Below is my column in the New York Post on the J6 Committee report and the conspicuous absence of any mention of Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas. Despite calls for the impeachment of Justice Thomas and criminal charges against the couple, the Ginni Thomas “scandal” seemed to evaporate with nary a mention in the report or the press.
Here is the column:
The Jan. 6 committee issued its long-awaited report at 2022’s end, with the expected breathless punditry. Spoiler alert: It turns out the culprit of this “whodunit” was … wait for it … Donald Trump.
What’s more interesting is the dog that did not bark.
In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story “Silver Blaze,” the local inspector asks Sherlock Holmes, “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” Holmes responds, “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” When the inspector objects, “The dog did nothing in the night-time,” Holmes replies, “That was the curious incident.”
In the 895-page report, the “curious incident” is the lack of any reference to Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife. For months, members, the media and an army of pundits hammered away at the “smoking gun” texts Thomas sent to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and others calling the election stolen and demanding challenges to certifying the electoral votes.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) was the first member of Congress to call for Justice Thomas to be impeached over his wife’s 29 messages. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) called for Thomas to resign immediately as a “corrupt jurist.”
Former Sen. Barbara Boxer and others joined these calls. (Boxer was particularly ironic since she used the same underlying federal law to challenge the certification of George W. Bush’s election.) Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) demanded an investigation. On the committee itself, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) fueled the frenzy and demanded subpoenas for both Thomases.
The media also went into hyperbolic overload. Liberal sites demanded Thomas be impeached, citing “watchdogs” who turned out to be the same crowd that has long denounced the justice.
MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan tweeted, “I have a question for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats: Why haven’t you impeached Clarence Thomas yet?” CNN and MSNBC commentator Tristan Snell tweeted that the couple had to be subpoenaed: “At best, they are material fact witnesses. At worst, they are co-conspirators to be charged with seditious conspiracy.” Professor Laurence Tribe (who declared Trump should be charged with attempted murder) also demanded the justice and his wife be subpoenaed.
MSNBC’s Zeeshan Aleem declared in June that the scandal “keeps getting worse” but “the silver lining is that it will likely intensify calls for overhauling the high court, and help strip more people of the illusion that the Supreme Court is an apolitical branch of government and a neutral arbiter of the law.”
Activists like Sarah Lipton-Lubet, Take Back the Court Action Fund executive director, declared that “there’s much more to the story of Ginni Thomas’ participation in the January 6 attack that the House Select Committee and the American public deserve to know.”
Yet it turns out what we knew was largely all we needed to know. There was not “much more to the story.” The entire Ginni Thomas scandal merited nary a mention in the massive report.
Indeed, it doesn’t appear the committee had anything more than what we knew when the controversy began. The texts were never denied, and they weren’t surprising since Ginni Thomas was publicly supporting Trump and his claims. She was willing, moreover, to answer the committee’s questions voluntarily.
We’ve 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.
Of course, when some of us suggested Ginni Thomas has a protected right to such views and communications, we were denounced as apologists or sympathizers to an “insurrection.”
For her part, as The Post reported, “Thomas said that her husband only found out about her texts with Meadows from media reports as he lay in hospital bed recovering from an infection in March 2022.”
In reality, there were press reports before that. The House received 29 texts between the pair from November 2020 to mid-January 2021 in the 2,320 messages Meadows gave the committee. The press reported Meadows’ turnover in December 2021.
That, however, does not change the fact there was nothing in this controversy that warranted the breathless coverage or, in my view, a subpoena issued to the spouse of a sitting justice.
Politicians and pundits suggested Thomas could be impeached because he voted on a challenge to the committee obtaining White House messages and emails. In January 2022, the House won an 8-1 victory before the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s privilege objections to the materials’ release. There was only one dissenting vote: Thomas.
Yet Ginni Thomas’ texts had already been turned over to the committee by then, and she testified she never told her husband about her communications.
Likewise, there was no evidence that she ever encouraged violence or was even present at the Capitol riot. Thomas said she attended the Ellipse rally Jan. 6 but left early, before Trump spoke, and never went to the Capitol.
In the end, the committee did not take the advice of Schiff, Tribe, and others. It did not subpoena Justice Thomas. It did hear from Ginni, who voluntarily testified for four hours. Again, while the committee released her transcript, it did not find that she merited a single reference in the 895-page report.
