Schiff: The Committee Could Subpoena Ginni Thomas About Justice Thomas

There was a telling exchange today on CBS’ Face the Nation when host Margaret Brennan asked J6 Committee member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) about issuing a subpoena of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.  I have previously written how the calls for Justice Thomas to resign or be impeached are wildly out of line with ethical and constitutional standards. What was interesting, however, was how Schiff justified such an unprecedented subpoena: to question her about one of Thomas’ opinions dealing with the authority of Congress to investigate what occurred on that day.

The House was previously given the messages by Ginni Thomas, including 29 messages from November 2020 to mid-January 2021. They were part of over 2300 text messages sent to the Committee by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. That turning over of the messages was the subject of press coverage in December 2021 before the January 19, 2022 opinion with the sole dissent of Thomas.

Here is the exchange:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Your colleague Liz Cheney was on two other networks this morning, and she said that you all are discussing a potential subpoena for Ginni Thomas, who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Are there lines that shouldn’t be crossed here when it comes to the Supreme Court? Because one of the objections to the premise of a subpoena here is that it- it sets a dangerous precedent by putting the spouse of a justice in this political forum.

REP. SCHIFF: There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed, but those lines involve sitting Supreme Court justices, not presiding or appearing or taking action in cases in which their spouse may be implicated. And in this case, for Clarence Thomas to issue a decision, in a case, a dissent in a case where Congress is trying to get documents, and those documents might involve his own wife, that’s the line that’s been crossed. And I think, for Congress to be looking into these issues, looking into conflict of interest issues. But here, looking into issues, whether it involves the wife of a Supreme Court justice or anyone else, if they have information or role in an effort to overturn an election. Yes, they’re not excluded from examination.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It sounds like you’re saying you favor that subpoena?

REP. SCHIFF: Well, if she has relevant information or investigation, we hope she comes in voluntarily. But if she doesn’t, then we should give that a serious consideration. And, yes, I think those that we decided have important enough information should be subpoenaed.

Schiff clearly states that the interest of the Committee is to use Thomas’ spouse to explore a prior opinion in an election-related case. Rep. Liz Cheney (R., Wy) has also stated that the Committee might subpoena Ginni Thomas.

Various politicians and pundits have suggested that Thomas could be impeached for violating the Judicial Code of Ethics because he voted on a challenge to the Commission obtaining White House messages and emails. (For the record, I publicly stated that the Commission should prevail on those demands). In January, the House won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the release of White House materials. There was only one dissenting vote: Thomas.

However, the justices have long insisted that they are not compelled to follow the Code of Judicial Conduct.  I have long disagreed with that view and have called for Congress to mandate the application of the code to the Court. Yet, the Court has maintained that such conflict rules are not mandatory and many have refused to recuse themselves in circumstances that were flagged as possible violations.

Yet, Schiff stripped away the pretense of subpoenaing Ginni Thomas about her messages to the White House. This is about her husband, not her support for the election challenges or what occurred on January 6th.

A well-known Republican activist and Trump supporter, Thomas encouraged then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to pursue legal and legislative challenges to what she viewed as a stolen election.

The reason that Ginni Thomas’ messages were seized is not because she was a key figure in the investigation but that the Commission has demanded any messages that deal with such challenges or the rally — a scope that has been criticized as overbroad. Congress then leaked the messages and the media did the rest.

There is no evidence that Ginni Thomas ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol during the riot. Thomas said that she attended the Ellipse rally on Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol.

On a committee that was tasked with uncovering what occurred on January 6th, Schiff is now saying that the committee’s jurisdiction would extend to what the Supreme Court did a year later. That is more than a case of “mission creep.” It is a radical departure from past practices and long-standing interbranch comity. It could create dangerous precedent as members use such committees to investigate jurists on the motivations or communications leading to their opinions.

Once again, members like Schiff appear to be tossing caution to the wind to appeal to core constituencies. How exactly will Schiff and the Committee investigate Justice Thomas’ motivations and actions? It would have to demand disclosures of his spousal communications. It would also threaten perjury or contempt charges if Ginni Thomas is not accurate in her details.

The use of the J6 Committee in this way would reaffirm the criticism of the committee as a partisan exercise. The fact that Cheney has joined in such calls only highlights the absence of even a modicum of balance on the committee. It would also constitute one of the most intrusive acts ever taken against the Court outside of a formal impeachment proceeding.

It is a threat that should be universally condemned and immediately withdrawn.

206 thoughts on “Schiff: The Committee Could Subpoena Ginni Thomas About Justice Thomas”

  1. One way to judge a writer’s influence on his times is to see who is excited and motivated enough to comment on his work. You may think of yourself as a reasonable impartial commentator on the political, legal and constitutional issues of our times but your commentators know better. The great majority of these commentators know you to be a man of the far right, a Tucker Carlson with sterling academic credentials. . If I were you I’d be embarrassed by the overwhelming number of haters that comment on your posts. You need to consider why your work appeals to so many angry people, ranging from the unenlightened to the deranged. In the instant post, about Adam Shiff, you omit the genuine issue that Ginni Thomas might well be subpoenaed to testify about what she knows of the group that met at the Waverly Hotel to plot the coup that wanted to overthrow our democracy. Instead, you focus on her role as Justice Thomas’ spouse, as if that role precludes her giving testimony to a Congressional inquiry into the events that led up to January 6th.

