Ginni Thomas was a ‘shill’ for her husband in Jan. 6 testimony: ex-prosecutor

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 months ago  •  39 comments


Ginni Thomas was a ‘shill’ for her husband in Jan. 6 testimony: ex-prosecutor
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





Raw Story by  Bob Brigham 7h










aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucmF3c3RvcnkuY29tL21lZGlhLWxpYnJhcnkvY2xhcmVuY2UtdGhvbWFzLXdpZmUtaXMtaGVscGluZy10cnVtcC1wdXJnZS1zbmFrZXMtZnJvbS10aGUtd2hpdGUtaG91c2UtYW5kLXJlcGxhY2UtdGhlbS13aXRoLWZveC1uZXdzLXJlZ3VsYXJzLmpwZz9pZD0yNjQwNjU0NyZ3aWR0aD0xMjAwJmhlaWdodD02MDAmY29vcmRpbmF0ZXM9MCUyQzE4JTJDMCUyQzE5




The question of motivation was raised on Friday after long-sought testimony by   Ginni   Thomas , the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence   Thomas , before the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle reported Chairman Benny Thompson said   Ginni   Thomas   is sticking to her misguided claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

"We'll go one step further, it's not misguided, it is a flat-out lie," Ruhle declared.

For analysis, Ruhle interviewed former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner.

"Glenn, what was the committee hoping to hear from   Ginni   Thomas ?" Ruhle asked. "We both know she wasn't gonna say anything."

"No, she wasn't interested in being forthcoming and being candid," Kirschner replied.

"I think it actually turned out worse than we had expected because, in part, she was kind of a shill for her husband, saying things we would never hear from Justice   Thomas   because he's not going to be asked to testify," he explained. "So she got to say whatever she wanted about how we never discuss cases and we really didn't discuss election fraud and if people believe that, well, there are any number of bridges for sale."

"Then she also stuck with the big lie," he added.



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago
"No, she wasn't interested in being forthcoming and being candid," Kirschner replied.

"I think it actually turned out worse than we had expected because, in part, she was kind of a shill for her husband, saying things we would never hear from Justice   Thomas   because he's not going to be asked to testify," he explained. "So she got to say whatever she wanted about how we never discuss cases and we really didn't discuss election fraud and if people believe that, well, there are any number of bridges for sale."

"Then she also stuck with the big lie," he added.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Ginni Thomas is a threat to our nation.  She is a deranged conspiracy nut who has great influence over a sitting Supreme Court justice.  Someone needs to start looking into this in more than a casual way. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago

I agree that anyone who still believes Trump's Big Lie is out of touch with reality.   But the government should have no part in taking action on this.   We cannot get into a situation where the government —when an official or judge is tied to individuals with questionable judgment (or sanity)— supersedes the official's/judge's personal handling of the situation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    2 months ago

Ginni Thomas is a threat to our nation. She is willing to conspire to steal elections on behalf of her ideology. 

Both she and her husband say they are best friends who share everything. Obviously Clarence Thomas has been unable to persuade his wife to stop her conspiracy insanity. His independence and ability to fairly judge cases before the SC is in question. 

This crap sounds like the plot of a political thriller. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    2 months ago
But the government should have no part in taking action on this.

Then who, would you suggest, should take action?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    2 months ago

Justice Thomas is the right person to deal with his personal life and the management of his own integrity.

If Thomas acts in a manner that disqualifies him from his seat on the SCotUS, then and only then does the government take action and that would be through the impeachment process.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago
Ginni Thomas is a threat to our nation. She is willing to conspire to steal elections on behalf of her ideology. 

She must break a law for the government to take action.   Being a nutcase with influence is not a crime.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    2 months ago

Justice Thomas is the right person to deal with his personal life and the management of his own integrity.

When his personal life impinges on his professional one, is he still to be trusted to handle it himself?

If Thomas acts in a manner that disqualifies him from his seat on the SCotUS, then and only then does the government take action and that would be through the impeachment process.

He already has.

Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent in the Supreme Court's January order rejecting Trump's bid to withhold documents from the January 6 panel

He knew that would bring his wife's antics to the committee's, country's, and even world's attention.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 months ago
His independence and ability to fairly judge cases before the SC is in question. 

Why? Because he’s married to someone who has opinions on matters of public concern? You don’t think most of the other justices have spouses or “significant others?” You don’t think they have conversations about these issues at home? Only Clarence Thomas is incapable of forming his own legal opinions? Only Clarence Thomas is influenced by his spouse?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.6    2 months ago

1. His wife is nuts.

2. They both claim that the other is not only their spouse, but their best friend. 

3. Best friends discuss things and often try to influence one another. 

4. It is nauseating how some people are trying to blow off the seriousness of this. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.7    2 months ago
His wife is nuts.

