back,
She said, I want to prove to you that we are not a bunch of partisan hacks in the Supreme Court. And she said justices - all justices - must be hyper vigilant to make sure they're not letting personal biases creep into their decision since justices and judges are people, too. So, she made it very clear that this hypervigilance should be the condition in which justices operate.
And yet, we have Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows texting about 'war' and 'good vs. evil' and 'not giving up' in their efforts to overturn the election, and Justice Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th-related cases...
Costa appreciated the Committee's frustration by Meadows and what else he might have, and that includes any texts with Ginni Thomas after the end of November. I agree; it seems weird they would suddenly end. After all, she attended the Stop the Steal rally, until her feet got cold, and allegedly has ties with some of the groups behind the event.
That said, The Committee has "done hundreds of interviews. They have thousands of pages of documents" from cooperating witnesses,
but they still feel in many ways they do not have enough. Steven Bannon has refused to cooperate. Mark Meadows has now refused to cooperate. So, the question facing ...Kinzinger and others is, where is the John Dean who's going to put the hand in the air and start outlining all of these different facets?
Woodward said "there are always surprises," so it possible there's a John Dean out there. And
remember, the January 6th committee, in a filing in California, has said they have a good-faith conclusion that Trump and people around him engaged in a full-fledged criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. They rule this as criminal.
And just yesterday, that judge ruled it was "more likely that not" that Trump "corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021."
Costa said the "real test" for the Committee is whether they give Thomas a chance to speak voluntarily, or if they subpoena her. And, he said, it's not just about her conversations with Meadows.
We just don't have the full picture at this point about her relationship with Justice Thomas and his knowledge of her exchanges with the chief of staff.
Ain't that the truth.
Finally, let's hear just a bit from Sen. Cory Booker (D-No One's Going to Steal My Joy!), who chatted with What's-his-name on Meet the Press. In addition to talking about the #KBJ hearings, the host brought up the text thing, using former AG Loretta Lynch and the meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton as an example of someone recusing themselves, and asked if Justice Thomas "should follow the Loretta Lynch precedent?"
Booker ignored that example; instead, he offered a relevant one: Justice Elena Kagan.
Out of 70-some cases, she recused herself over 20 times... not necessarily because she was conflicted, but because she understood that even the appearance of impropriety would delegitimize the Court. And the Court needs that legitimacy in this nation. So clearly, Justice Thomas should have recused himself. That's not even at question here. (Emphasis added.)
He said he's frustrated with the Court "as a whole, that they have not taken better measures to police themselves." That includes holding lower courts to ethics rules that they "don't put upon themselves." And, he gave one my favorite examples of shady ethics: justices giving paid speeches to partisan groups that may have direct matters, or amicus briefs, before the Court.
There are a lot of ethics rules that they do not, have not put upon themselves that are just common sense and ultimately lead to a delegitimized court. And I think that they need to use this Thomas affair as an opportunity to change their ethics rules.
He didn't add "or we'll change the rules for them" - but that possibility is already on the table, as it should be.
See you around campus. Unless you need to recuse yourself for something.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!