Justice Thomas Faces Calls for Investigation and Sweeping Recusals

Below is my column on the calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a wide range of cases.  I have previously discussed the  meritless calls for his impeachment over the controversy related to his wife’s emails to the White House after the 2020 election. There are legitimate concerns that Thomas should have recused himself from a January case if he knew that his wife’s messages were included in the material sought by the House investigation. However, experts have gone further to claim that he must recuse himself from a wide array of other cases, including any touching on the 2020 election. I do not agree with that assessment. In the meantime, Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) is calling for an “investigation” into Thomas’ refusal to recuse himself, though he is vague on who would conduct such an investigation.

Here is the column:

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas may have been released from the hospital this week with a clean bill of health, but he was immediately met by a chorus of pundits and professors in a media frenzy calling for Thomas’s recusal from an array of cases. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) even called for Thomas to be impeached; others, like MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan, echoed that call.

The reason? Thomas’s wife, Ginni, and her communications with White House staff before the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this year, the House’s Jan. 6 committee won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the release of White House materials. The sole dissenting vote was cast by Thomas.

Soon after receiving the disputed emails and texts, the predictable leaks began from Congress, including 29 email and text messages from Ginni Thomas encouraging Trump’s then-White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to fight what she saw as a stolen election. Most of these messages preceded Jan. 6 and voiced such views as her Nov. 19, 2020, message 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.”

The leaks had their intended effect. 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.

As with many controversies, however, this story calls for a bit less shock and a bit more scrutiny.

Ginni Thomas is a prominent Republican activist. She has publicly stated that she and her husband keep their professional lives separate, as do many Washington couples.

When Ginni Thomas sent these messages, many Republicans believed the 2020 presidential election was stolen. (Indeed, only 21 percent of Republicans still believe Joe Biden was legitimately elected as president.) She and others were pushing for legal and political action to expose what they saw as voting fraud. I did not share that view and stated in 2020 that there was no evidence in these cases showing systemic fraud.

Democrats in prior — and later — years also have challenged election results and opposed the certification of presidential elections in Congress, and leading Democrats continue to call Trump an illegitimate president. What they did not do, of course, is riot in the halls of Congress — but neither did Ginni Thomas.

Thomas has insisted that she attended Trump’s Ellipse rally on Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol. Still, her messages were within the broad scope of discovery sought by Congress and thus covered in the earlier case.

There is a legitimate concern over Justice Thomas voting on the case, given the interests of his wife. Thomas’s position on the case was consistent with his long-held robust views of executive privilege and powers; however, that would not negate his voting on a case with a conflict of interest.

Yet, there are countervailing factors, too.

First, Ginni Thomas was publicly supporting Trump in his election and post-election claims; the messages echo her publicly-stated views. Second, Congress was already receiving testimony and statements from figures like Meadows. Even if it did not secure these emails from the White House, it could independently seek Ginni Thomas’s messages, since she is not protected by executive privilege. Thus, a Court injunction would not have necessarily barred such disclosure.

Third, and most notably, the messages were already disclosed. That fact is buried in the New Yorker article, which noted that when the Court was considering the issue, “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.”

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.

It would not be enough to justify only the second impeachment of a justice in history, or to compel Thomas’s recusal from any further election- or Trump-related cases. The New Yorker cited “shocked” experts saying that Thomas must now recuse himself from a wide range of cases because “his wife … colluded extensively with a top White House adviser about overturning Joe Biden’s victory.” The “collusion” and “scheming” cited in the article was to advocate — just as many others did publicly — for legal and legislative challenges.

One of those experts was NYU professor Stephen Gillers, who declared: “I was prepared to, and did tolerate a great deal of Ginni’s political activism. Ginni has now crossed a line. Clarence Thomas cannot sit on any matter involving the election, the invasion of the Capitol, or the work of the January 6 Committee.”

Conversely, Gillers recently said there was no need for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to recuse herself from a Supreme Court case involving Harvard’s use of race for admissions, if she is confirmed as a justice. Thus, Jackson could sit on a case involving Harvard after serving (and continuing to serve in 2022) as a Harvard board member. Yet, according to Gillers, Thomas should recuse himself from any election-related case because his wife advocated for challenges to the election. (Judge Jackson, correctly in my view, decided recently that she would recuse herself from the Harvard case.)