    1. Our Democracy was thrown away on Nov 4th when the election was stolen. The evidence is overwhelming that it was and if you disagree you can return to slither beneath the rock you’ve hiding under.

      1. “One way to judge a writer’s influence on his times is to see who is excited and motivated enough to comment on his work. ”
        ****************************
        nihil

    2. The great majority of these commentators know you to be a man of the far right, a Tucker Carlson with sterling academic credentials.

      I haven’t seen your name before, so I know you haven’t dug into the good Prof’s work.

      He is not far right.

      He adheres to the constitution, and rule of law. It is not a coincidence that what you call the far right, is nothing but adherence to the constitution.

    3. How many million people follow this blog? Exponentially more than ever post a comment, and most of the people who post negative comments are simply disagreeing with Professor Turley’s point of view, not offering substantive refutations of his positions.

      1. If he’s had 60M page views total over its entire existence, and a fair number of people view multiple pages, and some — like Mespo — have viewed hundreds or even thousands over that time period — then odds are that fewer than a million people total have ever read even a single column here, and considerably fewer “follow this blog.”

        1. ATS is interested in tearing Turley down rather than honestly discussing the issues of the day.

          That makes him a troll.

    4. Neil, you are painting with a broad brush here. It seems to me that many of Professor Turley’s regular followers do not share your point of view.

    5. Once Neil states that Turley is “known to be a man of the far right” we know that he is either an idiot, a far left lunatic or a paid commenter. This “new guy” is saying that the man that voted for Obama and Hilary is far right tells us all to just ignore the guy going forward.

      My guess is that this is “Anonymous” after deciding to finally create an actual name for himself.

    6. Neil says:

      “If I were you I’d be embarrassed by the overwhelming number of haters that comment on your posts. You need to consider why your work appeals to so many angry people, ranging from the unenlightened to the deranged.”

      I’ve asked that question myself! I too think Turley is embarrassed by the Trumpists who reveal their hatred for Democrats and express their rage against the so-called “Deep State.”

      Since you seem to be a new and needed voice here, you might not be aware that Turley is a NeverTrumper. He is a self-described liberal and admitted that he has never voted for Trump. Despite his selling out as a contributor to Fox News, Turley does not subscribe to Trumpist lies.

      Turley could very easily engage with his followers and disabuse them of their mistaken impressions of his commentary. But that would entail acknowledging the disturbing fact that these Q-Anon and MAGA types are drawn to him like moths to a bright light. Instead, he never responds to questions posed here so that he can maintain the plausible deniability that he is unaware that his “blog family”-as he calls it- is a cesspool. While Turley will defend the freedom of speech of his followers, he would be mortified to read their comments aloud in public.

      Hopefully, one of these days Turley will step outside the Fox News safe zone and expose himself to be cross-examined in effect by a mainstream news reporter who might ask him whether he is not disturbed that his blog family is so filled with rage despite his admonition that there is far too much of it in our political discourse. He might be asked why he does not take those commenters to task who express such vile attitudes. Finally, he must be confronted with the overriding question why he works and profits from Fox News which platforms some of the worst rage provocateurs in the media! Hate-mongers who Turley legitimates as rational voices by appearing now and then on their shows.

      Turley will not be able to escape having to answer these questions- sooner or later.

  2. This scenario is reminiscent of the British efforts to crack down on the American Revolutionaries who were surreptitiously making plans in back rooms and dark places…

    or the Nazis quashing the “Resistance.”

    Why don’t they round up every actual American and take them in for “interrogation.”

    “I KNOW NOTHINK!!!”

    It may be time, men.
    ________________

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

    1. George we’re there.

      Careful Marxist Democrats ATF recently stated 700 million guns in circulation.

      ATF also state over a million background checks for 34 months straight.

  3. George Bush’s administration introduced the “Bush Preemption Doctrine” in violation of the U.S. Constitution and his Oath of Office. Fourth Amendment probable cause is no longer required – facts and evidence no longer matter. We are “preempting” crime with no evidence of wrongdoing. Bush changed the game!

  4. The clear implication of dragging Ginni Thomas before the Inquisition is that they a) want to deprive an effective Republican activist from exercising her First Amendment rights, 2) In denying an influential activist of her rights they seek to deflect any serious investigation into corruption in the electoral process, corruption that is increasingly being uncovered by independent investigators and not the Soros backed prosecutors under whose bailiwick that responsibility falls, and c) if successful, to unlawfully influence a conservative justice through extortion. When you look at Clinton’s money laundering through a law firm to manufacture evidence in the Russian Collusion hoax, the subsequent FBI corruption, Special Council and Schiff shit show follow up, and the current Inquisition, every Democrat Jan 6 member should be brought up on charges of conspiracy to commit a coup.

