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.
“Smash And Grab” Oscar?
That goes to Trump, who likes to “Grab them by the p*ssy.”
He knows what a woman is, and some like being grabbed by the p…… Judge Jackson OTOH likes trans, homos and deviants grabbing our children. No doubt youre one of those sick fracks as well
Women don’t like being sexually assaulted, which is what Trump admitted to on tape: “I don’t even wait.” As we speak, he is fighting a defamation suit involving an allegation that he raped E. Jean Carroll. Hopefully the Appeals Court will soon rule in her favor and the court will order Trump to give a semen sample to test against her dress.
Good one, George!
Cautionary note to all – as a law school professor told my daughters class, “ email” stands for “evidence mail”.
Do not put anything in an email that you wouldn’t say out loud to a person, group etc.
There is no privacy online, be careful and judicious in what you write.
Cautionary note:
Better to bed Will Smith’s “open marriage” wife than mock her hair
Good advice Deb!
Monday Update:
Federal Judge Rules That Trump ‘More Likely Than Not’ Committed Federal Crimes In The Run-Up To January 6th
A federal judge said in a ruling Monday that then-President Donald Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in trying to obstruct the congressional count of electoral college votes on Jan. 6, 2021 — an assertion that is likely to increase public pressure on the Justice Department to investigate the former commander-in-chief.
The determination from U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter came in a ruling addressing scores of sensitive emails that Trump ally and conservative lawyer John Eastman had resisted turning over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot and related efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result.
Eastman wrote key legal memos aimed at denying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. The judge was assessing whether Eastman’s communications were protected by attorney-client privilege, and was analyzing in part whether Eastman and Trump had consulted on the commission of a crime.
“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” Carter wrote.
The ruling by Carter, who was appointed to the bench in 1998 by President Bill Clinton, does not mean Trump will be charged with, or even investigated for, a crime. But it will increase pressure on the Justice Department to intensify its probe of the Jan. 6 riot, and potentially examine the conduct of Trump himself.
Edited From:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/28/judge-says-trump-more-than-likely-committeed-crime/
Monday Update – Continued
Federal Judge Rules That Trump ‘More Likely Than Not’ Committed Federal Crimes In The Run-Up To January 6th
Judge Carter’s 44-page opinion offers a careful analysis of 111 documents the committee sought, ultimately concluding that lawmakers are entitled to have 101 of them. It assesses the emails in different batches, examining whether the committee should be able to access them, or whether they should be shielded by attorney-client privilege.
Most significantly, the ruling assesses whether 11 of the documents should be turned over because of what is known as the “crime-fraud exception.” That exception allows the committee to get around the shield of attorney-client privilege if lawmakers can demonstrate the communications they are seeking were advancing a crime.
Carter broke down each potential charge, analyzing the actions taken by Trump and others in the run-up to Jan. 6. He detailed at length Trump’s pressure to have Vice President Pence “single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election.”
On Jan. 4, the judge wrote, Trump and Eastman hosted an Oval Office meeting with Pence and his advisers, and Eastman presented a plan “focusing on either rejecting electors or delaying the count.” When Pence was unpersuaded, the judge wrote, Trump sent Eastman to review the plan with Pence’s lawyer. In that meeting, the judge wrote, Eastman was blunt about his intentions, saying, “I’m here asking you to reject the electors.”
On Jan. 6, the judge wrote, Trump posted messages on Twitter beseeching Pence to act and called Pence directly, urging him to “’to make the call’ and enact the plan.” Trump then gave a speech to a large crowd on the Ellipse warning, “…Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now.”
Trump ended the speech by asking his supporters to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to give Pence and Congress “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” the judge wrote.
“Together, these actions more likely than not constitute attempts to obstruct an official proceeding,” his ruling states.
Carter wrote that Eastman and Trump “justified the plan with allegations of election fraud— but President Trump likely knew the justification was baseless, and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful.”
