The Jan. 6 Committee's Targeting Of Ginni Thomas Is Despicable

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  87 comments

By:   David Harsanyi (The Federalist)

The Jan. 6 Committee's Targeting Of Ginni Thomas Is Despicable
The left's effort to delegitimize the Supreme Court is more dangerous to our institutions than the Jan. 6 riot.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Jan. 6 Committee Chair Bennie Thompson says it's "time" to drag Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in front of his partisan panel so they can grill her over some private text messages and emails. To this point, Thompson hasn't presented a scintilla of evidence implicating Ginni Thomas in any illegality, nor any evidence that she was in favor of rioting or violence.

Thomas isn't an elected official, she wasn't running for office or working for the administration, nor was she imbued with supernatural powers that could compel anyone to act against their will or the Constitution. As a private citizen she was petitioning officials to engage in the political act of challenging election results—something Democrats regularly do. As my colleague Tristan Justice has pointed out, not a single of the 29 texts exchanged between Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Thomas (of more than 2,300 text messages released to the committee) included a single direct reference to her husband or any other justice.

Interactions between the White House and justices' wives might be fair game for journalists—the same journalists, incidentally, who methodically avoid investigating interactions between the president of the United States and his shady son—but a private citizen's opinions are none of Congress's concern. Indeed, justices' wives aren't stripped of their right to free expression simply because it upsets Bennie Thompson. Democrats want to force Thomas to testify so they can keep tenuously cobbling together as many unrelated acts as possible in an effort to create the impression that there was a widespread coup. Every day proves that contention more risible.

The second, perhaps more important reason in attempting to paint Ginni Thomas' political activism as part of nefarious, violent plot, is to pressure her husband into recusing himself from cases involving the executive branch. And if that fails, it gives leftists fodder to accuse Thomas of corruption. Justice Elena Kagan is free to help coordinate the defense of Obamacare while solicitor general and then rule on the same law. Justice Stephen Breyer is free to act as the Senate Judiciary Committee's chief counsel on sentencing guidelines and then rule on his own work.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg could rule on a slew of issues she had taken public positions on while working for the ACLU. But Clarence Thomas's wife can't have opinions. The claim that Clarence Thomas has any legal obligation to recuse himself from any cases because his wife has opinions is a fabrication, as Andy McCarthy explained:

The statute that governs judicial disqualification, Section 455 (of Title 28, U.S. Code), extensively addresses recusal on the basis of a spouse's potential connection to matters in litigation. Essentially, the triggers involve financial or legal stakes in the matter, or some connection to the matter as an attorney. Ginni Thomas's conservative political activism — up to and including the text messages to Mark Meadows about the 2020 election — does not activate those triggers. If it did, many judges appointed by Democrats would have been disqualified from cases over which they've presided despite the political and legal activism of their spouses.

Clarence Thomas is the most straightforward jurist of the modern age. The notion that he is in bag for any partisan special interest is preposterous beyond words. And that's the real problem for liberals. The intense loathing of Thomas by the left is propelled by his unadorned adherence to the Constitution and his reluctance to concoct rights or bow to vagaries of the public pressure. Nothing deters the progressive project more than those traits.

The Jan. 6 Committee, stocked with its own mendacious conspiracy theorists and election deniers like Adam Schiff—a committee that denied the duly elected opposition the ability to name members it wanted—is targeting private citizens for wrongthink in an effort to undermine the court on issues completely unrelated to Jan 6. The left's concerted political efforts to delegitimize and intimidate the court are a more dangerous long-term threat to our institutions than anything Jan. 6 rioters could ever have accomplished.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Someone on here was just talking about "integrity."

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

... and it wasn't you?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Hallux @1.1    2 weeks ago

Nor exhibiting it...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2  Gsquared    2 weeks ago

The reactionaries have spent decades working feverishly to deligitamize the Supreme Court and the American judicial system as a whole, and to turn the judiciary into another political branch.  They are suceeding in their efforts.  The dangerous, long-term threat to our institutions lies solely with the hard-right extremists. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2    2 weeks ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @2    2 weeks ago

So leftist Brown Shirts BLM and Antifa doing far worse things than the Jan 6th rioters could dream of are no threat to the Constitution. 

