AND AT THE NATION, AUTHOR OF THE
NEW "NEW YORK TIMES"
BEST-SELLING BOOK "A BLACK GUY'S
GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION."
LISTEN, PEOPLE OUT THERE SAY,
WHY SHOULD CHARNS THOMAS RECUSE
HIMSELF FROM JANUARY 6th CASES
BECAUSE OF LIS WIFE'S BEHAVIOR?
HOW DO YOU RESPOND?
>> YEAH.
AS I SAID IN THAT ARTICLE, THE
PROBLEM IS NOT GINNI THOMAS.
SHE IS FREE TO GO AROUND AND
INSPIREINSURRECTION
WHATEVER SHE DOES.
THE PROMISE IS CLARENCE THOMAS
IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOVE THE
FRAY.
SPROEZED TO BE AN IMPARTIAL
JUSTICE AND NOBODY SHOULD
BELIEVE HE IS IMPARTIAL WHEN IT
COMES TO DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT
THINGS LIKE HIS MESSY WIFE'S
TEXT MESSAGES SHOULD BE REVEALED
TO THE PUBLIC.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT A
LOVING HUSBAND CAN IMPARTIALLY
DECIDE.
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS.
AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT THOMAS
HAS BEEN MESSY WHEN IT COMES TO
THIS KIND OF CORRUPTION BASED ON
HIS WIFE FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER.
THOMAS REDUCED HIMSELF IN CASES
INVOLVING HIS FORMER EMPLOYER,
CASES INVOLVING HIS SON BUT
NEVER NOT ONCE IN 30 YEARS
RECUSED HIMSELF BECAUSE OF GINNI
THOMAS' ACTIVITIES, EVEN THOUGH
HER ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN ALL
WRAPPED UP IN CASES IN
CONTROVERSIES IN THOMAS' OWN
COURTROOM.
>> RIGHT.
OBAMACARE CARE IS ONE CASE THAT
COMES TO MIND.
REPRESENTATIVE ZOE LOFGREN
TALKED TO MY COLLEAGUE A SHORT
TIME AGO WHETHER GINNI THOMAS
SHOULD BE SUBPOENAED.
LISTEN TO WHAT SHE SAID.
>> THE FACT THAT SHE WENT DOWN A
CONSPIRACY RABBIT HOLE AND SAID
REALLY BIZARRE THINGS IN HER
TEXTS DOESN'T MAKE HER
NECESSARILY AN IMPORTANT FIGURE
IN THE JANUARY 6th PLOT.
>> NO YOUR OPINION, SHOULD
THOMAS BE CALLED BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE?
>> YES.
OF COURSE.
LIKE, HOW ARE WE STILL MESSING
AROUND WITH THIS STUFF?
SHE WHO DONE THINGS LIKE SENT
TRUMP AND ENEMIES LIST. RIGHT?
APPARENTLY SHE WAS INSTEGRAL
HELPING PEOPLE RAISE AWARENESS
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP SET HE
WOULDN'T HAVE GINNI THOMAS IN
THE ROOM BUT RFOR HER POWERFUL
HUSBAND.
THOMAS WAS THE ONLY ONE VOTING
AGAINST RELEASING TUMPRUMPS FROM
THE WHITE HOUSE.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF
CORRUPTION THAT SHE'S TRAINING
ONTHE ONLY REASON THE JANUARY
6th COMMITTEE IS AFRAID OF
SUBPOENAING GINNI THOMAS IS
BECAUSE OF HER POWERFUL HUSBAND.
WHICH IS THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE
CORRUPTION.
I THINK IT'S INSULTING TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SUGGEST THIS
PERSON IS NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH
TO BE CALLED TO TESTIFY.
>> IT'S WILD THIS IS ALL PLAYING
OUT AS WE HAVE CONFIRMATION
HEARINGS FOR JUDGE KETANJI BROWN
JACKSON.
LISTEN HOW VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS
SPOKE ABOUT IT WITH MY COLLEAGUE
JOY REID.
TAKE A LISTEN. >> I EXPERIENCED GREAT JOY WHEN
>> I EXPERIENCED GREAT JOY WHEN
I WATCHED THIS BRILLIANT
PHENOMENAL BLACK WOMAN JURIST BE
SO SMART AND JUST CUT THROUGH
THE POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP THEY
WERE ATTEMPTING TO INCITE.
AND SHE JUST WAS KOEZED, AND AS
FAR AS I'M CONCERNED WAS TAKING
A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE TO SCHOOL.
>> AT PUNONE POINT, YOUR THOUGHT
ON THAT AND THE OPTICS OF US
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT
CLARENCE THOMAS AND HIS WIFE AND
THEIR BEHAVIOR AND THE WAY YOU
HAD KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
TREATED BY REPUBLICANS IN THOSE
HEARING
HEARINGS?
>> START WITH HYPOCRISY.
ASKED IF SHE WOULD RECUSE
HERSELF FROM HARVARD BECAUSE ON
THE HARVARD BORT OF OVERSEERS.
SHE SAID, YES.
ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE.
ELENA KAGAN RECUSED HERSELF ALL
THE TIME CASES SHE INVOLVED
HERSELF WITH.
WHY IS THERE ONE STANDARD OF
REVIEW FOR WOMEN ON THE SUPREME
COURT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE
MEN ON THE SUPREME COURT?
LIKE, HOW -- MAKE THAT MAKE
SENSE.
HOW CAN THESE REPUBLICANS OUT OF
ONE SIDE OF THEIR MOUTH DEMAND
JACKSON RECUSE HERSELF FROM A
HARVARD CASE WHEN SHE'S ON THE
BOARD BUT WON'T DEMAND THOMAS
RECUSE HIMSELF WHEN HIS WIFE'S
TEXT MESSAGES ARE SOME OF THE
DOCUMENTS THAT THE JANUARY 6th
COMMITTEE IS LOOKING TO REVEAL.
THE HYPOCRISY IS OBVIOUS, I
THINK, TO MOST PEOPLE, BUT,
AGAIN, I ALWAYS TRY TO BRING IT
BACK TO WHAT CAN THE DEMOCRATS
DO ABOUT THIS?
LET'S REMEMBER THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OPERATES WITHOUT ETHICS
RULES.
LET'S REMEMBER THAT THE
DEMOCRATS TRY TO PASS HR1, HAD A
LOT OF ETHICS FOR CONGRESS, NOT
FOR THE SUPREME COURT AND MAYBE
WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THIS AND
MAYBE ASKING JOE MANCHIN AND
KRISTEN SINEMA WHY THEY ARE
AGAINST ETHICS FOR THE SUPREME
COURT AND FOR CONGRESS?
BECAUSE THAT'S THE BOTTLENECK
RIGHT NOW.
IT'S NOT, YOU CAN'T EXPECT
REPUBLICANS TO BE ANYMORE THAN
THEY ARE.
THEY ARE HYPOCRITES AND THEY ARE
LIARS.
BUT AT SOME POINT DEMOCRATS HAVE
TO ANSWER FOR WHY THEY'RE NOT
DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN DO TO