It is often said that “if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” In modern American politics, it often seems like the only tool is impeachment and every controversy instantly becomes a high crime and misdemeanor. Donald Trump was impeached not once but twice. Not long after Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, Democrats like then-Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren demanded his impeachment. Others demanded the impeachment of Attorney General Bill Barr and cabinet members.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is only the latest addition to that ever-lengthening list. In reality, the calls for his impeachment are entirely disconnected from any constitutional or logical foundation. Rather, the Thomas controversy shows how the impeachment mantra has become a raging impeachment addiction.
Rep. IIhan Omar (D., Minn.) was the first member of Congress to call for Thomas to be impeached when it was revealed that the Jan. 6th Commission found 29 messages of his wife, Ginni, to the White House. MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan echoed the call for impeachment as did former Sen. Barbara Boxer and others.
A well-known Republican activist and Trump supporter, Thomas encouraged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to pursue legal and legislative challenges to what she viewed as a stolen election.
She was not alone. Millions of Republicans believed that the election was rigged and many still do. The reason that Ginni Thomas’ messages were seized is not because she was a key figure in the investigation but that the Commission has demanded any messages that deal with such challenges or the rally — a scope that has been criticized as overbroad. Congress then leaked the messages and the media did the rest.
There is no evidence that Ginni Thomas ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol during the riot. Thomas said that she attended the Ellipse rally on Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol.
Even in the age of the “snap impeachment,” this is little more than a snap judgment on a poorly understood record.
First, these figures are calling for Thomas to be impeached for violating the Judicial Code of Ethics because he voted on a challenge to the Commission obtaining White House messages and emails. (For the record, I publicly stated that the Commission should prevail on those demands). In January, the House won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the release of White House materials. There was only one dissenting vote: Thomas.
However, the justices have long insisted that they are not compelled to follow the Code of Judicial Conduct. I have long disagreed with that view and have called for Congress to mandate the application of the code to the Court. Yet, the Court has maintained that such conflict rules are not mandatory and many have refused to recuse themselves in circumstances that were flagged as possible violations.
For its part, Congress has decided not to mandate compliance with these rules. While federal law (28 U.S. 455) requires judges to recuse from cases where “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” the Supreme Court itself ruled that while it “defines the circumstances that mandate disqualification of federal judges, it neither prescribes nor prohibits any particular remedy for a violation of that duty.” It remains largely discretionary and Congress has decided not to mandate compliance of justices with the Code itself.
Nevertheless, the members and experts insist that Thomas should be impeached for not following a rule that has been effectively treated as discretionary by both the Court and Congress.
Second, it is not clear that this was a violation. There is nothing in these messages that put Ginni Thomas in legal peril. She was not only engaging in political advocacy but stating the same position that she has largely maintained in public. Indeed, in calling for Justice Thomas’ impeachment, Vanity Fair acknowledges “For anyone familiar with Ginni Thomas, the idea that she would write and send a series of batshit-crazy text messages should not come as a surprise.” Yet, the column suggests that somehow Justice Thomas was seeking to prevent such “unsurprising” positions from being added to her well-known positions in the public record.
Third, it appears that the January case was immaterial to the release of the Thomas messages. As the New Yorker admitted, “Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some 2,300 texts — and … they included the 29-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas.” Thus, the messages of his wife were already disclosed when Justice Thomas was voting in the case. Indeed, Congress could have subpoenaed those messages directly from Ginni Thomas without facing executive privilege barriers.
Even if recusal in January would have avoided an “appearance” of a conflict, the failure to take such a discretionary act to avoid an appearance of a conflict hardly suggests an impeachable offense.
Nevertheless, media and legal experts are clamoring for impeachment. The most ironic may be Boxer. Ginni Thomas has been called a “colluder” for calling for a challenge to the certification of the election victory of President Joe Biden.
The prior organized challenge to certification was led by Sen. Boxer. In January 2005, she joined former Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones to challenge George W. Bush’s victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the state of Ohio. She argued that Republicans stole the election. Sound familiar?
The media and Democratic leadership was highly supportive. Indeed, many who are condemning the challenge today heaped praise on Boxer. Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised Boxer’s challenge as “witnessing Democracy at work. This isn’t as some of our Republican colleagues have referred to it, sadly, as frivolous. This debate is fundamental to our democracy.”
That act so “fundamental to our democracy” is now being cited as evidence that Ginni Thomas is potentially liable for her advocacy with the White House. Nothing in these messages supports such liability. Absent additional evidence (which has notably not been leaked), these messages show a spouse of a justice engaged in protected political speech.
None of that matters, of course. Women’s March Executive Director Rachel O’ Leary Carmona who called for impeachment and declared that “the revelations that Ginni Thomas advocated for the overthrow of our democracy are disqualifying — not just for her … but for her husband. He is hopelessly compromised, conflicted and corrupt, and he must be impeached immediately.”
It does not matter that Ginni Thomas did not advocate the overthrow of the nation in these messages but rather the same type of legal and legislative challenges used in the past by Democrats. More importantly, she is not a mere extension of her husband. She has stressed that she and her husband keep their professional lives separate as do many such couples in Washington. Indeed, women who have marched throughout the ages have fought for such separate identities.
The calls for the impeachment of Justice Thomas are ludicrous but there is nothing laughable about the impeachment addiction fueling this frenzy. People of good faith can disagree on the need of Thomas to recuse himself from certain Commission-related cases. However, impeaching Thomas based on these grounds would expose all justices to the threat of politically motivated impeachments as majorities shift in Congress. That is precisely what the Framers sought to avoid under our Constitution.
KBJ was asked in her confirmation hearings whether she’d recuse from the Harvard case if she were confirmed. She said yes. But you cannot see that Thomas should also recuse, and not only that, you’re pretending that there’s a different standard for liberal and conservative Justices.
The similarities in your mind do not exist.
In response to the “Anonymous” whose comment begins with “KBJ was asked…”
Respectfully, KBJ, as a Harvard BOARD MEMBER DIRECTLY TASKED with overseeing institutional policies–including admission policies–in an upcoming case about race factors in Harvard’s admission policies during a time when she was on the Board, –vs.–Thomas, whose independently-activist wife–NOT HE–engages in political activity encouraging objection to the 2020 election results and contacts WH staff to argue this—in an upcoming case involving related issues regarding the 2020 election. I beg you, please explain why the two are the same????
Notwithstanding, I had previously opined that which today the good professor also opines–that recusal may be appropriate for Thomas,- if only to assuage criticisms of an “appearance” (I had used the word “perception”) of partiality.
Lin, Ginny Thomas can claim she doesn’t discuss her political activities or opinions with her husband all she wants, but that’s a big assumption and given how deeply involved she is in supporting the subverting of the certification of the electoral college votes it’s more likely she discusses those issues with her husband.
Now that it’s in the open and everyone knows justice Thomas has a big decision to make. There’s no telling how many more communications could surface. It’s already being discovered that Ginny Thomas was also in contact with Eastman who implied he knew two justices would back his crazy legal strategy.
What is your point? Neither of us can deny the presence of those facts. But that has nothing to do with my question to Anonymous (why do you frequently answer for each other?–and only minutes from my postings) I am referring to KBJ’s direct role vs. potentially indirect/undue influence role upon Thomas by spouses or others –and why Anonymous implied they were the same. Would you like to address that?
Lin, KJB didn’t have a direct role in admissions given that there are multiple boards below the governing board she was on. She had the same “distance” from the issue as Ginny Thomas did from her husband. It’s the appearance of conflict that is the common denominator here. If KJB is expected to recuse herself so should Thomas over the now obviously public knowledge that his wife was inserting herself into an active attempt at subverting a government function. Because now any opinion justice Thomas makes on any case involving Jan 6. will not be deemed impartial.
Svelaz cannot answer for me, and I cannot answer for him/her. People often respond to comments that were not addressed to us. You do that too.
If you have evidence that the Harvard Board of Overseers addressed admissions policies while KBJ was on the Board, present it. You claim that she had a “direct role,” but you haven’t presented evidence of it.
Anonymous, it seems that the objection concerning KJB is a matter of association rather than a direct involvement in admissions. Ginny Thomas falls into the same category given her association and involvement with the events of Jan 6.
She claims left before Trump’s speech, but that is highly suspect given how big a Trump supporter she is. It’s hard to conceive that she would leave when the biggest part of the rally was about to start. Trump speaking.
“It’s hard to conceive that she would leave when the biggest part”
It’s hard to conceive you keep saying KJB instead of KBJ.
Why should Thomas recuse?
Biden’s family corruption is doing the actual damage to America both at home and abroad, that the media howled about Trump doing.
Biden’s crack head son was laundering millions in cash from Ukraine (for the Big Guy) while funding biolabs there! And now Ukraine is at war with Russia.
This should be the biggest story in the country. Trump would have been impeached by now.
But the corrupt media will not even touch it or dare to report on how deeply corrupt the Biden family actually is. Radio silence.
“Trump is going to get us into a nuclear war!” the media screamed for four years.
No, that’s Joe Biden.
President Trump prevented war. Biden is going to start WW3 with his dangerous missteps and sloppy remarks that need constant cleanup afterwards.
All of the above is why the Dems and their media are making Ginni Thomas into a major national story. They do not want us looking at how deeply corrupt President Biden actually is. Or how dangerous it is right now for our country with senile Biden at the helm of an utterly incoherent, incompetent regime.
They do not want to talk about how disastrous Judge Jackson’s nomination hearing actually was. They do not want the country to hear about Judge Jackson’s record.
So they go after Ginni Thomas and make HER a national news story.
Where’s Hunter? Where are the media digging into reporting on his funding of biolabs in Ukraine? Not as big a story as talking about Ginni and Clarence Thomas?
https://nypost.com/2022/03/26/hunter-biden-played-role-in-funding-us-bio-labs-contractor-in-ukraine-e-mails/
Until Republicans and Independents recognize the Democrats have be taken over by people who hate this nation and want to “fundamentally change it”, we’ll never again enjoy the benefits of the Constitution.
I AGREE
The democrats have not had the ability to reason rationally, to any significant degree since the 1970’s except for a few such as Joe Lieberman and more classic liberals. Thats why I left that party in the 1980’s. They seem incapable of dealing with the fact that rules or decorum need to apply to both sides. Republicans have been slow to come around to dealing with the savagery of democrats and it’s nice to observe the democratic reaction when their own attacks are returned back to them. And yes, I do know about Joe McCarthy and the Army hearings.
As far as a wife’s texts and communications, they are obviously separate. Some individuals have seemed to forget that women are individual entities unto themselves. Anyone married to a strong and intelligent woman could tell you this. And they don’t have to be strong or intelligent, they simply are. Personal experience in a marriage of 46 years has informed me of that. It is quite common for couples to have diametrically opposing views on almost everything from abortion to political parties to donations. My wife and I agree on charities but otherwise are politics are totally separate and unspoken even though we are basically in the same profession. I think Professor Turley has well explained the legal remedies and rights about contesting elections. After having listened to Oman, AOC, Warren, Hirono, Pelosi and others, I found Ms. Thomas refreshing.
You’d think she were guilty of selling America’s Uranium to Russia or Justice Thomas getting paid $500k in speaking fees to speak to Russian oligarchs in Moscow.
“Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
What Turley is pointing out is that we are hearing the rantings of leftist fascists trying to illegally gain control over the nation.
A reminder that Turley called for KBJ (assuming that she’s confirmed) to recuse in the Harvard case, despite her not having done anything illegal. JT made that call because he believes it’s a conflict of interest. It is wholly appropriate to likewise call for Clarence Thomas to recuse in Jan. 6 cases when his wife was coordinating with the WH CoS on issues related to Jan. 6; people likewise see that as a conflict of interest for Justice Thomas.
To be clear: Turley assumes that the 29 messages that Meadow willingly turned over are the totality of all of Ginni Thomas’s communications with people in the WH covered by the PRA. But Meadows stopped cooperating with the committee and withheld many communications. The Trump v Thompson case that Turley touches on — about hundreds of pages of WH communications covered by the PRA that had been withheld from the Committee — could easily include more communications between Ginni Thomas and people in the WH. We do not know, and he shouldn’t assume it. It is sufficient that his wife had exchanges with people covered by the PRA about the topic at issue, and the case was about those people withholding other communications. If KBJ has a conflict, so does Thomas.
“…despite her not having done anything illegal.”
The current occupant of the White House just advocated removing Russia’s leader. Priorities, priorities
Biden didn’t advocate the US removing Putin. What’s your point?
“What’s your point?”
If you didn’t get the point, you can see past your nose.
Cleanup on Aisle One.
White House: Please disregard what the president said. He should be taken seriously, of course, but not literally.
In the famous words of White House Spokesman Jen Paski. (in reference to Hunter Biden), “He’s/She’s not a federal employee. We have nothing to say.”
Justice Thomas is a federal employee.
Justice Thomas has made no comments on Jan 6. Hence he has no conflict of interest.