      1. Have you called for Pelosi’s testimony?
        Release of the Capitol’s videos.
        Byrd’s testimony to be released and questioned?
        The videos showing the murder of Roseanne Boyland?

        No. You are not just biased. You are a troll.

          1. Put your glasses on.

            Have you called for Pelosi’s testimony?
            Release of the Capitol’s videos.
            Byrd’s testimony to be released and questioned?
            The videos showing the murder of Roseanne Boyland?

            No. You are not just biased. You are a troll.

  5. “Yet, Schiff stripped away the pretense of subpoenaing Ginni Thomas about her messages to the White House. This is about her husband, not her support for the election challenges or what occurred on January 6t”
    ****************************************
    Desperate (0 for 2) men do desperate things. The same, it seems, applies to worms.

  6. Calls for Thomas to be impeached are not out of line with constitutional standards and you know it. You cannot bring yourself to admit that he or any Republican has been playing fast and loose with ethical rules and financial disclosure rules. Thomas has failed for example to disclose certain sources of his wife’s income from Heritage Foundation. He didn’t just do it once but it has been consistent. It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t think those disclosure form apply to him. He also failed to recuse himself from cases in which his wive either have a professional or personal interest. These are actions that do not involve non SCOTUS conduct but rather are at the core of the process and procedures put in place to protect the integrity of the court and it’s legitimacy. Impeachment is the only way for the people to hold a member of SCOTUS accountable. If Thomas was a democrat, he’d be gone.

    1. NO MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERCEIVED POLITICAL AFFILITION (IF ANY) SHOULD HAVE ANYONE, PARTICUARLY A “HACK”,
      THREATEN TO QUESTION THEIR WIFE OR HUSBAND. MY GOD, WHAT HAS THE LIBERAL, OR ALLEGED LIBERAL, THINKING PEOPLE DONE. IS THERE NO RESPECT, REGARDLESS OF YOUR POLITICAL LEANING, FOR ANY ELECTED PERSON, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH HIM/HER OR NOT ?

    2. If we are being consistent with what you are saying. All 4 liberals should be impeached.

  7. Ginni Thomas isn’t being asked to testify because she is the wife of a Supreme Court Justice. She is getting that request solely on her own merits, and her communications with John Eastman and Mark Meadows about January 6th and overturning the election. Her marriage to Clarence is being used as an excuse why she shouldn’t be questioned when anyone else with the same text messages to those individuals on those topics would be questioned.
    You see how quickly her agreeing to testify voluntarily turned into a refusal.

    1. And I suppose you think Mrs. Thomas is not being called to put pressure on Justice Thomas to resign? Some liberals in Congress are now calling for impeachment of the Justice despite the fact he has done nothing wrong whatsover. Hopefully you are no so naive to believe Adam Schiff is honorable and apolitical in calling for Mrs. Thomas to testify. Nothing Adam Schiff has done as an elected congressman has been positive, constructive, or altruistic. He personifies the type of person who has brought sheer nasty politics to the forefront in Congress. Where is his decency and sense of fairness? He is largely responsible for the devisiveness and bickering we see in Congress.

      1. Nobody thinks Justice Thomas would respond to any pressure to resign. If the appearance of impropriety concerned him in the least, he wouldn’t do some of the things he does, despite conflicts of interest.

      2. All of this is a tempest in a teapot.

        It is more blatant political overreach by those on the left.

        Democrats are changing the rules of the game.
        And as they have done so many times before – they do so just in the way most empowering to republicans.

        Overturning Roe is the direct consequence of Democrats eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees.

        The behavior of the left in power, legitimaizes republicans using the same tools in 2023.

    2. Another mischaracterized stance. We the people wanted a forensic audit and the rightfully elected president installed. By refusing to do so the Democrats ipso facto guilty of stealing the election.

    3. Gee, just curious if I spoke to Eastman and Meadows, would I be asked to testify also. What the hell kind of country are we living in?

      1. “What the hell kind of country are we living in?”

        Just another 3rd World sh*thole run by Commie/Nazi Dem/Rinos.

        Hell both of Ok’s sure to be the next US Senators, Both voted to give Ok’s Tax dollars to Ukrainian NAZIS. Even Prof Turley last I heard is still supporting Ukrainian NAZIS.

        What next will Americans put up with, being lied to about the safety of the mRNA Gene Therapies???

      2. Schiff Claims Jan. 6 Committee Will Be Presenting New Evidence “This Fall” Linking Trump Officials to Proud Boys…. Just in Time For Midterms (VIDEO)
        By Cristina Laila
        Published July 24, 2022 at 2:30pm
        874 Comments

        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/schiff-claims-jan-6-committee-will-presenting-new-evidence-fall-linking-trump-officials-proud-boys-just-time-midterms-video/

        Going Down in Flames!