Your opinion. But even if true, so what?

They both claim that the other is not only their spouse, but their best friend. 

Wow. That IS unusual. Seriously, JR: have you never been married or had a significant other in your life? My wife is my best friend. Does that mean I should never be a judge?

Best friends discuss things and often try to influence one another. 

Yeah. Best friends discuss things. That’s pretty typical. Do you have friends? If not, maybe this is new for you. The bit about influencing one another, though. I don’t know about that. I suppose they might. Again, though: so what?

It is nauseating how some people are trying to blow off the seriousness of this. 

Yes, you have a long history of being nauseating when people don’t agree with you 100%.

“Seriousness” of what, exactly? The Thomas’s pillow talk or January 6 writ large? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.6    2 months ago
Why? Because he’s married to someone who has opinions on matters of public concern?

No body cares about her opinions except possible Clarence himself.  However everyone should be concerned about her actions based on those opinions, and Clarence's attempt to hide those actions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.5    2 months ago
When his personal life impinges on his professional one, is he still to be trusted to handle it himself?

As I noted, if Thomas fails to fulfill his constitutional duties then impeachment is the remedy.

He already has.

I think you will have quite a difficult time justifying impeachment for that.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
2.1.11  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    2 months ago
No body cares about her opinions except possible Clarence himself.  However everyone should be concerned about her actions based on those opinions, and Clarence's attempt to hide those actions.

Do you have something that shows Clarence's wife actually, truly, really sways his "Supreme" Opinions on the Court ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    2 months ago
However everyone should be concerned about her actions based on those opinions

Her actions don't concern me and I don't see why they should. If she does something illegal, we have police for that.

Clarence's attempt to hide those actions

Again, if he's done something illegal, call a cop. In the meantime, it looks like people would much rather spend their time gossiping about things they've "heard" or conspiracies they think are "obvious." You know: BS.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
2.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.12    2 months ago
Again, if he's done something illegal, call a cop. In the meantime, it looks like people would much rather spend their time gossiping about things they've "heard" or conspiracies they think are "obvious."

Agreed.  If he's done something illegal then call the cops.  If he's done something to break his vow to be on SCOTUS then reach out to your Congressman to start an impeachment inquiry.  I swear, seems like some people are always trying to start their own version of QAnon.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    2 months ago
As I noted, if Thomas fails to fulfill his constitutional duties then impeachment is the remedy.

Trouble is that Clarence is a pure red republican, they would not allow him to be impeached.  And even as minorities, republicans hold enough power to block it.

I think you will have quite a difficult time justifying impeachment for that.

That was just 1 example.  He has shown conflict of interests over and over again, while refusing to recuse himself from judgements he has personal interests in.  Google search will list them for you.  He had many personal connections with the Kochs, yet made judgements on a number of cases where they were involved.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.11    2 months ago

Do you have something that shows Clarence's wife actually, truly, really sways his "Supreme" Opinions on the Court ?

Marriage vows.  Love, honor, cherish.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.14    2 months ago
Trouble is that Clarence is a pure red republican, they would not allow him to be impeached.  And even as minorities, republicans hold enough power to block it.

Has Thomas done anything at this point that is truly, seriously an impeachable offense as you see things?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.16    2 months ago

Has Thomas done anything at this point that is truly, seriously an impeachable offense as you see things?

Not that I am aware of. However I thought we were discussing hypotheticals.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.17    2 months ago
Not that I am aware of. However I thought we were discussing hypotheticals.

I did not get that impression, given you offered items such as this:

Ozzwald @2.1.14 ☞ He has shown conflict of interests over and over again, while refusing to recuse himself from judgements he has personal interests in.  Google search will list them for you.  He had many personal connections with the Kochs, yet made judgements on a number of cases where they were involved.

Ultimately, my position is that the government cannot (and should not) have anything to say about the judgment of a ScotUS justice unless the justice breaks the law or has engaged in behavior that causes him to be no longer suitable (constitutionally) to serve.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.19  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.18    2 months ago
I did not get that impression, given you offered items such as this

The hypothetical was if those were enough to warrant an impeachment.  He has done many questionable things, enough to warrant an investigation, IMHO.  The results from that investigation would determine if impeachment is warranted.

Ultimately, my position is that the government cannot (and should not) have anything to say about the judgment of a ScotUS justice unless the justice breaks the law or has engaged in behavior that causes him to be no longer suitable (constitutionally) to serve.

You are saying that only a criminal action by a Justice is enough to warrant an impeachment? 

Who is to determine if a Justice's behavior shows he/she is no longer suitable to serve, if not the government?

