Washington Post associate editor Ruth Marcus joined Tuesday’s edition of Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC to talk about the day’s Senate hearing on “ethics reform” and to claim that “any reasonable person” should conclude it is “all so really disturbing” that Republicans played clips of Clarence Thomas in his 1991 confirmation hearing talking about a “high-tech lynching.”
Washington correspondent Yamiche Alcindor had just referenced the playing of the famous clip when Mitchell tossed the conversation over to Marcus, but not before she got a chance to play the sexism card, “Well that takes us back, Ruth, because you and I covered the 1991 hearings of Clarence Thomas versus Anita Hill from an all-male Judiciary Committee.”
After reading a letter from former federal judge Michael Luttig, Mitchell claimed that most of the talk is about Thomas is because the revelation that he has a rich friend is just so noteworthy, “So, Ruth we focus on Clarence Thomas because of the revelations that Harlan Crow, a very prominent billionaire Republican contributor, friend of Clarence Thomas, bought his mother's house, renovated it in addition to supporting Clarence Thomas in around the world trips, without any disclosure on his disclosure forms.”
A solemn Marcus agreed, “Yes, in a better world, Andrea, in a serious world, that story would have prompted two things. It would have prompted soul searching among the justices about whether they are doing enough to make sure that their behavior is, as Judge Luttig -- he was almost Justice Luttig, by the way--, as Judge Luttig said, whether their behavior was up to the proper standards and if not, what they needed to do about it.”
In a serious world, MSNBC would ask why all these concerns about the Court and ethics are going after conservative justices and not liberal ones, but Marcus isn’t a serious person. Instead, she continued, “It also would have sparked a -- and I know this is an imaginary world I'm talking about-- a bipartisan conversation among members of the judiciary about what role they can and should play in getting there.”
As Marcus fantasized about a world where Republicans accepted the media and Democratic premise about Thomas and other conservative justices, she lamented the real world where Republicans remember how the left has treated Thomas over the years:
Instead, we have this, I guess, predictable and still quite astonishing replay of “high-tech lynching,” including as Yamiche said the actual replay of the video. At least two of the Republican senators mentioned that phrase, high-tech lynching and this is just all so really disturbing, because I think any reasonable person reading the facts of the story involving Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow would stop and say, "hey, what's going on here, are things -- this doesn't look right to take so much largesse from one person," but that’s—we’re just not capable of looking at that without assigning political animus and political motivation and look, I think that's true on both sides.
Marcus’s claim about “both sides” is hard to take seriously considering she went on a diatribe against only one side.
This segment was sponsored by Verizon.
Here is a transcript for the May 2 show:
MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports
5/2/2023
12:38 PM ET
ANDREA MITCHELL: Well that takes us back, Ruth, because you and I covered the 1991 hearings of Clarence Thomas versus Anita Hill from an all-male Judiciary Committee. Now, Judge Luttig, a really highly regarded conservative former federal judge, federal appeals court judge, Michael Luttig, who advised Mike Pence on his limited role in voting the electoral votes, longtime friend of Clarence Thomas, he was invited to the hearing.
He sent this letter, which reads in part, for justices “to conduct themselves in their non-judicial conduct and activities in such a manner that they are individually deserving of respect—indeed, beyond reproach, not only in fact, but also in appearance. This, at all times and places, in both public and private” is important.
So, Ruth we focus on Clarence Thomas because of the revelations that Harlan Crow, a very prominent billionaire Republican contributor, friend of Clarence Thomas, bought his mother's house, renovated it in addition to supporting Clarence Thomas in around the world trips, without any disclosure on his disclosure forms.
RUTH MARCUS: Yes, in a better world, Andrea, in a serious world, that story would have prompted two things. It would have prompted soul searching among the justices about whether they are doing enough to make sure that their behavior is, as Judge Luttig -- he was almost Justice Luttig, by the way--, as Judge Luttig said, whether their behavior was up to the proper standards and if not, what they needed to do about it.
It also would have sparked a -- and I know this is an imaginary world I'm talking about-- a bipartisan conversation among members of the judiciary about what role they can and should play in getting there. Instead, we have this, I guess, predictable and still quite astonishing replay of “high-tech lynching,” including as Yamiche said the actual replay of the video. At least two of the Republican senators mentioned that phrase, high-tech lynching and this is just all so really disturbing, because I think any reasonable person reading the facts of the story involving Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow would stop and say, "hey, what's going on here, are things -- this doesn't look right to take so much largesse from one person," but that’s—we’re just not capable of looking at that without assigning political animus and political motivation and look, I think that's true on both sides.