        *******************

        Electric Bus Burst Into Flames During East Coast Heatwave – One Day After Connecticut Gov. Requires All Future State Vehicles to Run On Electric Power
        By Jim Hoft
        Published July 24, 2022 at 12:35pm
        Comment

        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/electric-bus-burst-flames-east-coast-heatwave-one-day-connecticut-gov-requires-future-state-vehicles-run-electric-power/

      3. If you communicated with Eastmen and Meadows about overturning an election? Yeah, you should be interviewed. I think there are some Republican Senators that talked with Trump during a siege on the Capitol that should be questioned as well.

      4. Trump and assorted allies without any doubt discussed myriads of options to find further proof of election fraud, to bring it to light to go forward with every possible legal challenge to a process that was lawless fraudulent and corrupt.

        There can be little doubt that they saw the 1876 election and its reversal by congress as a model and after the courts turned a blind eye to the consequences of their own bad pre-election decisions, Trump and others saw that model as the only remaining option.

        Democrats are striving mightly to persuade people that ettempting to do what was done constitutionally in the past is somehow a crime.

        They are failing.

        Many of us were appalled by Hillary and other democrats efforts to persuade electors to change their votes – even media outlets and reporters wrote encouraging that.

        But no one has criminally investigated Clinton for conspiring to overturn an election.

        Because conspiring to overturn an election is not a crime.

        Recently I read of Shays Insurrection. armed protestors sought to force the massachusetts – the protestors were thwarted by the militia, but ultimately prevailed when many of them were elected to the legislature.

    4. Wrong. They already have her text messages. And advocating for someone to challenge an election is not a crime. She holds no position in the government. Besides Schiff made it clear that what he really wants is information from Thomas’s wife as to why J Thomas dissented in a case. All the reasons are in the dissent. What his wife thinks about what her husband was thinking about when he wrote an opinion is ridiculous. This will be another new strategy of the left. If they don’t like a justice’s opinion, they want to be able to question a Justices’ spouse. That is abuse of power and crosses the separation of powers. Congress has no authority to call a Justice before them and ask for an explanation of an opinion unless it is an impeachment of a judge.

          1. If they participate in an attempt to overthrow the government, yeah! But investigation isn’t the same as prosecution, is there reasonable cause to think she may have some involvement? Yes! Do we not ask because she is somebody’s wife? What do you think?

      1. The J6 Committee is not a criminal investigation, and their interviewees are not in any way limited to people who’ve committed crimes. She should be interviewed because she was communicating with multiple people about the fake electors scheme and communicating with the WH about election court challenges.

          1. The DOJ is supposed to be investigating crimes.

            Not sure why you have a problem with that.

            1. RE:”The DOJ is supposed to be investigating crimes…Not sure why you have a problem with that” Never said I had a problem with it. The link I posted reflects the issues.

          2. You should learn to trim URLs so that you’re not including the personally identifying info.

            1. RE:”You should learn to trim URLs so that you’re not including the personally identifying info…” Fear not. My property is protected by my friend Henry.”.

    5. The J6 committee has wasted enormous efforts in their attempt to slander those that disagree with them and to criminalize political disagreement.

      If you wish to continue the farce with Thomas – go ahead embarrass yourself.

      Go as far afield in your star chamber as you please.

      You do not seem to grasp that you can not win this. You keep seeking to define as crime actions that most people grasp are not.

      Ordinary people understand that the Efforts of Trump and others to “overturn” the election – within the constraints of the constitution, are legal.

      Most americans are familiar with sports. They understand that teams will do most anything inside the rules to win. That both sides do everything within the rules to win. They understand come from behind victories, they understand hail mary passes. They understand Bad calls by the Referees.

      1. The only people thinking the hearings are a waste a time are the ones not watching. The ones saying it’s just old information being rehashed aren’t paying attention. Who knew Josh Hawley had Olympic speed as a sprinter?

        1. RE:”The only people thinking the hearings are a waste a time are the ones not watching.” Then there are those who value their time and that it is not to be wasted as it consists of moments they will never get back.

        2. No one is watching.

          Regardless, they are a waste of time.

          In a kangaroo court – with no opposition witnesses, no cross examination – you STILL have failed to make a case.

          We keep being promised bombshells and yet all we get is things we already knew.

          Trump and many others conspired to overturn the election. That is not a secret, everyone knows it.

          But most conspiracies are not crimes. Nor is this.

          Trump conspired to overturn a lawless and fraud ridden election through legal and constitutional means that had been followed before.

          All Gore tried to overturn the 2000 election – There were no congressional hearings over that.
          In 2018 the courts found ballot harvesting in an NC congressional district sufficient to overturn the election.
          In 2016 Hillary and many others tried to get electors to change their votes to overturn the election.
          She promised that she would accept the results – and yet she did not.