The media that pushed this exaggerated story for months followed the familiar pattern. They just shrugged and barely covered the fact the committee found nothing beyond what some of us had previously noted: Ginni Thomas was a longstanding Republican activist who publicly supported Trump’s claims of a rigged election.
In her testimony, Thomas reiterated under oath that she does not talk to her husband about her political activities and he does not discuss his work on the court. She reaffirmed she never told her husband about her conversations with Meadows.
She now regrets sending Meadows messages and described the days following the election as an “emotional time.”
Now the entire investigation of Ginni Thomas ended as it began: as a largely recreational exercise. It did prove one thing. What many people in this age of rage refuse to admit is that they like it. Rage is addictive. It releases you from any obligations of fairness or balance. Ginni Thomas’ targeting was just another cathartic “curious incident” in the J6 investigation.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Isn’t there another non-barking dog: proof of a Russian connections in Trump’s tax returns? For years, Democrats have been trying to get the tax returns to prove their core-policical obsession: Putin’s influence over Trump. For example: “ ‘The president has refused to release his tax returns, but these bizarre actions that he has taken, which seem so to indicate that President Putin has something over President Trump, something personal, and it might be financial,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), then the Senate minority leader. “We need to see the tax returns.’ ” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/remember-the-hysteria-over-trumps-tax-returns After successfully invading Trump’s right to confidentialiy, the tax returns revealed no such connection. Years of meaningless hate.
Do we live in a Stalinist society?
Well, duuuuuuh!
What was your first clue, wholly unconstitutional matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., and, you know, all that central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unenumerated regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering, perhaps?
I know that there are many whom regularly contribute to this blog’s comment,
This comment is not directed at You, Just those in Government.
There are to many Old People age 65 or Older in Government and Ex-Officials making; Waves, Kibitzing, Innuendos, and Conjecture. They made it very tough for the Thomas’s and other Brethren.
Jon’s preceding post “There Should Be Censorship”: NYU Professor Calls for Censorship for Those Speaking with “Negative Intent”, although the post itself does not apply, it is beginning to make sense that:
“There Should Be Censorship for those in Government and Ex-Officios 65 and Older”: A call for Censorship for Those Speaking with “Negative Intent”
Censorship for Those Speaking with “Negative Intent”
Who defines “negative intent”?
That is the idiocy of any censorship. Who decides? Yelling fire in a crowded theater, is against the law. So negative intent has do be defined in the code. It is undefinable. One man’s negative intent, is the next mans life defining revelation.
The only way you can support ‘some’ censorship is to allow your enemy the power to define the standard. Something I refuse to allow.
Iowan2,
Well said.
Iowan2: I appreciate your view per, Who decides “Negative Intent”?
and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s 1919 analogy made some 104 years ago.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Naive as naive my point is: Governmental Officials or Ex-Officials having had the ‘positions & time’ to “FIX” things to their Own liking, have no business espousing ‘Negative’ rhetorical about those whom are in positions to “FIX” the problems of Nation.
Assuming most EX/Governmental Officials and Personnel – They’ve had Their time to get it right, presumable they are getting a nice PERs/Military Retirement, and have a life situation that’s doing better than most or at least better than the person working the Drive-Thru window at Toco Bell.
Once your out of Government Employment – Your out. It’s over, you don’t comment about it, you enjoy the fact that you received a steady paycheck, had health insurance, no worries about when you would be out of a job, and more … a whole host of things that normal Civilians deal & worries about day-to-day.
What Barbara Boxer and Others did to the Thomas’s was wrong. They should strip her of her retirement, but alas there are no Laws for that, no Theory of Recovery, eschew from Guilt, no, no, no. Just “Negative Intent” without recourse, from a person that has it all.
Therefore ‘Censor Them’, They got Theirs from this Government, and then some.
I don’t know if it was the Founding Father’s ‘intent’ or not (though my Hubris of Youth would like to think it is),
Sometime things need to Die in order for New-Things to grow.
NOPE, just because you served the govt, you dont lose your civil rights.
Rights are not something handed out by the Government. Rights are inalienable, from God.
There are to many old people age 65 and older in government. Well its either that or assisted living. Nursing homes are full of experienced people who could serve in givernment.
Sure there are a lot of good experienced Governmental Personnel 65 and over, I didn’t mean to infer that they are no longer Viable. But ther are Thoses whom are there just to Pad their Retirement as Retired Annuitants that work half a Year. I’ll try to be more pointed.
