Sen. Whitehouse Calls for Investigation of Ginni Thomas

In Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, Cecily observes “I have never met any really wicked person before… I am so afraid he will look just like every one else.” The quote came to mind this week after Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) demanded an investigation of Ginni Thomas. Whitehouse insists that there is a “big investigative gap” in pursuing the leaker of the draft Supreme Court opinion in the pending abortion case, but not the wife of Clarence Thomas. Ginni Thomas supported the challenge to the certification of the 2020 election.

Even in the age of rage, the investigation of the spouse of a sitting justice due to her political views is shocking. However, other members and even legal experts have called for such investigations or the actual impeachment of her husband.

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. Boxer was particularly ironic since she used the same underlying federal law to challenge the certification of George W. Bush’s election.

The position of Ginni Thomas on the election was no surprise. She is a well-known Republican activist and Trump supporter. In her communications, Thomas encouraged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to pursue legal and legislative challenges to what she viewed as a stolen election. That was a position supported by millions of voters.

We have come a long way from the days when spouses were viewed as mere extensions of their husbands. Ginni Thomas is an activist and the couple has often discussed how they keep their professional lives apart. Yet, these members are suggesting that Justice Thomas can be investigated or impeached because he essentially failed to keep his wife in line and silent on this national controversy.

On MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” Sen. Whitehouse mocked “how Chief Justice Roberts went to DEFCON 1 over the leak of the Alito abortion opinion and demanded investigations and said it was a betrayal of the court.”

Yet, he noted “If you look at the Ginni Thomas situation …  it seems to me that when you have the spouse of the Supreme Court justice now repeatedly connected with an insurrection against the country and now connected with an individual who is so deeply in trouble that a White House, a Trump White House legal counsel advised him to get a criminal defense attorney, that if you are going to go to DEFCON 1 over the leak of a draft opinion, you might want to consider going to DEFCON 3 or 4 or 5 and start investigating within the court what the heck is going on here.” He asked why Chief Justice Roberts is  “unwilling to look at its own problems as regards Justice Thomas.”

The reason may be that leaking the opinion is clearly unethical and potentially criminal conduct. What Ginni Thomas did is called free speech. Thomas had every right to call for a challenge to the election even though some of us viewed the effort as unfounded. Marriage to a justice does not come with some form of indentured servitude where you must suspend the exercise of constitutional rights like freedom of speech.

The challenge to the 2020 election was no surprise. Indeed, not long after the election, I wrote about that possibility in what I called the “Death Star strategy.” It is not a crime to plan such a challenge, even without good cause. It was the same course taken by Democrats without any outcry from the media in challenging Republican presidents.

When Boxer launched her own challenge to President Bush on this law, Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised her 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.” Joining her in that challenge was Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who now chairs the committee looking into the Jan. 6th riot, challenged the election of George W. Bush. (Fellow Committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to challenge Trump’s certification in 2016).

We certainly could investigate Ginni Thomas to confirm that she “looks just like every one else” in Washington. She is someone who speaks her mind as a conservative activist. She is also the spouse of a Supreme Court justice. Her professional and marital positions are entirely separate and distinct.

Obviously, Sen. Whitehouse is not the first to yield to the sensational over the sensible in venting about the Court. There is little attraction for the sensible in cable. As Cecily added in the Wilde play, “I don’t think I would like to catch a sensible man. I shouldn’t know what to talk to him about.”

155 thoughts on “Sen. Whitehouse Calls for Investigation of Ginni Thomas”

  1. Jonathan: For years Donald Trump has complained about the mass media calling it “fake news”. Now he is mad as hell and isn’t going to take it any more. He is demanding “EQUAL TIME” from the networks so he can counter the “disinformation” from the “slanderous Unselect Committee” that he calls a “Witch Hunt”. If I were a network executive I would tell Trump: “Sorry, Donald, you have your own platforms, “Truth Social” and Fox. Isn’t that good enough”? Besides, you have disparaged us for years and now you want us to give you another opportunity to complain about us and rehash your old tired false claims about the 2020 election? That would be a waste of precious air time. Sorry, but we’ll take a pass”.

    1. He can have equal time all he wants under oath, in front of the committee.

      1. FishWings has his pitchfork out. He wants to dunk the warlock Trump. If Trump drowns he wasn’t a witch after all. FishWings is at the lead of the witch hunt pack screaming the loudest. His participation in the mob is hypnotic.