Despite:

Burning and vandalizing federal buildings.

The cleaning and repair bill for federal buildings in Portland damaged during protests in the city last summer exceeded $2 million, Oregon 's attorney has revealed.

Destroying public statues.

Took over blocks of Seattle and created their own little haven where they were the law; extorted payment from those living there; and generally turned the place into a shithole. Of course they were able to just walk away after a few months of self rule.

Jan 6th was a slow damn day as compared to a year of those "mostly peaceful" BLM and Antifa protests.

Of course our two tier justice system just can't bring itself to prosecute those leftist Brown Shirts.

But continue the BS on Jan 6th. Mid terms are coming. Then Democrats and the left will find out what really matters.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    2 weeks ago
Of course our two tier justice system just can't bring itself to prosecute those leftist Brown Shirts.

Your link:

Most charges against George Floyd protesters dropped, analysis shows | US policing | The Guardian But some prosecutors and law enforcement observers charge that departments carried out mass arrests as a crowd control tactic, as a means to silence peaceful protesters, and as a public relations strategy designed to turn the public against demonstrators by making them appear more violent than they were. And what’s more – some of the citing officers never witnessed the protests in the first place.

Again, your link:

Pamplin Media Group - 91% of Portland protest arrests not being prosecuted

The cases his office has presumptively declined to prosecute are ones that don't involve property damage, theft or the threat or use of force against another person. Interfering with a peace officer and disorderly conduct are the most common charges associated with the unrest in Portland.

"Just because there was an arrest, it is not, and should not be assumed that there was damage because the vast, vast, vast, overwhelming majority of the cases referred to our office during these protests have no evidence of that," Schmidt said.

They need EVIDENCE to prosecute. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2    2 weeks ago

You mean the January 6th hyper-partisan inquisition? Sure don't sound bipartisan to me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

He's always providing links THAT DON'T BACK UP HIS CLAIMS.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

Really? You do realize that majority of the arrests made for Jan 6th are for parading and trespassing right? Using leftist logic they should just be released.

The bulk of the sentences to date have been for relatively low-level offenses. The most common charge pleaded to, by far, is illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol, a misdemeanor ,

Or are you going to claim that leftists trespassing and disorderly conduct is better than the Jan 6th trespass and "parading".

I am really beginning to despise leftist and their BS. They have a shitload of evidence against BLM and Antifa to file charges. They are just ignoring it and choosing not to do so. Just another day of fucked up leftist standards. Which have unfortunately taken over the DOJ, and most of the AG/DA in Democrat bastions of stupidity.

But at least we can count on the leftist double standard for consistency. While they shed crocodile tears over the officers involved in the Jan 6th riots. They charged a Portland officer with assaulting a "protestor" aka rioter. If only Ashli Babbit would receive the same treatment from our two tier justice system.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.2    2 weeks ago
You mean the January 6th hyper-partisan inquisition? Sure don't sound bipartisan to me.

Sure doesn't look like an 'inquistion' to me. 

I find it hypocritical that you and yours whine about it being partisan when the McCarthy abdicated his ability to seat GOP members. 

Pelosi could have gone ahead without any Republican members. Instead, she asked Republicans to participate and 2 stepped up. You and yours now claim that they suddenly aren't 'REAL' Republicans. Pretty ironic claim since Cheney was the Chair of the House REPUBLICAN Conference until McCarthy decided that she failed the Trump sycophancy test. 

 
 
 
Wishful_thinkin
Freshman Silent
2.2.6  Wishful_thinkin  replied to  Dulay @2.2.5    2 weeks ago

Well, in conservative world, it's toe the party line or be labeled a RINO.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.4    2 weeks ago
Really? You do realize that majority of the arrests made for Jan 6th are for parading and trespassing right? Using leftist logic they should just be released.

Really? Do YOU realize that the FACTS of those arrests are available on a DOJ database AND that they clearly refute your claim? 

Is it RW logic to make claims that are so easily refuted? 

Over 750 have been arrested for the Capitol breach, 342 are charged with "Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building". NOT ONE of those defendants is ONLY charged with that crime. 