Congress
Our Seniority system for Congressional Committee Heads needs to abolished, Term Limits – Based on reaching an Age or Time Served. Representation for those Citizens under the Age of 18 (under voting age).
My point is, make Government more Younger, a More youthful Government.
Look, I’m Republican, but I don’t like Mitch McConnell, can’t even say I know much about Him, but I know He’s Old and he has been there for some time – Time to Go. (Pelosi, Feinstein, McCarthy, both sides of the Isle … Bye-Bye) Along with Kissinger, Laurence Tribe, Nome Chomsky … these Old Farts they drag up from the Muck. Enough
In terms of the Power of Their Seat (Congress Members), the Body is Top Heavy with Seniority.
Like any group of Employees, Congress Members are concerned in making Their full 40yrs FERs Retirement quota. But That Congressional Seat is special, It’s not a Job at Major Employer were you strive to make the Retirement requirements to arrive at that Golden moment. Each Seat is fertile ground for New ideals and Approaches.
Tell ya why I like Greta Thunberg, Its the fact that she is a Young Person standing up for Young People, Her Generation and the Next Young Generation. (forget about the Green House Debate)
Her point to Me is, Hey you need to listen to the voices of the younger generation, because we are the one that are going to inherit this World (mess if you like). – She’s Right – Someday Shes going to be Old, like Us, but she can at last say in earnest, that she honestly tried.
So yeah, at my age, I’m all for Out with the Old and In with the New. Quit while your ahead.
-It’s just an Opinion, but HEY!, Things need to CHANGE, and will Like it or Not.-
Just remember,the older you get, the less a life sentence matters.
I’d let Trump off by indicting the Bush torture program. By not holding Bush DOJ torture-attorneys accountable (those that approved and pushed torture onto the CIA and DOD) – it actually created an “incentive” for lawlessness by Trump’s attorneys.
Under Article VI (Sections 1,2,3) of the U.S. Constitution, Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty legally requires DOJ prosecutors to at least disbar these Bush attorneys from ever practicing law again. This would create a “deterrent-effect” to future lawbreaking by some DOJ attorneys (not meant to disparage the good DOJ attorneys loyal to their Oath of Office).
Worldwide, most war crime indictments happen 20-40 years later, so right now is the perfect time for holding top Bush officials accountable.
Both Democrats and Republicans would like this trade off! If the records were declassified, Bush may well have committed greater crimes than Trump did.
Let Trump off from what?? A fake Russian Collusion?? WHAT have they found on him?? NOTHING. Now do Biden.
No treaty can override the first amendment. It is illegal to penalize an attorney for giving his honest legal opinion. End of story. Anyone who would do so is far worse than any torturer.
“It is illegal to penalize an attorney for giving his honest legal opinion.”
Bars are not government entities and are not bound by the First Amendment. Read their ethics rules to see examples of ways in which they routinely limit the speech of lawyers and can disbar lawyers for legal — but legally unethical — speech.
A new twist on T.S. Eliot’s “The Hollow Men:”
‘This is the Way the [J6 committee] ends..not with a Bang but a Whimper’
The same way Women in the 1900s were unjustly maligned with ‘HYSTERIA’ if they didn’t toe the line ….this WOKE HYSTERIA of the reasonable fascist mind has allowed their flying monkeys a ‘tar and feather’ scorched earth policy…got news for you members of the Laurence Tribe…the sky is falling…on you
OT,
This is more interesting than the faux rage about Ginni Thomas,
Ex-Capitol Police boss says politics hampered Jan. 6 security under Pelosi: ‘Recipe for disaster’
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/ex-capitol-police-boss-says-politics-hampered-jan-6-security-under-pelosi
The entire fiasco was to serve a purpose. Throw shade on Clarence Thomas. Further the attempts to delegitimize the Supreme Court.
Rage much ado about nothing.
As I have said this dozens of times on this blog, “The political left has shown its pattern of propaganda lies within their narratives so many times since 2016 that it’s beyond me why anyone would blindly accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media actively push?”
When hate rules the mind, the ends justify the means and the truth be damned.
Here are the current four tenets of “truth” for the 21st century political left…
1. Democrats are right.
2. Republicans are wrong.
3. Wrong is evil.
4. Evil must be destroyed.
…that’s the dead end of the 21st century political lefts’ ability to think critically.
The political left’s tactics have shown us over and over again that they’re following the same “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime” totalitarian styled mentality that Lavrentiy Beria the head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police used to squash opposition.