        1. Yep, suggesting that Trump testify under oath is truly unreasonable, only nuts want people to testify under oath.

    2. they “networks” are providing the DNC with defacto campaign ads and should be giving equal time to the RNC. How about showing the film 2000 Mules

  2. “We gotta go!” Jill Biden tries to pull Joe away from talking to reporters as they leave for a weekend at the beach.

    The President of the United States is answering questions from the press and his wife grabs his arm to drag him off to yet another long weekend at the beach. Yet the fawning corrupt media will say nothing of it. Unbelievable.

    1. Biden leaves the White House at 11AM for another long weekend at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach. Due back sometime late Monday afternoon.

      1. No doubt you were as concerned about Trump visiting one of his properties on average every 3 days during his Admin.

  3. Mike “The Traitor” Pence, you’re no James Bayard.

    “James A. Bayard of Delaware, under intense pressure and fearing for the future of the Union, made known his intention to break the impasse.”

    “1800 Presidential Election Results”

    “Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated Federalist John Adams by a margin of seventy-three to sixty-five electoral votes in the presidential election of 1800. When presidential electors cast their votes, however, they failed to distinguish between the office of president and vice president on their ballots. Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr each received seventy-three votes. With the votes tied, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. There, each state voted as a unit to decide the election.

    Still dominated by Federalists, the sitting Congress loathed to vote for Jefferson—their partisan nemesis. For six days starting on February 11, 1801, Jefferson and Burr essentially ran against each other in the House. Votes were tallied over thirty times, yet neither man captured the necessary majority of nine states. Eventually, Federalist James A. Bayard of Delaware, under intense pressure and fearing for the future of the Union, made known his intention to break the impasse. As Delaware’s lone representative, Bayard controlled the state’s entire vote. On the thirty-sixth ballot, Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont cast blank ballots, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson the support of ten states, enough to win the presidency.”

    – Library of Congress

    “Mike Pence, you’re no Thomas Jefferson.”

    – Real President Donald J. Trump, 6/17/2022

    Mike Pence is a putrefied hybrid of Judas Iscariot and Benedict Arnold.

    Presumably, the man who failed the Republic, the Constitution and America got his 30 pieces of silver.

  4. Jonathan: We learned a lot more from yesterday’s Jan. 6 hearing, It’s pretty clear now that John Eastman is in serious legal jeopardy. He asked Trump for a pardon which shows he has a guilty mind. Eastman knew there was no legal or constitutional basis for VP Pence to reject the Electoral College vote.

    What caught my eye from yesterday’s hearing was an email exchange between Eastman and Ken Chesebro, one of Trump’s campaign lawyers. They discussed the possibility of filing a last ditch suit with the SC over challenges to the election results in Wisconsin. Chesebro told Eastman there might be “wild chaos” on Jan. 6 that might prompt the SC to intervene. Eastman responded that he had inside knowledge of a “heated fight underway” between Justices over the issue. The Q is how did Eastman knew there were “heated” arguments among the Justices? Eastman is a friend of Clarence Thomas. He clerked for the Justice. Did Eastman talk to one of Clarence Thomas’ clerks, maybe the Justice himself or maybe even Ginni Thomas with whom she and Eastman had a lot of discussions about overturning the election. Ginni claims she and her husband have “separate lives” but it’s hard to believe they don’t have at least “pillow talk” about the internal disputes at the Court. All speculation, of course, but Ginni has agreed to appear before the Jan. 6 committee. Perhaps an opportunity to find out what Thomas knew and when she knew it.

    Regarding Ginni Thomas’ participation in the plot to overturn the election you say she was just exercising her “free speech” rights in challenging the election and only encouraged Mark Meadows to “pursue legal and legislative challenges”. This, to put it mildly, is a gross distortion of Thomas’ participation in the plot. She knew there was no basis for more legal challenges to the election. Trump lost all of his 62 legal challenges to the election results. The only alternative was to pursue other illegal challenges. So Thomas sent emails to several GOP lawmakers to get them to overturn the election. That meant rejecting the Biden electors–a violation of the law. This was all part of the Trump/Eastman strategy–to get VP Pence to stop the Electoral College vote to allow time for GOP lawmakers to find an alternative slate. All illegal.

    This post is just another example of how you are trying to obfuscate the issues.

    1. “Trump lost all of his 62 legal challenges to the election results.” A court not hearing your case is not the same as losing on the merits.

      1. It’s the same as tyranny and despotism, the same as the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

        It’s the same as total domination by the Deep Deep State Swamp.