Edited From:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/28/judge-says-trump-more-than-likely-committeed-crime/
That is from the WP which means the headlines are spurious as is the content.
You don’t have to rely on the Post. Read the judge’s ruling itself:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf
Judge Carter has ruled that John Eastman must release all but 10 his Trump emails to the J6 committee, finding that Trump likely committed a felony, that Eastman likely conspired with Trump, and that the crime-fraud exception applies.
From the ruling:
Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.
More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. This case cannot provide it. The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit. At most, this case is a warning about the dangers of “legal theories” gone wrong, the powerful abusing public platforms, and desperation to win at all costs. If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.
With this limited mandate, the Court finds the following ten documents privileged: 4553; 4793; 4794; 4828; 5097; 5101; 5113; 5412; 5424; 5719.289 The Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the other one hundred and one documents to the House Select Committee.
What do his words tell us? He went beyond what he should have said. He based his decision on a guess and his ideological gut. He is a Liberal activist judge. We have seen a number of them that have been overturned. He did have an interesting recent decision. He cited Los Angeles for systemic racism and ordered LA to house every homeless person. He was overturned.
ATS, you always talk about yourself. You’re the one who just “based his decision on a guess and his ideological gut.”
Maybe we should be referring to you as Anonymous the Moron, but Anonymous the Stupid is what you are named.
I am not the judge. Take note, you are too Stupid to respond to my comments about the judge. You lack the ability.
What do his words tell us? He went beyond what he should have said. He based his decision on a guess and his ideological gut. He is a Liberal activist judge. We have seen a number of them that have been overturned. He did have an interesting recent decision. He cited Los Angeles for systemic racism and ordered LA to house every homeless person. He was overturned.
SM
What your words tell us is that you’re a troll.
Here is the post you are responding to:
What do his words tell us? He went beyond what he should have said. He based his decision on a guess and his ideological gut. He is a Liberal activist judge. We have seen a number of them that have been overturned. He did have an interesting recent decision. He cited Los Angeles for systemic racism and ordered LA to house every homeless person. He was overturned.
I wonder why voters in L.A. would keep voting for those who perpetuate systemic racism.
A Clinton judge. Why would I trust anybody who was installed by a lying Clinton??
Your response is ad hom. If he’s mistaken about any facts in his ruling, make a case. Apparently, you cannot.
Also, no President can “install” a judge. He was approved by the Republican-majority Senate without opposition.
“Most significantly, the ruling assesses whether 11 of the documents should be turned over because of what is known as the “crime-fraud exception.””
Yes, and it’s really significant that he found 1 of the 11 fell into the crime-fraud exception and had to be turned over, but it’s misleading to suggest that that was the case for all 11.
Tomorrow is National Vietnam War Veterans day. 60,000 names on the wall who gave all. If you know a Vietnam-era vet regardless if he served in country, state-side, in the air or on the seas he is a Vietnam veteran. Thank him or her. We lose many each day to wounds, PTSD and Agent Orange. Many, sadly have and are living on the streets, a black mark on our nation.
Thank you, Margot.
Wouldnt it be something if Mrs. Ginny Thomas did to Nancy Pelosi what Will Smith did to Chris Rock, knowing liberals defended Smith’s assault and battery? Fortunately Mrs. Thomas has more class. And yet the entire Oscar audience saw the violent act of Smith.
Fun fact: Will Smith is in an open marriage with his “wife” thus the assault and battery of Chris Rock was all theater. Its a wonder Will Smith did not have charges pressed against him arrested for his act of violence much like Molotov Cocktail throwing ANTIFA BLM anarchists
You are a troll using Svelaz’s name.
Prove it
We all know however that you are a troll working for Act Blue
The person has a different icon than Svelaz.
Now you prove your claim. You confuse your imagination with knowledge.
REGARDING ABOVE:
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.
REGARDING ABOVE:
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
Troll.
Professor, when a person has demonstrated that they have become a total partisan tool, should their opinions still be prefaced by the word “expert”? I read recently that Hitler employed a cadre of what they now call “fake experts”. These people are not impartial any more than the 50 ex-CIA “experts” that threw in their expert opinion that the Hunter Biden laptop had all the earmarks of Russian subversives.
The intent of the Founders was that elections occur at secure polling places by certified citizen-voters, if not chosen electors.
Vote-by-mail is unconstitutional as it cannot be accomplished on “…Tuesday…” “…the day for the election,….”
The counting of votes is exempted from the Tuesday constraint by omission.
Voting must be done in particular “…places…” (i.e. polling places) as determined by State legislatures or alterations by Congress.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 U.S. Code § 7 – Time of election
The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.
________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 4.
“The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
______________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
“The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot…”
“The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”
There are a lot people who believe Turley takes time reads their comments. He doesn’t waste time on “trolls and juvenile posters” and advises others “to avoid any tit-for-tat fight with trolls”. “Don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them.”
I keep trying to explain to people here Turley doesn’t even write this stuff let alone read it.
“I did not share that view and stated in 2020 that there was no evidence in these cases showing systemic fraud.”
As did every judge who looked at the case. But despite what you and I both know; you want to analyze the issue as if this was not the case; that this is somehow a debatable proposition (as it was in, say, 2000). It was not. Biden won a fairly typical election by a fairly typical amount in the popular vote and the electoral vote. Republicans had absolutely nothing to complain about.
Do you understand the difference between the 3 *laptops* and certain *emails*? You seem to be confusing them.
Mrs Thomas should have invited Hillary to tea and asked her to bring her cleaning cloth, you know the one she used to clean her computer. I’m sure that Sham Wow still had some life left to clean a mere 29 messages.
Hillary Clinton voluntarily answered questions under oath during hours of questioning by Congress. Will Ginni Thomas agree to a voluntary interview by the J6 Committee?
Anomaly,
How many times can you say “I do not recall”?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/09/02/fbi-hillary-clinton-report-email-investigation-classified-perez-lead.cnn
Probably fewer times than Trump did in responding to just a few questions:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/sports-news/2019/04/full-text-of-muellers-questions-and-trumps-answers/
Unlike Clinton, Trump was too cowardly to agree to being questioned in person.
Do you mean she should have flushed everything down the toilet like Trump did?
Jonathan: I guess it boils down to this. You think Ginni Thomas’ 29 messages to Mark Meadows were just “constitutionally protected advocacy” and “protected speech”. Why? Because in your words “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”. And you bizarrely take Ginni at her word. Throughout her 29 messages to Mark Meadows Ginni lobbied to get him to illegally overturn the election–to, in other words, to SUBVERT it. Now that the Jan. 6 House Committee has those 29 messages it is likely Ginni will be called to testify. She can’t refuse without facing serious legal jeopardy. So naturally she is trying to backpedal.
You seem to think Clarence should have recused himself in the Jan. case–but only “if he knew that his wife’s messages were included in the material sought by the House investigation”. That’s hardly the test for recusal. Clarence Thomas knew all about his wife’s activities to promote the bogus conspiracy claim about the election. He shared her views. In one message to Meadows, Ginni mentions Clarence by name referring to her “best friend”–a term she often used in referring to her husband. Clarence should have recused himself irrespective of what he specifically knew about the 29 messages. But he refused. That is a violation of 28 US Code, Sec. 455.
There are many other cases in which Thomas should have recused himself. He is participating in the race discrimination case against Harvard even though Ginni sits on the National Association of Scholars, which filed an amicus brief in the case. Thomas also participated in Trump v. Hawaii, though Ginni earned more than $235,000 in 2017-18 from the Center for Security Policy, whose founder Frank Gaffney signed an amicus brief in that case. Thomas has even failed to report his wife’s income on annual financial disclosures required of all Justices. There are ample reasons why Thomas should be impeached. But at a minimum he should recuse himself in all cases involving the Jan. insurrection.
