Editor’s Be aware: Dean Obeidallah, a former lawyer, is the host of SiriusXM radio’s every day program “The Dean Obeidallah Present.” Comply with him @DeanObeidallah@masto.ai. The opinions expressed on this commentary are his personal. View extra opinion on CNN.
CNN
—
On Monday, the GOP-controlled Home Judiciary Committee — chaired by Donald Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan — is ready to carry a subject listening to in New York Metropolis known as “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.” An announcement payments the listening to as an examination of how, the Judiciary Committee says, Manhattan District Lawyer Alvin Bragg’s insurance policies have “led to a rise in violent crime and a harmful group for New York Metropolis residents.”
In response, Bragg’s workplace slammed Jordan’s listening to as “a political stunt” whereas noting that knowledge launched by the New York Police Division exhibits crime is down in Manhattan with respect to murders, burglaries, robberies and extra by means of April 2, in contrast with the identical interval final 12 months.
In actuality, this Jordan-led listening to isn’t about stopping crime however about defending Trump — who was lately charged by a Manhattan grand jury with 34 felonies. Trump pleaded not responsible to the legal prices stemming from an investigation right into a hush-money cost to an grownup movie actress. The previous president is also going through legal probes in different jurisdictions over efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his dealing with of labeled paperwork at Mar-a-Lago.
Bragg sued Jordan and his committee final week in federal court docket, accusing the Judiciary Committee chairman of a “clear marketing campaign to intimidate and assault” his workplace for its investigation and prosecution of Trump by making calls for for confidential paperwork and testimony.
Whereas Jordan and his committee seem centered on discrediting the investigation into Trump, why aren’t they trying into two current bombshell studies by ProPublica that raised pink flags about Supreme Courtroom Justice Clarence Thomas’ monetary relationship with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow? In any case, the Home Judiciary Committee’s web site explains that it has jurisdiction over “issues regarding the administration of justice in federal courts” – for which the revelations regarding Thomas match completely.
First, we discovered in early April that Crow had offered Thomas and his spouse, Ginni, for many years with luxurious holidays together with on the donor’s yacht and personal jet to faraway locations similar to Indonesia and New Zealand. That info was by no means revealed to the general public. (In a uncommon public assertion, Thomas responded he was suggested on the time that he didn’t must report the journeys. The justice stated the rules for reporting private hospitality have modified lately. “And, it’s, after all, my intent to observe this steering sooner or later,” he stated.)
Then on Thursday, ProPublica reported that Thomas did not disclose a 2014 actual property deal involving the sale of three properties he and his household owned in Savannah, Georgia, to that very same GOP megadonor, Crow. Considered one of Crow’s firms made the purchases for $133,363, in keeping with ProPublica. A federal disclosure legislation handed after Watergate requires Supreme Courtroom justices and different officers to make public the main points of most actual property gross sales over $1,000.
As ProPublica detailed, the federal disclosure type Thomas filed for that 12 months included an area to report the id of the client in any personal transaction, however Thomas left that house clean. 4 ethics legislation specialists instructed ProPublica that Thomas’ failure to report it seems to be a violation of the legislation. (Thomas didn’t reply to questions from ProPublica on its report; CNN reached out to the Supreme Courtroom and Thomas for remark.)
The Home Judiciary Committee has lengthy addressed points similar to these surrounding Thomas. In truth, the committee is the place investigations and the impeachment of federal judges usually start.
One current instance got here in 2010 with Choose G. Thomas Porteous Jr., whom the committee investigated and beneficial for impeachment.
The committee’s Job Drive on Judicial Impeachment stated proof confirmed Porteous “deliberately made materials false statements and representations below penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted illegal presents, and deliberately misled the Senate throughout his affirmation proceedings.” The Senate later discovered Porteous responsible of 4 articles of impeachment and eliminated him from the bench.
But the Judiciary Committee has neither launched statements nor tweets elevating alarm bells about Thomas. As a substitute, its Twitter feed is stuffed with repeated tweets whining that C-SPAN gained’t cowl Monday’s New York subject listening to. Worse, the committee retweeted GOP Rep. Mary Miller’s tweet defending Thomas as being attacked “as a result of he’s a person of deep religion, who loves our nation and believes in our Structure.”
Jordan’s use of his committee to help Trump ought to shock nobody. The Home January 6 committee’s report known as the Ohio Republican “a major participant in President Trump’s efforts” to overturn the election. The report detailed the lawmaker’s efforts to help Trump together with on “January 2, 2021, Consultant Jordan led a convention name by which he, President Trump, and different Members of Congress mentioned methods for delaying the January sixth joint session.” Because of this, the January 6 committee subpoenaed Jordan to testify — however he refused to cooperate.
In distinction with the Home panel, the Senate Judiciary Committee — headed by Democrats — introduced within the wake of the reporting on Thomas that it plans to carry a listening to “on the necessity to restore confidence within the Supreme Courtroom’s moral requirements.” Past that, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia despatched a letter Friday calling for a referral of Thomas to the US lawyer common over “potential violations of the Ethics in Authorities Act 1978.”
The Home Judiciary Committee’s web site notes, “The Committee on the Judiciary has been known as the lawyer for the Home of Representatives.” Underneath Jordan that description must be up to date to state that the Committee on the Judiciary is now “the lawyer for Donald J. Trump.” And the worst half is that the taxpayers are those paying for Jordan’s work on Trump’s behalf.