Secondly, there is ample evidence for the prosecution of every one of those defendants. Of course, you are welcome to review the HUNDREDS of DOJ complaints documented on their website for yourself. Perhaps you can find one that doesn't cite sufficient evidence. Doubtful. 

Or are you going to claim that leftists trespassing and disorderly conduct is better than the Jan 6th trespass and "parading".

The over 750 arrests aren't anywhere near the 1,500 that entered the Capitol OR the many more thousands that breached the barriers and rioted outside of the Capitol. Using your RW logic, every one of them should be arrested and prosecuted. That would include the guy who was given a Capitol tour by Rep. Loudermilk. 

I am really beginning to despise leftist and their BS.

The only BS here is yours. 

They have a shitload of evidence against BLM and Antifa to file charges. They are just ignoring it and choosing not to do so. Just another day of fucked up leftist standards. Which have unfortunately taken over the DOJ, and most of the AG/DA in Democrat bastions of stupidity.

Please post this 'shitload of evidence' that allege exists. 

But at least we can count on the leftist double standard for consistency. While they shed crocodile tears over the officers involved in the Jan 6th riots.

Oh the fucking irony. You and yours 'back the blue' but cheer when your compatriots attack and injure hundreds of LEOs.

They charged a Portland officer with assaulting a "protestor" aka rioter.

There is video of that Portland LEO hitting a member of the press in the head with a baton. Why is it y'all are so averse to evidence based prosecution? 

If only Ashli Babbit would receive the same treatment from our two tier justice system.

That's a false equivalency. Oh and the member of the press in Portland was retreating, Ashli Babbit was advancing. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Wishful_thinkin @2.2.6    2 weeks ago

The irony is that the 'party line' moves so often they don't even know where the fuck it is from day to day.

McConnell and McCarthy denounce Trump and lay the blame for the insurrection at his feet. Days later they are hymning and hawing about 'well every American holds SOME blame, blah, blah, blah. Then, all but a brave few vote to Impeach the fucker and now all but a brave few have their lips locked back onto Trump's ass. 

They applaud when Fox refuses to carry the hearings, deny and distract from the facts presented and LIE about what the Chairman stated about a prospective witness. 

One has to wonder if they will EVER stop digging. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.2.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.2.7    2 weeks ago
If only Ashli Babbit would receive the same treatment from our two tier justice system.
That's a false equivalency.

What that is, is a glaring example of liberal hypocrisy.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.9    2 weeks ago
What that is, is a glaring example of liberal hypocrisy. 

How so Jeremy? 

Please prove your claim. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.2.10    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @2.2.7    2 weeks ago
"Is it RW logic to make claims that are so easily refuted?" 

ALWAYS YET THEY CONTINUE TO MAKE THE SAME BOGUS CLAIMS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @2.2.10    2 weeks ago
If only Ashli Babbit would receive t

2.2.4   - Last paragraph.  You really should keep up with a thread.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.13    2 weeks ago
Last paragraph.  You really should keep up with a thread.

I have already addressed that ridiculous unfounded opinion. 

Are you seriously trying to claim it PROVES anything Jeremy? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2.15  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.14    2 weeks ago
unfounded opinion.

Really no different than most of yours.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.16  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @2.2.15    2 weeks ago

Is there an opinion of mine that you would like me to support in this seed bugsy? Cite the comment. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @2.2.4    one week ago

Using said leftist logic, they never should have been arrested period 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.17    one week ago

Except Ronin fabricated that 'leftist logic' and my comment proves that fact. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @2.2.16    one week ago

Since you haven't been able to come up with anything for 4 DAYS, I will take that to mean that your comment was bullshit. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

 Ginni Thomas Is Despicable

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
3.1  pat wilson  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

She is mentally ill.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  pat wilson @3.1    2 weeks ago

Is that your official diagnosis, doctor?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago
Ginni Thomas Is Despicable

You may not like her or her politics, but WTF did she do to deserve to get dragged into the January 6 shitshow put on by Democrats?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2    2 weeks ago
OPINION

JAMELLE BOUIE

Ginni Thomas Has a Lot of Explaining to Do

June 17, 2022
17bouie_1-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

Again and again, during the years that Donald Trump was in the White House, liberals would ask themselves a single question: “Can you imagine if Barack Obama had done this?”