Much of the ethical analysis seems driven by the characterization of these messages as “collusion” in “overthrowing an election” rather than political advocacy. For example, University of California/Irvine professor Richard Hasen concluded that, “given Ginni Thomas’s deep involvement in trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election based upon outlandish claims of voter fraud, and her work on this with not only activists but the former president’s chief of staff,” a sweeping recusal is necessary since “his spouse’s reputation, and even potential liability, is at stake.”

What liability? 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.

Absent new damning evidence, these messages show constitutionally protected advocacy.

Even if Justice Thomas had decided to recuse himself from the earlier decision, there is no reason for him to recuse from any election-related or committee-related cases based solely on these messages from his wife.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

223 thoughts on “Justice Thomas Faces Calls for Investigation and Sweeping Recusals”

  1. The media and Dems want the public DISTRACTED from KBJ’s Supreme Court nomination that is in trouble.

    Notice the MSM are silent, not talking about how great Judge Jackson’s hearing went? Why, after the ‘historic’ nomination hearings for Ketanji Jackson, are they not talking about her, at all? They are talking about Justice Thomas and his wife.

    What are the media, Dems and Biden White House intentionally hiding from the people about Judge Jackson’s record?

    A lot.


    1. Do not let them get away with slipping this one through. It is deceitfully being done by the Biden WH in order to elevate a problematic nominee to the Supreme Court who essentially sat there and lied about her record and who she is and what she believes — which is NOT in line with much of American values. The public should be outraged. Judge Jackson is way out of the mainstream in her thinking and beliefs, and she is lying about her record and who she is during a confirmation hearing to the highest court? Unacceptable.

    1. I think there are two separate questions here.

      1. A judge should not have attributed to him the views of his wife for purposes of attacking his impartiality. Indeed, the political views of the judge himself are generally irrelevant to assessments of impartiality. A judge is expected to consider cases without regard to his own politics, let alone his wife’s.

      2. At the same time, if the resolution of a case could harm a judge’s wife, that may reasonably be expected to affect his impartiality. That seems not to be at issue here, because Ginni Thomas is an activist who is used to controversy and personal attacks, and there is no evidence at all that anything she did crossed the line into criminal conduct, which could result in actual harm to her through criminal prosecution. Communicating to WH officials on supposed election fraud and the urgency of opposing it is not a criminal offence. The idea that Clarence Thomas would cease to be impartial to save his wife from political controversy of the kind she has been involved in for decades is not reasonable.

      1. I agree full with you assessment. By the fact that the the party in power choose the Judge thAT THEY WANT ON THE SUpreme court could be taken as bias and a conflict of instrest. We forget that the judges are human beings imperfect and they have their own world views. I would think that the justices would have to agree with their spouses views in order to vote in that manner. But to simple vote based on the their spouse view is rediculous

        1. That is precisely why we need judges to trend toward originalism or textualism. Originalism and textualism provide a bright line to be followed. It also pushes Congress to do its job and the American people to demand any needed changes to the Constitution.

  2. The only thing that’s predictable about the Demogogues now is their sheer unbridled hatred and fanaticism.
    And that will be their destruction.
    Are they actually SERIOUS?
    And do they really think we don’t notice that the party of Jim Crow is now trying to “high-tech lynch” the second black SCOTUS member — and the only one sitting — AGAIN?

  3. The only thing that’s predictable about the Demogogues now is their sheer unbridled hatred and fanaticism.
    And that will be their destruction.
    Are they actually SERIOUS?
    And do they really think we don’t notice that the party of Jim Crow is now trying to “high-tech lynch” the second black SCOTUS member — and the only one sitting — AGAIN?

  4. You’ve become SO predictable, Turley. So, the editors at the New Yorker allegedly knew that the emails between Meadows and Ginni had already been disclosed, so they were wrong for criticizing Thomas, but Thomas himself didn’t know? Is that what you’re saying? If the New Yorker editors knew, then Thomas knew, too, and should have recused himself. You try to make the point that his dissent didn’t really matter, but the point is that judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Yes, this general rule, that applies to judges on the federal level and state level, too, is not directly applicable to SCOTUS justices, but it should be. I think the reason it does not expressly apply to them is because it is ASSUMED that a SCOTUS judge would know better because they are at the top of the judicial food chain and are supposed to be standard-bearers for judicial integrity. Thomas has consistently proven himself to be a poor choice.

