Dem
51
GOP
49
When Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court three decades ago, the hearings focused on behavior that was almost certainly sexual harassment, but also more broadly on Thomas' less-than-stellar ethics. It would seem that the senators who gave the then-nominee the third degree were on to something, because more and more information continues to come out about the Justice's less-than-forthright financial disclosures.
The latest news, courtesy of The Washington Post, is that Thomas has been reporting between $50,000 and $100,000 in income annually from a real estate venture started by his wife called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership. The problem here is that Ginger, Ltd., Partnership hasn't existed for since 2006. Some of its assets were reassigned to a holding company called Ginger Holdings, LLC, but Ginger Holdings, LLC does not appear on any of the Justice's disclosure forms.
There are only two possibilities here. The first is that Thomas has been doing a slapdash job on his forms for some reason, like he doesn't take the task seriously. If this is the explanation, then it raises the question of what other alleged sloppy errors he might have made. It also calls into question his explanation that he did his due diligence with the luxury trips bestowed upon him by Harlan Crow, and that he therefore had good reason to think that reporting was not necessary.
The other explanation is that Thomas was trying to hide something. Claiming $50,000 to $100,000 in income from Source A would provide a cover story for $50,000 to $100,000 in income that's actually from unethical/illegal Source B, should anyone start asking questions. There is, as yet, no suggestion that Thomas was on the take, and was receiving money from the NRA, or the Russians, or corporations with business before the Supreme Court. However, it's at least possible, particularly since his finances have not been subjected to an audit as yet.
And that brings us to an obvious question: What next? Thomas, for his part, has promised that he will revise his disclosure forms to reflect the new information that's been reported this month. Great, Mr. Justice. Talk about closing the hatch after the chickens have flown the coop.
Writing for Slate, Virginia Canter, Norman L. Eisen, and Richard W. Painter, all of whom worked as ethics lawyers in the White House, believe that this is a slam dunk, and that a thorough investigation is both warranted and necessary. We are inclined to agree, but the problem is exactly who might launch such an investigation. The House could do it, but there's zero chance Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) would go for it. The Senate could do it, but there's little they could do with any dirt they turned up, unless the House was willing to adopt articles of impeachment. Which, again, isn't happening. Chief Justice John Roberts can do it, too, though he seems unlikely to make such a strong move against a longtime friend and colleague, particularly one on the same side of the political aisle as Roberts.
That leaves the most likely candidate, The Department of Justice. We have written, and we believe, that AG Merrick Garland is sensitive to charges that the Democrats have weaponized the Department. And we think the AG may be leery of putting Thomas under investigation, for fear of riling up opponents of the two Trump investigations. That said, we have also written, and we also believe, that Garland places enormous value on the rule of law. And Thomas has done enough problematic or questionable stuff here that it really requires looking into, if for no other reason than to keep other judges from being tempted to break the rules.
So, our guess is that if Thomas does find himself under scrutiny, that scrutiny will come from the DoJ. We were disinclined, last week, to think that Garland would be willing to take on this particular hot potato. But now, we'd guess it's something like 60/40. And who knows what other dirt ProPublica, the WaPo, or some other outlet might still come up with. (Z)