Home » News » Opinion: Why isn’t the House Judiciary Committee looking into red flags about Clarence Thomas?

Opinion: Why isn’t the House Judiciary Committee looking into red flags about Clarence Thomas?

by Emma Walker – News Editor

Jordan‘s Focus⁣ on Trump Raises Questions as Thomas Ethics Concerns Go⁤ Unaddressed

WASHINGTON – ⁢While ‍the Senate Judiciary Committee moves to‌ address ethical questions surrounding Supreme​ Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the house Judiciary Committee,⁣ now led ⁣by Representative Jim Jordan,⁤ has conspicuously shifted its ‍focus to investigations benefiting former President Donald ⁤Trump, prompting criticism that‌ the ​committee is prioritizing partisan loyalty over its stated​ role‍ as “the​ lawyer for the House of Representatives.”

The ⁤contrast⁣ in ⁢approaches‌ comes ⁢as reporting continues to surface regarding financial dealings between Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow, raising concerns‌ about potential conflicts‍ of interest. In response,‍ the Senate ‍Judiciary⁢ Committee announced plans for a hearing “on the need to restore confidence in the Supreme ⁣Court’s ethical standards,” and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson have formally requested a referral of Thomas to the Attorney General for potential⁣ violations of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

However, the House ⁤January 6 committee’s report identified Jordan‍ as “a⁤ meaningful player in ⁣President Trump’s efforts” to overturn the 2020⁢ election. ​The report detailed Jordan’s involvement,‍ including ⁣leading a conference call on January 2, 2021, with Trump and other ⁢members of Congress to discuss strategies for‌ delaying the January⁤ 6th joint​ session. Despite a subpoena, Jordan refused to cooperate with the January 6‍ committee’s investigation.

This​ history has led to accusations that under Jordan, the⁢ House Judiciary Committee is now‍ functioning as “the lawyer for Donald ⁤J. Trump,” with taxpayers footing the bill for investigations aligned ⁢with the former president’s interests while⁣ legitimate ethical concerns regarding a Supreme court⁢ Justice appear to be⁢ sidelined.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.