        Sleazee Cheney being a great example of something, long-since politically dead and buried, being propped up by the Deep Deep State Swamp and continuing to enjoy political life and a mouth.

        Politically, she’s a “Dead Hag Walking” but her jaws are still flapping because of the surreptitious support by the Deep Deep State Swamp.

      2. Correct.

        But it does show that you and your lawyers don’t understand the legal concept of standing and have no interest in learning.

        1. Actually it exposes a major problem with the court created doctrine of standing.

          In every controversey SOMEONE must have standing. When courts find that candidates, do not have standing. that voters do not have standing that state legislators, do not have standing, and that states do not have standing, all they do is telegraph – here is how you commit election fraud and get away with it.

          It does not matter whether we are discussion claims of election fraud, or facial challenges to TX SB 8 – someone MUST always have standing.

      3. As ever more evidence of Fraud comes out – those legal decisions against Trump – become FURTHER evidence of FRAUD, and failure.

        But burying their heads in the sand the courts are complicit in the Fraud and lawlessness.

        The courts continue to undermine their own Trust.

    2. “Trump lost all of his 62 legal challenges to the election results.”

      Dennis, you are very poorly informed.

      Donald J. Trump for President v. Simon, No. A20-1362 (Minn. Supreme Court) Won
      Donald J. Trump for President v. Gloria, No. A-20-824153-C (NV District Court) Won
      RNC/Trump v. Miller, No. 06571 EQCV095986 (Iowa District Court, Linn County) Won

      Do you need more. Do you know understand why no one listens to you?

    3. You keep up this nonsense of reading other peoples Minds.

      I do not know what Eastman knew.

      I do know that what he wrote is constitutionally. legally and historically correct.
      It is much the same as what occurred in 1872.

      WE get this nonsense from those of you on the left all the time.

      Many were offended by Hillary’s appeals to electors to vote differently than their states – editorialists on the left all begged them to do so.

      Yet, there was no screams of “insurection” – no subpena’s of Clinton and her lawyers.

      Even if an Election is conducted in bright sunlight, completely lawfully, and it is obvious to near everyone that there was not fraud(unlike 2020)

      The losing candidate is Free to oppose that election with every breath they have – to work to overturn it in every legal or constitutional way possible.

      That is a part of what the ACTUAL rule of law means.

      The core of your argument is that being opposed to the outcome you prefer is a crime.

      I do not trust that a single thing you write is truthful – I have been burned by too many lies b those like you on the left.
      Far ot often things you claim as facts AREN’T. They are idiotic speculation framed as facts.

      There was not Trump Russia Collusion – the entire thing was a HOAX made up by the Clinton campaign
      The Hunter Biden laptops were NOT russian disinformation.

      Time and again – you have presented as facts things that were FALSE.

      But lets assume that Eastman actually said there was a fight int he Supreme court about this – that is the end of your entire claim.
      If even a single Supreme court Justice stands behind the constitutionality and legality of Eastman’s opinion – it MAY be wrong, but it is clearly not a crime.

      And you speculate that Eastman learned this from Gini Thomas – again You do not know Schiff – but lets say your right – so what ?

      We get third party inside baseball regarding the supreme court all the time – nearly always WRONG.

      You have a massive logical problem – you have wrapped speculation on top of speculation to try to concoct a crime out of thin air – and in the unlikely event you are right in your speculation – it proves you are wrong about a crime.


    4. It would not matter what Ginni Thomas knew about a non-crime.

      There is no combination fo the speculation you drown yourself in that does not lead to NOT A CRIME.

      Lets assume that Justice Thomas ghost wrote Eastman’s brief. There is probably an ethical violation, but there is not a violation of the law. Further the very fact that ONE supreme court Justice finds Eastman’s brief constitutional and legal makes it clear – it is NOT in the realm of crime.

      Left wing nut laws CONSTANTLY argue positions that are idiotically wrong – NOT A CRIME. They breif clients on positions that are even unconstitutional – and legally wrong – still not a crime.

      It is NOT A CRIME to try every legal and constitutional means possible to “overturn and election” – even an actually lawful, and fraud free one.

      But you have a worse problem. Not only was the election OBVIOUSLY not lawful or fraud free – but increasingly people know it.

      While Liberal Lion Prof Derschowitz still thinks Trump lost – even he admits there is evidence of widespread fraud.

      Actual large scale fraud – that the courts and congress turned a blind eye to JUSTIFIES “insurection”.

      YOUR continued failure to allow meaningful inquiry undermines even your own egregiously stupid claims about J6.

