Peter Strzok, the former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, said that there is no way that Justice Clarence Thomas should have any role in deciding anything involving the 2020 election.
Speaking to Strzok and John Heilemann, MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace explained that Thomas is the one who saved Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) from a subpoena about his role in attempting to get the vote count changed in Georgia. Graham was subpoenaed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, but the senator is desperately fighting not to give testimony under oath. He hasn't clarified why other than he doesn't think he should have to because he was only making the calls as part of his own research on voting to certify the election on Jan. 6.
"These stories are so provocative, I guess, because John Roberts would have you believe he cares," said Wallace. "He cares that in the Gallup poll the Supreme Court has plunged over 20, 25 points."
Roberts has actually made it clear that he doesn't understand why people hate the court and why they're questioning the legitimacy of the court.
“Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism. In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time," Robert said in Sept. 2022 at a judicial conference. "But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the Court.”
One of the main complaints began when Republicans stole a seat from President Barack Obama after Antonin Scalia died suddenly. Republicans refused to fill the seat for nearly a year, saying Americans deserved to vote for who they wanted to hire as the next justice. But when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Republicans refused to allow Americans the right to vote for who they wanted to replace the justice.
"And yet today Clarence Thomas, whose wife doesn't lie about still believing that Donald Trump should be reinstated, should be the president and that Joe Biden stole the election, he's deciding cases involving an investigation into just that."
Heilemann said that there's not much that Roberts actually could do.
"There is some question obviously about whether Roberts could step outside the traditional role and decide to do things that no Supreme Court justice has ever done, like try to call on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases where he seems to have a conflict," said Heilemann. "But I do think that one of the things that the poison fruit at the center of all this is as we've learned more about Ginni Thomas and her role we've never gone back really and had a full accounting of Clarence Thomas's role on those cases that he's ruled on where he now seems to have been obviously conflicted. We had -- there's been so much news around all of this."
The other thing he noted, which he explained shouldn't get Roberts off the hook, is that the Court operates largely in secrecy. Americans have no ability to watch the trials and there's a "shadow docket" which blocks all transparency.
"I'm just saying as you and I sit here today we have no idea what he might or might not have done inside the court with the exception of one extraordinary leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs case, the Supreme Court operates largely in the shadows and we don't know what conversations have taken place," said Heilemann. "We have very good reporters covering it, but much of what goes on inside those chambers is still unknown to us in real-time. We can't actually have a definitive view of what Roberts has or hasn't done."
But it was Peter Strzok who took it further, saying that Thomas has ethics concerns that should have him removed from all cases involving the 2020 election. Instead, he's decided each of them, bringing them to the Court and then they were knocked down by the full judiciary.
"I think as far as it goes to a broader context of whether or not we should have elected Senators and Representatives involving themselves in voting fraud potentially activities like this, it's very important," said Strzok. "There may be a legitimate question of law here. The issue is not whether or not the Supreme Court should take a look at it. The question is whether or not Clarence Thomas, given the fact — let's think back to Ginni Thomas. I think it was in early November [she was] texting Mark Meadows about the 'Biden crime family' and other 'ballot conspiracy theorists in the lamestream media' and others are being arrested and put on -- literally said 'put on barges off the coast of Guantanamo so that they can face tribunals for sedition.' This person married to a Supreme Court justice talking about the' Biden crime family.'"
He said that in a moment of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court there should not be one person granting a stay for a U.S. Senator.
"That easily is something that he could have and should have in my opinion recused from," continued Strzok. "And again, when it comes to Sen. Graham, I think it's critically important to understand what the boundaries are and are not for elected federal representatives, how that matters in the big scheme of things of what Georgia is facing. I think there is a lot of compelling evidence across the board."
He closed by saying that he thinks it's important "for the Supreme Court to salvage and maintain its credibility that this is absolutely something that, you know, Thomas should not have taken part in. And as John said and you've noted, this is becoming a pattern of behavior" with Thomas.
ALSO IN THE NEWS: Indicted billionaire Trump associate testifies former president was 'disastrous' for business
See the discussion below or at this link.
Peter Strzok argues why Clarence Thomas shouldn’t have any involvement in any election casesyoutu.be