Shouldn't refusing to recuse himself in cases that a Justice has a personal interest in, be sufficient behavior?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.19    2 months ago
You are saying that only a criminal action by a Justice is enough to warrant an impeachment? 

No, I listed both criminal and constitutional dimensions.

Who is to determine if a Justice's behavior shows he/she is no longer suitable to serve, if not the government?

The government is who I have suggested would determine this.   Based on breaking a law (criminal) or violating oath of office (constitutional).   The people have no way to effect SCotUS change other than indirectly through our representatives (and PotUS ... in terms of future nominations).

Shouldn't refusing to recuse himself in cases that a Justice has a personal interest in, be sufficient behavior?

Not as I understand our system and not in my judgment either.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.20    2 months ago
The government is who I have suggested would determine this.

But you also said:

We cannot get into a situation where the government —when an official or judge is tied to individuals with questionable judgment (or sanity)— supersedes the official's/judge's personal handling of the situation.

In this case the individual with questionable judgment (or sanity) is his wife.  In previous it was the Koch brothers.  And as I have said earlier, if the Justice refuses to recuse himself on actions related to anyone he has a personal interest in, should be cause for review.  And Justice Thomas has been part of judgements that directly effected both his wife and the Koch brothers.

Not as I understand our system and not in my judgment either.

So you are okay with any judge presiding over cases that directly effect themselves?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.21    2 months ago
But you also said:

Yes, in short an official should not be taken out simply due to ties with people (such as a wife) whose judgment is questionable.   

And as I have said earlier, if the Justice refuses to recuse himself on actions related to anyone he has a personal interest in, should be cause for review.  And Justice Thomas has been part of judgements that directly effected both his wife and the Koch brothers.

You are repeating yourself and my response would be the same as before.

So you are okay with any judge presiding over cases that directly effect themselves?

No, but I am not okay with forcibly removing a justice simply because he/she has refused to recuse him/herself (in general principle).

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.23  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.22    2 months ago
Yes, in short an official should not be taken out simply due to ties with people (such as a wife) whose judgment is questionable.

I agree with you, there needs to be an additional step, by that official, and even then, not "taken out".  But an investigation should be started to determine if that officials own judgement has been affected and directly affects his job.

You are repeating yourself and my response would be the same as before.

Yes I am, because you seem to be missing that I am calling for an investigation, not a straight out impeachment.

No, but I am not okay with forcibly removing a justice simply because he/she has refused to recuse him/herself (in general principle).

Which is the same thing as allowing a judge to preside over cases that effect them personally.  If you don't hold the judge to doing his job, why would he bother?  Especially when that judge has refused to recuse himself multiple times, and each time has ruled in favor of the defendant that he has personal interest in.

Quotation-Edmund-Burke-The-only-thing-necessary-for-the-triumph-of-evil-is-4-17-35.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.23    2 months ago
Yes I am, because you seem to be missing that I am calling for an investigation, not a straight out impeachment.

So instead of asking me if it is right for a justice to not recuse him/herself due to relationships you meant to ask me if I thought close relationships with justices should be investigated due to the obvious influence on the justice??

In general, we need to be careful with our zeal to initiate investigations.   Investigations should follow clear evidence of a crime or a constitutional breach.   I do not see that in the case of Thomas.

Which is the same thing as allowing a judge to preside over cases that effect them personally.  

Yes it is!   Justices are not necessarily incapable of making decisions that affect them personally.   It is not as though the SCotUS only considers issues that have no consequences for the justices themselves (or for people they care for).

If you don't hold the judge to doing his job, why would he bother? 

I would hold the judge to doing his job:  follow the law, the constitution and his oath.   Justices should recuse themselves if they believe they cannot be impartial but that is a judgment call made by the justice.   You want Thomas to recuse himself because of his wife.   Logically, unless he divorces her, he would need to recuse himself of every case since she 'influences him'.   This is obviously unrealistic.   

Hold the justice to the law, constitution and oath.   Launching an investigation into influence of a justice by his wife would set an obviously bad precedent for any married justice.    Wait for clear evidence that a justice broke a law, oath or violated the constitution before starting an investigation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.14    2 months ago
Trouble is that Clarence is a pure red republican, they would not allow him to be impeached.  And even as minorities, republicans hold enough power to block it.

No, Republicans can not block Thomas from being impeached. It is the same impeachment process as used for Presidents, so IF what you claim is remotely true, why wouldn't have Republicans stopped either one of the Trump impeachments?

It doesn't appear you know what impeachment entails.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.26  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.24    2 months ago
So instead of asking me if it is right for a justice to not recuse him/herself due to relationships you meant to ask me if I thought close relationships with justices should be investigated due to the obvious influence on the justice??