Yes, the J6 Committee asked today that Ginni Thomas appear for a voluntary interview. I wonder if she will agree to do so.
Dennis,
I will ask again for the second time in two days, please share the text of the 29 messages. I have not found a lnk to them but your certainty is describing them leads me to believe that you must have read them all.
Ray, tell us what search terms you used, and I’ll help you search more effectively.
Cindy Bragg & losemip475 says:
Margot… Drama Queen indeed. If Will Smith is relieved of his Oscar, as some are wondering about, they should give it to Miss Cory.
Margot to both:
Personally I stopped watching the “Ain’t I Great” awards some time ago. People getting millions and then wanting to be pat on the ass with an “Ain’t I Great” statue. I think the whole thing was a fake. The program has been bleeding viewers each and every year so they decided to turn it into a WWF event. At this rate maybe next year they’ll include a tag team match featuring Juicy Mullet vs Joy Baylard or maybe a drive by?
Can you remember when Bob Hope was the Master of Ceremony and the likes of Charlton Heston, Frank Sinatra, Liz Taylor, Donna Reed presenters for movies like Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments? Now you have movies like “Lassie Gets Her Tubes Tied” getting Best Movie.
Margot…..LOL……..I haven’t watched in years….and yes, the Oscar ceremony was thrilling to watch when I was a teenager. It was one of the few times you could see your favorite actors being themselves, more or less, in their natural voices.
Cindy, no one knew the Oscars were taking place so in reality the Oscars owe Will Smith money for sales and marketing efforts
😉
Cindy Bragg – I quit watching the Oscars when Peter O’Toole did not win Best
Actor for Lawrence of Arabia (the longest speaking role on film).
Paul,
What a fabulous movie! I am afraid that we will never see another one like it from Hollywood.
(OT)
Judge Carer has ruled that John Eastman must release his Trump emails to the J6 committee, finding Trump likely committed a felony, that Eastman likely conspired with Trump, and that the crime-fraud exception applies.
The ruling:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf
This is perhaps the first time ever that a federal court has found that a President may have committed a crime while in office (yes, Nixon committed a crime, but he was pardoned before he was ever indicted for it, so there was no court finding).
And I won’t be surprised if Turley is silent about it.
Judge Carter:
Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.
More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. This case cannot provide it. The Court is tasked only with deciding a dispute over a handful of emails. This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit. At most, this case is a warning about the dangers of “legal theories” gone wrong, the powerful abusing public platforms, and desperation to win at all costs. If Dr. Eastman and President Trump’s plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transition of power, undermining American democracy and the Constitution. If the country does not commit to investigating and pursuing accountability for those responsible, the Court fears January 6 will repeat itself.
With this limited mandate, the Court finds the following ten documents privileged: 4553; 4793; 4794; 4828; 5097; 5101; 5113; 5412; 5424; 5719.289 The Court ORDERS Dr. Eastman to disclose the other one hundred and one documents to the House Select Committee.
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco reaffirmed the Justice Dept’s commitment to prosecuting Jan. 6 cases at any level, and the DOJ announced they are adding 131 new attorneys to work on Capitol attack investigation.
and the DOJ announced they are adding 131 new attorneys to work on Capitol attack investigation.
But not to prosecute BLM ANTIFA Anarchists for setting our country on fire, spiking US violent crime and costing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and loss of businesses owned by minorities. No wonder Americans hate Democrats 😂
Biden budget proposal allocates an extra $33 Million for FBI to investigate
domestic terroristsparents defending their children at public schools school board meetings. So yeah, Democrats are definitely the enemy of the people.I see that you can’t deal with the fact that Judge Carter has ruled that John Eastman must release most of his Trump emails to the J6 committee and found that Trump likely committed a felony, that Eastman likely conspired with Trump, and that the crime-fraud exception applies to one of Eastman’s emails.