    Next, you make an extremely lame effort to compare the recusal of Clarence Thomas that didn’t happen with Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recusal in any matter involving Harvard admissions policies because she serves on some governing committee at Harvard, which is just one of numerous committees. Your effort is lame because Judge Jackson’s committee has nothing whatsoever to do with admissions policies at Harvard, but Clarence Thomas’s wife was directly involved in encouraging, promoting and even attending the insurrection. You DO know better, Turley, but of course, this piece was for the disciples.

  5. Racist. Cory Booker’s race does not make this un-racist according to the Left’s definition of racism.

  6. You ignored the reason that I brought KBJ into it: to point out that your comment about Thomas’s actions having been legal is irrelevant. In both cases, they’re legal. That an action is legal is not the sole determining factor in whether a justice should recuse.

    Of course the two situations are different. Every single recusal case is different.

    As for “his wife saying privately to people at the WH the same lawful things she was saying publicly,” first, some of her private communications that have been made public were not the same things she was saying publicly. Second, her texts also allude to yet other communications that have not been made public, such as “Just forwarded to yr gmail an email I sent Jared this am.” We don’t know what she emailed Kushner about, so you’re not in a position for those communications to conclude that they were “the same lawful things she was saying publicly.”

  7. An interesting opinion from The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/people-are-pissed-seattle-deserves-a-public-safety-summit/. We have a nominee for the highest court in the land who lowers sentences for those convicted of murder, drug and child sexual assault offenses and in contrast the far left city of Seattle is calling for more law enforcement. The appropriate description of these polar opposite approaches should be “classic schizophrenia.” Its amusing to see that once an election is looming on the horizon the tune that their dancing the jig to has suddenly changed. Give them a break. It’s hard for them to remember all the falsity that has emerged from their lips. A man once said that he marches to the tune of a different drummer but he didn’t say that he marched to the tune of a different drummer everyday according to the popular sympathy. Once you’ve done it just putting a leaf over it won’t stop the smell.

  8. Because 28 U.S. Code § 455 says that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and the hypothetical falls in that category.

    1. According to Turley, the Supreme Court takes the view that the recusal rules do not apply to it.

      Even if they did, this rule would not apply to this case. There is no basis on which Thomas’ impartiality could “reasonably” be questioned.

      Ginny Thomas believed the election was stolen and that an illegitimate president might be empowered as a result. She said so publicly. She urged Meadows in emails to do what he could through the judicial and legislative process to prevent this wrong from happening. She may have written the same to others in positions of power. She also may have made calls.

      So what? This was lawful conduct. Its revelation could not be expected to harm Ginny Thomas, whose views were known. That some on the left would take the revelation of these communications as an occasion to denounce her all the more was unlikely to be a serious concern either to her or her husband, unpleasant though it might appear to be to others unfamiliar with the level of vilification they have suffered over many decades. This would seem to me to be more like water off a duck’s back than a serious concern that could affect Thomas’s impartiality.

      The only possible basis I can see for recusal is if Thomas knew that the papers requested included communications from his wife that were not otherwise available already, and that those communications could put his wife in legal jeopardy. That seems not to be the case here. Moreover, even if it were the case, there would be no justification for a wider recusal.

      1. Daniel, I believe you to be correct. ATS has little understanding of the legal definitions of the words and phrases that he copies and pastes. Lacking such knowledge, he creates scenarios of attack on his enemies. One can recognize the ploy because he is a hypocrite that doesn’t apply the same rules to those he supports. On the other hand, you have the legal ability to interpret what is said.

        Either methodology draws one to the same conclusion. ATS is not telling the truth.

        1. On a different topic, there is a long and detailed article on Jackson’s sentencing views by Paul Sperry on today’s Real Clear Investigations. Worth reading.

          1. Thanks, Daniel.

            “A month earlier, Jackson had shrugged off Justice Department warnings that the decision — which made more than 12,000 federal crack inmates eligible for early release — could flood the streets with dangerous criminals who would likely reoffend.”

            How many young deaths will Jackson’s lack of humanity cause? No one is concerned about the innocent who dies or are otherwise destroyed by the actions of ideologically motivated judges. We also have to think about the initial charges that the plea lowered for a quick and sure conviction. She is reducing their sentence for other crimes as well without concerning herself about them.

            Does our leadership care? Where do the problems start? Take a look at one seemingly insignificant article: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/rep-cawthorn-says-hes-been-invited-orgies-watched-lawmakers-do-cocaine-during?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

            If we want to solve the nation’s most significant problems, we must start at the top.

