First on CNN: January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  s  •  3 months ago  •  94 comments

First on CNN: January 6 committee has text messages between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot has in its possession more than two dozen text messages, 29 in total, between former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and   Virginia "Ginni" Thomas , a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to multiple sources familiar with the messages.


These text messages, according to sources, took place between early November 2020 and mid-January 2021. Thomas recently revealed that she attended the pro-Trump rally that preceded the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, but says she "played no role" in planning the events of that day.


The text messages, reviewed by CNN, show Thomas pleading with Meadows to continue the fight to overturn the election results.

"Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!! ... You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America's constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History," Thomas wrote on November 10, 2020.

CNN first reported that the text messages were in the committee's possession.   The Washington Post   first described their content.


Thomas regularly checked in with Meadows to encourage him to push claims of voter fraud and work to prevent the election from being certified. Meadows often responded. On that same day as the previous text, he wrote: "I will stand firm. We will fight until there is no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all you do."


On November 24, 2020, Meadows promised he wasn't done battling on then-President Donald Trump's behalf and evoked his faith as a source of strength.

"This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it."

Thomas wrote to Meadows on November 19, 2020, "Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down." Attorney Sidney Powell, who worked on Trump-aligned lawsuits seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, was also referred to by herself as "The Kraken" in reference to the ancient mythological sea creature.

By the end of November, Thomas was getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress of the attempt to find a path to overturn the results.


On November 24, 2020 she wrote: "I can't see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can't continue the GOP charade."


The committee is in possession of only one text from the month of January 2021, four days after the riot on Capitol Hill.


Thomas wrote to Meadows that she was angry with then-Vice President Mike Pence for not taking the steps necessary to block the certification of the election results.

"We are living through what feels like the end of America. Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in a listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!! Amazing times. The end of Liberty," Thomas wrote.


Thomas' messages reflected a belief that the legal challenges presented by a group of conservative lawyers helping the campaign were valid. She attempted to convince Meadows to put his faith in the hands of Powell, who had spent the weeks following the election claiming to have mountains of evidence of fraud that never materialized.


The content of the text messages may be of interest to the committee's investigation, because it asked Meadows in a subpoena to turn over "both documents and your deposition testimony regarding these and other matters that are within the scope of the committee's activity."


The revelation of text messages between Thomas and Meadows, both key allies of Trump, comes as progressives and some legal ethics experts see her activism as a potential conflict of interest for Thomas' work on some Supreme Court cases.

Meadows turned over thousands of text messages before he stopped cooperating with the committee. The texts have proven to hold a treasure trove of information about what was going on in the White House in the days leading up to the insurrection, and what people in Trump's orbit were thinking.


The text messages in the committee's possession are only part of the tranche of documents that Meadows provided to the committee during the short period of time he was cooperating with their investigation. They do not necessarily represent the sum total of communication between Thomas and Meadows during that period of time.


There is also the possibility some messages were not turned over due to privilege claims.


Meadows and Thomas are longtime friends, both of whom have been active in conservative causes for decades.


While Thomas has been actively involved in politics, she says she has been careful to distance her activity from her husband.


"But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work," she recently told   the Free Beacon.

The work of the January 6 select committee has already come before the Supreme Court. In January, the court did not stand in the way of the release of thousands of documents from the Trump White House despite the former President suing to keep them secret under   executive privilege . The vote on the matter was 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting.

CNN reached out to both Meadows' attorney and Thomas directly for comment and have yet to hear back.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

All those who recognize that women are independent entities who are capable of thinking for themselves, those progressives who don't can, of course, comment but will be mocked.  Since I'm not a coward, posts that I disagree with will not  be deleted. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @1    3 months ago
posts that I disagree with will not  be deleted. 

cool. trumpster conga lines are fun to watch...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago

YOu can post whatever you want on this topic. Ideas don't scare me, unlike some.   Or can you back to your safe space. It's a free country

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
1.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.2    3 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.3    3 months ago
No Value [Perrie Halpern R.A.]    warning.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1642995205
[ deleted ]
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1    3 months ago
All those who recognize that women are independent entities who are capable of thinking for themselves, those progressives who don't can, of course, comment but will be mocked.