Family counts, or family is ignored. Psaki has explained it to you.
You do understand that Trump v Thompson didn’t involve comments made on Jan. 6, right?
The Hunter Laptop and its revelations of how utterly corrupt and compromised the Biden Family is…starting with the Big Guy, Brother Jim, Son Hunter….and of course the dutiful Wife….are absolutely patently sufficient for Impeachment Proceedings against the Dementia riddled President.
The Insurance Plan the Democrats have purchased is Kamala…..and now the Democrats finally grasped she is going to become President at some point in this horribly incompetent Administration the Midnight Miracle inflicted upon this Nation.
The best laid plans often go astray as has been known for centuries…..this one is no different. The Democrats have outsmarted themselves. yet again.
They conjured up two Impeachment Proceedings against the Orange Man….even when the good Professor told them they would fail again as they did not have the will of the people behind them…..when the Republicans take the House and Senate in the upcoming Election….they shall have the support of the American People and ample evidence to do a successful Impeachment of many Democrats in the Biden Administration.
Let’s quote the Professor……”The calls for the impeachment of Justice Thomas are ludicrous but there is nothing laughable about the impeachment addiction fueling this frenzy.”.
What articles of impeachment do you propose for Biden?
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) will head the House Judiciary Committee by next January. He will proceed with the impeachment case before potentially conveying the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Should be fun!
“Probably the most compelling is the utter lawlessness of President Biden’s refusal to enforce the border. His decision to just defy federal immigration laws and allow 2 million people to come here unimpeded in direct contravention of his obligation under Article 2 of the Constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Sen. Ted Cruz
For starters…… From 2009 to 2017, while occupying the office of vice-president under Barack Hussein Obama, Biden abused and defiled his position as the 2nd highest official in the United Stated government, betraying his most solemn duties, his oath of office, and his loyalty to the United States of America in service to the illicit enrichment of himself and his immediate family members.
In addition to breaching public integrity in the most grave possible manner, Biden perpetrated these criminal abuses of his office at substantial risk to, if not to the significant detriment of, the national security of the United States. Moreover, all costs attributable to Biden’s actions while vice-president which were not legal, legitimate activities of that office, but instead constituted Biden’s criminal abuse of it in furtherance of Biden family enrichment schemes, have been nonetheless born by U.S. taxpayers.
Specifically, Mr. Biden criminally abused the powers and prestige of the Vice-Presidency of the United States, either directly or indirectly, to facilitate, participate in and personally profit from numerous “pay for play” schemes perpetrated by and with members of Biden’s immediate family in a criminal conspiracy with numerous foreign actors and governments, to include adversary nations hostile to the United States of America. This criminal conspiracy to commit treason against the United States, as perpetrated by Biden, Biden family members and foreign actors, was a joint, coordinated effort undertaken with the motive of the personal enrichment of the participating Biden family members and of Biden himself.
The amounts of personal enrichment by Biden family members are so far beyond any value purportedly given back by any Biden family member, whether in goods, services or investment capital, to any of the foreign entities involved, that it is clear that the expected return to these foreign entities lies in the involvement of Biden himself, whether in access to Biden as president, or in undisclosed prior acts or outstanding promises to act in the future, per the requirements implicitly or covertly agreed upon by the Biden family members receiving the monetary or other valuable payments.
The main Biden family culprit in these schemes, Biden’s only living son Robert Hunter Biden, admitted when asked in a televised interview that there was no legitimate reason for him to be handed the fruits of one of the numerous sources of his family’s enrichment except that his father was the vice-president. This admission was since confirmed and the true scope of Biden family corruption explicitly detailed when the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer were lawfully released to the FBI and other parties interested in uncovering Biden corruption.
The portions of the Hunter Biden computer’s contents which have been released to the public indicate extensive, purposeful schemes to capitalize illicitly on Biden’s tenure as a high official of the U.S. government by means of highly-lucrative business deals with, and monetary payments from, foreign actors and agents of foreign governments. The involvement of Biden in these illicit schemes as both participant and beneficiary is spelled out in Hunter Biden’s own communications, though thinly veiled behind references like “the Big Guy” or “my Chairman” and the like. No Biden or any other person has disputed the authenticity of these documents and data.
Again: what articles of impeachment do you propose?
Wut?