Your garbage is no more true than
1. Republicans are right.
2. Democrats are wrong.
3. Wrong is evil.
4. Evil must be destroyed.
Your hyperbole isn’t good for the country, and you should learn to / choose to rein it in.
Anonymous wrote, “Your garbage is no more true than…”
That stand alone argument is a deflection offered by those that can’t muster up an intelligent argument.
Anonymous wrote, “Your hyperbole isn’t good for the country, and you should learn to / choose to rein it in.”
That’s attacking the messenger and doesn’t address the points I raised; therefore, it’s pure ad hominem.
Are deflections and attacking the messenger with ad hominems all you’ve got in your rhetorical tool box?
Here’s an interesting idea Anonymous, how about you invest some real intellectual thinking into showing everyone reading this thread how you think the self-evident truthful statements I wrote are false.
“That’s attacking the messenger”
No, actually, it was clearly attacking the message, which is counterproductive hyperbole.
“it’s pure ad hominem”
Nonsense. Suggesting that you rein your repeated hyperbole in is not irrelevant, nor did I suggest that your hyperbole be discounted because of some fact about you. It should be discounted because it’s false and counterproductive hyperbole.
“the self-evident truthful statements I wrote”
They aren’t true. You BELIEVE that they’re true, but your belief does not make them true any more than flat earthers’ belief makes the earth flat.
And it’s not my responsibility to prove you wrong. It’s your responsibility to prove yourself right, and attempting to shift the burden onto me is an example of a common fallacy known as a “misplaced burden”: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#MisplacedBurden
I’m a Democrat. I think that Democrats are sometimes right and sometimes wrong (if we’re talking about all the claims that all Democrats make — you actually don’t say what set of right/wrong claims you’re talking about), and Republicans are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, and I absolutely do NOT believe that “Wrong is evil.” Most of the time, wrong is NOT evil. People make all sorts of non-evil mistakes, and in some cases people also have legitimate disagreements about what is/isn’t wrong. I am a counterexample to your claim.
Anonymous wrote, “They aren’t true. You BELIEVE that they’re true, but your belief does not make them true…”
Typical response from a foolish partisan.
I hate to be the one to be the Mr. Obvious here; but, it takes a very special kind of partisan stupidity and a set of steel balls clanging low in the breeze to boldly state that the self-evident truthful statements I wrote aren’t true.
You’re entire argument is rationalization #64 on the Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions list and it’s titled Yoo’s Rationalization or “It isn’t what it is”.
Rhetorical question: are you looking at the world through industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders?
I’m done with your deflection.
Have a nice day.
So you cannot prove them true, you simply insist — begging the question — that it’s obvious, you totally ignore the counterexample I gave, and you falsely call my on point response a “deflection.” It seems that you have difficulty distinguishing true from false in some circumstances.
Well done.
Like I said in a previous post, these voices in the media and elsewhere, are just algorithms, canned and ready to go, when triggered by key words such as “republican”, “trump”, “J6”, “insurrection”, “SCOTUS”, etc. If you really read the articles, they say the same thing nearly word for word. Totally mindless. You might think that there are Bots in the media and not just on Twitter. You can tell the democrats and their media because they function like the aforementioned algorithms whereas the republicans have not discovered algorithms yet and their messaging is chaotic and more like a shotgun blast which can hit friend and foe alike. And I am fine with criticizing my own party so I think that qualifies me for being sentient.
You get the column from the media first and then if they get called out, they may go back and do the research that they should have done in the first place.
One of my real joys in reading is military history. Just read some of the communiques from the Duke of Wellington during the Peninsular Campaign over 200 yrs ago. His saltiest language was reserved for the Horse Guards (The general staff at the time) and their armchair generals and the London newspapers. Illuminating and shows how little the media has truly progressed.
It’s like watching clips from the MSM reporting a ‘news’ story, many times saying the exact word or words, e.g. January 6 was an “Insurrection,”or “Worse than the “Civil War,” (apparently the bloodiest war in American history where over 600,000 Americans died was of less importance than the riot at the capital building where no one died).
Major,
I am waiting to see how MSM spins Jan6th tomorrow.
Will they try to conflate it as “Worse than the “Civil War,” or comparison to the attack on Peal Harbor?
Or, in light of their oh, so, very weak Jan6th Committee and down play it, or not acknowledge it at all?
Ginny Thomas surrounds herself with QAnon types and trusts their judgment on things – and also is Clarence Thomas’ biggest confidant. Really, Clarence should not be on SCOTUS and should have recused himself with all matters relating to the 1/6 insurrection and gets involving his wife.
