Schiff on Possible Ginni Thomas Subpoena: Clarence Thomas Crossed a Line

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas crossed a line when he dissented on the Supreme Court rejection of former President Donald Trump’s attempt to block the release of records to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol.

Schiff was responding to a question about the committee potentially subpoenaing Ginni Thomas over text messages she sent to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Partial transcript as follows:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Your colleague Liz Cheney was on two other networks this morning, and she said that you all are discussing a potential subpoena for Ginni Thomas, who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Are there lines that shouldn’t be crossed here when it comes to the Supreme Court? Because one of the objections to the premise of a subpoena here is that it- it sets a dangerous precedent by putting the spouse of a justice in this political forum.

REP. SCHIFF: There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed, but those lines involve sitting Supreme Court justices, not presiding or appearing or taking action in cases in which their spouse may be implicated. And in this case, for Clarence Thomas to issue a decision, in a case, a dissent in a case where Congress is trying to get documents, and those documents might involve his own wife, that’s the line that’s been crossed. And I think, for Congress to be looking into these issues, looking into conflict of interest issues. But here, looking into issues, whether it involves the wife of a Supreme Court justice or anyone else, if they have information or role in an effort to overturn an election. Yes, they’re not excluded from examination.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It sounds like you’re saying you favor that subpoena?

REP. SCHIFF: Well, if she has relevant information or investigation, we hope she comes in voluntarily. But if she doesn’t, then we should give that a serious consideration. And, yes, I think those that we decided have important enough information should be subpoenaed.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN