Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics

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. Shifty shift is a real trud, he is everything I hate about people and more.

  2. You say “There is no evidence that Ginni Thomas ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol during the riot” to support your argument that the committee should not subpoena Ms. Thomas. What I can’t tell is if your myopic view of the committee’s investigation is intentional.
    President Trump lost an election. He then engaged in a month long effort to convince enough people that it was stolen that state legislators would over turn their popular votes and give Trump the delegates he needed to stay in power. January 6th isn’t worthy of investgation because of the violence on that day. As Republicans correctly point out, there were violent protests all summer long that we aren’t investigating. January 6th is worthy of investigation because it was the culmination of a month long effort to seat the loser as President.

    The fact that the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice supported an undemocratic effort is worriesome. While husbands and wives have differing views on lots of things, they also share beliefs. That’s why they stay married. Justice Thomas’ wife involved herself in an effort to seat a man that was not elected President. Do you really think Congress doesn’t have a legitimate interest in making sure a sitting Supreme Court Justice is not willing to do the same?

    2. your long winded rant is moot, stolen elections say otherwise….beta.

    3. Trump won and now we suffer the horrors of an administration planted by the enemies of America

      1. Trump lost. And “the horrors of an administration planted by the enemies of America” was #45.

  3. Donald Donald Donald: “fox and friends just really botched my poll numbers, no doubt on purpose” Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!

    Okay Donnie. Fox and Friend fabricated news to do you in ———- on purpose. Oh, and Drudge make things up against you as well.

    This utterly unoriginal spiel of his ad nauseum, the same old variation on the theme, would be comical if it weren’t so boring.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3572831-trump-fox-friends-has-gone-to-the-dark-side/

      1. Kind of hilarious what sticking up for Fox and Friends, Drudge, not to mention Bill Barr, gets you these days.

  4. Jonathan: You are not the only one attacking Adam Schiff. At a rally Friday night Trump said: “So Adam Schiff is a sleaze ball Everyone knows it. Not a dumb person, by the way, you know we’re not dealing with dummies. But he’s a sleaze ball. You take a look, perfect watermelon head”. Typical Trump. Juvenile and childish insults. Nothing new. So let’s look at your more nuanced attack on Schiff.

    It’s not just Schiff but the entire J.6 Committee that wants Ginni Thomas to testify and provide relevant docs re her participation in the plot to overturn the 2020 election. From docs already released we know she was an active participant. But you claim this move would be “tossing caution to the wind”, a “partisan exercise” and “would constitute one of the most intrusive acts ever taken against the Court…”. I disagree. Ginni Thomas should not be exempt from testifying simply because she is the wife of a sitting Justice of the SC. It’s not an attack on the Court itself. You have pointed out in previous columns that Mrs. Thomas has her own life separate from her husband. Therefore, like any other citizen, if she has relevant testimony she should testify. When Ginni sent those incendiary messages to Mark Meadows and John Eastman she wasn’t just wanting to, to use your words, “pursue legal and legislative challenges”. She wanted them to overturn the results of the election. That places her at the heart of the plot. So her testimony is highly relevant.

    But you conflate this into an attack on the Court itself. It isn’t. But you seem to think that Ginni should get a pass because, although she attend Trump’s rally, she didn’t “encourage violence or was even present at the Capitol during the riot”. Again, an irrelevancy. Stewart Rhodes wasn’t present either when the Capitol was breached but he is being charged with seditious conspiracy and is going to trial in September. Same with Steve Bannon. He didn’t participate in the violence at the Capitol but has just been convicted of 2 counts of contempt. That’s because he refused to provide relevant testimony for the Committee. Ginni Thomas has relevant testimony and should be forced to testify or prosecuted if she refuses.

    This doesn’t mean Clarence Thomas is not also a player. He and his wife are joined at the hip when it comes to their shared political views. That’s why he was the only dissent when the Court ruled Trump must turn over WH docs relevant to the J6 investigation. I think he probably knew of his wife’s involvement in the plot and was trying to protect her. Thomas should have recused himself in that case. His conflict of interest is the reason many are calling for him to resign or be impeached. But neither Clarence nor the Court itself are the focus here. That’s the part you continue to ignore in trying to confuse us with extraneous issues.

    1. There was no plot. Adam Schiff is an inveterate liar on the same level as Roy Cohn of the McCarthy era. Schiff himself should be investigated for his lies to Congress. Schiff has the same degree of integrity as Goebells

      1. RE: “Schiff has the same degree of integrity as Goebells.” Schiff commits the sin of false pride, He takes advantage of the protection of ‘the well’. No fool he, yet a knave nonetheless.

        1. RE:”What you think about Schiff is what I think about Trump….” Therefore, it shall follow as the night the day. All knaves are created equal, political affiliations or aspirations notwithstanding.

        2. Actually, you are not far off the mark. Trump is a professional carnival barker while Schiff is a professional con man. Both frequently lie. The difference is that everyone knows the carnival barker is lying and that he should never be taken literally.

      3. He is a parasite who thrives in the swamp of DC, the very creature the founding fathers knew would arise

    2. Utterly ridiculous, she has the right to say whatever she wants, I would say the same to meadows and more if given the chance

    3. Dennis,

      You beat me to the punch! It’s well known that Schiff is Turley’s bete noire. No doubt there is some bad blood between the two to which we are not privy. Remember that Schiff led the impeachment of Judge Porteous who was defended by Turley. Back then, Turley praised Schiff:

      “Turley was a lot more impressed by Schiff, whom he called an “able opposing counsel” then and a “skilled prosecutor” today.”

      https://www.rollcall.com/2020/01/13/senate-got-its-man-in-last-impeachment-trial/

      Turley lost to Schiff. Maybe Turley is a sore loser. Who knows.

    4. So you do not like Trump’s remarks.

      Schiff is still a sleaveball.

      You can WANT anything – that does not mean you can have it.

      By the “entire committee” – you mean the start chamber ?

      You an want to know Thomas’s role in legal actions – but you are not entitled to.

      Gini Thomas is a private actor, and the J6 committee is not a court.

      conversely I agree – Turley’s argument is weak – Caution has already been thrown to the wind. The J6 committee has been a partisan excercise since the start.

      Thomas should be exempt from testifying because you do not have a legitimate committee, a legitimate investigation.
      Or really anything legitimate

      You have spent weeks proving what everyone already knew – Trump and those arround him explored every possible legal and constitutional way to overturn an election they correctly beleived to be lawless and fraudulent.

      You have accomplished nothing – Polls on Trmp/Biden 2024 have Trump further ahead.
      Trump’s populatiry is slowly rising.
      Biden’s falling.

      Shortly there will be the public announcement that we are officially in a recession.
      Between now and November – things just get worse.

      Regardless, in a few months, It will be republicans conducting partisan investigations of democrats.

      Those of you and the left never seem to grasp that turn about is fair play.

      “pursue legal and legislative challenges” and “She wanted them to overturn the results of the election”
      Are the same.

      You continue to pretend that “overturning an election” is a crime. It is not p or Clinton and much fo the media would have been jailed after 2016.

      Oh, BTW there now appears to be evidence that one or more FBI agents were memory holing investigations of Hunter Biden during the summer and fall of 2020 before the election.

      Barr should have appointed an SC to continue the Hunter Biden case before resigning.

    5. It is near certain that Bannon will win on appeal. the J6 committee did not follow the required process.

      If you accept that the committee is legitimate – a whole different matter, congress was required to go to court to try to enforce their subpeona’s.
      They did not. Instead they declared people in contempt and refered them to DOJ for prosecution.

      That will bite them in the ass. We have multiple branches of government for a reason. Congress is NOT a court, they do not have the power of the courts. They do not have the power to unilaterally decide whether an asserted priviledge is valid. Even the Executive can not do that.
      Only the courts get to decide questions of law.

      It may take an appeal beyond the 5th circuit – But Bannon will win,

      This will also prove a major loss for congress. It will strengthen claims of executive priviledge.

      Conversely in the unlikely event Bannon does not prevail – this will Still be a bad result for all moving forward.
      Legitimizing the conduct of the J6 committee is bad for the future.

      Republicans have a long list of investigations planned. Further it is increasingly looking like Republicans retake the Senate two.
      That means even more investigations.

      So should republicans deny Democrats seat’s on the Hunter Biden committee ? Or should they hand pick the democrats they want on the comittee ?

      And what is the legislative or oversight purpose of investigating Hunter Biden ?
      Can the house committee investigating Hunter – subpeona his lawyers ? Afdter all Hunter and they were involved together in several crimes – obstruction in Ukraine, Violations of FARA in the US – pretty much everything Manafort was found guilty of, Hunter has done in spades.

      Congress has the oversight power to call those in the US government who were involved in Hunter’s doings in Ukraine – that would be lots of people in the State Department, as well as the FBI and DOJ, and the Vice Presidents office (when Biden was VP).
      But it does not include private actors – like Hunter. congress can investigate the investigation of Hunter, But they can not investigate hunter himself – that is a power only given to the executive.

      And as the Hunter Biden investigation begins – you can bet that his lawyers, as well as those in the Biden VP’s office are going to claim priviledge.

      But as Left wing nuts have set the precident – the GOP can just hold them in contempt and compel Garland to prosecute.
      And Garland will either have to do so or be exposed as a huge hypocrite – Again.

    6. One of the things that is disturbing about you lefties, is that you are perfectly capable of claiming what you are doing is reasonable and legal, and constitutional. And they capable of claiming that Republlicans are unreasonable illegal, and unconstitutional when they do the same thing.

  5. C’mon Turley…

    Come out and say it.

    The Democrats have nothing and they continue this farce to help distract those Grubers from the real issues and how poorly Biden’s Administration has fared.

    The only reason he got in… besides the irregularities and illegal actions during the 2020 election, is that enough people didn’t want to see Trump in office. You can blame the bad press that exacerbated his flaws.

    -G

    1. Gumby,

      Turley has indicated he values the transparency afforded by the Jan 6 committee in spite of its flaws. Why can’t you accept that fact?

      1. Jeff Simpleton,

        Quite to the contrary, Turley said;

        “We have been discussing the highly scripted and entirely one-sided presentation of evidence in the Committee. Indeed, witnesses are primarily used to present what Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to as “the narrative” where their prior videotaped testimony is shown and they are given narrow follow up questions. They at times seem more like props than witnesses — called effectively to recite prior statements between well-crafted, impactful video clips. It has the feel of a news package, which may be the result of the decision to bring in a former ABC executive to produce the hearings.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/30/key-witnesses-challenge-bombshell-allegations-of-key-witness-before-the-1-6-committee/#more-190676

        1. Ray,

          Stop lying. In spite of all these misgivings, Turley freely acknowledges:

          “Many of us support the effort to bring greater transparency to what occurred on Jan. 6th and these hearings have offered a great deal of important new information. Indeed, it has proven gut-wrenching in the accounts of lawyers and staff trying to combat baseless theories and to protect the constitutional process.”

          “Yet, the heavy-handed approach to framing the evidence has been both unnecessary and at times counterproductive. The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.”

          That last sentence bears repeating:

          “The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.”

          To the contrary, Trumpists insist the hearings are a “show trial” in which NOTHING is to be believed. Carlson calls the Jan 6 investigation a “sham.”

          Thankfully, Turley is not a lying Trumpist. He is a NeverTrumper like me.

          1. Ray is not lying. You are acting like Jeff Simpleton and have poor reading comprehension.

            “The strength of some of this evidence would not have been diminished by a more balanced committee or investigation.”

            That neither means the strength is good or bad. The rest of what you wrote is more trash. That is what we get when Simpleton’s are telling us how they feel.

          2. Simple Jeff,

            “Stop lying.”

            How is quoting Turley a lie? You should follow the sage advise of renowned character actor Kirk Lazarus when he advised fellow actor Tugg Speedman;

            “Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man. Looked Retarded. Acted Retarded. NOT retarded. He could count toothpicks, cheat at cards. Autistic. Sure. NOT retarded.

            Tom Hanks’ Forest Gump. Slow? Yes. Retarded? Maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon, and won a ping-pong competition. That ain’t retarded!

            Peter Sellers, “Being There”, infantile? Yes. Retarded? No.

            You went full retarded man. You never go full retard.

            Don’t believe me? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, I am Sam. Went full retard. Went home empty handed.”

            Simple Jeff, you went full retard man. You never go full retard…

            1. Ray,

              Omitting what I quoted from Turley is *lying by omission*.

              Did you really think you were going to get away with it?

              You don’t know me well enough to lie to me.