I do not disagree that women have their own opinions separate from their husbands, just like Kellyanne Conway and her husband. 

So, here are 2 questions for anyone with that in mind.  If the question of the election had actually made it to SCOTUS.

  1. Would Justice Thomas have recused himself because his wife was actively soliciting the overruling of the election results?
  2. Should Justice Thomas recuse himself because of his wife's involvement?

If you are going to just deflect from these questions, please don't even bother wasting my time.  I am just trying to see different opinions on this.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
1.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    3 months ago

1> Only if he knew of her solicitation

2> See number one

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.1    3 months ago
1> Only if he knew of her solicitation 2> See number one

He is aware of her employment with Koch brother's businesses, yet he has always refused to recuse himself during any Koch business suits that make it to SCOTUS.   In fact he, himself, has very close ties to the Koch brothers, but still refuses to recuse himself.

Why would you think he would recuse himself, even if he'd known about her beliefs, and actions, in regards to the election?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.3  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    3 months ago
s aware of her employment with Koch brother's businesses, y

When was she employed by the Koch Brothers? 

Kagan herself worked for Joe Biden.  Not her spouse. Do you think she should recuse herself from every case involving the Biden Administration? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2.4  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    3 months ago
Would Justice Thomas have recused himself because his wife was actively soliciting the overruling of the election results?

Only if she was suing to overturn the election or was the leader of an organization that was. Just because she has opinions doesn't mean he has to recuse himself. If the spouse of a Justice  supports abortion rights, do you think the justice has to recuse on every case involving abortion?

     Should Justice Thomas recuse himself because of his wife's involvement?

 No. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.3    3 months ago
Kagan herself worked for Joe Biden.  Not her spouse. Do you think she should recuse herself from every case involving the Biden Administration?

Directly involving Biden?  Yes, of course. 

Involving someone in the Biden administration in general?  No, stupid comparison.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.4    3 months ago
Just because she has opinions doesn't mean he has to recuse himself.

This is not a matter of her having opinions, this is a matter of her taking actions to that end.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2  seeder  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

I wonder how these came to be made public. Someone apparently leaked them to the Washington  Post. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 months ago

Who cares how they came to be made public?  Since the arrival of trumpism you have been reduced to endless complaining about process, because you cant defend the content in most instances.  One would think you would be tired of it by now. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 months ago
ho cares how they came to be made public?

Is there anything you won't sanction in your war against Trump? Leaking private information is bad.  There's no reason these were published other than an attempt to smear her husband.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    3 months ago

Does it ever occur to you that maybe her husband deserves to be punished? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 months ago

I think you really need some proof before you can go off with a statement like that.  Does it ever occur to you that maybe his wife is her own person and does her own thing?  Or do  you assume that she is in charge and he does nothing without her approval?  While we're at it, shouldn't we punish the son for the sins of the father?  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.3    3 months ago
While we're at it, shouldn't we punish the son for the sins of the father?  

wasnt Christ already crucified...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.3    3 months ago
Does it ever occur to you that maybe his wife is her own person and does her own thing?  Or do  you assume that she is in charge and he does nothing without her approval?

She works for Koch brothers, Justice Thomas has refused to recuse himself on rulings that have been brought to SCOTUS through Koch brother's businesses.  Coincidentally enough, Justice Thomas has always ruled for the Koch brother in those cases.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.4    3 months ago

Well done, way to completely miss what I said.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.5    3 months ago

Do you have any evidence on why Justice Thomas has ruled the way he has?  if not then all you have is speculation.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.3    3 months ago

They are going after Thomas trying to get him "impeached" so they can load up another piece of shit liberal judge before Mr. Biden is shown the door. In their infinite wisdom, he is the low hanging fruit. And gee. As one of our members always opines, go figure. He's an uncle Tom. /S

Asshole Hypocrites.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.8    3 months ago
Asshole Hypocrites.

careful, you will offend your like thinkers

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.10  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.8    3 months ago

If Thomas was honorable he would resign...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @2.1.10    3 months ago

Why

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.12  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.11    3 months ago

His judicial impartiality is no longer credible!