“This,” of course, was any one of the antics or misdeeds that marked Trump’s time in office: the lies, the insults, the cruelty and the criminality.   Imagine   if Obama had gone out of his way to excuse the equivalent of a white supremacist mob;   imagine   if Obama had gone to the site of a natural disaster and tossed out paper towels like so many footballs;   imagine   if he had railed against “shithole countries” or tried to pressure a foreign leader into turning over information to undermine his political opponents.

Imagine what would have happened if Barack Obama had plotted to subvert and overturn a presidential election that he had lost.


Republicans would have lost their minds. Having whipped themselves into a lather over fake scandals and manufactured controversies during the actual Obama administration, they would have exploded into paroxysms of partisan rage over any one of these misdeeds. The Benghazi hearings would have looked like a sober-minded investigation compared with what Republicans would have unleashed if the shoe had been on the other foot.

The point of this mental exercise, for liberals, was to highlight the hypocrisy of the Republican Party under Trump. Tucked into this attempt to condemn Republican behavior, however, is an important observation about the value of political theater. All this conservative hysteria did not defeat Barack Obama at the ballot box, but it may have helped to put his party at a disadvantage.

The main effect of these years of Republican scandal mongering was to produce a cloud of suspicion and mistrust that helped to undermine Obama’s preferred successor, as well as to shield Trump, as the 2016 Republican nominee, from the kind of scrutiny that might have made him more vulnerable.

Democrats do not need to mimic Republican behavior in all of its deranged glory, but they would do well to heed the lesson that for many voters, where there is smoke, there must be fire.

It is with this knowledge in mind that Democrats in Washington should do something about Ginni Thomas,   who has just been asked to testify   before the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol. The reason is straightforward. Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, worked with allies of Donald Trump to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election. (Thomas quickly let it be known that she was looking “forward to talking to” the committee and couldn’t wait “to clear up misconceptions.”)

Earlier this year, we learned that Thomas   exchanged text messages   with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, in the weeks and days before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. We also learned, last month, that she   urged   Arizona Republicans to discard the results of the election and choose a “clean slate of Electors” for Trump.

And we’ve learned this week from the Jan. 6 committee that Thomas   also sent messages directly to John Eastman , the conservative lawyer (and former law clerk for Justice Thomas) who essentially devised the plan to try to overturn the 2020 presidential results.

Eastman spoke at the “stop the steal” rally before the attack and even   requested a pardon   by way of Rudy Giuliani for his activities leading up to the insurrection: “I’ve decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.”

“Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election were more extensive than previously known,” The Washington Post   reported   on Wednesday. Eastman, for his part, claimed to have known of a “heated” dispute among the Supreme Court justices over whether to hear arguments about the 2020 election. “So the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway,”   he is said to have written   in an email to another lawyer. (On Thursday, Eastman posted   a rebuttal   on Substack asserting that he’d heard about the “heated fight” from news reports and that he could “categorically confirm that at no time did I discuss with Mrs. Thomas or Justice Thomas any matters pending or likely to come before the court.”)

But if the first revelation, of Thomas’s correspondence with Meadows, was shocking, then these revelations of Thomas’s contact with Eastman are explosive. And it raises key questions, not just about what Ginni Thomas knew, but about what Clarence Thomas knew as well. How, exactly, did Eastman know of tensions on the court?   And why did he predict   to Greg Jacob, chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence, that the Supreme Court would rule 7 to 2 against his legal theory about the Electoral College certification process before conceding that in fact it would be 9 to 0?

So while the committee is rightly seeking testimony from Ginni Thomas, Democrats should say something too. They shouldn’t just say something, they should   scream   something.

Not only did Ginni Thomas try to make herself a part of the effort to overthrow the government, but Justice Thomas was the only member of the court   to vote in favor   of Donald Trump’s attempt to shield his communications from congressional investigators, communications that would have included the messages between Mark Meadows and Ginni Thomas.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

Wow. you managed to drag up some opinion piece to support some whacko theory about the wife of a SCOTUS member you hate.

Congrats on that.

WHAT did she do that is illegal?

WHAT do you want her charged with?

Or is that even necessary in bizarro-liberal land now?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
WHAT did she do that is illegal?