          There is nothing here.

          And what have we learned while the committee was in session ?
          Trump wanted the NG at the capital and tried to get them there a week earlier – and the Sargents at arms thwarted that – likely at Pelosi’s direction.
          That Trump wanted to be at the Capital but the Secret Service thwarted that.
          That Trump repeatedly asked for peaceful protests.
          That those responsible for the security of the capital – The speaker of the house, the senate majority leader, the sargent’s at Arms, the Capital police
          were sufficiently clueless that they turned a protest into a riot.
          But that When Trump asked, protesters went home.

        3. What consequential and new have you learned ?

          I have learned alot – outside the hearings – all of it damning to the J6 committee and Democrats.

          1. The Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were aware in advance of Trump’s plan to announce he was going to the Capitol. They went straight to the Capitol without ever going to the Ellipse. Trump spent his time during the siege, calling Senators from a burner phone trying to get them to slow/stop Congress from confirming the results of the election. Attempts were made to tamper with witnesses. Trump refused multiple requests to tell the rioters to stop until police had regained control. Ivanka, Everyone knew the claims of voter fraud were fake, including and especially the people screaming the loudest.

            “no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”
            Sidney Powell

            1. The Oath Keepers were busy on the east side of the Capitol Building helping the Capital Police keep the crowd under control. There are videos of them helping the police come out of the building for crowd control. There are at least three videos of them helping the Capital Police in different areas. You are too engaged in looking for things that aren’t true, to make anyone on the right look bad, but it was the left that created the J6 mess.

              Try to protect your credibility.

                1. What the leader of the Oath Keepers did or didn’t do has no reflection on the large numbers of Oath Keepers that helped the Capitol Police restore some order on the east side.

                  Getting to the leader, what did he do? He never entered the Capitol Building. He wasn’t even close to it. Now you can explain why charges exist. To date, I still don’t understand and believe at least some of the allegations are false, as are the charges against others who did nothing more than enter the Capitol Building when let in by police.

                  Additionally, we have videos of some suspects causing harm and felt to be either from the left or under the agency of the FBI. They are not under arrest even though they are on video inciting the crowd and performing acts of vandalism.

                  Why isn’t J6 investigating this?

                  1. Is it hard to believe everything made up to support your view. Seems Chris Millet testified under oath Trump never ordered any National Guard deployed but went on Hannity and said Trump ordered 20,000 troops. Guess which one you make yourself believe?
                    https://twitter.com/i/status/1552053211640451072

                    The Oath Keepers are confessing to sedition in court yet you keep repeating it isn’t true. There are videos of them in formation entering the Capitol. Who should I believe, you or my lying eyes?

                    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/third-oath-keepers-defendant-pleads-guilty-sedition-capitol-riot-case-rcna27294

                    1. You have a problem, Enigma. You latch on to whatever is given to you by the left and then accept it as the truth and the whole truth. It isn’t. The J6 committee slices and dices video and taped depositions that are held secret. In this way, they can have a TV production that is organized and says what it wants. You are intelligent enough to understand this, but it wouldn’t be consistent with the vision you want to believe.

                      There is nothing anyone can do to convince a person who only wants to hear what he wants to hear.

                      This is the timeline for J6 activities by the Capitol Police.

                      https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

                      The Democrats are on quicksand regarding J6 because the man who supposedly wanted violence authorized 20,000 NG and the ones blaming him are the ones that refused the 20,000 NG. The only reason Democrats haven’t collapsed is that they have the MSM on their side withholding all the information you don’t want to hear and taking out-of-context statements and presenting them in a way you want to hear.

                      The evidence is quite clear but there is no way to convince anyone with a closed mind.

                      Start with the 20,000 troops and apply logic to your thinking process.

                      I will quote Alan Dershowitz who voted for Biden.

                      “It’s the first time this has happened in my lifetime since McCarthyism, and it’s despicable. The idea that they would interview this witness and allow her to testify to hearsay about the president jumping toward the wheel, without first asking the eye- and ear- witnesses. I’ve never heard of a lawyer doing that in my 16 years of practicing law. … It’s not only unethical, it’s not only unfair, it’s bad lawyering.”

                      Yet, you jumped onboard Hutchinson’s testimony despite it being pure hearsay and according to sources contradicted by the Secret Service agents involved. The Committee doesn’t want to call them back and publicly ask them what happened because it makes a farce of the Committee.

                      From the IG: “Mr. Miller and GEN Milley met with the President at the White House at 5:30 p.m.The primary topic they discussed was unrelated to the scheduled rally. GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, ‘We’ve got a plan and we’ve got it covered.”

                      You can read about it here and elsewhere, though I suggest you initially focus on page 31 and the nearby pages.

                      The IG report:

                      https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf

                      When you finish, let me know what you think. We don’t have to be adversarial if we both focus on and look for the truth.