If he won't retire now the bar can disbar him.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.12    3 months ago
the bar can disbar him.

They won't disbar him for his wife's views.

This isn't the Soviet Union.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @2.1.12    3 months ago
His judicial impartiality is no longer credible!

What!!??

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.15  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.13    3 months ago

Yes, Bill Clinton was disbarred merely for lying about a blowjob. Clarence Thomas has been lying about his wife's complicity in a conspiracy to overthrow the lawfully elected government of the United States of America. Um Hmm!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.15    3 months ago
Clarence Thomas has been lying about his wife's complicity in a conspiracy to overthrow the lawfully elected government of the United States of America.

Link please

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.17  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.16    3 months ago

who do you think she's referring to as "her best friend" in the text? have you forgotten the half million dollars she earned as a teabag consultant they forgot to report on their taxes one year?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.18  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    3 months ago

maybe her husband deserves to be punished

For what?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.19  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.18    3 months ago

How about not recusing himself from any and every case to do with January 6th because his wife is implicated in the whole shebang?

No doing so violated a slew of judicial ethics.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.18    3 months ago
For what?

you see no possibility of a conflict of interest....interesting.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.1.19    3 months ago

How about not recusing himself from any and every case to do with January 6th

Wasn't there only one case, SCOTUS rejected Trump's effort to block the release of some of his presidential records to the House committee investigating the Capitol riot?

No doing so violated a slew of judicial ethics.

Apparently not, as Federal ethics regulations, leave it up to a justice to decide when to disqualify himself  from any proceeding where his impartiality might "reasonably be questioned". 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.20    3 months ago

I know of no punishment available for possible conflict of interest.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.22    3 months ago
I know of no punishment available for possible conflict of interest. 

it seems there are many punishment omissions in our laws and their enforcement.  I would agree in the Sense you're   applying, but also believe

Censure 

would and should be trying, to curtail and minimize such obviously potential interesting conflicts of interest, but, just me inserting my two nonsense, yet again. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.23    3 months ago

Censure 

Perhaps the House will.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.25  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1.12    3 months ago
If he won't retire now the bar can disbar him.

More insanity. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.26  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1.15    3 months ago
larence Thomas has been lying about his wife's complicity in a conspiracy to overthrow the lawfully elected government of the United States of America. Um Hmm!

Your posts are becoming more and more detached from reality. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 months ago

Keep the leaks coming, whoever you are.  America needs to see the true face of the current Republican Party.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 months ago

Mark Meadows gave texts to Jan 6th Committee...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.3.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JBB @2.3    3 months ago

The ultimate backfire.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.2  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.3    3 months ago
Mark Meadows gave texts to Jan 6th Committee...

Yes, exactly. So much for the Thomas recusal conspiracy.

But who leaked the texts to the media? That's the question. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.2    3 months ago
But who leaked the texts to the media? That's the question. 

No, it's not. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.4  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.2    3 months ago

yeah, leaks to the media never happened in the trump administration, did they?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.3.5  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.3    3 months ago

No, it's not. 

Jan 6th committee is not a criminal court, most of what they are doing is in the public domain, so other than classified info, most of the stuff should be available to the press.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.3.6  MrFrost  replied to  JBB @2.3    3 months ago

Mark Meadows gave texts to Jan 6th Committee...

Bingo. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.7  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  devangelical @2.3.4    3 months ago
leaks to the media never happened in the trump administration, did the

Whose private texts did the Trump admin leak? 

And it's great you think that the Trump admin is the arbiter of right and wrong. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.3.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @2.3.4    3 months ago
leaks to the media never happened in the trump administration, did they?

Sure did as long as they were anti Trump leaks.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.3.9  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  devangelical @2.3.4    3 months ago

yeah, leaks to the media never happened in the trump administration, did they?