  5. In a further cite to Oscar Wilde, I believe a reporter asked Wilde on a tour of America if Niagara Falls was the “most spectacular” falls he had ever seen. Wilde answered that would be true…if it flowed the other way! I suspect Wilde would now call our government the most spectacular.

  6. “[T]he investigation of the spouse of a sitting justice due to her political views is shocking.” (JT)

    When politicians use the government’s police powers to target their opposition, you are living in a banana republic.

  7. I prefer secession to civil war. It’s going to be one or the other soon enough. The people on the left don’t want a Constitution so I say let them have their own separate country to destroy.

  8. Jane’s Revenge, the anarchist, abortion group continues threatening Americans with violence via social media unabated. They have vandalized or set fire to dozens of ProLife centers in America these past few months. When will this end?

    Impeach Merrick Garland

    “Your thirty days expired yesterday. We offered an honourable way out. You could have walked away. Now the leash is off. And we will make it as hard as possible for your campaign of oppression to continue. We have demonstrated in the past month how easy and fun it is to attack. We are versatile, we are mercurial, and we answer to no one but ourselves. We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures. Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti.”

    1. Jane is targeting unPlanned children, and the People, too. Neo-Maoists exercising rites in the modern model.

    2. At least they’re just damaging property. The anti abortion nuts like Eric Robert Rudolph usually kill people. This is considered a “pro-life” action by their supporters.

    3. The proaborts are blood thirsty murderers. Since Roe v Wade, more than 70 million lives murdered mostly blacks. Democrats cant resist genocide of the blacks. it is in their founder’s documents: Margaret Saenger

      1. Not murder, and although Black women have a higher rate of abortions than other racial/ethnic groups, it’s still well under half of all abortions, so not “mostly blacks.”

        1. The last I heard, roughly 40% of all abortions are performed on black women. They only comprise about 7% of the population.

  9. Fascists will attack ANYONE for Power
    Democrats are in a Civil War Against America…AGAIN!

    Remove McConnell, win the election and GO TO WAR!

    1. It’s too bad we don’t know who you are. I think you may fall afoul of the Red Flag laws.

  10. Is this the wealthy guy who belongs to a white only beach club of which he’s wife owns 33%?

    Isn’t Omar the representative who married her brother and later lied about it to the feds?

    Their time would be better spent improving the economy and returning it to the solid energy position under President Trump’s administration.

    1. Omar should be deported over marriage to her brother to defraud the immigrant system of USA! Clearly a deportable offense!

      1. US citizens can’t be deported, no matter what offenses they commit. And US citizenship, once validly obtained, cannot be taken away involuntarily, again no matter what offense the citizen commits.

        (“Denaturalization” is a misnomer; it means discovering evidence that the person was never a citizen in the first place, e.g. they were actually born outside the US and neither parent was a citizen, or they lied on their naturalization forms. Neither of these is the case with Omar.)

    2. First, It’s not a “white only” club; at most it’s a club that may sometimes happen not to have any non-white members.

      Second, he’s not a member. His wife is, but that’s her business. He can’t order her to resign.

      Third, I don’t know where you got the idea that she owns 33% of it. I’ve seen it reported that she holds 25 shares; I have never seen it reported anywhere that the whole club only has 75 shares, and I doubt it.

    3. No, she did not “marry her brother and later lie about it to the feds.”

  11. Now it’s come down to Turley gaslighting his own marks. Turley writes oh poor Ginni they are picking on her for her beliefs, all the while the WH has documents showing her involvement in a coup d’état. Of course her husband was the lone dissenter in releasing those documents. Until she under oath and tells her side, the questions will remain.

    1. I know the Left likes to couch their true bigotry behind fake outrage, so just admit it. You’re just upset that a white woman betrayed her race and got Jungle Fever, right?. It’s OK. you can show us on the doll where the conservative touched you.

  12. It’s clear to me that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has fully succumbed to the horde of anti-American totalitarians that are running rabid throughout the United States drooling their unamerican pure persecution and intimidation tactics onto the laps of the population. I wonder if Whitehouse is aware just how far down the slippery slope into totalitarianism he has slid or if he’s completely oblivious to just how truly anti-American his proposal is?

    1. Witherspoon employs the fallacious “slippery slope” argument:

      “I wonder if Whitehouse is aware just how far down the slippery slope into totalitarianism”

      “In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.”

