Clarence and Ginni Thomas should be investigated for influence peddling and criminal conspiracy- Updated

 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni may be guilty of violating 
Federal Law.

 

 In March of 2022, several articles have appeared describing how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni has apparently sold access to her husband for the couple's financial gain. Numerous articles described Ginni Thomas's activites, including piece in The New Yorker which highlighted how Mrs. Thomas, through her lobbying firm, has worked with a variety of groups that have had cases before the Supreme Court. A piece that appeared on NPR in January of 2022 described the influence that Mrs. Thomas wields over the court. On June 10th of 2022, information became available that Ginni Thomas had pressured lawmakers in Arizona to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election, and to choose an alternate slate of pro-Trump electors, to ensure the re-election of former President Donald Trump. 

    The casual term for what Ginni and Clarence Thomas appear to be guilty of is "influence peddling", which is commonly defined as: "... ‘traffic of influence’ or ‘trading in influence’, is the act of promising or giving a benefit or a payment to a person who has a real or potential influence on the decision-making of a public official. This act is done with the intent that the latter will persuade the decision-maker to act in a desired manner." Specifically, Ginni Thomas appears to have repeatedly promised access to her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as a benefit of contracting with her lobbying firm. The relevant section of Federal Law that would apply in this case is 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses. That section declares that: "(1) [T]he term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror...the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed...to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person." Because a Supreme Court Justice is defined by law as an officer of the Supreme Court, which is the highest court of the Judicial Branch of government, there is no question that this section would apply to Clarence Thomas. Because Ginni Thomas is his wife, and is promising access to him -an officer of the Supreme Court- and charging clients for that access through her firm, there is no question that both Clarence and Ginni Thomas appear to be enjoying a financial benefit, from her lobbying activities. Here we have established, through a plain-language interpretation of the o18 U.S. Code § 201pening section of 18 U.S. Code § 201, that this section of law clearly applies to Clarence and Ginni Thomas. Clarence Thomas is an officer of the Supreme Court, his wife was peddling access to him through her lobbying firm, and, as a married couple, they enjoyed a financial benefit, in the form of payments for lobbying services, form that activity. 

    18 U.S. Code § 201 also declares that: "being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person." This is the part where we need to consider the nature of "probable cause". "Probable Cause" is defined as "a reasonable belief that a crime may have been committed." The standard of probable cause is much lower than the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and may be based upon information that appears in news articles, such as those cited above. Given the descriptions of Ginni Thomas's behavior during her time as a Washington DC lobbyist, it appears that she repeatedly offered access to her husband to various conservative Political Action Committees. If Justice Thomas met with representatives of those organizations, and engaged in conversations about cases coming before the court, and either promised to offer a ruling favorable to those parties, or advised them on which legal precedents to cite or how to frame arguments in a manner that Thomas felt would be most convincing to other justices on the court, then those promises or acts of advisement would constitute the improper access to a government official that 18 U.S. Code § 201 was specifically intended to prevent. 

    Section 3 of 18 U.S. Code § 201 further defines potentially criminal activity by declaring an act to be criminal if a party: "directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom..." In this case, the Political Action Committees that contracted Ginni Thomas's services in exchange for access to Justice Thomas (an officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony) may also be charged under this statute. 

    News of Ginni Thomas being involved in efforts to pressure lawmakers in Arizona to overturn the results of a Presidential election adds an additional potential charge against her: 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. One of the two legal precedents that is typically used to guide 18 U.S. Code § 371 prosecutions comes from the Supreme Court case Hammerschmidt v. United States. A key passage from the holding in that case is: "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention." There is no question that asking state officials to overturn the results of a Presidential election constitutes an attempt to "interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful goverment functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." That Thomas was acting as part of a team of people associated with the Trump White House -thereby satisfying the "two or more people" requirement is also not in question. Thomas's urging of state officials to replace electors with individuals who would vote for President Trump constitutes a violation of the Voting Rights Act which is encoded into Federal law at 18 U.S. Code § 595 - Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments. That section of the US Code makes it a crime for a state official to use "...his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner..." Thomas was effectively sending a series of messages urging state officials in Arizona to abuse the authority of their offices by throwing out the results of an election and substituting a result that suited their own partisan political interest, in gross violation of the Voting Rights Act. Ginni Thomas is a long-time political activist in the GOP, an attorney and the wife of a Supreme Court Justice. As such, she cannot rationally or realistically claim to have simply been ignorant of Federal law. Therefore, her documented record of urging state officials in Arizona to violate Federal Law constitutes a very clear demonstration of criminal intent. 

    Improper influence of a Supreme Court Justice and violations of the Voting Rights Act are both very serious matters. If it can be proven in a court of law that accounts of Ginni Thomas marketing access to her husband to various Political Action Committees are accurate, and that Justice Thomas offered either promises or advisement to those PACs on cases coming before the court, then such behavior would clearly violate the language of 18 U.S. Code § 201. Supreme Court Justices are not bound by ethics guidelines in the same manner that lower court judges are, and are able to make their own decisions on when recusal is necessary. However, Federal Judges are not exempt from Federal Law. Justice Clarence Thomas has never recused himself from a case, including several where his wife had direct interactions with litigants involved in that case. The Constitution declares that Supreme Court Justices declares that Supreme Court Justices may serve "during periods of good behavior". Violating Federal bribery statutes by accepting payments, offering promises, or improper legal advisement to Political Action Committees who are party to proceedings before the Supreme Court definitely does not constitute "good behavior". Ginni Thomas's actions in Arizona are also grounds for a criminal conviction. She repeatedly contacted lawmakers urging them to throw out the results of an election in plain violation of the Voting Rights Act. Thomas coordinated her activities with other political activists associated with the Trump White House to try to affect that outcome. Ginni Thomas is a long time political lobbyist, an attorney, and the wife of a Supreme Court justice. As such, she must know that her words carry some weight with party officials, and she cannot claim to simply be a private party expressing her opinion. Clarence and Ginni Thomas should both be investigated for influence peddling, and Ginni Thomas should be investigated for conspiracy to defraud the Federal Government.