If you wanted to sneak a cell phone into a meeting with Donald Trump you had to store it where the sun don’t shine and prairie dog it to catch pieces of the conversation.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.3.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.3.8    3 months ago

Sure did as long as they were anti Trump leaks.

Wrong again.  They were leaks about things Trump was doing.  The fact that the leaks were about stupid or outrageous things that Trump was doing, does not make the leak itself "anti-Trump".  Especially when the leaks showed questionable actions by Trump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 months ago
I wonder how these came to be made public.

Look at the cast of characters.. That should lead you to who leaked them. Logically it's someone close to trump, thomas and meadows. Saved text messages don't just fall out of the sky, someone had access to them. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.4.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @2.4    3 months ago
Logically it's someone close to trump, thomas and meadows. Saved text messages don't just fall out of the sky, someone had access to them. 

They were obtained from the Jan 6th  committee. Someone on the committee is leaking them. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.4.2  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.1    3 months ago

trumpsters hate the FOIA...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
2.4.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.1    3 months ago

They were obtained from the Jan 6th  committee. Someone on the committee is leaking them. 

And who gave them to the Jan 6th committee? That's the real question. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.4.4  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @2.4.3    3 months ago
And who gave them to the Jan 6th committee? That's the real question. 

Did you really ask that question?  It's right up in the article at the top of the seed.  The emails were given to the committee by Mark Meadows.  No, the real question is who is leaking these from the committee to the news?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.4.4    3 months ago
the real question is who is leaking these from the committee to the news? 

You guys are a riot. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.4.4    3 months ago

The REAL question is what the fuck is wrong with Ginni Thomas ?  Thats the real question, one which not a single conservative has even tried to answer all day today. 

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
Freshman Silent
2.5  Duck Hawk  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    3 months ago

These were found in the "thousands" of emails Mark Meadows had to turn over to the Jan 6 Committee.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  seeder  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

Illan Omar, apparently not understanding that woman are independent humans capable of independent actions, wants Clarence Thomas to be impeached over these texts. 

She wants to return the world to when woman were the property of their men. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 months ago
She wants to return the world to when woman were the property of their men.

In your imagination. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 months ago
n your imagination. 

How else is Thomas responsible for the texts of his wife?  Is she an independent human or not? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    3 months ago

These texts are from Nov 2020 , and I think one is from December.  Is it your belief that she did not share with her husband her texts with the Chief of staff to the president? It is said these are two peas in a pod, Clarence and Ginni. 

394883-can-someone-please-report-on-the-real-ginni-thomas-the-truth-is-out-there.jpg?size=1156x650&lossy=0&strip=1&webp=1

At some point Trump defenders should at least attempt to become reacquainted with reality. 

Clarence Thomas voted to keep the information from Congress even though he knew he should have recused himself from the case. 

But this is bigger than all that. This information reveals the ideological rot at the heart of the modern Republican Party.  Ginni Thomas, conspiracy addled crackpot , is a fixture in DC Republican circles and is considered a person of influence. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 months ago

Typical leftist BS. No proof- so simple guilt by association is all that is needed.

Unless there is a D behind their names. That all powerful D makes anything OK. Hunter and Brandon pay for play- never happened in leftists' warped minds- no matter the growing evidence.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.4  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 months ago
At some point Trump defenders should at least attempt to become reacquainted with realit

Why don't you first? The texts were turned over by Meadows to House. The Supreme Court case had nothing to do with these texts. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    3 months ago

I think Clarence Thomas KNEW that his wife was advocating un-American ideas with the White House chief of staff. 

He LATER voted to keep such information hidden from a panel that was investigating the same matters Ginni Thomas discussed with Meadows. 

Clarence Thomas didnt know the content of individual components of Meadows material. He wanted all of it kept out. 

He had an obligation to recuse himself and he didnt. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
3.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 months ago

No, no he didn't

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.7  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 months ago
Clarence Thomas KNEW that his wife was advocating un-American ideas with the White House chief of staff.