                    2. RE:”You have a problem, Enigma. You latch on to whatever is given to you by the left.” What the end of each televised or daily session needs is a rebuttal containing your content herein. There are media outlets capable of doing so. Why they have not, up to this time, gives one pause..

                    3. “”Yet, you jumped onboard Hutchinson’s testimony despite it being pure hearsay ”

                      Yoiu didn’t watch so you really don’t know. I’ll just continue believing my eyes. Who did Trump talk to during the insurrection? Republican Senators while using a burner phone. Go ahead and provide your logical reason for a President using a burner phone?

                    4. “Yoiu didn’t watch so you really don’t know. “

                      What do you mean I didn’t watch, so I don’t know? That is insulting especially when you didn’t bother to read the IG report or the Capitol Police Report. Firstly, I watched some of it and read about the claims made, not from the right-wing news media but the left-wing news media. They summarized all said in the worst possible form. You have provided squat and feed off hearsay, hiding behind fiction and refusing to view fact.

                      I just provided you with two links to government sources having complete data. I provided part of it in my response and gave the page number to look for though other pages have more information that shows the same things.

                      You listened to a fictionalized TV production without a cross, containing snippets and quotes taken out of context. You have no response to the IG report or the timeline created by the Capitol Police that proves I am 100% correct and you 100% wrong. You didn’t read or comment on any of it. Instead, you made things up.
                      You have been caught many times making things up. The first time had to do with you blaming Donald Trump for something that may or may not have happened 20 years before he was born. Later you said you never made such comments, but I searched and found proof. Be careful that you don’t do the same thing with your denials here, that will lead to future embassment. It will also show a lack of credibility on your part based on your placing J6 hearings at a higher level than the IG and Capitol police.
                      I’m going to repeat what I said above and give you another chance for you to clarify your denials. The links will be repeated for you to try again.
                      =======

                      You have a problem, Enigma. You latch on to whatever is given to you by the left and then accept it as the truth and the whole truth. It isn’t. The J6 committee slices and dices video and taped depositions that are held secret. In this way, they can have a TV production that is organized and says what it wants. You are intelligent enough to understand this, but it wouldn’t be consistent with the vision you want to believe.

                      There is nothing anyone can do to convince a person who only wants to hear what he wants to hear.

                      This is the timeline for J6 activities by the Capitol Police.

                      Click to access USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

                      The Democrats are on quicksand regarding J6 because the man who supposedly wanted violence authorized 20,000 NG and the ones blaming him are the ones that refused the 20,000 NG. The only reason Democrats haven’t collapsed is that they have the MSM on their side withholding all the information you don’t want to hear and taking out-of-context statements and presenting them in a way you want to hear.

                      The evidence is quite clear but there is no way to convince anyone with a closed mind.

                      Start with the 20,000 troops and apply logic to your thinking process.

                      I will quote Alan Dershowitz who voted for Biden.

                      “It’s the first time this has happened in my lifetime since McCarthyism, and it’s despicable. The idea that they would interview this witness and allow her to testify to hearsay about the president jumping toward the wheel, without first asking the eye- and ear- witnesses. I’ve never heard of a lawyer doing that in my 16 years of practicing law. … It’s not only unethical, it’s not only unfair, it’s bad lawyering.”

                      Yet, you jumped onboard Hutchinson’s testimony despite it being pure hearsay and according to sources contradicted by the Secret Service agents involved. The Committee doesn’t want to call them back and publicly ask them what happened because it makes a farce of the Committee.

                      From the IG: “Mr. Miller and GEN Milley met with the President at the White House at 5:30 p.m.The primary topic they discussed was unrelated to the scheduled rally. GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, ‘We’ve got a plan and we’ve got it covered.”

                      You can read about it here and elsewhere, though I suggest you initially focus on page 31 and the nearby pages.

                      The IG report:

                      Click to access DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf

                      When you finish, let me know what you think. We don’t have to be adversarial if we both focus on and look for the truth.

                    5. RE:”“”Yet, you jumped onboard Hutchinson’s testimony despite it being pure hearsay ”..Given that moral and ethical turpitude has been charged on both sides in our conversations, the veracity of these testimonies can never be presumed to be above suspect,

                    6. Thank you, ZZ. Enigma is always accusing others of not reading junk like the J6 or so-called historians that are hacks when those people have read far more than he ever will.

                      His response is another example of voluntary blindness on his part. He will listen to taped hearsay, regarding the IH report that is spliced together for public consumption but he will not refer directly to the IG report even when provided with one page to begin focussing on.

                      I’m tired of this type of arrogance. He’s embarrassed about his accusations of racism against Trump even though all his prior arguments are inadequate, wrong, and even ludicrous.

            2. The statement by Powell’s attorney is made by every single defendant in a defamation case. It has been made by NYT, it is been made by WaPo.

              It means that Powell was expressing an opinion rather than a statement of fact.

              Regardless the lawsuit against Powell should fail – and it will if it is tried anywhere but DC.