      1. You have succeeded in reaching the bottom of the slippery slope. You cannot go any lower.

  13. Whitehouse is an idiot. His use of military terms – he’s never been in the military – shows it. The Northeast seems to be full of them since they keep electing such people to Congress. Calling January 6 an “insurrection” is purely political. Believe you me, if those who were there had intended to revolt, they’d have been carrying all kinds of weapons and blood would have run in the streets. Americans have no idea what an insurrection is. After all, we’ve not had one in this country since 1776 when colonists revolted against the king. Americans don’t know what war is either. The last real war fought on US soil ended in 1865 – after the deaths of 3/4’s of a million, mostly from the North. Democrats like Whitehouse seem to think we are a dictatorship, and they are the dictators.

    1. He’s not an idiot. He’s a monster.

      He once compared Tea Party folks to the anti-Semitic bigots in Nazi Germany who rioted, destroyed Jewish businesses and killed Jews during Kristallnacht.

      If you wanted to inspire a Democrat nut to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice and his wife, what would you do differently than go on a cable channel popular with Democrat nuts and push innuendo that Thomas’s wife was central to an insurrection?

      It’s evil.

      1. Anonymous says:

        “He once compared Tea Party folks to the anti-Semitic bigots in Nazi Germany who rioted, destroyed Jewish businesses and killed Jews during Kristallnacht.”

        Prove it.

        1. Why does anyone have to prove anything to you? Whitestone and you have distinct totalitarian similarities. That is why you are in such a fog.

        2. It would take you all of about 30 seconds to Google it. If you did, you’d find this from one of WaPoo’s stable of reliable Democrat cheerleaders, Dana Millbank, who wrote:

          But Democrats weren’t in the best position to take the high road Sunday evening. One of their own members, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) had just delivered an overwrought jeremiad comparing the Republicans to Nazis on Kristallnacht, lynch mobs of the South, and bloodthirsty crowds of the French Revolution.

          “Too many colleagues are embarked on a desperate, no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear,” he said. “History cautions us of the excesses to which these malignant, vindictive passions can ultimately lead. Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds. Broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets. Strange fruit has hung from southern trees.” Assuming the role of Old Testament prophet, Whitehouse promised a “day of judgment” and a “day of reckoning” for Republicans.


          You said “prove it” hoping I would not respond. Then my non-response would create the false impression that Whitehouse did not make the comparison I correctly said he made. It’s been so long ago that I had forgotten that in the same breath Whitehouse compared Republicans to the Nazis who did Kristallnacht that he had also compared them to his fellow Democrats who like lynching black Americans.

          Your sinister “Prove it” served to refresh my memory that Democrats, especially Whitehouse, are even more evil than I remembered. Thank you.

          1. I did Google Kristallnacht and Whitehouse several times. The Washington Post is behind a paywall. Though I clicked on this link and the article appeared.

            Fair enough. You proved it. You are 100% correct to smear not merely Whitehouse but ALL Democrats, born and unborn, old and young, living and dead, as pure evil incarnate.

  14. start investigating within the court what the heck is going on here.” He asked why Chief Justice Roberts is “unwilling to look at its own problems as regards Justice Thomas.”

    I posted on the other thread today about the huge swath of people, including those with law degrees, are wholly ignorant of the Constitution. Along come Whitehouse, proving my point. From memory I recall Whitehouse was a prosecutor, and here he is, Claiming SCOTUS must be investigated.
    separation of powers is a law bar of knowledge, that Whitehouse fails to clear.

  15. In Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Ernest, Cecily observes “I have never met any really wicked person before… I am so afraid he will look just like every one else.” The quote came to mind this week after Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) demanded an investigation of Ginni Thomas.
    Yeah, the Dims are evil. Some remind you of worms like Whitehouse. What else is new? Water still wet?

    1. Mespo says:

      “Yeah, the Dims are evil. Some remind you of worms like Whitehouse.”

      Michael Savage (born Weiner) calls the Left “vermin”:

      “I am so sick and tired of the vermin on the left debasing the military in my country that I could just scream about it.”

      “Rwanda jails man who preached genocide of Tutsi ‘cockroaches’”

      I don’t need to cite a reference to substantiate the historical fact that Nazis convinced Germans that Jews were no better than “rats.”

      In the long tradition of hate-mongers, comes Mespo who dehumanizes a fellow human being as a “worm.”

      Is it any wonder that Turley decided to part company with him and no longer invites him as a guest editorialist on his blog? This is why Turley is a NeverTrumper- he does not believe Democrats are evil.

      I am sure I speak for Turley when I say that you are despicable.