The problem is that SCOTUS makes up its own rules for its own members and in some cases really just asks the members to decide for themselves if they have a conflict.
We really need to get something other than lifetime terms for these SCOTUS people.
Your name fits well.
Goober, you moniker is self explanatory and invalidates pretty much anything you have to say. Goober means peanut, sometimes uneducated person, occasionally used to describe the size of an individual’s brain as well as many other not so pleasant descriptions. The real question is has your goober been boiled in salty brine.
You don’t pay attention, Goober. They don’t discuss politics or cases – they are not each others’ “confidants” on professional matters.
You know all this about The Thomas’s how ? Oh, you read it in the trashy left wing media.
Supreme court justices can be impeached. That is the check on them.
Yes, Scotus makes up its own rules, just as congress does.
Supreme court justices are not trading stocks effected by decisions that are in front of them.
Nancy Pelosi and other members of congress are.
surrounds herself with QAnon types
Mentions Qanon….DRINK!!
The only people that pay attention to qanon are leftists.
I have no idea who it is, I have no idea what “type” that looks like.
There are some really stupid comments, but this one wins the stupid award…so far
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/donald-trump-qanon/index.html
This took 2 seconds of Googling. Are Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene “leftists”?
I’m not following your link.
My point, what ever “it” is “it”, is meaningless. It only is a vehicle to smear a leftist target. My dog has more impact on public opinion than qanon
So, so typical of the Trump-hating, anti-1st Amendment crowd. I could have guessed this outcome a mile away.
What better way to make money than to rage about lies.
“What’s more interesting is the dog that did not bark.”
Nonsense.
Most who are paying attention are more interested in the many revelations: that Trump privately admitted he’d lost, that Trump was involved in the fake elector conspiracy, that the march was planned but they didn’t seek a permit for the march (which is required for DC marches, but either would have been denied or would have required additional security measures, as is the case with other marches to the Capitol) because — according to testimony — they anticipated that the permit would be denied if it was filled out honestly, and a long list of other facts.
This is just your regular shell game where you try to get readers to focus on less important issues that will be more comfortable for your conservative readers.
As for Ginni Thomas, she admitted in her testimony to discussing with her husband issues that might come before the court, which only underscores the need for ethics rules for SCOTUS, another thing you are silent about.
The fake elector conspiracy had jack shit to do with the riot.
Oh, but it has a great deal to do with the people who sent the rioters to the Capitol, and their goal of both the fake elector scheme AND the riot: preventing Congress from certifying the EC vote for Biden.
You keep pushing this nonsense.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with conspiring to get congress to not certify the election.
If there was Hillary would have been in jail in 2017.
This is typical left wing nut BS.
Further it is going to H311.
As Taibbi has now reported – Just about Every government agency was involved in Rigging the 2020 election.
While Externally Twitter said that they would not “censor” someone because the government asked, Internally, after a great deal of behind the scenes pressure from FBI etc, and Congressional Democrats, Twitter decided to do whatever the government asked.
So the ACTUAL “insurrection” was conducted by democrats and by our actual government.
The “Big Lie” is that the 2020 Election was an honest election.
The Conspiracy between SM, MSM, Government, Democrats, the DNC, and Biden campaign is ALONE sufficient that people should be locked up, Biden should be impeached.
How exactly is this not Far worse than WaterGate ?
That said – given that we KNOW that all the above actors were willing to act lawlessly and immorally,
Why should we believe that they did not also commit Ballot Fraud ?
While that does not matter – as the conspiracy to rig the election through media and Social Media is enough to prove that the election was corrupt,
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
The left LIED about the collusion delusion.
They LIED about the 2016 Election.
And they used that LIE to conspire with myriads of government agencies, social media, and media to SILENCE political opposition.
The left is NOT MORAL.
There is no reason to trust those of you on the left on anything.
You talk about Lies – but the list of MASSIVE lies by the left over the past decade is long and large.
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with conspiring to get congress to not certify the election.”
Depends on how one does it. Hundreds of people have already been convicted for their crimes at the Capitol on J6, including for seditious conspiracy, and the fake elector scheme conspiracy investigation is ongoing. Among the possible crimes the latter committed: https://www.justsecurity.org/81958/backgrounder-on-alternate-electors-scheme-federal-and-state-criminal-investigations-and-civil-suits/ (see the section titled “Potential Candidates of Federal Charges”)
So your evidence is a bunch of illegal convictions by corrupt DC courts ?
