Calmes: Clarence Thomas’ Jan. 6 conflicts of interest are showing again. The U.S. District Court Judge found that the Texas grand jury investigating Thomas did not have enough evidence to charge him. And, if it didn’t, the grand jury has no jurisdiction to question Thomas. The judge ruled that Thomas should have no conflict of interest before the jury.
Thomas, who is currently serving as a Virginia Supreme Court justice, wrote a book last year titled “The Radical Center” about his time on the U.S. Supreme Court, and he continues to speak on the topic. The book is required reading for many people, including Thomas. Clarence Thomas should have nothing to do with the grand jury against him as it relates to the charges.
Citing the U.S. Constitution and federal law, the Supreme Court said the Texas grand jury did not have jurisdiction to even look at the case. Texas District Judge Thomas Hardiman ruled that since, “neither the Texas Legislature in adopting the statute nor the Texas grand jury in carrying out its investigative function authorized that statute to reach a particular set of facts that were not properly before this Court. The Court hereby denies the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.”
While Thomas was on the U.S. Supreme Court, he often sided with the right wing on issues such as abortion, and he was quoted as supporting the “partial-birth abortion” movement last year. It would be surprising if Thomas would side with the left wing on a criminal case.
Thomas has an obligation not to be part of a criminal prosecution when he might be called as a witness. He should not be asked to testify in front of a grand jury regarding his political support for the extreme right wing or abortion issues. While Thomas would be a valuable witness at trial on the charges, his testimony could be damaging to his case.
The Texas judge said, “The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing that Thomas has any conflict of interest with respect to the prosecution of the Plaintiffs’ case.”
A transcript of the hearing has not yet been made available, but the court documents