              1. Jeff, Ray didn’t omit and lie. He clarified your abominable lack of comprehension.

    2. 5 years later and the media hangs on every word of serial liar schiff. He deserves the gallows for his robbing the treasury and constant lies against a sitting president who did a great job despite schiff

  6. If the GOP manages to take control of the House, I really hope that they did not do a revenge tour and investigate ad nauseum. Only exception is that they need to censure Schiff for his repeated fabrications about possessing non-existent evidence and his abuse of the investigative process, I can think of two others that I would like to see censured, but would be really happy to Schiff reprimanded for his actions

  7. Looking into who tried to overthrow elected democracy is not a big deal, so what if the wife of a SC justice helped plot strategies to take and remain in power against the will of the people. Lets just all forget about J6. So what if Clarence was the only one to object to releasing e-mails, so what if his wife was neck deep in Trump policies. This whole thing about overthrowing the election is a nothing burger, now if they could just get to the bottom to what Hunter was up too, now that’s what would protect our democracy. There, I just said what all the deplorables will say all day.

    1. Nothing of importance happened on 1/6 except a government plant coerced some morons to enter a government building and a trigger-happy, low-quality police officer shot and killed one of them.

      1. J6 is OVER!

        The Pentagon & the Cap Police were in charge of Security Before & on J6! Pentagon Cleared Trump in public.

        FBI Agent, others Cleared Proud Boys.

        And among other Trump Supporters Cleared the “””” Oath Keepers “”””””” are almost completely Cleared.

        J6 investigation will now start turning towards the Real Coup Plotters in the Dim/Rinos after Jan 2023.

        1. Mark Levin did pretty good earlier sorting how/why this current J6 Fib comment is over & next phase coming up against the Coup Plotters, Pelosi & the rest.

    2. Hunter was the lead man for selling influence for his dad, a huge criminal enterprise. Gianni plotted nothing other than to find out the truth that we ALL know—- that Trump won in a landslide

  8. Unfortunately, Justice Thomas made it worse by issuing an opinion at all! Even if he didn’t know his wife’s texts were included in what Meadows had, he should have recused himself. Just in case. We can only assume he wouldn’t be stupid enough not to recuse when Ginni is actually subpoenaed, but who knows? His decision doesn’t have to be criminal for him to be impeached.

    1. You are not credible and biased to the extent that you lie by omission.

  9. Please, please go ahead and do it. This would cause the body politic to puke all over the Dems. Sadly, this probably won’t happen.

  10. What does Lynn Cheney have to say about all this? In case she wonders why she is about to lose her primary. This would be an opportunity to show she is trying to be balanced, except that she isn’t.

    1. Her name is Liz, not Lynn. And she’s putting country ahead of her own House seat, which is what patriotic Reps do. History will look more kindly on her than on Trump and the Trumpists in Congress.

      1. At one time I would have agreed with you but she has proven me wrong when I thought she really had the good of the country at heart. She has turned into a vindictive be-ach who evidently hates Trump so bad she would burn the house down if she thinks he’s in it.

        1. Trump attempted an autogolpe by pressuring Pence to reject the confirmation of EC vote. It was attempted obstruction of Congress.

          No patriotic person should support him.

          1. “Trump attempted an autogolpe”

            Obviously you don’t fully comprehend the meaning of the word you used. You think it makes you sound smart. It doesn’t. It tells us that you are not credible.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, don’t you know what an autogolpe is? Apparently not because you used the word badly. You are having a bad day, and we understand. The world is crushing in on you. All the hoaxes you believed in about Trump were proven false and now you have to face your own ignorance about Jan 6 which gradually is showing you wrong once again.

      2. If she were putting country ahead of her house seat, she would seek to show some sense of balance. She has not. She is letting her hatred for Trump cause her to lose any sense of fairness or balance. Schiff we already know, from everything Russia, is one of the most dishonest people in Washington (if not the most dishonest, but there are so many choices), Liz should strive to be better. She hasn’t. If history is written by partisan liberal hacks, it will look kindly on her. Otherwise, she had the opportunity to lend credibility to the commission with people not inclined to give credibility to a Nancy Pelosi hit team. Again, she missed the opportunity for participating in a show.

        1. She thinks Trump is a danger to the country and is harming her party by turning the GOP into a personality cult. It’s one of the few things I agree with her about.