WHAT do you want her charged with?

Or is that even necessary in bizarro-liberal land now?

Fuck off. No, it is not necessary for someone to be "charged" before they can be accused of doing something wrong. What is wrong with you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    2 weeks ago
Fuck off.

Typical, pitifully weak-ass response when someone stumps you with simple questions.

No, it is not necessary for someone to be "charged" before they can be accused of doing something wrong.

Your accusations are shit.

What is wrong with you?

Just temporarily forgot I am dealing with someone who has Trump so deep into his head he has lost all sense of reason.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.5  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    2 weeks ago
Fuck off.

You know..since the rule that you can use Fuck off as a response to comments, the leftists on here have used it extensively, but never has a conservative used it.

I , myself, have had it used no less than 3 times in the last month, simply for showing truth and destroying a leftist narrative they were told to believe.

What this means is it is very easy to trigger a leftist when the truth os shown to them.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

In the leftist liberal mindset of public opinion kangaroo courts, bonafide charges and legitimate evidence are neither allowed nor needed.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
You know..since the rule that you can use Fuck off as a response to comments, the leftists on here have used it extensively, but never has a conservative used it.

Tex will be surprised that you don't count him as a conservative. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @3.2.7    2 weeks ago
Tex will be surprised that you don't count him as a conservative. 

I really don't care what others choose to label me as.

That is their problem, not mine.

I may have used that phrase a time or two, but very sparingly, and certainly not to avoid answering questions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
What this means is it is very easy to trigger a leftist when the truth os shown to them.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    2 weeks ago

I can honestly say I've never used that phrase at all on NT. I simply choose not to stoop to that level.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
... but never has a conservative used it.

You are quite wrong.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.12  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.11    one week ago

And I suspect that may be true, however, I have never seen it.

What I have seen is leftists and leftists that claim to be independent using it many times, especially when they get their asses handed to them...

Which happens quite frequently

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.12    one week ago
... I have never seen it.

Seems to me that you look through a distorted lens.   

... leftists and leftists that claim to be independent ...

IMO you perceive anyone to your left to be a 'leftist'.   A common affliction.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.14  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.13    one week ago

Opinions do vary, however, yours tend to be wrong more than not.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.14    one week ago

You say in the context of being demonstrably wrong evidenced right here in this thread.

Amazing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.10    one week ago

I agree, Ed.   Maybe on a rare occasion, but the option to express that emotive rhetoric clearly is being abused.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.17    one week ago

The rule on use of that insult on NT should go back to it's original content and should never have been revised. Wonder who got it changed and why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.18    one week ago

I think it is because the meaning is "go away".    It sounds worse than it means.   Not saying I agree that it should be allowed, just answering your question.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Ruth Bader Ginsburg could rule on a slew of issues she had taken public positions on while working for the ACLU. But Clarence Thomas's wife can't have opinions.

Very true.  It's insane. 

The January 6th committee's  media campaign  media to dishonestly manipulate the public about Thomas  really has nothing to to with January 6th, its just another  part of the ongoing assault on the Court.   They want tot destroy a branch of government if won't come to heel.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 weeks ago
Ruth Bader Ginsburg could rule on a slew of issues she had taken public positions on while working for the ACLU.

RBG was acting as legal counsel for clients. 

But Clarence Thomas's wife can't have opinions.

Ginni Thomas had access to Trump Administration officials/legal team and state legislators. Emails prove that she was advocating for them to take specific actions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1    2 weeks ago
Ginni Thomas had access to Trump Administration officials/legal team and state legislators. Emails prove that she was advocating for them to take specific actions.

Was she pushing anyone to do anything illegal?

Is having access illegal?

Sounds like Democrats desperately clutching at straws.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Democrats desperately clutching at straws.

And pearls

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.1    2 weeks ago

RBG was acting as legal counsel for clients.

The criticism of Ginsburg has also included her political statements while on the bench, like attacking the President and signaling how she would vote. 

One is a Supreme Court justice, one is the spouse of one.  

i nni Thomas had access to Trump Administration officials/legal team and state legislators. 

So what? Do you imagine no Supreme Court justices ever talk to any other lawyers?  Let alone their spouses? Can you prove someone like Martin Ginsburg never talked to a government lawyer in the almost  thirty years his wife sat on the bench? 