      2. “According to Turley, the Supreme Court takes the view that the recusal rules do not apply to it. ”

        Actually, Turley said that the Court takes the view that the “Code of Judicial Ethics” doesn’t apply to Justices. I’m not talking about that Code. I’m talking about a law — 28 U.S. Code § 455 — that is distinct from the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, aka the Code of Judicial Ethics. As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has not said that 28 USC 455 doesn’t apply to them. One can certainly find motions to the court asking for a specific recusal under that law.

        “So what? This was lawful conduct.”

        Lawful conduct can result in recusals! There’s nothing illegal about KBJ serving on the Harvard Board of Overseers, but she still said that she’d recuse from the Harvard case if confirmed. That it’s lawful is not the determining factor in recusal. The determining factor is whether the judge’s/justice’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Ginni Thomas had repeated private exchanges with Meadows, including pushing things such as which lawyers to retain, and we don’t even know whether some additional communications from her were among those that Trump sued to prevent the release of. Many believe that Clarence Thomas’s impartiality can reasonably be questioned in these cases. You disagree.

        and that those communications could put his wife in legal jeopardy”

        Again, you are using the wrong standard. KBJ’s role on the Harvard Board of Overseers does not put her in legal jeopardy. Or if you don’t like that example, look at cases where Justices have recused. Can you name even one case where they were put in legal jeopardy?

        1. “Ginni Thomas had repeated private exchanges with Meadows”

          So what? Your quantity of words doesn’t indicate quality. Tell us exactly how this causes a legal need for Thomas to recuse himself. Stop dancing around.

        2. Jackson was on the board of the university whose conduct is about to be judged. She would in effect be assessing her own conduct. No reasonable person would expect a judge to be impartial when the policies of an institution they helped govern are in question. That is completely different from a judge considering access to communications of his wife saying privately to people at the WH the same lawful things she was saying publicly, in circumstances where those communications were already available. If you can’t see the difference, I can’t help you.

          1. This comment became decoupled from the thread, so I’m posting a second time and hopefully the threading will work this time…

            You ignored the reason that I brought KBJ into it: to point out that your comment about Thomas’s actions having been legal is irrelevant. In both cases, they’re legal. That an action is legal is not the sole determining factor in whether a justice should recuse.

            Of course the two situations are different. Every single recusal case is different.

            As for “his wife saying privately to people at the WH the same lawful things she was saying publicly,” first, some of her private communications that have been made public were not the same things she was saying publicly. Second, her texts also allude to yet other communications that have not been made public, such as “Just forwarded to yr gmail an email I sent Jared this am.” We don’t know what she emailed Kushner about, so you’re not in a position for those communications to conclude that they were “the same lawful things she was saying publicly.”

            1. The two situations are different in ways that make the first a reason for recusal and the second not. Jackson could not be a judge in her own cause. Given the nature of Ginni Thomas’s communications, there was nothing for Clarence Thomas to be concerned about, so there was no impact on impartiality. It’s not that complicated.

              1. Daniel, ATS understands what you are saying. However, he has a vision, even though he doesn’t know what it is. He takes a hard left mantra and is ignorant of the details behind what he is pushing, whether it be fascism, Stalinism, Maoism or any other ism. He is looking for a win and will do or say anything to obtain victory. He knows what hypocrisy is and will practice it as long as he can get away with it. He is not honest.

                He is also not a leader. He is a ‘soldier’ who follows the day’s ideology set for him by others. That is why he relies so heavily on links and quotes from the law, even though he doesn’t understand what the law means.

                I know that what I am saying sounds harsh, but I have dealt with too many people of his type. Nothing changes him, not even the archival proof on the blog of him being wrong on almost every major issue discussed on this blog.

        3. The reason the lawfulness of Ginni Thomas’s conduct is relevant here is that the only reason Justice Thomas’s impartiality might reasonably be expected to be impaired would be if the resolution of the case could harm his wife. If Ginni Thomas’s conduct was criminal, the revelation of it could lead to her prosecution, a harm her husband would want to avoid. If not, the only ostensible harm involved is her getting caught up once again in political controversy of the kind she has courted for decades. This is not a reasonable basis on which to consider Justice Thomas’s impartiality impaired.

          The lawfulness of Jackson’s conduct is irrelevant, because the reason to consider her impartiality impaired in the Harvard case is her membership of Harvard’s board of overseers, making her in effect a judge in her own cause, an obvious and traditional basis for recusal.