Hundreds of people in 2020 protested a Rigged election.
One they beleived was fraudulent – likely correctly.
But one that was also rigged unknown to them by people in the federal government censoring the truth about the election.
The same people who are now prosecuting them, judging them, and sitting on juries.
It would be hard to conceive of anything more corrupt.
Two protestors were murdered – where is justice for them ?
No one committed sedition.
Absolutely these people came with the hope of publicly coercing congress to do the right thing and overturn a rigged election.
The difference between their actions and those of the FBI, and other alphabet agencies engaged in rigging the 2020 election – is that their conduct was legal, and public for all to judge.
While the conduct of the very people now prosecuting them was CRIMINAL in violation fo the constitution, in violation of the hatch act, election interferance, and immoral.
The J6 protestors did not show up with thousands of AR-15’s – based on what we now know, that was likely a mistake.
When those in government participate in rigging an election – there is no fix within the constitution.
That you want to rant about them is despicable.
Where is your outrage for ACTUAL sedition ?
What would you call it when those in government PLOT to rig the election ?
How is it that we get free and honest elections when those in government are conspiring with the press, social media, one political party, one campaign to supress the truth and to silence political opposition ?
The J6 protestors were never a danger to this country – but those participating in rigging the 2020 election – were and remain so.
Every single person who was involved in teh government rigging of the 2020 election should be removed from government,
lose their pensions, lose their right to vote and be forbidden from any government job elected or otherwise for the rest of their life.
That is what Sedition looks like.
It is interesting – the left ranted about Putin’s non-existant interferance in the 2016 election. And then did Exactly what Putin does to interfere in his own elections in Russia.
Why should anyone Trust YOU ? Your not moral.
The worst of the J6 protestors are decent people in comparision to those who rigged the 2020 election, and those who support their actions.
And why are we top beleive that people who would silence the truth and silence their political opposition, would not also commit ballot fraud ?
No one should ever trust anything you say.
BEFORE learning of the supression of the truth to rig the 2020 election,
Your J6 idiocy was being completely ignored.
We all know the left lies and mangles words, We all know that 1984 is a howto guide for you not a warning.
Keep up the “two minutes of hate”.
Non-stop TDS. Anonymous is addicted to rage.
Oh, but it has a great deal to do with the people who sent the rioters to the Capitol
No single entity gave direct orders to go the Capitol,more than the Federal Govt.
Unfortunately the evidence will never be revealed. Never is a long time. Lets say 51 years after they release all the Kennedy shooting evidence.
Trump, in his J6 speech: “after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. … So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give.” He sent the rioters to the Capitol. And the J6 Cmte testimony transcripts show that was planned.
Wheere did the word “riot” appear?
I didn’t say it did.
Which undermines your point.
So what?
He did not tell them to riot.
There was no “fake elector” conspiracy. There was an alternate slate of electors “conspiracy” that is perfectly legal and has occured in the last. Even Hillary tried to manipulate the electors in 2016.
Just because you do not like what someone else tries to do, does not make it a crime.
Anon – You say: “[S]he admitted in her testimony to discussing with her husband issues that might come before the court.” Why is this unethical? Almost any issue might come before the Court. Nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct suggests that a federal judge cannot have political discussions with his/her spouse. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
“A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities”
“Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers.”
“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: … (d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is: … (iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding”
The following comment by another Anonymous commenter outlines some of the ways that Ginni Thomas is involved in matters that may be impending (the Eastman communications are already the subject of a court case, and the fake electors scheme is being investigated at both the state and federal levels):
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/05/nothing-but-rage-the-ginni-thomas-investigation-ends-without-a-mention-in-j6-report/comment-page-2/#comment-2251532
and the fake electors scheme is being investigated at both the state and federal levels):
As John has pointed out, an alternate slate of electors is in the Constitution.
How do the PEOPLE challenge an election that is corrupt?
We know from experience, the Courts refuse to engage. In Arizona, the Republican candidate for Atty Gen has been ignored by the courts. Now after recounts and being turned down by courts for relief, the county has found ~500 uncounted votes, in an election won by 281 votes.
The courts, rightly in my opinion refuse to override the people.
