No, Justice Thomas Did Not Commit an Impeachable Offense

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.



214 thoughts on “No, Justice Thomas Did Not Commit an Impeachable Offense”

  1. Like, Duh! There is ‘zlich, zero, nada’ legal basis for any impeachment charge. Omar’s tight headwrap makes her moronic.

  2. George Soros’ Act Blue trolls are in full force today. Their talking points are:

    1. Justice Thomas is a n******** and must recuse himself from judging White Democrats
    2. Turley is a hypocrite and needs to discuss “x” until we say otherwise

    take away their WiFi and their visibility in the public arena is non-existent. They would be the first to cut and run if America were attacked. Cowards are like that both online trolling and mano-a-mano engagement.

    “Majority of Democrats Polled Say They Would Flee, Not ‘Stay and Fight,’ if Russia Invaded US”

    1. The question didn’t ask what they’d do if Russia invaded the US. They were asked “If you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, do you think that you would stay and fight or leave the country?,” which could easily be interpreted as a question about what they’d do if they were in Ukraine.

      1. Anomaly,

        So t is not that democrats are cowards but instead that they are dumb? I can’t argue with that.

        1. Apparently you’re too “dumb” yourself to understand that the question is ambiguous.

          1. Anomaly,

            There is nothing ambiguous about “If you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, do you think that you would stay and fight or leave the country?”

            The key phrase in this question is “in the same position”. You know, the part about being the citizen of a country that is being invaded by a hostile neighbor?

            A person with even the most fundamental reading comprehension should be able to understand this distinction.

            Which is it, are the dems that responded to this poll cowards or do they lack the even most basic level or reading comprehension?

            1. You don’t even recognize that the OP’s claim, “if Russia Invaded US,” is inconsistent with your claim, “invaded by a hostile neighbor,” as Russia is not our neighbor.

              Apparently you are not honest enough to acknowledge that the question was ambiguous, and you are not grown up enough to have a discussion without name-calling. C’est la vie.

              1. Anomaly,

                I am responding to you. You said: “The question didn’t ask what they’d do if Russia invaded the US. They were asked “If you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, do you think that you would stay and fight or leave the country?” which could easily be interpreted as a question about what they’d do if they were in Ukraine.”

                Moving the goalpost in the argument is a sign of weakness.

      2. Ukrainian men are not leaving, they are fighting. Leftists are different. All one sees of them are their backs disappearing.

    2. Revelations 17 and 18 describe the last economic power that stands in the way of the ten kings that share power ONE HOUR with the Beast. Perfect description of the United States and/or New York and/or the Eastern seabord

  3. Jonathan: Calls for Justice Thomas to be impeached have reached a crescendo. But you think it’s just about hammers and nails. You say Ginni Thomas was just exercising her right of “political speech” when she sent those 29 bat-shit messages to Mark Meadows. That’s not true. Had Ginni just talked about the the 2020 election being “stolen”, as she did many times just after the election, that would have been one thing. But what she did was to appeal to Meadows to actually overturn the election and appoint a separate slate of electors. That was an illegal act. In one message Ginni tells Meadows: “Release the Kraken and save us from the Left taking America down”. This was not just “political speech” but an attempt to subvert the democratic election process by stopping the Electoral College certification.

    Ginni and Clarence Thomas are alter-egos. They share the same right-wing political philosophy. But Clarence has refused to recuse himself in cases directly involving his wife. When Trump attempted to keep WH docs from the House Committee investigating Jan. 6, Thomas was the sole dissenter. He was voting against turning over evidence of his own wife’s complicity in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

    You say there is no evidence “Ginni Thomas ever encouraged violence”. That’s really immaterial and irrelevant. By her words and actions she “encouraged” the overturning by illegal means of a fair election. The leaders of the insurrection, even though some did personal advocate violence, are being prosecuted for sedition. Should Ginni Thomas be held to a different standard?

    In the January case Thomas should have recused himself because of his direct conflict of interest. It should not have “discretionary” for him to refuse to do so. This shows he cannot be impartial in cases coming before the Court, especially in cases in which his wife has a direct interest. This is why he should be impeached!

    1. DM:
      “Ginni and Clarence Thomas are alter-egos.

      Barefoot, too? You can’t much more sexist than that. Bravo. Another low!

    2. If Pence would have recognized that request of the state legislatures to be allowed to examine the validity of the reported vote totals, then it would have gone to the Stems Court to decide if that course of action is allowable. Now the democrats are trying to make it official that it would not be allowed. Which means that there is the potential at least that it would have been legal under current state of the law. Pence failed the country when he could have let the vast problems with the election be exposed in an open way for examination but took the cowardly and stupid move of letting his corrupt, anti-Trump advisors interpret the law instead of letting the SC run with it.

      1. Pence already addressed your misunderstanding: “Our Founders were deeply skeptical of concentrations of power and created a Republic based on separation of powers and checks and balances under the Constitution of the United States. Vesting the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide presidential contests would be entirely antithetical to that design. As a student of history who loves the Constitution and reveres its Framers, I do not believe that the Founders of our country intended to invest the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide which electoral votes should be counted during the Joint Session of Congress, and no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority. … It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.”

        What you want is unconstitutional. Pence did not “fail the country” by upholding his oath of office. John Eastman has been referred to the CA Bar for proposing it. Eastman himself admitted in an email to Pence’s lawyer that what Eastman wanted was a “violation” of the Electoral Count Act.

        And despite your claim that “Now the democrats are trying to make it official that it would not be allowed,” you provide no evidence to support your claim.

    3. Dennis,

      Please provide the text of the messages that you are referring to.

      1. Ray in SC: Don’t recall my source for the 2 Ginni Thomas quotes. All 29 quotes were published in the Washington Post, CBS News, NT Times and elsewhere. Probably got mine from one of those sources. All of the email exchanges were turned over to the House Select Jan. 6 Committee by Mark Meadows. The first email exchange was on 11/5, only 2 days after the election and well before the SC decided the Jan. 6 case in which Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter.

        I don’t know about you but I don’t buy Turley’s defense of Virginia Thomas–that she was just exercising her right of “political speech”. It’s pretty clear she was actively working as a lobbyist to get Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 election. In one email exchange with Meadows she specifically refers to my “best friend”–a term she often used to refer to her husband. So whatever your views on Ginni’s political activities this doesn’t let Clarence off the hook when it comes to recusal. He and his wife clearly discussed what was going on after the election and Ginni’s involvement in trying to get the election overturned. That should have required Justice Thomas to recuse himself in the Jan. case because he knew or should have known his wife had “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” (28 USC Code Sec. 455–cited previously by Anonymous). That’s why I argue Clarence Thomas should be impeached because he has demonstrated he can not be “impartial” in cases he has participated in over the years. Any other questions?

  4. 28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

    (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
    (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: … (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: … (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; …

    1. “Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;”

      priceless! you trolls are such drama queens. Millions of Americans would not put up a fight if Hillary were shot, Pelosi were hung, drawn and quatered and Biden were thrown into an insane assylum, yet that does not mean they are prohibited from engaging the public execution discussions of elected politicians. Maxine Waters did all of us a favor.

      Karma 😂

      1. Anonymous, it’s pretty clear the law requires justice Thomas to recuse himself from Jan 6 cases.

        “ (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

        Any JUSTICE, judge, or magistrate. It doesn’t exclude Supreme Court justices

        1. No. Impartiality can always be questioned, so the question ends up with what is reasonable. “shall disqualify himself” tells us the justice is making the decision. Do you think you can be mistaken for Clarence Thomas? Why are you answering for him?

        2. Anonymous, it’s pretty clear the law requires justice Thomas to recuse himself from Jan 6 cases.

          You can have an opinion that Justice Thomas should.

          You are lying when you say “the law requires it”

          No one, repeat, no one, not a soul is claiming it is a violation of law.

          Just as SCOTUS has no say in the rules of congress. Congress has no say in the rules of SCOTUS. All other courts are a creation of Congress. SCOTUS is a creation of the Constitution.

          Once again, those of leftist bent, have zero civics knowledge. I guess because, were ever they get their news, also are ignorant of the Constitution.

          1. Again, the law says “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

            “Shall,” not “may.” SCOTUS has addressed this law (e.g., in Liteky v. United States) and has never found it unconstitutional.

            1. “Shall,” not “may.” SCOTUS has addressed this law (e.g., in Liteky v. United States) and has never found it unconstitutional.

              Look. I explained this clearly.
              Separation of powers.
              SCOTUS is onE of three branches of govt. Congress cannot use legislation to force SCOTUS to implement rules. There is no Article I power concerning legislative power to control The Supreme Court of the United States


              I only take the time to repeat myself, because it offers yet another example of how stupid the left is about simple things.

              Congress has the power to control and regulate the courts, Congress created.

              Congress did not create SCOTUS

              1. The Constitution says “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,” and Congress can pass legislation about that behavior. For example, the Ethics in Government Act applies to SCOTUS Justices (among others — it also applies to the President, the VP, lower court judges, and some others), and all of the Justices abide by that Act, for example, by filing the required financial disclosure forms.

                This is part of our system of checks and balances. Just as SCOTUS can rule on the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress, Congress can pass legislation that applies to the behavior of SCOTUS Justices. SCOTUS can strike that legislation down if they find it to be unconstitutional.


                And it’s constitutional unless SCOTUS finds it to be unconstitutional. The fact that not a single SCOTUS Justice has ever sought to challenge the law suggests that they do not believe it to be unconstitutional.

  5. Bill Maher says Republicans ‘would be thrilled’ to have no Black justices on the Supreme Court.

    Actually, Mr. Maher, our favorite one is the Black one.

    We like his wife, too.

  6. Fake News and Looney leftys have provided a valuable service. I had no idea Mrs. Thomas made those comments. I wholeheartedly agree with many of them. It’s the old double-standard. Exercise your Constitutional rights, Mrs. Thomas. 953 days, 11 hours until the election. If we survive. America First!

  7. Urging an investigation and pursing legal channels into election fraud is now an impeachable offense for the person’s spouse? If successful, then the US will have descended into corruption like Afghanistan or Venezuela. Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.

    It is apparently the patriotic duty of Democrats to claim fraud and meddling in every single election they lose, but high treason for Republicans and Libertarians to ever question an election they lose.

    There are many valid concerns for election integrity. There are the inaccurate voter rolls, ballot harvesting, elder abuse in nursing homes where caregivers or electioneers fill out ballots for the infirm, kicking Republican poll watchers out during ballot counting, accepting ballots after the due date, applying different legal standards to counties in PA in violation of the 14th Amendment, no voter ID in many states, as well as mailing ballots to everyone on the rolls without their request. I personally received ballots for the people who used to own my house over a decade ago. At least one of them has passed away. Democrats rabidly fight against any measure that would make it harder to cheat, and they always say the same thing – voter suppression. If you have to prove your identity to attend a Democrat primary or a bank, that’s common sense. To require it to vote is racist voter suppression. To audit the voter rolls is racist voter suppression. To need to request a mail in ballot is voter suppression. To prohibit ballot harvesting, require bipartisan poll watchers at nursing homes, or limit voting to 2 weeks instead of 2 months…all racist voter suppression. It’s manipulative.

    1. “Urging an investigation and pursing legal channels into election fraud is now an impeachable offense for the person’s spouse?”

      No, which is why no one has introduced articles of impeachment against Thomas.

  8. For the sake of argument let’s consider that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Jan 6. This is an argument that can be made in good faith by both sides. However, this post by Professor Turley is about the misuse of the impeachment process by political zeolites. Instead of addressing the danger of the over use of the impeachment process the heh but what about this or that crowd shriek to the high heavens. The question that remains is should impeachment only be used in concern of high crimes and misdemeanors or as a political Kudgel? The Kudgel was a common weapon used during the days of the caveman. My hope is that when the Republicans gain control of the House they won’t employ the same weapon that the cavemen and women used when they were in office. Better to be smarter than the cavemen and cavewomen. Hit em over the head harder shrieks Nancy. I will I will I will answers Chucky

  9. Turley makes NO COMMENT on whether Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from any case involving January 6. So it appears he blindly believes that there is no appearance of bias. That says a lot about Turkey’s own bias.

  10. It doesn’t matter that Justice Thomas did not commit an impeachable offense. He can still be impeached. Just ask President Trump who was impeached twice for crimes committed by Marxists.

  11. No clearer example is needed to show without a shadow of doubt that Turley is a world class hypocrite when it comes to the word impeachment. Turley wrote Trump withholding money approved by congress, and inciting a mob did not rise to the level of impeachment, both of which had national security concerns. Clinton lying about a personal affair that had no national security concerns was to be fully persecuted to the full extent of the law. Turley’s “opinion” on impeachment has been already been proven to be partisan, and no doubt he will protect Thomas and his wife.

    1. FishWings: Being grounded in reality might help you a bit. “Inciting a mob”? That never happened pal. So, stop with the hyperbole.
      So, you hate Turley and he’s a “world-class hypocrite”. Why not stroll on over to Huffpo or the NYT where your buds hang out. Your blood pressure will be better that way.

      1. Why do you think that Trump chose not to get a permit for a march, but then told his crowd to march to the Capitol and lied that he’d go with them?

        “after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. … We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. … So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol. … we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

        He lied to his crowd that “All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people,” when that would be unconstitutional.

        Yes, the mob that broke into the Capitol and injured almost 150 LEOs.

        1. Anonymous: the fact that J6 happened doesn’t make many people on the right happy. If the truth ever comes out, I think we will hear about FBI and other law enforcement encouragement in allowing this incursion into the Capitol to happen. Rap Epps? The guy up on top of the scaffolding? The UNRELEASED 4000 hours of video? Emails before the riot concerning Pelosi’s contacts? Perhaps time will tell us more. What more would you like to do to Trump? He has gone through two impeachments already.

          1. Name a single LEO who you believe to have encouraged the Capitol riot.

            Ray Epps is not a LEO, and I don’t know what “guy up on top of the scaffolding” you have in mind.

            Those hours of video show where the cameras are located. You want all of those locations made public, so the next time the rioters can start by spray painting the lenses? You want people to be able to follow the videos to see what safe location Pence was taken to? Have you even thought through what you’re asking for?

            Randy P said ““Inciting a mob”? That never happened pal,” so I pointed out some of what Trump said. Time will tell whether Trump or Roger Stone or anyone else gets added to the seditious conspiracy case.

            1. name a single Democrat who did not steal the election
              name a single Big Tech company that did not sway the election
              name a single FBI agent who did not participate in the Jan 6 riot
              name one moment in time when Joe Biden did not lie before the election…heck, even after the election! LOL

              sophistry is so 1990s

            2. Anonymous: This bit on conversation is going nowhere fast, so this will end it for me. Ray Epps was on the FBI list of wanted people. He was removed without explanation. He clearly incited people to go into the Capitol and that is on video. Yet, no charges. Doesn’t this even give you pause to wonder what his involvement was? In my opinion, he would have to have had the approval of someone in law enforcement (FBI or some agency). They are putting people in jail for months without bail and extending trial times into late 2022. He would be right there with them without some special arrangement. The chasm between the left (you) and the right (me) makes further conversation about this pointless.

              1. Why do you falsely assume that I never looked it up?

                Epps is on tape the night before saying “I’m going to put it out there. I’ll probably go to jail for it. Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol. Peaceably! Peacefully! We are freedom, we are peaceful. That’s what its about. It’s not about hurting people.” He later said “The only thing that meant is we would go in the doors like everyone else. It was totally, totally wrong the way they went in.”

                Yes, “Ray Epps was on the FBI list of wanted people,” and after they identified him, they interviewed him and removed his photo from the list, just like they removed lots of other people’s photos from the list after they were identified and interviewed. Do you not understand that often people are just wanted for questioning?

                “He would be right there with them without some special arrangement.”

                BS. He didn’t illegally enter the Capitol. He didn’t attack any LEOs. He didn’t destroy any property. He is even on tape trying to deescalate things outside (see the video here: )

                He was interviewed under oath, and there are no crimes to charge him with.

                But you can’t deal with any of these facts because you want your conspiracy theory to be true.

                1. You are the one who can’t deal with any facts. You simply snake yourself around the blog saying nothing but thinking you made an important point. Someone recently called another anonymous a sophist. You are probably that anonymous.

                  1. Empty claims are in your domain Anonymous the Stupid. Though the FBI won’t admit many of their actions, we learned in Michigan that the FBI has been very much involved in such activity. Right now the FBI and the left are trying to conceal their activities. That in itself is proof of such activities.

        2. “Why do you think that Trump chose not to get a permit for a march, but then told his crowd to march to the Capitol and lied that he’d go with them?”

          It’s a stupid question, ATS, he didn’t need one.

          “Yes, the mob that broke into the Capitol and injured almost 150 LEOs.”

          One person was killed, a non-violent female who wasn’t a threat to life and limb. Those people entering the Capitol building didn’t injure 150 LEO’s

          1. Actually, Troll, in DC you do need a permit for a march if you’re carrying it out legally, and you apply to the DC Metropolitan Police for the permit, specifying things such as the route and an estimate of the crowd size (see “March permits” listed under the DC MPD: ). The March for Our Lives had a march permit. The Women’s March had a march permit. But Trump didn’t get a march permit.

            Here’s an example of a rally permit for Jan. 6 that explicitly states “This permit does not authorize a march from the Ellipse”:
            Trump never did get a permit for his rally-goers to march down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol. He simply told them “we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol,” and he lied that he’d march with them, “after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down,” and they did, without a permit.

            Yes, one rioter was killed as she attempted to break into the Speaker’s Lobby while there were still members of Congress and staff in the House chamber. A LEO protecting those members of Congress and staff was pointing a gun at her, and she was warned about the gun and told not to climb into the Speaker’s Lobby, and she proceeded anyway. She was shot, just like she would have been if she’d disobeyed Secret Service pointing a gun at her while they were protecting someone. And yes, the rioters did injure almost 150 LEOs: “‘Around 140 officers were injured during the insurrection including officers with crushed spinal discs, broken kneecaps, and traumatic brain injuries,’ U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee Chairman Gus Papathanasiou said in a statement provided to Fox News.” Not that you care.

            1. You are pretty Stupid, Anonymous the Stupid. Trump didn’t march, so he needed a permit under no circumstances. In fact, Trump spoke pretty far away from the Capitol building when the activities occurred. That means he was not at the Capitol during the incident. I feel sure he had a permit for where he was speaking.

              Members of Congress were not present in the vicinity of Babbitt, who was unarmed with her arms and feet clearly visible as she carefully climbed through broken glass so that she wouldn’t be injured. (She is on record as one who tried to keep things peaceful.) The left has purposely kept the critical information from the people for no reasonable reason, except the left carries a lot of responsibility for what happened. Pelosi still hasn’t honestly answered why security was inadequate when Trump had earlier requested it. The interview of the police officer who did the killing was a set-up job, as was the release of information. Withholding such data tells us the intent of the left.

              Your explanation about the LEO who shot Babbitt is inadequate. She was unarmed and not a threat. We have seen you in action when police officers are doing their duty and something goes wrong. Suddenly you attack the police officers trying to protect others and themselves. You are a hypocrite and a liar.

              “the mob that broke into the Capitol and injured almost 150 LEOs.”

              No, those breaking into the Capitol did not injure 150 LEOs. You are a liar.

              You use the term, Troll, but you are the Troll because your time is spent here under an anonymous name or the anonymous pretend friends you call different people. That is not enough for your type of Troll, who has to use additional names, some that even have identifiable icons. Those icons can have more than one name attached. Your hypocrisy, multiple representations and lies identify you as the worst Troll a blog can have. There you have it, you shine brightly as a troll.

              You are a liar. That is all anyone needs to know.

                1. I do Anonymous the Stupid, but I see a sensible guy when I look. I would see a sensible guy and a stupid person if you were aside from me.

    2. Last time I checked, perjury was a felony, whether is response to a question about sex or not.

    3. Turley wrote Trump withholding money approved by congress, and inciting a mob did not rise to the level of impeachment, both of which had national security concerns.
      I’m not going to get into a back and forth over this, but I do want to point out the left gets a lie started and they just repeat it non-stop, no matter how many times they get corrected.

      The President has plenary power to delay funds approved by congress. Specifically the legislation to fund arms to Ukraine, has specific requirements that Ukraine must have met benchmarks in fighting corruption in stealing these funds by Ukraine officials. US agencies had given the go ahead because Ukraine had met the criteria. But, President Trump pause the release, and asked for a detailed accounting be delivered to him personally. Very much within the Presidents power.

      But leftist will continue to spout the lie, because they don’t care about facts.

      1. If he’d simply delayed the funds, that would be legal. But we both know that’s not what happened. What happened is that he tried to extort Zelensky, illegally soliciting election help from a foreign national.

        1. “If he’d simply delayed the funds, that would be legal.”

          ATS, the funds going to Ukraine arrived within the timeline they were supposed to come. Trump did nothing wrong. ATS, your mind is unable to distinguish truth from fiction.

          What is illegal about following the law and making sure corruption is not involved in distributing said money? What is unlawful about permitting the funds to reach Ukraine on time?

          Apparently ATS, you don’t know what happened, and are talking too much.

            1. ATS, was it an insult or was I questioning the truthfulness of what you had to say? The funds went to Ukraine on time. You appeared to say otherwise. You were wrong. Is that being truthful on your part? No, you were providing fiction.

              Don’t you think you should keep your mouth shut if you don’t know the facts straight?

              You should look up the word insult in the dictionary.

  12. 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 major national news story. While her husband was still hospitalized.

    And as someone said, the cruelty is the point.

  13. The left has been after Justice Thomas from the time of his nomination, and even before. They would like nothing better than for a Democratic President and Senate to have the opportunity to replace him. He has been a powerful voice on the Court, more interesting and capable than I had imagined he would be, and some of the positions he has articulated now have the prospect of being adopted by the Court. He has not committed any offence here, let alone an impeachable one, as Turley shows. That matters little; the ranting against him will continue.

    1. For their next trick of changing the subject, Biden’s handlers will drag the US into Ukraine’s war with Russia

    2. Ironically it was nasty partisan joe who trashed the Senate confirmation hearing process with both his sledge hammer approach to both Thomas and Bork. What a trashy mess the dems have made of just about anything they touch.

    3. He has committed the most heinous offense of all – He is a black man who refuses to kowtow to the Dems’ political orthodoxy.
      After all, as Joe said if you aint for me you aint black.

  14. Because she was exercising her 1st amendment rights, would that mean Justice Thomas should recuse himself from all 1st amendment cases? If this becomes the standard for recusals and impeachments, then spouses, children, friends, golfing buddies, Church congregants and so on will be subject to the chilling of their own rights, lest they appear to taint the Justice.

    1. “Because she was exercising her 1st amendment rights, would that mean Justice Thomas should recuse himself from all 1st amendment cases?”


      KBJ’s role on the Harvard Board of Overseers also involves her 1st Amendment rights, but the people who want KBJ to recuse from the Harvard affirmative action case aren’t suggesting that she has to recuse from all 1st Amendment cases either.

      1. No, you need to get that butt plug out of Uranus and admit that your people have failed miserably in enacting their Leftist agenda on Americans. Now, go look for another employer where you can have an honorable job instead of trolling for Act Blue, that or go make pizza pies at Comet Pizza in DC.

          1. Wow anonymous, you have such a way with words. How many times did it take you rewriting what you said to make it right? [sarc off]

  15. Biden may have started WWIII. He should be impeached and removed as US President post-haste. If Kamala buckles, remove her, and go down the line. Our lives are at stake and Biden is unfit. Everyone knows it globally.

    Yahoo News:

    *** Experts say Biden’s comment that Putin must go could give the Russian president the freedom to show no restraint ***

    “President Joe Biden’s remarks that Russian President Vladimir Putin should no longer be in power could give Putin the freedom to stop showing any restraint, experts told The Washington Post.

    At the end of his speech from the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland, on Saturday, Biden said “for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

    1. Putin is a sociopath. Whatever restraint he shows or abandons is because he believes it serves him, not a reaction to what others say.

    2. “Experts warn that despite White House efforts to clean president’s mess up, the Kremlin will have ‘got the message'”

  16. “In modern American politics, it often seems like the only tool is impeachment and every controversy instantly becomes a high crime and misdemeanor.”

    Apparently the “adults” in the room never read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

    Do those leveling absurd charges against Thomas actually believe them? No. They know the claims are absurd. So what’s their end game?

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” (Voltaire)

  17. I was surprised to see a rather thorough solicitation/advertisement for ActBlue in the comments section. But it does prove Professor Turley’s comments section isn’t screened to eliminate one ‘side’ or the other. So perhaps Project Veritas will be seeking personnel on this site soon?

    1. @Richard

      That is spam posted by a bot that got through the filter, no human posted that comment. It’s rare on this site, but it does happen. I get the ‘work from home’ spam all the time on my site. Regardless, if you read long enough, you’ll see that no poster is being censored regardless of position unless they violate the clearly outlined terms (link above), and even then there is a great deal of wiggle room, it seems to me.

      And FYI: even if you post anonymously, though invisible to users, the mod can see the email address you used. That too speaks well to the fairness on this site, as nearly every viewpoint is more or less welcomed.

    2. The socialist party aka Dumborats are too Stupid to read the Constitution. Why should they read something many of them refused to sign or take the oath to as required?”

      They have nothing to do with our Constitutional Republic nor any form of literacy.

      Makes you wonder how stupid are those who vote for them….hmmmm….or how literate…..or legal.

  18. I have been reading a study on the development of the Steppe Nomads from the Proto Indo European cultures that would eventually give us the Mongol hordes that would devastate the entire Eurasian continent.

    This has always been an area of interest to me but what has struck me lately is the similarity of attack of these Mongol hordes to that of the new progressive left. It was and is a battle of attrition where disease infected heads of the enemy would be lobbed over the walls of the attacked city and systematic program of starvation and deprivation would ensue until the city would surrender in desperation. This is just the tactic that the far left uses on anyone not knuckling under to their will. My question to conservatives is whether we have the stamina to resist these onslaughts and rebuff the barbarians at our gates.

    1. Alma asks Conservatives:

      “My question to conservatives is whether we have the stamina to resist these onslaughts and rebuff the barbarians at our gates.”

      If I may, the answer is “no.” The culture war was lost with the legalization of same-sex marriage. The college educated will never return to the home without questioning the beliefs which were inculcated by their parents. Hollywood is disproportionately run by gay Jews, like it or not.

      Face it. It’s over.

  19. OT– Something nefarious is going on. The Biden administration has shown little interest or concern about North Korea and its testing of ICBM and other missiles capable of reaching our allies (and even the US), and the President’s comments about Putin seem calculated to push Putin toward the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but this same administration is hell-bent-for-leather to get a nuclear “deal” with Iran, a deal which includes another substantial payment to the terrorist state, even though our true allies in the region are firmly against it. What is going on?

    1. What is going on? We are at war in America. Maybe you can help. We have been hiring “associates” at Act Blue who get paid well, starting $55-70k. Jobs are remote. You have seen some of our best and brightest promote our talking points on here, though you may not know they represent our fine progressive organization, Act Blue. Get on board. We are looking forward to taking America to the next level


      WHO WE ARE:

      ActBlue is a nonprofit that builds tech and infrastructure for Democratic campaigns, progressive-aligned causes, and people trying to make an impact in order to fuel long-term, people-powered change. If you’ve ever given online to a Democrat or progressive organization, chances are you’ve used our powerful online fundraising platform.

      We put power in the hands of small-dollar donors and help thousands of groups — from presidential candidates to environmental organizations — build grassroots movements. We envision a democracy where everyone looking to make progressive people-powered change can easily and effectively deploy their resources, energy, and creativity to shape our country and futures. Each and every one of us, from the political activists to the tech innovators to the customer service pros, is fully committed to our mission.


      Using latest research techniques and tools, help organization determine if organizations fall within user policies by being part of a vetting operation;
      Conduct research on prospective ActBlue users including public records research, campaign finance analysis, social media review, and news searches;
      Use a variety of research tools, such as LexisNexis, Illumis, and campaign finance databases, to fulfill vetting requests as well as being on the forefront of new tools that could help with research and vetting;
      Help manager develop and track relevant legislative updates related to digital and small-dollar donor fundraising, programs, campaigns, and nonprofits;
      Collaborate with Comms & Marketing team to fact-check and provide research in rapid response moments;
      Prepare pre-emptive research around small-dollar donors and issues affecting our various users or ActBlue;
      Be a project manager and participant for opposition research, misinformation, and self-research for the organization as assigned;
      Assist with any other research assignments and projects as needed.

    2. Has World War 3 begun yet? It’s hard to know at this point with this FUBAR regime occupying the White House.

Comments are closed.