TRIBE, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AT
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, HE HAS WON
35 CASES IN THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT.
PROFESSOR, WE HAVE BEEN EAGER
TO GET YOUR REACTION ABOUT WHAT
WE KNOW OF CLARENCE THOMAS'S
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE.
>> WELL, AS YOU SAID, LAWRENCE,
WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT HIS WIFE
HAD A DIRECT INTEREST, NOT
SIMPLY AS A CHEERLEADER, BUT AS
A PARTICIPANT IN THE STRATEGY
TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF AN
ELECTION.
TO PREVENT THE TRANSITION OF
POWER.
SOMETHING THAT JUDGE CARTER,
JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, SAID
IT WAS A SERIOUS CRIME ON THE
PART OF THE PRESIDENT, OR AT
LEAST PROBABLY WAS.
THE ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER THAT I
SUPPOSE JUSTICE THOMAS MIGHT
GIVE IS, I HAD NO IDEA WHAT MY
WIFE WAS UP TO.
OF COURSE, WE DO NOT ALWAYS
ASSUME THAT PEOPLE KNOW IF
THEIR SPOUSES ARE DOING, BUT
THE LAW THAT YOU QUOTED
CONTAINS A PROVISION SAYING
THAT IT JUSTICE IS OBLIGED TO
INQUIRE OF HIS SPOUSE IF THERE
IS DOUBT WHETHER HIS SPOUSE HAS
AN INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDING.
AND HERE, THE INTEREST WAS NOT
EXACTLY SECRET.
IT HAS BEEN WIDELY KNOWN THAT
VIRGINIA THOMAS IS ACTIVELY
ENGAGED IN THE GROUPS THAT WERE
TRYING TO OVERTURN THE
ELECTION.
SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THE TEXT
MESSAGES THAT CLARENCE THOMAS
WOULD HAVE HIDDEN FROM THE
PUBLIC IF HIS SOLO DISSENT HAD
BEEN THE VIEW.
THOSE TEXT MESSAGES SHOW THAT
SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THE
STRATEGY ITSELF, TELLING THEM
THAT THEY SHOULD GET SYDNEY
POWELL TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION.
THAT THEY SHOULD PUT PRESSURE
ON VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.
SHE AND MARK MEADOWS, WHO
WORKED CLOSELY TOGETHER ALL THE
WAY BACK TO THE DAYS OF THE TEA
PARTY, WE'RE BASICALLY IN
CAHOOTS.
HE WAS THE CHIEF OF STAFF, NOT
JUST A BY STANDARD, AND SHE WAS
WORKING WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF.
AND THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT
CLARENCE THOMAS WOULD HAVE KEPT
SECRET WERE ONES THAT HE SHOULD
HAVE HAD NO VOICE IN KEEPING IT
FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
BECAUSE THIS LAW, CONTRARY TO
WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, IS
NOT OPTIONAL.
I HAVE HEARD SUPPOSED EXPERTS
SAY IT APPLIES ONLY TO LOWER
COURT JUDGES.
BUT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE
EXEMPT.
NO, THEY ARE NOT.
IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT NO
JUSTICE SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A
MATTER WHERE HE HAVE REASON TO
KNOW THAT HIS SPOUSE, OR HER
SPOUSE HAS AN INTEREST.
AND THE INTEREST HERE WAS VERY
DIRECT.
NOW IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS NO
CLEAR ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.
BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE
FACT THAT WOULD CLARE'S THOMAS
DID WAS ILLEGAL, AND IF HE
CONTINUES TO PARTICIPATE IN
MATTERS THAT ARISE FROM THE
ATTEMPTS TO GET INFORMATION TO
THE JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE, OR
ANYTHING RELATED TO THE 2020
ELECTION, HE IS GOING TO BE
VIOLATING THE LAW AGAIN.
I WOULD ASSUME, BECAUSE THIS
HURTS THE WHOLE SUPREME COURT,
NOT JUST HIM, IT IS NOT JUST A
--
ON HIS REPUTATION, THAT THE
OTHER JUSTICES ARE GOING TO
WHISPER, AND THE CHEST -- ,,.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THERE ARE
THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO ABOUT
THIS.
IF HE DOES NOT FROM NOW ON
WORKERS IN ALL OF THE MATTERS
THAT ARISE OUT OF THE ATTEMPTED
COUP OF THE INSURRECTION, THAT
HE WILL BE ASSIGNED THE MOST
BORING OF ALL OF THE --
CHIEF JUSTICES HAVE SOMETIMES
DONE THAT FOR PETTY REASONS.
THIS WOULD NOT BE A PETTY
REASON.
IT IS NOT LIKELY WHEN THE
CHIEFS AND THE MAJORITY AND
HAVE THE IDEA TO DECIDE FOR THE
COURT, IT IS NOT LIKELY TO GIVE
CLARENCE THOMAS ANY ASSIGNMENTS
UNTIL JUSTICE THOMAS BEGINS
COMPLYING WITH THE LAW.
NOW, THERE ARE GOING TO BE
CALLS FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER THAT IS NOT
GOING TO GO ANYWHERE.
BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR
THAT JUSTICES HOLD THEIR SEATS
ONLY DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.
AND VIOLATING AN ACT OF
CONGRESS 28 U.S. CODE SECTION
--
IS NOT EXACTLY GOOD BEHAVIOR.
THE THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT IS A
HOLLOW ONE NOW, BUT IT
UNDERSCORES THE SERIOUSNESS OF
WHAT JUSTICE THOMAS HAS DONE.
AS YOU SAY, IT IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT OUR HISTORY INDICATES
OTHER JUSTICES HAVE DONE.
THERE HAVE BEEN SCANDALS, BUT
NOTHING LIKE THIS.
>> YES.
NOT THAT LONG AGO IN WASHINGTON,
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN
BIPARTISAN, INSTANTANEOUS
BIPARTISAN CALLS IN THE HOUSE
AND THE SENATE FOR SOME ACTION
HERE, WHETHER IT BE ACTION BY
THE CHIEF OF SOME SORT, AND
ABSOLUTE DEMANDS THAT CLARENCE
THOMAS RECUSE HIMSELF, AND AN
IMPEACHMENT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
OUT OF THE QUESTION IN THE PAST
FOR THIS.
BUT NOW WE HAVE A SENATE WHERE
WE KNOW WE COULD NEVER GET TO
THE TWO THIRDS VOTE NECESSARY.
SO IN THE MEANTIME, IT IS JUST
A QUESTION OF ASKING THE
COUNTRY TO JUST TRUST CLARENCE
THOMAS'S JUDGMENT?
IS THAT ALL WE HAVE?
>> THAT IS NOT ALL WE HAVE.
CONGRESS CAN HOLD HEARINGS.
MAKING AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
AVAILABLE, AND THE VERY
POSSIBILITY OF THOSE HEARINGS.
THERE ARE STATUES THAT HAVE
BEEN PROPOSED, THE PRESIDENTS
COMMISSION ON SUPREME COURT
REFORM ON WHICH I SERVED,
SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESS MIGHT
MAKE VARIOUS DISQUALIFICATION
PRACTICES MANDATORY.
AND PUT SOME TEETH BEHIND THE
MANDATE.
THE VERY FACT THAT THOSE THINGS
ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED BY
PEOPLE EVEN FROM ONE SIDE OF
THE AISLE SHOULD PUT THE FEAR