Trump and his criminal supporters are the enemies of the people.
“John Eastman must release most of his Trump emails to the J6 committee . . .”
Now do Pelosi.
I guess Justice Thomas is simply the wrong kind of black. Funny how that works. But were we all chameleons that could shift their color in response to threats. The modern DNC’s obsession with skin color could border on clinical obsession. Heaven forbid we treat each other as people that all deserve fairness. It is odd, but the worst instincts of the former plantation owners and robber barons, all the aristocratic progenitors of racial bias, or at worst, racial obliteration, are now purporting to tell s what is right. the reason so many public dem figures have photos of blackface in their pasts is because never in their lives have they had an actual friend of another ethnicity that could be at their party as a friend. That is the mark of privilege in our darker past. The rest of us, including my own progenitors, mingled with everyone because they had no choice due to circumstance, and to them it was not a big deal they shared common hope together. Only the rich elite ever owned slaves, voted for segregation, cared about any pf this at all and continue to do so. I have a biracial family, my family in past times worked on the underground railroad, and anyone that does not have that experience that wants to tell me how to think can get bent. Oh, and incidentally, I do not vote dem. Generational dems have been brainwashed in a way that is difficult to understand.
Margot… Drama Queen indeed. If Will Smith is relieved of his Oscar, as some are wondering about, they should give it to Miss Cory.
Margot…this is ME (above) Cindy Bragg….what the hell is “losemip475” LOL
Cindy-losemip475 submitted a word for word of your previous post regarding Drama Queen????
Cindy:
Actblue crew??? The other day they posted and finally kicked the can on all the left wing wacko’s. I think most who submitted reasonable post supported by facts suspected right along some left wing outfit was posting in effort to disrupt the blog.
I don’t have anything remaining for the American Democratic party, and that’s just it. We passed sanity with them years ago. If you can’t see that they are an actively hostile force to freedom and autonomy at this point, I just don’t know what to tell you. My great-grandparents: there were no dems then, not officially. My grandparents: democrats until somewhere around the 80s. My parents: democrats until somewhere around the 80s. Me; independent from the start, as I am likely best described as ‘center left’ in 1960s terms. This isn’t the 1960s. You are no longer voting for the party of JFK. You are voting for the party of AOC who is not going to magically grow up or be struck smart or educated or context aware all by herself anymore than anyone else her age will.
We are absolutely reaping what we’ve sown at present, and that’s on us. If as an actual adult that values freedom and opportunity, you continue to operate strictly from your social media brain – heaven help us. Life, real life, is not a meme. It comes with all kinds of sacrifices and grievances that you reconcile to have a life. we have a system to support that whoever you are, and no, not all of us will be billionaires. Are we ok? Probably. We are just too sucked into our phones to notice.
Look like the Professor needs to have a column on spouse relationships. Is a conversation separated by 2 rooms with each facing in opposite directions a valid conversation? How about 1 room. If you’re handling a handsaw and the spouse has to tell you something critical. Or the grand daughter choses to freak out about something when you both are trying to make a point and on and on. You pick up my wife’s phone and loose your fingers. And blood does not frighten her at all. This could go on to infinity and still not be answered. The jan 6 committee, if wise, might want leave this alone. Republicans might really want to know how Nancy Pelosi’s husband got so rich. Pillow talk only I am sure!!!
It may be too late for this comment, but here goes.
I am staunchly Independent — I vote for persons at the Local, State, and Federal levels based not on what Party they represent, but on their character and the clarity of their principles. I know that sounds idealistic, but I’m not the only idealistic Independent in America today.
The claims of Voter Fraud in the Nov. 2020 election have been effectively debunked, and we’ll never get to the bottom of it anyway.