Well, Senator McCarthy,  the texts show that in the days after the election a private citizen  thought the election was stolen and advocated fighting to expose it in Court.  There's nothing criminal or "un american" in that. That's why we have a legal process challenge elections and advocating the use of it isn't "un American".

He LATER voted to keep such information hidden from a panel 

No he didn't. The texts were already  in the Committee hands. 

He had an obligation to recuse himself and he didnt

Not at all.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    3 months ago
Well, Senator McCarthy,  the texts show that in the days after the election a private citizen  thought the election was stolen and advocated fighting to expose it in Court.  There's nothing criminal or "un american" in that.

Of course there is something unAmerican in that. On election night Trump went on tv from the White House and told everyone that the election was being stolen from him. He didnt have a shred of evidence for that.  Why would he do that? Because he had already told everyone that he would not accept the election results unless he won. Prior to the voting. 

is Ginni Thomas an idiot? Since you keep posing inane questions I will offer that as a serious question. 

When someone, in this case Thomas, advocates at the highest level for the overturning of an election in which there is no evidence of fraud, let alone pervasive , massive co-ordinated nationwide fraud, it IS un-American. Period. 

If she wants to merely "think" something, then she should keep it to herself lest she be seen as insane. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 months ago

Maybe Justice Thomas should explain his sole dissenting vote when it came to the Jan. 6 event his wife attended, to help incite a mob of Q conspiracy theorists intent on actually stealing an election.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.1  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2    3 months ago

He believes in broad executive privilege. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2    3 months ago

Love the leftist conjecture. Have proof she took any part in the Jan 6th riots? Just being at the Jan 6th protest is not a crime- no matter how the TDS driven want to make it so.

Midterms can't come quick enough. Way past time to end the Democrat shit show.; and then deal with the Jan 6th committee member morons and Pelosi. Sanctioning them and stripping them of all committee assignments is a good start.  Democrats have no problem with doing that to Republicans for far less. 

Funny how whenever Democrats run an investigation information they want leaked somehow manages to find a way out. While anything that might hurt their investigation is buried or declared off limits. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.2    3 months ago
Love the leftist conjecture. Have proof she took any part in the Jan 6th riots? Just being at the Jan 6th protest is not a crime- no matter how the TDS driven want to make it so.

A truly bizarre comment.  The texts reveal Ginni Thomas to be an un-American whackjob who was willing to promote and call for The Big Lie.  Her attending Jan 6 is a small part of this story. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    3 months ago

If being a whackjob was illegal then almost the entire TDS suffering Democrat Party and their followers would be locked up by now.

As for Ginni Thomas prove anything she did was illegal? Calling on Meadows to do something is not illegal. Meadows tried to stretch the rules of the system (Like Democrats never ever do that./S Clinton demanding that the Electoral College declare her the winner instead of certifying Trump; and trying to pressure the electors to change their votes to her. That was sedition; but the left didn't give a shit. Brandon using an EO to reinstate the renter moratorium after the Supreme Court ruled against Trump's and said only Congress can do that. Brandon only giving lip service to reinstating Stay in Mexico after the court ruled against him.). Pence followed the system; and Biden was confirmed. All the rest is Democrat background noise in an effort to get Trump; something that they have been doing since he received the Republican nomination. Laws be damned if it brings down Trump they are fine with it!

These emails were leaked because TDS driven Democrats want to harm Clarence Thomas; period. The individual(s) that leaked them need to be found and prosecuted. That is if the left really cares about the rule of law; which we all know they don't.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.2.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.2    3 months ago

Have proof she took any part in the Jan 6th riots?

I don’t know why you’re directing that question to me, since I said nothing of the sort.  Maybe you should try addressing what I did say.

Midterms can't come quick enough.

That sounds desperate.  I imagine you are desperate for the spigot streaming the never ending truth about Republicans to be turned off.  The problem is that you all are a gigafactory of unamerican shit-posting that can’t be contained.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.2.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    3 months ago

How convenient for him.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.7  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2.6    3 months ago
How convenient for him.