    2. Hypothetical does not invariably meet the standard in the Code. The only way to avoid such a broad proscription would be for any justice, judge, or magistrate to live in complete isolation.

      1. Michael and I were discussing a specific hypothetical. See my March 28, 2022 at 10:10 PM comment. Due to some tech glitch, my reply to him became decoupled from that subthread.

    1. Very Caligula and indicative of a terminal rotting social elite. Reminiscent of Louie XVI even! Let’s hope for the same fate. Tennis anyone?

      1. “Reminiscent of Louie XVI”

        Though to his eternal credit, he did support the American colonists.

    2. “Rep. Madison Cawthorn should out the fellow Republicans he claims invited him to orgies and snorted cocaine in front of him, the leader of the conservative Freedom Caucus said. Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry said he plans to speak to caucus member Cawthorn about comments he made in a podcast likening the Capitol Hill culture to the Netflix series “House of Cards.” “I think it is important, if you’re going to say something like that, to name names,” Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, said of Cawthorn in an interview with Politico. The comments from freshman congressman Cawthorn, 26, have led to suggestions from some within the Freedom Caucus that he should be ousted from the group, Politico reported. Perry wouldn’t say whether the caucus would consider booting Cawthorn if he didn’t name names or share evidence to back up his salacious claims. … The comments have also led to questions from the broader House Republican conference. Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Tuesday he also planned to speak with Cawthorn, after the issue was raised at a closed-door GOP meeting earlier in the day.”

  9. Distraction is the purpose of this hit job on Ginni and Clarence.

    Here’s what should be getting attention: KBJ’s record.

    Mike Davis tweeted the following:

    “Biden White House disclosed 14 of Judge Jackson’s child pornography cases in her 8 years on the federal trial bench in DC.

    Judge Jackson ordered weak sentences whenever possible.

    She blamed the court staff.

    WH failed to disclose 1.

    It only gets worse for her.

    Stay tuned.”

    6:44 PM · Mar 28, 2022

    1. “Dear @SenateDems,

      You’re more interested in the political views of a justice’s *wife* than the legal record of a *nominee* to serve as a Supreme Court justice.

      Justice Thomas escaped your plantation.

      Ginni never worked in your kitchen.

      He doesn’t own his wife.”



    Ginni Thomas Awaiting Call From January 6th Committee

    The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is likely to reach out soon to Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, to request that she sit for an interview, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    The decision — which ends intense internal debate about the matter — came after the revelation last week of Ms. Thomas’s text messages to Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, in which she relentlessly urged him to pursue a plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

    Although the committee has been in possession of Ms. Thomas’s text messages for months, not everyone on the panel had seen the documents before they were published in news reports. That prompted debate among the committee’s members, several of whom urged the panel to try to interview her.

    A person familiar with the discussions said the panel concluded that Ms. Thomas had relevant information, and that it was important for investigators to hear from her. CNN earlier reported the committee’s decision.

    An adviser to Ms. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Edited From:


    1. P’ off a sitting member of the SCOTUS. Yet another brilliant move by the Party of Crime & Stupid, Wacked Lizzie and Crying Adam. How do they get their pants on in the morning?

      1. Are you suggesting that he would be biased because he’s p*ssed off? Bias on his part is reason to recuse.

        1. “Are you suggesting that he would be biased because he’s p*ssed off? Bias on his part is reason to recuse.”
          I’m suggesting he’s human and you’d never know he’s biased — and he has a long memory.

    2. Anomaly,

      From the linked NYT article;

      “…according to two people familiar with the matter.”

      “A person familiar with the discussions said…”

      The NYT is living up to its motto; “all the news that’s fit to fake.”

  11. Let us consider the example of a Wisconsin or Seventh Circuit appellate court judge whose wife, in a statement, praised the riots in Kenosha and called the rioters “heroes who fought for racial justice”?

    Under what circumstances would that statement require the judge to recuse himself from an appeal before him?

    1. It wouldn’t.

      Ginni Thomas’s text message exchanges with Mark Meadows weren’t public statements. They were private exchanges with Trump’s CoS and some advocated that Sidney Powell take the lead in legal efforts for Trump, such as “Just forwarded to yr gmail an email I sent Jared this am. Sidney Powell & improved coordination now will help the cavalry come and Fraud exposed and America saved” and “help [Sidney Powell] be the lead and the face.”

      In your hypothetical, if the judge’s wife were privately communicating with BLM leaders about who their legal counsel should be, then the judge would need to recuse.