      1. “I am so sick and tired of the vermin on the left debasing the military in my country that I could just scream about it.”

        When you debase the military you are vermin.
        “I don’t need to cite a reference to substantiate the historical fact that Nazis convinced Germans that Jews were no better than “rats.”

        Why do you act like a Nazi?
        “I am sure I speak for Turley when I say”

        That is wrong because Turley thinks you are a worm.

  16. The first obvious question to Mr Whitehouse.

    Exacrly what is he looking for, in the pursuit of writing legislation.

    ALL of the committee members ONLY speak of investigating people and the importance of accountability. The expose the lie, that Congress has the enumerated power to do any such thing.

  17. “Even in the age of rage, the investigation of the spouse of a sitting justice due to her political views is shocking.”

    I’m not on the Ginni Thomas is Satan bandwagon, but Turley is grossly misleading saying she should be off limits because she is the spouse of a sitting justice. It seems Ginni should be questioned on her own merits, based on her emails and texts to John Eastman and Mark Meadows without even getting into Eastman claiming he has inside information about SCOTUS deliberations. Turley can pretend it’s about her political views or free speech instead of trying to overturn an election.

    1. I dont have a list of all the people that communicated with the Chief of staff. I’m guessing the list approaches ~100. An extremely small number were interviewed by the Democrat selected committee.

      Now, Why is Mrs Thomas so important?

      1. She actively lobbied Arizona lawmakers to overturn the results there. She seemed to be part of Eastman’s plan to substitute electors. Why wouldn’t she be questioned?

        1. Oh. Didn’t know that “actively lobbying” has become criminal. What country is this again?

                  1. Ooh, he said Africa! That really hurts me. I don’t know if this is my favorite troll under one of his many fake names or a different idiot? If you can’t respond to the actual conversation, your words have no value.

                1. No. She tried to turn them into “unfaithful electors”. You missed that, huh?

        2. Are you suggesting the forceful interrogation of advocates when they have committed no offense?

    2. You miss the point. Whitehouse is saying Justice Thomas should be impeached because of the statements of his spouse.

      1. What does that article of impeachment look like?

        Can we just get honest? Democrats are using the hyperbolic language to motivate the political masses? Find me one person that believes the Loony Democrats in the House would even write articles of impeachment, let alone bring it the floor. Even Democrats wouldn’t vote for it. So it is nothing be hyperbole to keep the anger fueled. I would love to ask Tribe on live TV if Dems should impeach Thomas. Even in his deranged condition of Trump hate, would he bite on such a preposterous notion. I’m a little surprised Turley blogged this, It gives it way more credence than it is due.

        I think Kagen is an idiot, but I would never support any talk of impeachment. Just like nobody has thought to assasinate a liberal SCOTUS Justice…some things are so meaningless they deserve no attention. (but to show how vapid the notions floated actually are)

      2. That wasn’t a point I was making. I say Ginni shouldn’t be exempt from questioning because of her husband. Anyone else communicating with the people she was in the manner she was would be questioned.

        1. Why should she be questioned at all? Look, this whole thing is nothing more than Democrat Party propaganda. They’re desperate. Better to say “Look! Trump!!” than try to explain Biden failures. After November, the GOP can keep this committee in operation with new members. So we can investigate the so-called investigation. Big hurt coming.

          1. So you obviously aren’t watching the hearings. Yesterday, Professor Turley was talking about the heinous things that happened though he “hasn’t yet seen the link to criminality.” Keep saying it was nothing, some of your fearless leaders will ultimately be charged criminally.

        2. Now my communications become fodder for congress, whose only power is to conduct hearings in the constitutional roll of crafting legislation?

          1. If you were communicating with Eastman and others who were trying to upend the election, your communications might be worthy of evaluation as to your role or that of others. Congress can a;also make criminal referrals.

        3. Why is Whitehouse calling for the impeachment of a sitting Justice?

          The constant goal post moving is getting confusiing

          1. That was never my issue. As my friend Mespo once eloquently said, “Your question is your question but my answer is mine to give. Without additional evidence, I don’t see call for the impeachment of Thomas, Whitehouse may know more on the subject than I do. I didn’t defend Whitehouse, I criticized Turley for suggesting Ginni was being looked at because of her politics and she should be exempt because of her husband.