How so? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    3 months ago
He believes in broad executive privilege.

I'm sure he was aware at the time of his dissent that Trump was no longer POTUS, therefore executive privilege no longer applied to him.  Right?  Only POTUS can declare executive privilege and that was Biden.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.9  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.8    3 months ago

 was aware at the time of his dissent that Trump was no longer POTUS, therefore executive privilege no longer applied to him.  Right?  Only POTUS can declare executive privilege and that was Biden..

That's not what the Supreme Court said. What precedent are you aware of that the Supreme Court isn't?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.2.10  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.7    3 months ago

It’s a blatantly self serving position.  Note that he was the only conservative, in a body of Justices that is majority conservative, that took that position, and offered no explanation.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.11  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2.10    3 months ago
It’s a blatantly self serving position

How? What interest does he have in Donald Trump's docs?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.2.12  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.11    3 months ago

His wife’s deranged text messages to the WH Chief of Staff that would have a high probability of being leaked and impacting his credibility as a SCJ.  We have come full circle.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.9    3 months ago
That's not what the Supreme Court said.

Are you trying to claim that someone other than POTUS can claim executive privilege?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.14  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.13    3 months ago

Eight Supreme Court just said it’s an open question whether a former president can assert executive privilege.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
3.2.15  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.14    3 months ago
Eight Supreme Court just said it’s an open question whether a former president can assert executive privilege.

I thought that it was a qualified privilege and not an absolute privilege.  Even the sitting President as I understand it  (I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer) can lose in court on executive privilege. 

But it truly needs to be very carefully weighed to protect the office of the President. We as normal people would be amazed and outraged at some of the conversations that occur in the Oval Office from people of all sides. There's a valid reason why that communication needs to be protected, how could a sitting president be sure of getting good advice if his advisors are worried about their conversations being made public. Hell, how upset would all of us be if all our conversations were made public.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.14    3 months ago
Eight Supreme Court just said it’s an open question whether a former president can assert executive privilege.

That doesn't answer my question.  Just another deflection.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.17  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3.2.12    3 months ago
s deranged text messages to the WH Chief of Staff that would have a high probability of being leaked and impacting his credibility as a SCJ.  We have come full circle .

But their  release  had nothing to do with his sole dissenting vote.  The committee had the texts before the case was even heard. 

Do you understand causality? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.18  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.16    3 months ago
at doesn't answer my question.  Just another deflection.

No it's not. You claimed only a President can claim executive privilege.  The Supreme Court just said it's an open question whether an ex President can.

If you pay attention you will learn something. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
3.2.19  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.17    3 months ago

Do you understand causality? 

Yes.  Mark Meadows handed over thousands of text messages, including unhinged Q conspiracy theory garbage that CT knew his wife sent to him.  This was a result of an investigation in which that CT was the only SCJ to fight against.  He was preemptively trying to stop all potential leaks that would emanate from an investigation he had a say in stopping, and he was the ONLY one amongst a majority conservative court to do so, and without disclosing a reason for making such an obvious deviation from the court.  This isn’t rocket science.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3  seeder  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 months ago

This tweet  sums up the situation:

1) Demanding punishment for CT because his wife had bad thoughts is insanely illiberal 2) Launching this attack while he was just in the hospital is reprehensible 3) Omar has herself said/done much worse than anything Thomas’ wife has done. Including countless ethical violations. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    3 months ago

None of this matters. Biden sadly remains as president*, Thomas remains on the SC, Trump will not be prosecuted, Dems will be destroyed at the midterms

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4    3 months ago

None of this matters. Biden sadly remains as president*, Thomas remains on the SC, Trump will not be prosecuted, Dems will be destroyed at the midterms

It almost sounds like you don't care that there was an attack on the capitol building. Is that it? Would you care if that same thing happened with democrats following the 2016 election? I'm betting you would have cared. I am betting fox news would have been squawking about that story for the next 500 years. 

512

 
 

Who is online





pat wilson


46 visitors