Yes. And it is as plain as the nose on his face that he should have recused himself under the law. The question is an enforcement mechanism. And the Supreme Court does not think they need a enforcement mechanism. Well, I disagree, clearly they do. Clearly they need someone enforcing the rule because Clarence Thomas did not think it applied to him. And that is very dangerous, especially on the highest court of the land.
McCaskill emphasizes the importance of recusal for Supreme Court justices and criticizes Clarence Thomas for not adhering to the law.
Share & report
More from Claire McCaskill
There is a risk to indicting a former president in terms of what it does to this country. But I believe in these circumstances, the risk is so much greater if they let this guy go.
He`s got six different investigations going on. One in Georgia, two in New York, one in DOJ having nothing to do with the documents, the January 6 committee is still very busy.
I have won when the polls said I couldn't and I have lost when the polls said I would win, so I am not a big believer in all of the horse race stuff.
This is -- this was not expected to be this kind of result. They had a record turnout. What this shows in a state where Republican registrations outnumber Democrats, two to one that women are really upset that a fundamental right and freedom has been taken from them. And I think it is going to be a very motivating issue.
Other voices in this conversation