But there was a major-league ‘fraud’ committed upon the voting public BEFORE the election — in brief, it was the mainstream media, and the social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, which sought to suppress stories and news unfavorable to Joseph Biden. Most notably, but not solely, is the story in the NY Post about Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents. 50 Intelligence professionals stating on the record that it has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation…..really?
And now that 17 months later it’s ‘safe’ to disclose the truth, the NY Times prints a story that the laptop is legit.
Is this a fraud upon the public.
A recent survey revealed that 1 out of 6 Biden voters would have not voted for the man if they knew all sorts of facts about Biden that had been buried by the mainstream media and social media outlets, the laptop story being only one of at least 8 different suppressed stories.
If this happened on Wall Street, where a corporation was having an IPO, and they intentionally omitted material information to get the deal sold, the SEC would have brought charges against those responsible, and convictions may well have resulted, along with possible prison time for the offenders.
But inside the Beltway, there is no SEC in politics.
A fraud upon the public was committed, but it may well not have been fraudulent ballots at all —
“I vote for persons at the Local, State, and Federal levels based not on what Party they represent, but on their character and the clarity of their principles.”
Richard, that is how I used to vote. Then I realized that too many of those I supported who happened to be Democrats suddenly became lockstep Democrats when given high office. Their principles went down the tubes. We are now in a time where principle doesn’t matter to the left, and they have a strong hold on the deep state, media, social media etc., while the working families are suffering.
Because of that stranglehold, it is necessary to not permit Democrats to occupy any office, even the office of dog-catcher, so I will hold my nose and vote against them, knowing that when they reach higher office, they will become leftist ideologues. The left will not permit them to rise that high if they actually vote on principle.
I urge all to vote against all Democrats until the balance of power swings away from that party. They are trying to form a fascist left-wing type of government where the elites are in charge and tell working people how to live their lives while flying their private planes to Davos.
I agree with this. I voted for Auchincloss for Congress in Massachusetts because I didn’t much like the Republican candidate and he seemed independent-minded. He has, however, supported every progress lunacy Democratic leadership has promoted. So, never again for me. The Democrats in their current incarnation must be kept out of every office.
Know a lot about Davos do ya Smeyer? You’ve clearly never been if you think it’s full of Democrats. What is it about Davos/WEF that activates tinfoil hats all over this blog? it’s just a country club- anyone can join if they pony up the 140K/year membership fee. That’s not even so expensive as country clubs go. It was started by super rich business type dorks who were mad they don’t get to go the IMF/WBG annual meetings (you’ve never been to those either).
Dirt, note what I said and what I have said previously. “where the elites are in charge and tell working people how to live their lives while flying their private planes to Davos.”
The elites can be from either party, though more of them are on the left, and many of those on the right are pretty active themselves in scr-wing the middle class. Take note of how the entitlement class grows and the middle-class shrinks. Also, note that I was talking of those who fly their private planes to Davos, and yes, a $140,000 membership is a lot of money for a hard-working family. It is that family of four that we should be looking out for.
The NYT has no way of assessing whether the laptop is legit. It does not possess the 3 laptops (you do know that the NY Post story involved 3 laptops, right?), or even 1 laptop. The NYT said some emails were legit. There is a huge difference between some emails and the entire laptop, or all 3 laptops.
“recent survey revealed that 1 out of 6 Biden voters would have not voted for the man if they knew all sorts of facts about Biden…”
Now do a survey of Trump voters, asking them if they would have voted for him if they’d known all sorts of facts about Trump. Because any ethical person considering this hypothetical would care about both sets of voters.
The NYT has no way of assessing whether the laptop is legit.
The ran with the Steele dossier. Had no problem publishing unvarified material.
Of coarse every lie about Kavanaugh was published. With that we iknow Senator Feinstien did not believe the lies and refused to investigate, due to the lack of even one verifiable fact.
Past history informs us, proof. is not the standard used.