              Powell’s remarks were political speech. The most protected form of speech their is. DVS is a participant in the election process that makes them an agent of govenrment and therefore not subject to defamation.

              We are all free to say anything we wish about government – and about elections.

              You can not have a working system otherwise.

              Governments that protect themselves an their agents from speech they do not like are totalitarian.

            3. At the Time Powell attacked DVS there was plenty of reason to be suspicious of DVS systems.

              Top Brass in DVS had made statements that they would assure Trump did not win. That alone is a reason DVS should not have been allowed to be an agent of government in the elections.

              The rejection rate for ballots by DVS systems was over 10,000 times higher than required by law.
              The unusual late night spikes in all 6 major cities.
              And a long list of other problems.

              The NH Windham audit proved that DVS systems have substantial known flaws easily capable of flipping elections.
              The AZ audit proves DVS systems are trivially hackable.

              But the AZ audit also proved that atleast in AZ the DVS systems counted millions of ballots within an acceptable margin of error.

              Though the evidence in GA suggest large problems that atleast partly involved DVS systems that have not been properly explored.

              The highest ballot manual adjudication rate was in Fulton county by far.
              Fulton county is the location We KNOW that ballots were scanned multiple times.
              And Fulton county has the best evidence of Ballot harvesting.

            4. I beleive that it is possible to use ballot scanners to count votes. But it is error to do so in open-loop arrangements such as we currently have.

              Our election process is one of few large scale processes that is open loop.
              What that means is there is no feedback loop to control the quality of processes.

              The minimum acceptable solution would be random hand audits. Select 5% of the scanners in a state at random and hand count all the ballots by that scanner and compare them to the scanners own tally. if every single random check comes back within a very small margin of error you can accept the results. If not you must hand recount the entire election.

              Personally I would eliminate scanners completely – even though a system can be designed to include that that is fraud proof, they are still a black box alien to most people, and further diminish the level of trust in elections.

              While I think the evidence of Fraud and the FACT of lawlessness in the 2020 election is damning.

              The 2020 election is for me just the apogee of long running election problems, and specifically problems with TRUST.

              It is absolutely essential that we ensure that our elections are trusted.

              And you do not seem to grasp that means trusted by nearly everyone – not just you.
              It is not enough for YOU to beleive that elections are conducted lawfully and honestly. It is a requirement that nearly all of us beleive that.
              Even when our prefered candidates lose.

              That is FAR more important than your nonsense over ease of voting or your claims of voter supression.

              It is littlerally perfectly constitutional for government to “supress the vote” – if that meas ensuring trust.
              It is unconstitutional for government to expand the vote – it that means reducing trust.

              The most important aspect of secure elections is doing everything publicly.
              The next most important is doing everything at small scale.

              One of the largest problems in all elections is securing the movement of already cast ballots before counting.
              That problem goes away if you publicly count ballots where they are cast and as they are cast.

              None of the above requires machines of anykind.

              But all of it requires an end to mailin voting, which is just a disasterously stupid idea that is returning us to the massive election fraud of the 19th century.

              It is increasingly evident that we had massive election fraud in 2020. But even if we did not – so long as we continue mailin voting – we will.
              We know what happened in the 19th century. Political parties and humans generally have not become more moral since then.

              1. “It is increasingly evident that we had massive election fraud in 2020. But even if we did not –”

                How do you even put those sentences next to each other? On a related note, I just mailed in my primary vote in a highly Republican district, the way Republicans have preferred to vote for decades.

                1. “How do you even put those sentences next to each other?”
                  Because they are true.

                  ” On a related note, I just mailed in my primary vote in a highly Republican district, the way Republicans have preferred to vote for decades.”

                  Regarding your vote. If you mailed your vote in a state with a secret ballot clause in its state constitution – your vote is invalid and it should no be counted.

                  The mere posession of a ballot outside the direct oversite of election officials violates the requirements for secret ballots.

                  As to your claims regarding republicans – you have Two huge problems.

                  First, you are not credible, no one beleives you.
                  Next, Your argument does not matter. Mailin voting is unconstitutional in 38 states, and should be everywhere – whether Republicans want it or democrats.

                  As to who wants what – the history of mailin voting is democratic not republican. Those states that had it, generally were democratic.

                  there is a language problem here – as absentee balloting is something different. Though in 2020 – and in somestates before the terms are used interchangeably when they are not.

                  Actual absentee ballots do not go in the mail.

                  Absentee voting involves going to the county elections office and voting prior to election day.
                  Or in more limited cases – going to a US consulate or to a military elections office.

                  In all cases abentee ballots are cast the same way as in person ballots – under the supervision of election officials.

                  The actual ballot never leaves the elections office.

                  Validating your legitimate right to vote is performed by election officials BEFORE you are given a ballot,
                  You vote in person. and you can not leave with any evidence of how you voted.

                  Those as well as several others are requirements for Secret ballots.

