Speaker 1: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, we have now learned, has been for
years claiming income from a company that did not actually exist when he said he earned
income from that company.
Now, is this simply a paperwork mistake or an innocent mixup, or is it the latest in
multiple new chapters of the questions surrounding Clarence Thomas?
We are going to discuss all of it.
Now, you may be saying, David, I just heard something about Clarence Thomas a week and
a half ago before you left.
You told us about Clarence Thomas's financial relationship with a billionaire.
Vacations, yachts, all sorts of different things.
And yes, that is indeed true.
But there are now multiple new allegations against Clarence Thomas.
So let's jump into the first one.
This is from a Washington Post investigation which says Clarence Thomas has for years claimed
income from a defunct real estate firm.
The misstatements, which began when a family business transferred its holdings to another
company, are part of a pattern that has raised questions about how the Supreme Court justice
views his obligation to accurately report details about his finances to the public.
The details are actually relatively straightforward here.
Over the last two decades, Clarence Thomas has reported on financial disclosure forms
that his family was receiving rental income to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars
from a company called Ginger Limited Partnership.
That company, which is a Nebraska real estate firm launched in the 1980s, has not existed
since 2006.
Okay, That's 17 years that this company has not existed.
That company was shut down and a separate firm was created.
The similarly named firm assumed control of the shuttered company.
But Clarence Thomas keeps reporting that he's making between 50 and $100,000 a year from
that company.
There is no mention of the actual company that exists Ginger Holdings LLC.
Now, could this just be an innocent paperwork error?
Well, the article addresses that.
It says the previously unreported misstatement might be dismissed as a paperwork error, but
it is among a series of errors and omissions that Thomas has made on these forms over the
last many decades.
And if you take them all together, there are a number of red flags here.
Now, this is not the only new controversy involving Clarence Thomas.
The Grio reports Thomas sold real estate to a donor and didn't report that he did that.
This is this is yet another one of these.
Oh, it's a mistake, which just by coincidence, makes it seem as though Thomas has fewer financial
entanglements with donors and influence peddlers.
The Grio reports the 2014 real estate deal shines a new light on Thomas's decades old
relationship with Harlan Crowe.
That is the real estate magnate and financier for conservative causes, who I told you about
a week and a half ago.
And indeed, Harlan Crowe bought properties, three properties belonging to Clarence Thomas
and his family in a transaction worth more than $100,000 that Thomas did not ever report.
So listen, Clarence Thomas should resign.
The totality of the financial picture here is an absolute nightmare.
Over the weekend, I read about something called the Abe Fortas President Fortas is spelled
f0rtas.
Abe Fortas was a Supreme Court justice appointed by LBJ in 1965.
He was nominated by LBJ to Chief Justice in 68.
But that nomination was eventually withdrawn because of controversy related to his financial
dealings.
And the Fortas president precedent refers to this kind of tradition that has emerged
since his nomination was withdrawn, which suggests Supreme Court nominees who have been
the subject of significant controversy or opposition during their confirmation process
may not be successful in their bid for appointment to the court.
So, in other words, the idea is if a Supreme Court nominee becomes too controversial, they
ultimately are not going to succeed.
And it's been cited a whole bunch of different times.
It came up with Brett Kavanaugh.
We know Brett Kavanaugh ultimately did become Supreme Court justice, etc..
And the idea here is it's time to go.
It's time to get out.
Now, whether this actually is going to come to force when it comes to Clarence Thomas
is on.
Clear.
But the argument that's being made is this all actually goes back to Clarence Thomas.
Start on the court.
It goes back to those hearings where Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment.
And we should have known at the time that he was unfit to serve on the court.
That, in a way, telegraphed or predicted what ultimately is coming to pass with Clarence
Thomas, which is a sort of 20 year record of endless forms of financial impropriety,
questions which ultimately are going to force him off the court.
Now, do I believe Clarence Thomas is actually going to be forced off of the court?
I really don't.
And one of the things that we have seen is that while on paper, there are all sorts of
different rules and conventions and stipulations and laws when they are actually challenged,
just because a check or balance is there in writing does not mean it will actually be
enforced.
We've seen so many Hatch Act violations during the Trump administration, Kellyanne Conway
and others.
It all went nowhere.
We've seen all sorts of violations of the way presidents are supposed to comport themselves
during the Trump administration.
And at least for the most part, there have been no consequences.
So do I believe that Thomas should resign?
Of course.
Do I believe that Clarence Thomas has violated those judicial canons which say that judges
and justices should avoid not only actual impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety?
Of course, that's been violated by Clarence Thomas.
But do I believe he will actually be held accountable for it?
I don't.
If you do, I want to hear from you, because if anything, we've learned over the last six
years that unless we really have a system not only willing to have checks and balances,
but to actually enforce them and hold people accountable for them, nothing happens.
And that's been the greatest lesson of the last six years for me.