That means the only way to challenge a Presidential election is by using the Electoral College. That Constitutional structure allows for the EC to reject the popular vote if they believe corruption has tainted the vote count. The EC is the CHECK in the system. President Trump sought to toss the approved slate of electors and replace them with an alternate slate. All provided for in the Constitution. The final check in a Presidential election is if no one gets 270 votes,it is thrown to the House of Representatives. The people still are heard is selecting the President. That is the very constitutional path being sought by Trump.
On a side note, most say the VP is required to accept the EC votes. My question to you, or any one. What if the VP does refuse to accept a slate of electors? I see no entity with an enumerated power to get those voted counted.
The Courts didn’t “refuse to engage.” They engaged and rejected the subset of challenges filed by those without legal standing, and they ruled on the merits in the remainder.
“President Trump sought to toss the approved slate of electors and replace them with an alternate slate.”
And unless a state Constitution makes that legal, it is ILLEGAL. The “approved slate of electors” is the slate mandated by the state’s Constitution.
“What if the VP does refuse to accept a slate of electors?”
If that slate has been certified by a state, then he has acted illegally and his act can be challenged in court.
If that slate has been certified by a state, then he has acted illegally and his act can be challenged in court.
Who has standing?
The court has the power, but the Vice President enumerated power does not have the power.
you give an opinion, with no citation.
The certification is meaningless. Counting the Electoral Votes is a fail safe to protect elections, against corrupt state actors
What is forgotten, there is always another election. 4 years is a blip in time. The people will correct any mistakes. BUT THAT REQUIRES A FULL AND FREE EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND PUBLICITY NOT TAINTED BY GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP
The State has standing.
No the courts refused to engage.
They rejected challenges on the grounds of laches, mootness, standing, other legal doctrines that have nothing at all to do with the merits.
Those doctrines are all fine when appropriate.
But when the end result is to prevent addressing the merits at all – then the courts have failed.
You are under the delusion that the courts are the final authority.
They are not ever on anything. The people are always. Not in the democratic sense.
But in the sense of the declaration of independence – When the people do not trust govenrment, it is their right to alter or abolish it.
We saw this in 1776. We have seen other revolts, revolutions, insurrections, some successful, some not, some peaceful some not, throughout history. Regardless the lesson of history is that if people do not trust government – the MORE force is require to sustain government. The weaker the trust the greater the force. Until eventually you have something unsustainable.
Even today, we have had protests, violent and peaceful in Hong Kong, China, Iran, even France, and will likely see more.
In the past the people of East Germany lost trust in government, and those in government did not have sufficient support from the military or police or USSR and the east german government collapsed.
That is the peaceful version of the Declarations “Peoples right to alter or abolish”
Consistently Rassmussen has found that 59% of people beleive it is somewhat likely that election fraud or misconduct altered the outcome of the 2020 election. More recently 76% of people beleive that social media censorship altered the outcome of the election.
You want to fight about Rassmussen – Fine, if they are off by a factor of 3 – that is still far too many people distrusting our elections.
The right to vote is meaningless, if you vote does not count, if those running the election can do as they please.
There is not only a right to vote, but a right to a free, transparent, honest, lawful, and trustworthy election.
Without that you are left with Stalin’s “it is not who votes that matters, but who counts the vote”.
I would remind you that in 1776 about 1/3 of the colonists wanted independence, 1/3 wanted to remain with Great Britian and 1/3 were not sure.
A successful revolution does not take a majority.
It is not a requirement that we like the results of an election.
It is an absolute requirement that we can trust the results. That clearly is not the case anymore.
That is a problem that goes beyond the constitution, right to the foundations of government – to the social contract.
Without Trust there is no social contract, and there is no power or authority to govern.
In 2016 claims of Russian interferance made by Clinton left large portions of the left questioning the 2016 elections.
While Clitnon was an obvious LIAR – as she was the source of those rumors, and knew they were made up.
There was still an absolute justification for and requirement that those allegations be investigated.
While that investigation was conducted improperly and unconstitutionally, An investigation was still necescary.
One that was public, and transparent, and focused on ACTUAL russian interferance, as well as the ACTUAL sources of the claim.
Regardless even though investigation was done lawlessly and mostly secretly – in otherwords all wrong.
It was still done. Today only a tiny few left wing nut idiots still beleive that Russia changed the outcome of the 2016 election.
Even those few likely would have been persuaded by a properly public inquiry.
The claims regarding 2020 were different, and frankly far more serious. Russia does not have the actual power to brainwash voters. The post election claims regarding 2020 were claims of lawlessly conducted elections. That claim has significant merit.