    3. There is zero indication, none whatsoever, that Ginni Thomas is trying to overturn an election. Whitehouse’s suggestion is just a sleazy, stupid attempt to pressure a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court into voting a certain way in the abortion case and other upcoming cases. Democrats always take the low road, and now after their court packing fiasco they want to start attacking conservative justices they view as “enemies” by going after their wives. Here, there is no indication at all that Ginni Thomas did anything but get engaged in politics. Free speech, in other words. Anyway, the whole January 6th fake committee thing is a farce.

        1. Based on your article, how many lawmakers should one be permitted to lobby?

        2. READ previously reported.
          Put that in the Bucket with USA TODAY removing or editing over 20 stories by one writer, that misused sources or used people that did not exist.

      1. Ginni Thomas is, at a minimum, insane. I don’t know if her conspiring with Eastman to overturn an election rises to the level of criminality or not but I know this: it is time to stop pretending that believing you have a personal hotline to god and that he talks to you is anything other than crazy. Hearing voices in your head and delusions of grandeur are textbook definitions of insanity. No one this obviously nucking futz needs to be anywhere near any levers of power. Ginni needs a dose of haldol and to spend some time on the psych ward. I wonder if Clarence drove her crazy- it’s got to be tough being a “Christian” married to a porn addict. Too many Long Dong Silver videos maybe.

        1. “Ginni Thomas is, at a minimum, insane.”

          Such is the mentality of Democrats that write such manure.

          “married to a porn addict.”


          You belong in a zoo.

          1. clutch pearls all you want that’s not going to change the fact that Thomas is a huge pervert who blasts rope to Long Dong Silver (his words-not mine) videos and worse. Presumably Ginni’s into that too; when she’s not communing with spirits, handling snakes and barking at the moon of course. Oh also I’m not a democrat just a concerned citizen.

    4. Aparently you can not read.

      The MAJOR flaw int eh entire J6 hearings has been that it HIGHLIGHTED that it is all about POLITICS.

      I am not a Gini Thomas Fan – but Absent credible proof that she ACTED in violation of the law – she is “of limits” – not because she is the wife of a supreme court justice, but because holding different political views and ACTING on then is NOT a crime – unless the ACT is a crime REGARDLESS of the politics.

      Ultimately no one was prosecuted for the nonsense during the kavanaugh hearings. 99.99% of the conduct of those involved in J6 was LESS consequential. If the Kavanaugh protestors were covered by the 1st amendment – so were the J6 protestors.

      Democrats actually occupied the Wisconsin State capital in 2010 for several weeks. No one was arrested – Yet purportedly the Proud Boys are insurectionists for planning to do the same thing.

      It is an absolute requirement of the rule of law – though not alone sufficient, that whatever the law it must be applied BLINDLY – to the rich and poor, to Mother Therasa and Satan, to democrats and republicans.

      If you can not do that – YOU ARE LAWLESS.

      Not only were the J6 hearings poorly viewed – but evidnce is that they BACKFIRED, instead of strengthening Democrats claims – they WEAKENED them.

      Most of the time people know the difference between spin and facts. They know start chambers, they know lies when they hear them.

      And possibly most important of all – they know when someone has cried Wolf to often when there was no wolf.

      1. Lets look at where we agree:
        1 The J6 hearings are about politics. It would be hard to have hearings about the attempts of one party to overturn an election won by the other without involving politics. We could also agree with a point Turley makes that the presentation is mostly one-sided, but only because Republicans in the Senate refused to participate in what would have been a far less partisan process.

        The Act Ginni Thomas may have participated in is attempting to replace electors certified by states with others that will do her bidding. She has been asked to appear for questioning which seems reasonable given her communications with the man trying to implement the plan (Eastman in case you lost track).
        Twenty million people watched the first hearings in prime time, that’s hardly poorly viewed now is it? You say the claims by Democrats (and two Republicans) have backfired but a new poll says 58% of the public now believes Trump should be prosecuted for Jan. 6 which wasn’t true before the hearings.
        That percentage will likely increase after tomorrow when we see his attempts to force states to find him votes and switch certified electors. BTW, all the witnesses so far have been Republicans so why would they lie?
        Your separation seems to be increasing.

        1. If you wish to find common ground – the way is not trying to tell me what I must agree with you on.

          The House J6 hearings were Political theatre. The Senate followed its own rules and therefore did not have stupid hearings.
          The failure of the house to follow its own rules destroyed any hoped for credibility to the hearings.
          This is a symptom of a progressive problem with house democrats. Faux impeachment I was a disaterously politically corrupt effort, but each successive effort at political theatre democrats seemed to beleive that they failed to gain public support because they allowed republican participation, rather than because there case was weak.