You are deliberately twisting my words now.  This conversation is about to come to an end.

Investigations should follow clear evidence of a crime or a constitutional breach.

Investigations are used to obtain clear evidence of a crime when there is probable cause to suspect a crime was committed.  If they already had that evidence there would be no need for an investigation.

Justices are not necessarily incapable of making decisions that affect them personally.   It is not as though the SCotUS only considers issues that have no consequences for the justices themselves (or for people they care for).

It is not their choice.

The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations: Where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome. Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased.

28 U.S. Code § 455

Justices should recuse themselves if they believe they cannot be impartial but that is a judgment call made by the justice.

Once again you are leaving the decision up to the judge himself.  The law says otherwise, that if there is a possibility that the judge's decision will be effected. 

  • If that judge is making a decision on case that would directly affect his wife.  Is there a POSSIBILITY that his decision would be biased, or perceived as such?
  • If that judge is making a decision on case that would directly affect his friends.  Is there a POSSIBILITY that his decision would be biased, or perceived as such?

In this example, by law, he should have recused himself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.26    2 months ago
You are deliberately twisting my words now.  This conversation is about to come to an end.

No, this conversation ends now.   I am not twisting anything.   Your choice to make bullshit accusations ends my interest in speaking with you.

Once again you are leaving the decision up to the judge himself.  The law says otherwise, that if there is a possibility that the judge's decision will be effected. 

That still is a judgment call made by the justice.   I had already looked this up; that is why I made my marriage / personal example.   By your extremely loose reading, one could argue a justice should recuse him/herself on anything since there is ALWAYS the possibility of influence on decision making.   Every married justice has influence.   Every justice that is a human being will necessarily make decisions that affect themselves and/or people the care about.   

I am repeating myself and we are done.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.28  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.27    2 months ago
By your extremely loose reading, one could argue a justice should recuse him/herself on anything since there is ALWAYS the possibility of influence on decision making.

Bullshit.

Every justice that is a human being will necessarily make decisions that affect themselves and/or people the care about.

Again, bullshit.

This is not 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, and 28 U.S. Code § 455 supports me on that.  Outside of SCOTUS, decisions can be appealed and overturned for that specific reason.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.28    2 months ago
Outside of SCOTUS,

Bingo.

OUTSIDE OF SCOTUS.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
2.1.30  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.15    2 months ago
Marriage vows.  Love, honor, cherish.

In your "Important" work too ?

What a subservient way of "Thinking" ?.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3  Tessylo    2 months ago

Token Thomas and Ginni - the one who really wears the pants in that family.  

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 months ago
Token Thomas and Ginni - the one who really wears the pants in that family.  

Your "And" leaves out the "Actual one that does wear the pants !

Please expand ?

Oh....and how much is the "Token" worth these days anyway ? I might travel that way in a few months.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4  Tacos!    2 months ago
she was kind of a shill for her husband

Uh. What?

Justice Thomas is not exactly my favorite jurist. Nevertheless . . . 

So many of these stories I see about Ginni Thomas strike me as proceeding from an unreasonable set of assumptions. I.e., that for some reason, she should not support her husband; that she should not agree with him on political or legal issues; that she has no right to advocate for political issues that she cares about; that she should never endorse any politician; that she should never discuss anything of public consequence with her husband.

You shouldn’t have to agree or disagree with her politics to see that she is scrutinized and criticized based on a standard that we don’t usually apply to anyone else. Apparently, people imagine that other justices don’t have spouses, and if they do, they never discuss matters of public concern with their justice spouses, and they never publicly advocate for anything.

Ginni   Thomas   is sticking to her misguided claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Ok, if you want to criticize her for being either dumb or dishonest when it comes to her stance on the election, that’s fine. She’s got plenty of company, too. But holding her to a different standard because she’s married to Clarence Thomas strikes me as similarly phony.

Any impropriety is the justice’s problem. His wife is not the public servant.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4    2 months ago
MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle reported Chairman Benny Thompson saidGinniThomasis sticking to her misguided claim that the 2020 election was stolen. "We'll go one step further, it's not misguided, it is a flat-out lie," Ruhle declared.

Benny Thompson was being diplomatic. Ginni Thomas , having the ability to influence a Supreme Court justice decisions, and she's fricking insane, is a problem. Sugar coating it doesnt help. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 months ago
Ginni Thomas , having the ability to influence a Supreme Court justice decisions, and she's fricking insane, is a problem.

Why is that a special problem? Should a justice not be married or have relationships?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5  Ender    2 months ago

I looked him up and he is 74...

I thought he was older than that. He didn't age very well.

 
 

Who is online


Ender
Sean Treacy
Ed-NavDoc


21 visitors