Anonymous, so you or do you not think that Biden has been shown to have been corrupt in his dealings with China and Ukraine through the activities of his son? Agnew took cash in an envelope as VP and rightfully had to resign, Biden has taken MILLIONS via his son from FOREIGN COUNTRIES and yet you will not admit that he is corrupt. You think you are smart but your partisanship makes you a MORON!
An open minded person, LIKE ME, says Agnew had to go, Nixon had to go and that Trump has said some really stupid things. A braindead moron like you says that Biden is clean, Thomas is corrupt (as Barbara Boxer is also clean) and that Hunter is off limits.
Anonymous, please know that we almost all ignore you, hate you and laugh at you.
For the third time: what articles of impeachment do you propose?
Why don’t you address the “issues” raised by Hullbobby instead of trying to force him to narrowly articulate articles of impeachment? I see this less-than-clever tactic used often in litigation. All we need to do is point it out to the jury, and they appropriately respond….
Lin, hullbobby is claiming Biden should be impeached, but he isn’t stating what Biden has done that is impeachable? It’s fair to ask. Others are suggesting Thomas needs to be impeached by the same reasoning hullbobby is using.
Svelaz/Anonymous: “Others are suggesting Thomas needs to be impeached by the same reasoning hullbobby is using.” –Looks like you answered your own question….
How about preserving and protecting the border as instructed BY LAW? How about acceding to the SCOTUS’ legal determination that the CDC cannot ban landlords from collecting rents on property that THEY OWN? How about for collecting TEN PERCENT of his son’s ILLEGAL monies from CHINA, RUSSIA and the UKRAINE?
How’s that for some impeachable offenses?
You were asked for articles of impeachment, not impeachable offenses. Do you understand the difference?
You also have some bizarre ideas about what constitutes an impeachable offense (SCOTUS striking down an executive agency rule, really?), and I look forward to you presenting a court ruling about these so-called “illegal monies.”
Treason.
Anonymous, treason doesn’t apply.
“ Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Treason has a very high bar to clear.
Joe Biden easily clears that bar.
Act Blue is not getting their money’s worth in your trolling
Hullbobby finally says the quiet part out loud:
“Trump has said some really stupid things.”
Prove it. Name just 3 of the stupidest things he has uttered to see if the Trumpists here will agree with you or rather accuse you of TDS.
Bet you won’t…
“You think you are smart but your partisanship makes you a MORON!”
I’m not entirely sure, but isn’t that how this particular anonymous got his name, Anonymous the stupid?
The Republicans CANNOT do this – they have to show that they re better than the D’s and that they will not use that tool for partisan purposes. It will signal the end of the Republic.
No fan of Biden or any of the henchpeople, but the best way to get them out of power is to win elections. Engaging in petty “got yas” is not the answer
Treason.
A single word is not an article of impeachment.
How about 3 words? Three words shouted by a lunatic Democrat congress woman, before Trump even got sworn in:
“Impeach the Motherf*cker!”
Or is that 4 words? Not sure.
Actually Tlaib said that long after Trump took office. More to the point: her words in Jan. of 2019 did not result in impeachment and don’t appear anywhere in the actual articles of impeachment against Trump.
Biden will not be impeached without articles of impeachment, no matter how many people whine that he should be impeached.
Maxine Waters was getting herself booked on MSNBC for the purpose of calling for Trump’s impeachment BEFORE he was even inaugurated.
Votes were held on whether to move forward on impeachment at least five times. First because Trump criticized a privileged, multi-millionaire football player for kneeling during the national anthem; then they voted on whether to move forward on impeachment because Trump said a bad word (“sh#thole”) in a closed door private meeting with Dick Durbin; then they wanted to impeach him for criticizing the crackpots who have been called “The Squad”.
It was all, obviously, part of a strategic messaging operation.
They wanted to use the media to demonize and delegitimize Trump. The goal was to: 1)keep the always self righteous lunatic left enraged and eager to vote in the ’18 midterms and 2) demoralize center-right swing voters so they’d stay home rather than vote.
It worked. After Democrats retook the House they had enough votes to finally impeach him. This time they impeached him because he asked the President of Ukraine to investigate potential corruption. A president was impeached by Democrats for trying to root out corruption. Only in America.
Pelosi’s hope, apparently, was that by abusing her power to run an impeachment process it would create such a stain on Trump that he’d decide not to run for re-election. Not only did he run, but had Democrats, Zuckerberg and Elias not radically changed how votes were cast and counted in 2020, it’s likely Trump would have won. He “lost” by about 40,000 votes.