        1. 28 U.S. Code § 455 says that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and the hypothetical falls in that category.

  12. There is no amount of scientific data, no amount of embarrassing hypocrisy, and no amount of misinformation that will keep the media from carrying the water for the radical left.


    Anonymous says: March 28, 2022 at 6:20 PM


    The offender is none other than The Blog Stooge. Each day, roughly half the comments on these threads are written by the stooge using multiple puppets.

    Some of those puppet names include: James, Thinkthrough, Ralph Chappelle, Feldman, Pblinca, Giocon, Margot Ballhere, Mistress Addams and many, many more.


    Seth Warner says: March 28, 2022 at 6:39 PM


    Above troll uses numerous sock puppets, quotes ad nauseam from discredited legacy media sources like Jeff Bezos fishwrap and owns nail salons in West Hollywood as a Male to Female Trans but still loses swim meets against 10 year old girls

    This lower comment, by ‘Seth Warner’, is the BLOG STOOGE writing under the belief that he is terribly clever and witty. ‘Seth Warner’ used to be a genuine commenter. But his name, like many others, is now used by the stooge.

    It is theorized the stooge is an anti-abortion activist who seeks to make this blog his personal echo chamber. Readers, on any given day, might notice many different names writing what are essentially the same comments.


      I am a Trans and never seem to win any awards for tricking at the bath house in West Hollywood, at swim meets (even little girls beat me), and Act Blue thinks I am their worse troll…something about attention seeking behavior. Someone, anyone, please give me an award! Or else I will continue being an attention seeking Trans!

      1. Yeah, this video is the Blog Stooge. He’s always posting gay crap. Which leaves little doubt about his identity. What a creepy loser!

  14. Another stained, filthy page out of the progressive Democrats’ morally repugnant playbook. Americans are sick and tired of the progressives’ dangerous antics. We are inspired by Justice Thomas.

    Americans know that Democrats will stop at nothing to destroy their political enemies. Democrats love blacks. But not really. Only certain kinds of blacks. Justice Thomas is the wrong kind of black – a conservative that doesn’t carry water for their cause. Worse yet, Thomas takes up what they always considered the ‘black seat’ on the Supreme Court. In the progressive religion, Clarence Thomas is an apostate. To a religious zealot, an apostate is on the receiving end of a special kind of hatred.

    Starting with Thomas’ confirmation, in which Joseph Robinette Biden (who, even on his best day, never held a moral or intellectual candle to Thomas) played a starring role, the progressives have never stopped trying to destroy him. And if they can’t destroy him they will at least try to neuter him (progressive gender ideology be damned). Progressives are the worst kind of racists.

    Justice Thomas is an incredible person and jurist who has inspired American’s of all races. Not the least because he has stood firm against a lifetime of shameful progressive attacks. A lesser man would have folded. We are with you, Justice Thomas!

  15. OT:
    Still think The Great Reset is some QAnon conspiracy theory? The World Economic Forum certainly is applauding the massive overreach by the SEC in creating the Securities and Environment Commission.

    This is the “social justice” aspect of the Great Reset. To comply with that, governments, banks, and asset managers use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index to squeeze non-woke corporations and businesses out of the market. The ESG index is essentially a social credit score that is used to drive ownership and control of production away from the non-woke or non-compliant.

    1. To piggy back on your comment:

      “More or less the whole world—including his own advisers on background—has criticized President Biden for his latest gaffe in saying in his Warsaw speech on Saturday that Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power.”

      The reality is that we have to live with Mr. Biden for three more years as President. And please stop writing letters imploring us to demand that Mr. Biden resign. Do you really want Vice President Kamala Harris in the Oval Office? She was chosen as a bow to identity politics to unite the Democratic Party in the election campaign, not for her ability to fill the President’s shoes. In the last 14 months she has failed to demonstrate even the minimum knowledge or capacity for the job. We are fated to make the best of the President we have.

      But Mr. Biden desperately needs to diversify the advice he gets beyond the liberal internationalists who dominate his councils. Susan Rice, Ron Klain and Jake Sullivan have the Afghan failure on their resumes.

      The world is entering the most dangerous period since the Soviet Union collapsed, and perhaps since the 1930s. The Covid crisis obscured the trend, but the dangers have become obvious as adversaries have reacted to what they perceive to be the American decline, division and weakness at the root of the Afghanistan debacle.”

      Mar 28

Comments are closed.