Nakedly Corrupt

Even if Clarence Thomas consulted with his Supreme Court colleagues before issuing a stay against Lindsay Graham's being forced to comply with a subpoena that he testify before a Georgia grand jury regarding election interference, the decision is deeply corrupt.

Given that his wife is hip deep in this matter, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explicitly states that a judge should recuse themselves in such matters when there is even the appearance of impropriety.

Of course, the Supreme Court, for reasons unclear to me, are not subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, but this is still a kick in the teeth at the idea of judicial probity:

Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday put a temporary hold on an order that Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) appear before a Georgia grand jury investigating possible attempts by President Donald Trump and his allies to disrupt the state’s 2020 presidential election.

Thomas’s brief order appears to be an attempt to maintain the status quo as Graham’s petition to the Supreme Court advances. Prosecutors face a Thursday deadline for responding to Graham’s request, which usually means the full court will consider the issue.

Last week, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit turned down an attempt by Graham to block a subpoena from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D), in which the lawmaker claimed a sitting senator is shielded from testifying in such investigations.

………

Graham’s petition went to Thomas because he is the justice designated to hear emergency requests from the 11th Circuit. Democrats have demanded Thomas recuse himself from any cases related to the 2020 election because of the activities of his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, who actively protested the outcome. But justices make their own recusal decisions.

………

The Atlanta grand jury investigating alleged 2020 presidential election interference has heard testimony from several Trump lawyers, including Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Boris Epshteyn. Willis also wants to question former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Graham would be asked to testify about calls he made to Georgia election officials soon after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden. Prosecutors say Graham has “unique knowledge” about the Trump campaign and the “multistate, coordinated efforts to influence the results” of the election in Georgia and elsewhere.

But Graham has said his actions were legitimate legislative activity protected by the Constitution’s “speech or debate clause.” The senator’s lawyers have said that they have been informed that Graham is a witness in — and not a target of — the investigation.

Graham's argument is 6 pounds of sh%$ in a 5 pound bag.

Unlike Parliamentary Immunity in many nations, which protects its subjects from pretty much all criminal prosecution, Congressional Immunity has been very limited.  It could be used, for example, to get out of a speeding ticket if the Congressman was on his way to a session, but not for driving drunk (Wilbur Mills) after hours.

There is also the case of William Proxmire, whose claims of Congressional Immunity were soundly denied in response to a defamation suit regarding his "Golden Fleece" press releases.

That Clarence Thomas issued the injunction, rather than recusing himself, is a very clear indication of his lack of character.