WING USED DARK MONEY TO CAPTURE THE SUPREME COURT." TODAY, SENATOR WHITEHOUSE ANNOUNCED HE IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION THIS YEAR TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE IN RHODE ISLAND. SENATOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US TONIGHT. I GUESS CLARENCE THOMAS IDEA OF RECUSAL IS TO JUST BE THE ONE WHO SAYS THE LEAST, WHICH IS WHAT HE DID TODAY. VERY FEW WORDS. THREE QUESTIONS, I NOTICED. IT DIDN'T TAKE UP MORE THAN A MINUTE OF THE COURTS TIME EACH TIME. >> IT IS NOT SO MUCH WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO SAY IN THE COURTROOM. IT IS WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO SAY TO ANY INVESTIGATOR, TO HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE COURT, OR TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT THE FACTS ARE RELATED TO HIS RECUSAL. AND, THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW, WHERE DUE PROCESS NEVER ACTUALLY GETS AT THE FACTS. EXCEPT AS TO THE SUPREME COURT AND ITS OWN INDISCRETIONS AND ITS OWN ETHICS PROBLEMS. AND SO THAT REMAINS A REAL PROBLEM. THIS IS NOW THE THIRD CASE THAT JUSTICE THOMAS HAS THAT ONE WHERE HE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO MAKE ANY POSITIVE CASE FOR HIMSELF AS TO WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE RECUSED AND THE COURT ITSELF AS AN INSTITUTION HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO INQUIRE INTO THOSE FACTS AND THERE IS NO OTHER PARTY WORKING FOR THE COURT LIKE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL OR STAFF ATTORNEYS OR ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAVE MADE ANY EFFORT TO INTERVIEW HIM AND FIND OUT WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND THAT IS REALLY INEXCUSABLE IN A COUNTRY OF LAWS. THANK YOU, BY THE WAY, FOR MENTIONING MY ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO JOIN THE FUN, COME TO WHITEHOUSEFORSENATE.COM. >> SENATOR, WHAT ELSE DID YOU HERE IN THE SUPREME COURT HEARING TODAY THAT WE EITHER HAVE OR HAVE NOT YET COVERED THAT YOU THINK ACTUALLY SHOULD BE THE WAY THE COURT LOOKS AT THIS? >> WELL, THE PART THAT AGGRAVATED ME, TO COME AT IT FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION, ONCE JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH'S, VERY POMPOUSLY SAYING THAT WE ARE WRITING A RULE FOR THE AGES HERE, AS IF HE'S SOME HIGH PRIEST OF POLICY WHO WILL BE MAKING A LONG DETERMINATIONS. NO, THERE IS A CONSTITUTION. IT SAYS THAT THE COURT IS CONFINED TO DECIDING INDIVIDUAL CASES OR CONTROVERSY. THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY HERE IS IS THIS INDICTMENT VIOLATE ANY KIND OF COMMUNITY PROTECTION. THIS INDICTMENT. INSTEAD, AS YOU POINTED OUT ON THE SHOW, LAWRENCE, THEY WENT OUT ON THIS LONG EXPEDITION THROUGH HYPOTHETICALS AND THROUGH A LOT OF NONSENSE WITH THE RESULT AND PERHAPS HORRIBLY TO SAY THE INTENT OF DELAY. AND, WE WILL SEE HOW QUICKLY THEY RESPOND. REMEMBER BUSH BEAT GORE? THEY DECIDED THAT CASE THE DAY AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT, WHEN IT WAS PUTTING A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN POWER, THEY DIDN'T WASTE A MINUTE. NOW THAT THEY ARE PROTECTING A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT BY DELAY, WE WILL SEE HOW QUICKLY THEY RESPOND TO THIS. BUT, THERE IS A LOT AT STAKE HERE. JUST THE ARROGANCE OF THAT. THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE ORIGINALISTS BUT THEY TALK ABOUT POLICY AS IF THEY ARE LEGISLATORS. THEY SAY THEY ARE MINIMALISTS BUT THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE LANGUAGE FOR NARROW THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY. THIS ARGUMENT HAS EXPLODED SO MANY OF THE PET THEORIES OF THESE JUSTICES THAT IT IS ALMOST COMICAL. >> AND, THEY ARE WILLING TO COMPLETELY IGNORE 234 YEARS OF AMERICAN HISTORY. >> THAT WAS THE GREAT POINT JUSTICE JACKSON MADE. FOR AS LONG AS THERE HAS BEEN AN AMERICA, THERE HAVE BEEN PRESIDENTS WHO DID NOT ENJOY IMMUNITY AND DID NOT BREAK THE LAW. THE JUSTICES WHO WON'T ADMIT THAT THE NOVELTY HERE IS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY A PRESIDENT WHO IS LIKELY A CRIMINAL