          One of the most obvious and stupid problems is the presumption by democrats of corrupt motives without any actual examination of the factors driving actions.

          Trump’s request of Zelensky to investigate the Biden’s is only corrupt if the evidence does not meet the burden for investigation.
          It obviously did, but democrats deliberately precluded any justification defense. And people are not stupid.

          We have the same with faux impeachment II and with the J6 hearings. You can not consider either without two things:

          First looking at the actual law and constitution – which is quite simple here and was never violated.
          And then looking at the allegations of fraud and lawlessness in the election itself.

          We have an adversarial system to assure that both sides get to present the evidence most favorable to them.

          People recognize a star chamber when they see one – atleast most people do.

          Regardless, the hearings backfired – independents in swing states say they were driven away from Democrats.

        2. With respect to electors – the constitution says that legislators are selected by the state legislature.
          It also says that presidential elections are the province of the state legislature.

          This is NOT the first time that allegations of election fraud have resulted in competing slates of electors from the same state.
          It is constitutional for a state legislature to determine that their election was lawless and or fraudulent and to select their own electors.
          In fact it is constitutional for them to just select the electors and ignore elections. There is no constitutional requirement for citizens to vote for president.

          You are beating a dead horse.

          You are making the same error you made with Faux impeachment I & II
          You are pretending that some action you do not like is illegal, immoral or improper on its face – if and only if you are going after Trump.

          It is well documented that Biden is throwing a hissy fit in the whitehouse because DOJ will not indict Trump. If Trump can be impeached for seeking to investigate Biden – why isn’t the reverse true ?

          The first impeachment was bogus – because there is nothinjg wrong with asking for the investigation of anyone – assuming there is sufficient evidence to justify and investigation -= which their obviously was.
          Put simply – while the Democrats have permanently assured that purely political impeachment is permitted. They abjectly failed to demonstrate constitutional, legal or moral failure. Not liking what Trump sought does not make it wrong.

          The Same is true of J6 – even if the 2020 election was 100% perfect – which it quite obviously was not, Trump and Trump supporters were still perfectly free to protest the outcome, and to march into the capital and demand a different outcome.
          Gini Thomas and Eastman were perfectly free to advise trump to seek to get Pence and Republicans to cooperate to accept the state legislature appointed electors. You may not like what they attempted, you may be glad they succeeded, but Just like Clintons efforts to coerce electors to vote differently from their state – their actions were legal and constitutional.

          You REPEATEDLY attempt to criminalize politics – and you had better hope that in 2023 with Republicans in control of the house and probably the senate – they do not choose to play be the same rules.

          Regardless, democrats are the problem here. Republicans have not YET sought to criminalize political disagreement.

          But large numbers of republicans are demanding that their elected representatives do that in 2023.
          It is likely that as they take power in 2023 Republicans will have a version of the problems democrats currently have.
          A massive number of republicans want Biden impeached – over and over if necescary. They want real investigations into the 2020 election. While many Republican politicians do not want either of those. Democrats caved to the much smaller number of left wing nuts in 2021. Republicans are absolutely going to have to do something to placate those who want democrat heads on a platter.
          And that is part of what the Greiten “Rino Hunting” is about.
          Massive numbers of republicans want to do to democrats what democrats have done to them in 2023 – and it is a small portion of the GOP that is likely to stop that. And they are the first targets.

          I am not sure where I fall. Normally I would side with sticking to the rule of law. But we will not have meaningful change in our politics until there are consequences for the vile LAWLESS behavior of democrats over the past 6 years.

          You and I are here debating things – that are not debateable. You can dislike what Trump attempted – but it is legal and constitutional.
          You do not get to pretend away the law and constitution. In 2023 you may learn that the hard way.

          Yes 20m people is poor viewing. 85% of americans watched the watergate hearings.

        3. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

          You do not get the truth without an adversarial system.

          Regardless, you think that the testimony so far has been damning ?
          I think it has been heavily spun.
          The big problem is that it is still just democrats pounding their first saying that attempting to act withing the law and constitution is evil – when they possibly by hook or crook won.

          People can understand that is not true.

          I do not think people lied. I do think they spun testimony to suit.
          But mostly Democrats continue to make “much ado about nothing”

          Further the recent political violence by democrats is burning down your moral soap box.

          People may not reach my argument that the capital should not have been locked down.
          But they do understand that people are allowed to protest, and that when you attempt to thwart legitimate protest the results could be bad.

Comments are closed.