Comedian John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight offered U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million a year and a $2.4 million motor coach on Sunday if he agrees to resign from the nation’s highest court.
Thomas, the most senior member of the Court’s conservative majority, has previously faced calls to resign or be impeached amid questions about his relationship with billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and gifts from other rich acquaintances.
Oliver made the offer to Thomas on Sunday during the premiere of season 11 of Last Week Tonight and said he had spoken to legal experts who told him that making such an offer was not against the law.
“Clarence Thomas is arguably the most consequential justice on the court right now and he’s never really seemed to like the job. He said, ‘It’s not worth doing for the grief.’ So what if he can keep the luxury perks he clearly enjoys without having to endure all of that grief,” Oliver said, before revealing what he called “a special offer.”
Newsweek has reached out to the Supreme Court via email forum for comment.
Frazer Harrison and Alex Wong/Getty Images
However, since the offer was made, some have questioned whether Oliver broke the law with the offer pointing out that it violates 18 US Code 201, which prohibits public officials from accepting bribes or gratuities to influence their Government actions.
Michael McAuliffe, a former federal prosecutor and former elected state attorney, told Newsweek via email that Oliver’s offer wasn’t likely made corruptly, adding that a corrupt intent is required to be charged under 18 US Code 201.
“Whether John Oliver is dancing close to prosecutable misconduct under 18 USC section 201 by publicly offering Judge Clarence Thomas $1 million to resign, while a creative proposition, isn’t a close legal question. Oliver’s “offer” isn’t likely made “corruptly” within the meaning of the relevant statutory provision. Having corrupt intent is a requirement for the 201 charge,” McAuliffe told Newsweek.
McAuliffe continues to state that it is also unclear whether a resignation is considered an “official act” under the code, but that it is still unlikely Oliver will face criminal ramifications.
“And it’s entirely unclear whether resignation is an “official act” pursuant to the definition of the term in the statute. In fact, resignation appears not to be within the scope of an official act as defined in the statute. John Oliver might want to add that his offer is only valid if it’s legal to make, but it appears that he’s not likely to join the ranks of defendant,” McAuliffe added.
In addition, Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor told Newsweek via email that no prosecutor or jury will take Oliver’s offer seriously enough to take action.
“Legal theories aside, no prosecutor or jury is going to take a late night talk show host’s ‘offer” seriously, so this won’t result in any criminal trouble for Oliver,” Rahamani told Newsweek.
However, Rahamani adds that if action is taken under Code 201 Oliver could argue several defenses, reiterating McAuliffe’s point of no criminal intent and that retirement or resignation is not an “official act.”
“Oliver has several legal defenses here. Bribery has to influence an official act, and Oliver could argue that retirement is not an ‘official act’ because it not a case or other matter before the Supreme Court. He could also argue that he didn’t have the criminal intent or mens rea to commit bribery because he ended his monologue by saying the payments would not be legal. It’s weaker, but there is a potential First Amendment defense here too,” Rahamani added.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.