Democrats are evil. They just are.
“This time they impeached him because he asked the President of Ukraine to investigate potential corruption.”
No, he was impeached for trying to extort Zelensky into publicly announcing an investigation into Trump’s political rival.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text
Wouldn’t the world like to hear Zelensky share what is really going on in Ukraine? And how deep into the corruption Biden actually is?
Trump was impeached for doing his job, as stated in the law. He did not withhold the money, though Biden threatened to withhold money. Right now, there is a war in Ukraine, and the POTUS has to watch out for what he does because people on that side of the world know he is a crook.
No, Trump was impeached for breaking the law. It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
Former FEC Chair and current Commissioner Ellen Weintraub noted that the Federal Elections Commission “has recognized the ‘broad scope’ of the foreign national contribution prohibition and found that even where the value of a good or service ‘may be nominal or difficult to ascertain,’ such contributions are nevertheless banned.” That includes Trump’s attempt to solicit from Zelensky an investigation of Biden — Trump’s political rival — with a public announcement from Zelensky of that investigation, all carried out by Trump via attempted extortion. That you cannot admit this does not change the facts.
Ralph says:
“Let’s quote the Professor……”
Yes, let’s: Trump is a “carnival snake charmer.”
Said long ago and true to this day….
Unfortunately, JS doesn’t know what that means.
If ever Turley is willing to entertain questions, I intend to ask him what he meant and why his opinion has not changed.
Jeff, why do you think Turley would be interested in you? What have you said that demonstrates intelligent thought? If Turley actually read what you write, he would probably laugh at you and, in horror, recognize your claim to be an attorney.
SM
As is the norm, leftists are advocating for power, they would never agree to Repbulicans using. If Republicans were as stupid and evil as Democrats exhibit everyday, Binden will be impeached once a month until his gone.
Do leftist really want Republicans to start impeaching SCOTUS judges?
Impeach Biden for what?
We can read the articles of impeachment for Johnson, Clinton and Trump (x2). Identify your proposed articles of impeachment for Biden.
How about not following the law vis a vis the border? Is that not impeachable? How about for taking bribes from his own son in the stead of foreign nations? Is that impeachable? How about for killing the energy sector? How about for making evictions illegal as the COURT decreed otherwise? How about just for making Harris VP for crying out loud?
Have you ever bothered to read the articles of impeachment for previous President?
I’ve never seen articles of impeachment in the form of questions.
Treason.
Nope.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
“or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Joe Biden, right there.
What was the overt act where that occurred, and who are the witnesses?
There is plenty to investigate and bring to light with Joe Biden. Save it for another discussion.
Suffice it to say that the President of the United States is deeply, deeply in the pockets of China’s Communits Party. He is dangerously compromised and his decisions as POTUS demonstrate it.
Afghanistan. Who leaves $85 billion of military equipment behind to arm the Taliban with U.S. taxpayer money. Who does that?
Southern Border. Killing domestic energy production. Food shortages incoming. All of Biden’s policies are destroying America and helping China become the dominant force in the world.
Bottom line is Biden will not be impeached, but he should be, ten times over.
In other words: you claim treason, but you have no evidence of treason.
Name one of Biden’s policy decisions that is NOT making America less safe, less prosperous, more unstable, the world more unstable, the U.S. more dependant on foreign oil, harming our children by indoctrinating them in Marxist ideologies, killing our young people with drugs flowing into the wide open southern border “policy” of Joe Biden? Crime on the rise. Inflation on the rise. Energy costs on the rise. Rents on the rise. Food shortages expected. On and on the list goes. Biden policies are INTENTIONALLY HARMING AMERICANS.
IMPEACH the Motherf*cker!
It’s Justice Clarence’s court now. Deal with it.
Congress then leaked the messages and the media did the rest.
Well, acturally the partisan, Democrat, committee, is nothng but a tax payer funded, opposition research operation.
The constitutional scope of the comitee, is to investigate Jan 6, to better inform themselves as they write legislation.
Leaking private communications does nothing to advance that narrow constitutional limitations. We all know the dems cannot remain in power with free and fair elections.
Iowan says:
“We all know the dems cannot remain in power with free and fair elections.”
When Turley makes this claim, I’ll believe it. Until then, you are just another Trumpist liar.
Turley makes other claims and then you accuse him of being beholden to another. It’s a dirty game you play.