                  If you did not comply with those – your vote is invalid.

                  I do not know your state, or district. I can only guess at whether your state constitution has the secret ballot requitrement that nearly all states do.

                  But there is not a way in the world I would vote by mail.

                  And I fully expect those states with secret ballot constitutional requirements to toss every single ballot of people who voted by mail.

                  Anything less is lawless.

                  Secret ballots are the law in 38 states.
                  But they shoudl be the law in 50 – for good reason.

                  You voted by mail you say – how do the rest of us know that you were not paid to vote as you did ? or did so out of threat ?
                  Or because you spouse threatened you – or your parents, or children, or anyone else.

                  The rest of us can not know that you were not induced of coerced into your vote, and not merely who you voted for, but that you voted at all.

                  The “Right” to secret ballots is not YOURS – you can not waive it.
                  The right belongs to all other voters.
                  When you vote in person under the supervision of election officials with no ability to prove how you voted, we KNOW that no one could coerce or induce your vote – because they can not know, how you voted, or even if you voted.

                  If you voted in my State I have the right to demand your vote be struck.

                  Today it is not likely that will happen – but I will bet you that in time every state with a secret ballot provision in their constitution will end mailin voting.
                  Either the constitution must change or the the ballots must be struck.

                  That is what the rule of law means.

                  That you do not get to ignore the law and constitution because you do not like it.

  8. It would be great if you could provide the email address of those who are taking action or proposing to do so that are antithetical to our Constitution or to common sense. Then, we readers could send messages expressing our opinions. To force the wife of a justice of the Supreme Court to testify in Congress as outlined by the Congressman is pure lunacy.

  9. I THINK THE LEFT HAS GONE WAY TOO FAR. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE OR SOME IDEA EXPRESSED BY SOMEONE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR OPINION THEN YOU, IN MY OPINION, DO NOT CALL THEM A LIAR OR TRY TO INDICT THEN BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU.

  10. Democrats make McCarthy and Nixon look like Boy Scours

    The Democrat Party is corrupt to the CORE and should be abolished, after jailing the ENTIRE leadership!

    1. Nixon and McCarthy? Why not JFK, RFK, Hoover, FDR, LBJ, and Hillary. What Nixon did compared to Hillary was akin to a six year old lifting an O Henry bar from a 7-11 and then being called a Bernie Madoff.

  11. when are they going to arrest the conspirators who did the Russian Hoax?

    Rule of Law is DEAD in America

  12. Fascist are going to fascist

    Time for a TOUGH GOP…relect Trump and bring a WRECKING BALL TO DC
    cut 50% of all Fed Gov….move 75% that remains in DC…tot he Heartland.

    DC is TOO CORRUPT!

    1. Time for DeSantis!!!

      I can’t vote for Trump again. Trump abandoned his J6 supporters. Trump should have done a Carter and given J6 supporters Full Unconditional Presidential Pardons. You knew the Marxist would come for them.

      On January 27, 1977 President Carter gave FULL Unconditional Presidential Pardons to draft dodgers and deserters. His first day in office. That knife should have cut both ways.

      Trump legally dodged the draft. I went it as a hard pill to swallow to vote for Trump.

  13. Schiff was one of the most prolific liars of the last 6 years. Almost every week during the Trump administration he said he had proof of Russian collusion. He altered the text of a presidential communique and read it out loud on TV. This man is a travesty of the Left.

    1. Highlyeducated,

      I hope you live long enough to read history record Schiff as one of the heroes confronting the scourge of Trumpism whereas Turley’s commentary will be little noted nor long remembered.

  14. IMO it is unfortunate that this show trial has gone so far.
    It makes retaliation almost certain when the House changes hands.
    It is my opinion that 46 will have some questions to answer upon his exit from office.

  15. The establishment party: Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Nadler … with McConnell & McCarthy holding up the Right wing have been poison to any semblance of progress or effective government. An accurate historical record is my wish for their legacy.

    The J6 committee IS an informal impeachment hearing – 2.2 or the preemptive impeachment.

  16. Maybe as an act of goodwill, Schiff could get the ball rolling by releasing that ironclad evidence that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016.

  17. Schiff’s wife doesn’t have a right to attend church Biden’s wife does not have a right to o teach.

      1. He’s married to a woman. Your comment comes across as both misogynistic and homophobic.

        1. RE:” Your comment comes across as both misogynistic and homophobic.” Sounds like a formula for a happy life……for some.

        2. He was sleeping with a Chinese spy. When that was discovered Schiff made sure she was informed of the discovery so she could get out of town before being interviewed by the FBI. That alone should have meant the end of Schiff, but the Democrats are beholden to China, it wasn’t his end, just another step up the Democrats ladder.

            1. RE:”You’re confusing Schiff with someone else (Swallwell?).” Clear is the allegation that Schiff interceded and protected Swallwell for which Schiff should have suffered consequences.

Leave a Reply