          1. Nancy Pelosi is a bigger threat to this country than Trump ever was. The lying Insider Trader hates America, and only wants to enrich her already rich beyond belief family….whilst they prosecute Normal Americans for doing the same. She belongs in the DC gulag with her drunk husband

      3. She is putting her hatred against an individual ahead of her love of country. You don’t see that because you put your hatred of America as it is known ahead of everything else including the truth.

  11. RE:”What was interesting, however, was how Schiff justified such an unprecedented subpoena…” Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men….? One can only hope that present circumstances will defeat Adam Schiff in November.

  12. “This is about her husband, not her support for the election challenges or what occurred on January 6th.”

    That is a false dichotomy.

    It’s about multiple issues, including her communications with Mark Meadows about the various court challenges, her communications with various people encouraging the fake electors scheme, and also whether she spoke with her husband about her communications in a case before him that also involved the J6 Committee.

    It shouldn’t be hard for JT to discuss this accurately, addressing the multiple reasons that they wish to speak with her, yet he’s choosing not to.

    I agree that if she won’t go willingly, then she should be subpoenaed. Being the wife of a SCOTUS Justice should not place her above anyone else the Committee has interviewed.

    1. Why is Nancy Pelosi not testifying? Being in control of the Capitol Building makes her the most important witness.

      Those asking private citizens to testify are fascists unless they have a basis and are willing to have everyone testify with cross examination.

      Your arguments are not credible. They point to your authoritarian nature.

      1. What good would having Nancy P testimony as without any opportunity to to cross examine her it would simply be another opportunity to further make the case against Trump without any chance for her also assuming any blame

  13. “[H]ow Schiff justified such an unprecedented subpoena: to question her about one of Thomas’ opinions . . .” (JT)

    Up next:

    Subpoena Cleopatra about the whole Mark Antony affair — and how that set the stage (some 2,000 years later) for Jan. 6 — the Darkest Day in human history.

  14. #abovethelaw dimlibs can lie and coerce, without any responsibility. When people are hounded by a kangaroo court, for their opinions, we are fubar. Ask schifty why they didn’t confirm the “testimony” of Cassidy Hutchinson. They had a guy she was quoting, testify, and didn’t ask him, what he said. I saw no blocks busted. {Was Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Just Hearsay?https://lawandcrime.com › jan-6-committee › house-jud…
    Jun 29, 2022 — House Judiciary GOP Claimed Mark Meadows Aide’s Blockbuster Testimony Was ‘Literally All Hearsay Evidence.’ The Truth Is More Complicated.}

  15. The United States have become the Soviet Union. The Soviet democrats have turned justice into show trials. It is time to overthrow the apparatchiks.

          1. RE: “Why?? Because he is out, so I am not outing him.” Support that allegation with incontrovertible fact, please.

  17. They will leave no stone unturned, except perhaps the rock they crawled out from under.

    1. Darren says:

      “They will leave no stone unturned, except perhaps the rock they crawled out from under.”

      Well, well, well. Now we know where Darren stands….

  19. Hard to get excited about Schiff. He lies, and is shameless about it. The Media never holds him to account, and nobody takes anything is says truth adjacent, but rather political posturing.
    Schiff also said they have on going new “information” about the Oath keepers, and ties to the Trump circle. But I noticed he never claimed Trump or his circle are connected to the oath keepers. He said the committee will reveal all this fall (aren’t elections held in the fall?). Democrats are force to lie. The truth is far detached from reality.

  20. “Schiff clearly states that the interest of the Committee is to use Thomas’ spouse to explore a prior opinion in an election-related case.”

    If you think that’s a clear response, you have interesting ideas about clarity.

    No offense Turley, but you look like a guy in search of a column. The answer to Brennan’s question is contained in the last two sentences of Schiff’s response. The fact that Schiff is an inarticulate clown who went off on a tangent before answering doesn’t mean you get to create an issue out of whole cloth.

    1. SteveJ translation: Ignore almost everything he says and only focus on the a few things he thinks sound the most sane.

      1. If you got something out of the half-sentences and gobbledygook other than “if she has relevant information” then I guess your reading comprehension skills are superior to mine.

    2. Actually, it kinda does. If Schiff is a clown, he invites like responses to his clown attitude.

Comments are closed.