Editor’s Note: Dean Obeidallah, a former lawyer, hosts “The Dean Obeidallah Show” on SiriusXM radio. You can follow him @[email protected]. The views expressed in this commentary are solely his own. See more opinion on UJ.
UJ
—
On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee, led by Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan, will conduct a field hearing in New York titled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.” The hearing aims to assess how, according to the committee, the policies of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg have caused an “increase in violent crime and a hazardous environment for the residents of New York City.”
In response, Bragg’s office criticized Jordan’s hearing as “a political stunt,” highlighting that data from the New York Police Department indicate a reduction in violent crime in Manhattan, including murders, burglaries, and robberies compared to last year up to April 2.
In reality, this hearing led by Jordan is not focused on crime reduction but rather on defending Trump, who has recently been charged with 34 felonies by a Manhattan grand jury. Trump has pleaded not guilty to these charges connected to a hush-money payment to an adult film actress. Additionally, he is under investigation in other areas regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified materials at Mar-a-Lago.
Last week, Bragg took legal action against Jordan and his committee in federal court, accusing the Judiciary Committee chairman of conducting a “transparent campaign to intimidate and assail” his office for investigating and prosecuting Trump by demanding confidential documents and testimonies.
While Jordan and his committee seem intent on discrediting the investigation into Trump, why are they not probing the recent shocking reports by ProPublica that raised concerns about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial ties with GOP donor Harlan Crow? The House Judiciary Committee’s website states that it oversees “matters concerning the administration of justice in federal courts,” making the revelations regarding Thomas highly relevant.
Initially, it was revealed in early April that Crow had been providing Thomas and his spouse, Ginni, with extravagant vacations for decades, including trips on the donor’s yacht and private jet to exotic destinations like Indonesia and New Zealand. This information had never been disclosed to the public. (In a rare public comment, Thomas stated he was informed at the time that he did not need to report these trips. He acknowledged that the guidelines for reporting personal hospitality have evolved recently, adding, “And, it is, of course, my intent to adhere to this guidance moving forward.”)
Then, on Thursday, ProPublica reported that Thomas neglected to disclose a real estate transaction in 2014 involving the sale of three properties owned by him and his family in Savannah, Georgia, to the same GOP donor, Crow. According to ProPublica, one of Crow’s companies purchased the properties for $133,363. A federal disclosure law enacted after Watergate mandates that Supreme Court justices and other officials disclose most real estate transactions exceeding $1,000.
As ProPublica pointed out, the federal disclosure form Thomas submitted for that year included a section to report the buyer’s identity in any private transaction, yet Thomas left that section empty. Four ethics law experts told ProPublica that Thomas’ omission appears to violate the law. (Thomas did not respond to inquiries from ProPublica; UJ reached out to both the Supreme Court and Thomas for comment.)
The House Judiciary Committee has historically tackled issues such as these surrounding Thomas. This committee is often where investigations and impeachment of federal judges begin.
A recent illustration occurred in 2010 with Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., whom the committee investigated and recommended for impeachment.
The committee’s Task Force on Judicial Impeachment cited evidence indicating that Porteous “intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings.” Ultimately, the Senate found Porteous guilty on four counts of impeachment and removed him from his position.
Nonetheless, the Judiciary Committee has issued no statements or tweets expressing concern regarding Thomas. Instead, their Twitter account is full of continuous tweets lamenting that C-SPAN won’t broadcast Monday’s field hearing in New York. Even worse, the committee retweeted a post from GOP Rep. Mary Miller defending Thomas against the attacks claiming he is “a man of deep faith, who loves our country and believes in our Constitution.”
Jordan’s utilization of his committee to support Trump should not come as a surprise. The House January 6 committee’s report identified the Ohio Republican as “a significant player in President Trump’s attempts” to overturn the election. It detailed Jordan’s strategies to help Trump, including leading a conference call on January 2, 2021, with the President and other Congress members to discuss delaying the January 6th joint session. Consequently, the January 6 committee subpoenaed Jordan to testify, but he chose not to cooperate.
Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter
In contrast to the House committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democrats, recently announced it intends to hold a hearing “to restore confidence in the ethical standards of the Supreme Court.” Furthermore, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island and Rep. Hank Johnson from Georgia sent a letter on Friday suggesting a referral of Thomas to the US attorney general concerning potential breaches of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
The House Judiciary Committee’s website claims, “The Committee on the Judiciary has been referred to as the lawyer for the House of Representatives.” Under Jordan’s leadership, this description should be revised to indicate that the Committee on the Judiciary is now “the lawyer for Donald J. Trump.” Sadly, it is the taxpayers who bear the cost of Jordan’s endeavors on Trump’s behalf.