Spare me the whole fake “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion” routine. After decades of being told that wives are their own people, capable of independent thought and action, and that they are not meek, quiet, subservient extensions of their husbands we are now to be told that Justice Thomas is responsible for his wife’s actions?
My response to all of the hysterical fake shills: “Go pound salt”.
Turley sure loves to throw red meat to his deluded fans here. He’s making a HUGE mountain out of a molehill with the “calls” for impeachment. The calls for impeachment are actually being made very few individuals. Turley is being much more disingenuous than usual. The real issue, the one Turley is obviously avoiding is recusal. The majority of people are demanding justice Thomas recuse himself from cases involving Jan 6. Legal scholars, both liberal AND conservative are stating Thomas should recuse himself. Legislators and prominent legal experts agree.
What is telling is his Turley didn’t mention his column on The Hill about the real problem.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/599863-ginni-thomass-texts-does-a-spouses-opinion-disqualify-a-supreme-court
Instead he posted this “deflection” opinion about a barely existent demand for impeachment from a few on the extreme side of congress.
Ginny Thomas’s text messages were not “encouraging political advocacy”. They were demands Meadows to do something. She was literally joining and supporting the attempt to subvert a constitutional process. She told Meadows,
“Sounds like [Trump attorney] Sidney [Powell] 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.”
What’s even more telling is how Turley doesn’t quote the more damning texts.
This isn’t just an issue of her free speech right to advocate for something. It’s about her relationship with justice Thomas as a wife who is clearly a HUGE supporter of Trump. She admitted she did attend the Jan 6. rally but stated that she left before Trump’s speech. That’s total utter BS. She’s too big a supporter to suddenly leave when the most important speaker was about to take the stage. She was there to hear Trump no doubt.
Even Turley himself agrees Thomas should recuse himself from Jan 6 cases. Justice Thomas cannot be trusted to be impartial and just because Ginny Thomas is saying she doesn’t discuss these things with her husband is pure BS.
“ None of that means that a recusal was not warranted. If Thomas knew of his wife’s messages, recusal could have avoided the “appearance” of a conflict, even if all of the emails were previously disclosed. That is the standard governing recusal questions for lower court judges, although the justices — wrongly, in my view — maintain they are not controlled by the Code of Judicial Ethics.”
Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from Jan 6. Cases. Because now it seems Ginny Thomas also had contact with Eastman who was pushing for pence to violate the constitution. Ginny Thomas was supporting and demanding that Meadows act to subvert the government.
I challenge you to name a conservative legal scholar who has said that Thomas should recuse himself from January 6 cases. The notion is preposterous.
William JD,
“ Adam White, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, told The Washington Post for a Friday article that he generally has dismissed criticism of the Thomas’ and not agreed that that Supreme Court justice should recuse himself because of his wife’s work. However, White said that the news of the text messages is “somewhat different because they pertain to a specific course of events that did give rise to Supreme Court litigation. This does raise real questions about the need for Justice Thomas to recuse from future cases related to the Jan. 6 insurrection,” he assessed.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/calls-for-clarence-thomas-recusal-intensify-in-wake-of-wife-s-1-6-texts/ar-AAVwI3d?ocid=EMMX
Turley’s article in theHill.con is exceedingly disingenuous. He quotes one of Ginni’s messages to Meadows:
“Sounds like [Trump attorney] Sidney [Powell] 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.”
Turley attempts to liken her positively deranged conspiracy theory to remarks made by legal scholars:
“The media exploded with strikingly similar headlines, like Salon’s “‘Extraordinary level of corruption’: Legal experts shocked by Ginni Thomas’ QAnon texts” and the New Yorker’s “Legal Scholars Are Shocked By Ginni Thomas’s ‘Stop the Steal’ Texts.” The airwaves again are filled with shocked experts doing their best Claude Rains interpretation for cable audiences.”
Thomas urged Meadows to overturn the 2020 election by any means necessary, yet Turley pooh poohs her fanatical conspiracy theory. And worse, Turley conveniently overlooks this harrowing response by Meadows:
“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.”
It’s a religious crusade! Absolutely nuts!
Turley further dismisses Ginni’s texts:
“Much of the ethical analysis seems driven by the characterization of these messages as “collusion” in “overthrowing an election” rather than political advocacy…. Ginni Thomas insists she was not trying to “subvert the outcome of the 2020 election”
but, instead, to challenge what she viewed as a rigged election. She was wrong, in my view, but that is not a crime — it is protected speech. There is no evidence she advocated or participated in violence on that day, which is the purported focus of the committee. Her “interest” was the same as that of many Republicans who considered the election stolen.”