It was probably both, but we may never fully get tot the bottom of dirty election practices as long as the bureaucratic state has a vested interest in election outcomes. As for fraud by the press, caveat emptor, anyone listening to the MSM at this point is an enabler to fraud at the least.
Richard Lowe ….You’ve been told lies about the election results being debunked. if you would sit down and study county by county you would find shocking, glaringly false, manipulated results. You sound like an otherwise smart man. Don’t accept the Dems’ well-orchestrated, uber-funded lies.
“…if you would sit down and study county by county you would find shocking, glaringly false, manipulated results.”
Why don’t you lay it all out for us?
Anonymous…….I was taught to never do someone”’s homework for them. Grow up and do it yourself, lazy fool.
Cindy, were you also taught that the person who makes the claim is the one with the burden of proof for it?
Anony…..GIVE a man proof, and he’ll keep asking you to find it for him. TEACH a man how to look for proof, and he will find it on his own for the rest of his life!
County by county, Fredo.
Cindy, I prove my own claims and do not need to be taught to do so. But I’m not responsible for proving *your* claims. YOU are the one with the burden of proof for *your* claims.
An 80 year old woman just kicked your arse from Texas to the Mariana Trench.
Bwahahahaahahaahaha
🤣
ATS, you need to be taught. You should pay Cindy for the advice. She knows what she is talking about, and you don’t. Besides, much of the proof has been shown to you repeatedly.
Now, be nice. Go to Ms. Cindy and apologize. Maybe she will give you a cookie.
You are ATS.
be nice. Go to Ms. Cindy and apologize. Maybe she will give you a cookie.
Richard Lowe,
The nature of your oversight may be educational.
The tactics of election fraud your reference are merely the most recent of renditions.
Abraham Lincoln began the process of the incremental implementation of the principles of communism in America – look around you at the central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and social engineering, none of which is constitutional.
________________________________________________
Letter Of Congratulation and Commendation From Karl Marx To Abraham Lincoln
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
_____________________________________________________________
And Abraham Lincoln began the process of fundamental subliminal election fraud.
The “black vote” must have been not counted, but compassionately repatriated in 1863.
When Lincoln issued the unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect, requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)….”
In 1964, Lyndon Baines Johnson made enormous cash payments of public assistance, public housing, affirmative action, forced busing, unfair “Fair Housing” laws, etc., to purchase the illegal alien “black vote.”
LBJ bought the “black vote” and he had “…those ——- voting democrat for 200 years.”
Obama got into his “stash” (i.e. American taxpayers) to secure the “black vote” by adding healthcare benefits to their public assistance salary in the form of Obamacare.
And most of the same election fraud vote purchases were made of illegal aliens from Mexico, Central and South America, and for the “refugee” vote from Vietnam, China, Korea, Philippines, the Middle East etc.
Of course, in 1920, women got the promise that they could become men and that they would no longer be required to make new Americans (hyphenates would be imported).
Who wouldn’t vote for that, what is the point anyway, after that year, a woman gets to cancel the vote of her husband, or double it, what?
Now we’ve gone right ’round the bend, out of logic and rationality, into hysteria and incoherence.
____________________________________________________________________________
“That dudn’t make any sense.”
– George Bush
____________
America, in its vastness and entirety, was being given away on a silver platter for votes.
Americans pay taxes to fund all these minority vote-buying schemes.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) get to have their cake and eat it too – they obtain American wealth gratis enabling them to buy American votes – it’s a win-win!
The whole thing has been a massive fraud on Americans since 1860.
The reason the Founders restricted the vote to the criteria of male, European, 21 and 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres was to keep a rational and coherent governmental structure to FACILITATE THE EXECUTION of and to SUPPORT the literal “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
It’s the Constitution that matters, not the vote.
At the end of the day, the vote is mostly moot.
____________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
You couldn’t.
OT: “Ketanji Brown Jackson’s claim child pornographers aren’t pedophiles disputed by own experts”
Thank you, S. Meyers!