What a ridiculous argument. 

It's like half assed McCarthyism. 

Emails prove that she was advocating for them to take specific actions. 

So what? She's an American citizen the last time I looked.  Or do you believe woman aren't independent  beings capable of operating without their husband's direction?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
The criticism of Ginsburg has also included her political statements while on the bench, like attacking the President and signaling how she would vote. 

Your first attack failed so now you're making another allegation. Post a link to Ginsburg 'including her political statements while on the bench' Sean. It should be easy because the arguments are online. I'll wait. 

So what? Do you imagine no Supreme Court justices ever talk to any other lawyers? 

Ginni Thomas isn't a Justice. Try to keep up. 

Let alone their spouses? Can you prove someone like Martin Ginsburg never talked to a government lawyer in the almost  thirty years his wife sat on the bench? 

First of all, Martin Ginsburg was a renowned lawyer in his own right. Secondly, TRUMP'S lawyers are NOT government lawyers. AGAIN, try to keep up. 

It's like half assed McCarthyism. 

What a ridiculous argument. 

So what? She's an American citizen the last time I looked. Or do you believe woman aren't independent  beings capable of operating without their husband's direction?

Oh yes Sean, Ginni IS an American citizen AND independent and therefore responsible and answerable for her own actions. Hense, just like every other independent citizen who is connected to the events, requesting that she speak to the J6 Committee isn't despicable nor need it be about her husband, right Sean? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    2 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6  Dulay    2 weeks ago

From the seed:

Jan. 6 Committee Chair Bennie Thompson says it's "time" to drag Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in front of his partisan panel so they can grill her over some private text messages and emails. 

From the REAL world:

“We think it’s time that we, at some point, invite her to come talk to the committee.” Jan. 6 Committee Chair Bennie Thompson

This author's seeds are getting more and more disgusting. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1  devangelical  replied to  Dulay @6    2 weeks ago

... typical display of maga alt-truth.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7  Hallux    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
8  Gsquared    2 weeks ago

Mrs. Thomas said today that she "can't wait" to talk to the Committee.  So much for the fraudulent premise of this seed that she is being despicably targeted.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
8.1  Gulliver  replied to  Gsquared @8    2 weeks ago
Mrs. Thomas said today that she "can't wait" to talk to the Committee. 

Could she perhaps be, uhm, not telling the truth?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Gulliver @8.1    2 weeks ago

Ginni is just as enthusiastic to talk to the Jan. 6 Committee as Trump was to talk to Mueller. 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
9  Gulliver    2 weeks ago

Lock her up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gulliver @9    2 weeks ago

Sure, let's make up something to charge her with later, but lock her up NOW!!!!!

Ah, Democrats, the party of law and order.

LMMFAO!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago
Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Looks like the left and the Democrats are at it again.  You have nothing on a specific person, go after those who support them.  In this case, we have right leaning Justice Thomas.  The left doesn't like him but have nothing really to cry about, so they go after his wife.   Looks like they are trying to influence the SCOTUS.    

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
10.1  Gulliver  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    2 weeks ago
You have nothing on a specific person

Influence peddling is specific enough for me.

How the Thomases have been able to get away with their decades long abuse of influence.

Someone (or everyone) in your media bubble told you that we liberals just hate her for no reason at all and you fell for it.

Shame on you!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gulliver @10.1    2 weeks ago
Someone (or everyone) in your media bubble told you that we liberals just hate her for no reason

No liberal has given me reason to believe otherwise.  Give me something reliable and I'll consider it.  (thenation.com using politico as a source really isn't that reliable.)  It is telling that she is only a problem to you because she made public comments that go against the liberal narrative.  Gives the impression that you all were had no problem with her up to that point.

Since then it's been racist comments like 11 or ignorance like 3.1 11.1   and 3.1 .  Those are really where any argument by a liberal really loses any credibility.  But at the same time, it's something many have come to expect from the liberal side of the house.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gulliver @10.1    2 weeks ago
Influence peddling is specific enough for me.

Just not in the Hunter Biden case, because, well, they are Democrats.