Asserting that the election was rigged by means of Smartmatic and Dominion vote counting machine tampering IS protected speech, but it could subject you to monetary damages for defamation. Despite her claim that she was not trying to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding, which is a felony under U.S. federal law, it remains to be seen whether she was so *innocent* in believing that the election was stolen when Turley himself never for a moment believed such nonsense and said so!
Massive voter fraud was a BAD FAITH Big Lie all along, Turley, and you know it, but on account of the defamation lawsuit against your employer, you will pretend that Trump and his collaborators were simply acting upon a misguided but good faith boo boo.
As Barr said- which you won’t acknowledged -Bullsh*t.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME FAR TOO SOCIALISTIC AND HAS LOST THE ABILITY TO REASON. I WAS ANGERED AT THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS QUESTIONED CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT NOMINEES AND THEN EXPECTED (AND RECEIVED) LITTLE OPPOSITION TO SOMEOWNE WHO, IN MY OPINION, IS OBVIOUSLY VERY LIBERAL AND OBVIOUSLY A LEFT WING DEMOCRAT.
MR. BIDEN’S SON, HUNTER, IN MY OPINION, IS A DISGRACE TO EVERYTHING AMERICAN AND HIS FATHER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN COMPLICIT IN AT LEAST SOME OF HIS NEFARIOUS DEALINGS.
President Biden said this bizarre but revealing comment a couple weeks ago as he was discussing “a new civil rights cause of action.”
“I bet everybody knows somebody…that in an intimate relationship, what happened was the guy takes a revealing picture of his naked friend, or whatever, in a compromising position and then blackmails…”
We’re sure they do, Big Guy. Especially when Hunter Biden is your son. We here in America should know that the President of the United States is deeply into the pockets of the Chinese Communist Party. They know far more about the Biden family than any of us voters do. As does Putin.
Despite Turley’s claims of nothing to see here. In addition to the 29 known texts we know about, she is a leader in an organization that injects itself in a number of matters that come before the court and discusses them with her “best friend” Clarence. I the presumed new Justice Jackson was married to a leader of BLM you’d figure out the conflict of interest.
In the case of the Supreme Court, not that I’m advocating it, Impeachment is the only weapon. Not only do they have no code of ethics, they don’t even allow their hearings to be televised. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and they are getting closer, having convinced themselves that precedent is no longer meaningful.
None of that is relevant to Turley’s article.
Enigma is a holdover from LBJ’s grifter class.
“I’ll have them n***** voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.
[Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan]”
― Lyndon B. Johnson
Trying to eliminate the competition in your fashion forgets about reality. Do you expect a Supreme Court Judge’s marriage to be like the James Carville’s and Mary Matalin’s? Like a mollusk, you attach yourself to any wild claim you can to advance a failed position.
Troll’s gonna troll.
A mollusk is gonna be a mollusk. The above mollusk has attached himself to a wild claim and can’t live with it.
Troll.
EnigmainBlackcommie said, “I the presumed new Justice Jackson was married to a leader of BLM you’d figure out the conflict of interest.”
That leader of BLM would probably be under investigation for embezzlement and extortion, so yea, we might figure out that conflict of interest.”
Mrs. Thomas may well find herself under investigation for attempting to overthrow the government. We will see!
Can you see any appearance of conflict interest?
Not really.
While I’m certain she’ll be convicted of nothing. She may find herself investigated to see who she was talking to besides Meadows. She already has had to apologize for her correspondence with her husband’s law clerks. in support of the rally
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/ginni-thomas-clarence-thomas-supreme-court/index.html
Enigma, that is a wild claim.You are full of them. When I first met you, you were blaming Donald Trump for something done long before Donald Trump was born. Try keeping to the facts.
THE DEMS and MEDIA and LEFT WING NUTS are just using this as an excuse to get rid of a Conservative from the COurt so they can replace with one of their hand picked STOOGES. Justice Thomas should ignore and continue on and he is strong and will which will drive the DEMS and Social Justice Warriors Crazy.
Just goes to show how nuts the Progressives are. Rules for thee, but none for me…ALWAYS.
It is hard to understand impeachment calls for Thomas over hi wife’s tweets that mention him, but total lack of concern over hunter’s emails and photos that include joe. There is a segment of the population that has lost their ability to reason