We see what you mean.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
10.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.1    2 weeks ago
It is telling that she is only a problem to you because she made public comments that go against the liberal narrative. 

NONE of her comments were 'public' Jeremy. They were private emails, some through a PAC server. 

Gives the impression that you all were had no problem with her up to that point.

I for one have had a 'problem' with Ginni Thomas from the get-go. I disagree with her politics. I also have a problem with the fact that she and her husband got away with failing to report her income on their financial disclosures for so long with impunity. 

Since then it's been racist comments like 11 or ignorance like3.1, 11.1  and3.1.  Those are really where any argument by a liberal really loses any credibility.  But at the same time, it's something many have come to expect from the liberal side of the house.

Oh please spare me the pearl clutching Jeremy. 

Based on your posit, YOUR credibility should hang on what OTHER conservatives post here. You good with that?  

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
10.1.4  Gulliver  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.1    one week ago

Like I already said - your bubble isn't serving you well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10    2 weeks ago

Desperate times call for desperate Democratic measures.

Anything that may stick to the wall will be thrown in the Jan 6 'hearings'.

Even something as idiotic as this.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

What's despicable about it?  It's Ginni and Token Thomas who are the despicable ones.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @11    2 weeks ago

simple solution, just don't let anyone call green peace next time she beaches herself...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @11.1    2 weeks ago

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e478l436j0vul4mdv1il96uxvltpi1c12pjx8lkvbya&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
11.2  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @11    2 weeks ago
It's Ginni and Token Thomas who are the despicable ones.  

No, that wasn't racist

Not at all s/

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
12  TOM PA    2 weeks ago

I just want to know where she got the info about Gitmo and barges.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Newsflash -  

during his speech today, Trump called Adam Schiff  "watermelon head". 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 weeks ago

Maybe you should suggest the Jan.6 committee start impeachment proceedings.

That just HAS to be an impeachable offense!

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
13.2  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 weeks ago

Lol, that’s funny, and much much nicer than i’d be.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
13.3  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 weeks ago
Trump called Adam Schiff  "watermelon head". 

I like "pencil neck" better.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
13.3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sunshine @13.3    one week ago

I like the name Adam "Shifty" Schiff myself. Then there's his good bud Jerry "No Nads" Nadler!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
13.4  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @13    2 weeks ago
during his speech today, Trump called Adam Schiff  "watermelon head". 

Uh oh...better seed a new story about that.

Lord knows you won't let a Trump story go unnoticed on here, no matter how stupid...

Well, they all have been.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
13.5  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @13    one week ago

That fits schiff perfectly

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.5.1  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @13.5    one week ago

How utterly childish for a former PotUS to name-call people ... especially with a 2nd grade level of maturity, Pee Wee Herman style bash such as 'watermelon head'.    

It is sickening that Trump sycophants applaud his utterly childish name-calling and thus encourage him to continue with his embarrassing (for the nation) behavior.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
14  Lucifer Morningstar    2 weeks ago

History will indeed judge the fall of the United States republic to be directly the result of left-wing policies, attitudes, corruption, lies, deception, manipulation, propaganda, constitutional usurpations, and overall azzdouchery. 

i’m afraid there’s no avoiding it. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
14.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @14    2 weeks ago

“History will indeed judge the fall of the United States republic to be directly the result of left-wing policies, attitudes, corruption, lies, deception, manipulation, propaganda, constitutional usurpations, and overall azzdouchery.” 

Do tell how in the world right wing ‘policies, attitudes, corruption, lies, deception, manipulation, propaganda, constitutional usurpations, and overal azzdouchery’ are somehow exempt…this is a blunt blade that bludgeons both ways.

And sadly, ignoring that simple fact will be our ultimate undoing. 

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
14.1.1  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  afrayedknot @14.1    one week ago

You can witness it for yourself right now all you have to do is look at a demented  old child sniffing douche bag as President,  an incompetent babbling universally despised  VP, a corrupt to the core speaker of the house a violent reactionary leader of the senate and the list goes on ad infinitum.

So now that we’ve settled that matter you can take your time to go figure out what a woman is. 

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
15  Lucifer Morningstar    one week ago

256

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
15.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @15    one week ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 

Who is online


al Jizzerror


37 visitors