Of massive ballot harvesting. That claim has significant merit. Of massive government interferance in the election. That claim has significant merit. There were many other claims of ballot fraud – some large and small, some with merit, some without.
It is unlikely that public inquiry by the courts at the time would have exposed the ballot harvesting or government interferance.
The evidence of those has only arrisen significantly after the election. the lawlessness was obvious from the start.
Regardless, these ALL reguired and still require public scrutiny.
Without that trust in elections will decline and that will prove a disaster one way or another.
We are discussing FEDERAL elections – not state elections.
The state constitution is irrelevant.
The US constitution does not delegate power over elections to the state.
It delegates that power specifically to the state legislature.
But if you wish to fixate on State constitutions – 38 US states – including 5 of the 6 swing states have state constitutional provisions that REQUIRE secret ballot elections.
A secret Ballot election – as defined when those provisions were enacted means:
an official ballot being printed at public expense,
on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
being distributed only at the polling place
being marked in secret.
Elections in MI, WI, AZ, PA, and GA were all conducted in violation of their state constitutions.
Do you have evidence those States constitutions prohibited Legislatures from putting forward slates of electors ?
According to the US Constitution, Federal elections are the exclusive domain of the congress and the state legislatures.
And depending on the specific election, even congresses role is limited to setting the date of the election.
Another US constitutional provision that is violated by early voting and mailin ballots.
The constitution requires that Congress set the Day of the election – not the days of the election.
The rules of statutory construction require singulars to be treated as singular.
Nowhere in the constitution is there anything about a state certifying an election.
In fact nowhere in the US constitution is there provisions for any body but the state legislature to control elections.
And again – this has come up before in the past. Congress is free to accept slates of electors from the state legislature.
Lets presume that if this went all the way to SCOTUS they were to decide you were correct on every issue – which is incredibly unlikely given past US history and the text of the constitution.
You are still trying o claim there is a CRIME here.
An act that has occured before, and has never been found illegal before, can not be made into a crime AFTER THE FACT by a favorable supreme court decision – that you are unlikely to get.
The beyond a reasonable doubt standard requires that the law is CLEAR that a act is illegal for it to be a crime.
Your personal certainty that Trump’s actions were illegal is NOT sufficient.
Especially given that Trump followed a Clinton plan. That every element of that plan has occured before in the past.
You are free to change the law – and congress did. But you can not retro-actively make legal conduct criminal.
The electoral college and congressional certification apply only to presidential elections.
While you are correct that these are the last legitimate lines of protection against election fraud and US history confirms exactly that.
Ultimately the courts have a role.
I personally prefer that the courts role be as minimal as possible.
SCOTUS has properly decided that the courts should NOT get into political questions – such as redistricting, that do not have an objectively correct answer.
The right way to deal with elections is through legal processes that do not require the courts involvement.
EXCEPT to assure that the process specified by the law is followed and that it is done transparently.
One of the absolute bulwarks of modern supreme court jurisprudence is the requirement for near perfect procedural due process.
Applying that to elections – ballots that arrive late are discarded. Ballots that do not meet the laws signature requirements are discarded. If there are mixed with legitimate ballots – all are discarded. If the chain of custody of ballots is incomplete – ballots must be discarded.
It is the courts duty to REQUIRE that election laws are followed to the letter.
And if they are not – to toss all non-conforming ballots
When the courts toss large numbers of ballots – the voters will demand that election officials do better.
regardless it is actually critical that courts Require elections are conducted following the laws procedures exactly.
Bad laws and bad procedures can be corrected.
Courts stepping in to make up the law and procedure can not be corrected.
On the law side – we can construct laws that significantly reduce th involvement of the jusiciary.
While I personally thing that even the runnoffs in GA in the past 2 cycles were corrupt.
A runnoff is a far better process than massive litigation.
Regardless, we can do far better than we have in the past two election cycles.
And we had better figure out how to do so.
I do not think the VP has the authority to pick between competing slates of electors.
But he has the authority to control the procedure for congressional certification.
i.e. Pence can go through all states without challenge and get congress to accept them, and then deal with challenged states.
He can ask congress to vote that no winner exists because 5 states had competing slates of electors.
He can ask congress to vote one the legislatures slate of electors before the executives slate of electors.
Anonymous – The excerpts you quote to do not forbid private discussions of “issues that might come befoere the court”. Any political, medical, business, national security issue might come before the court. Let’s look at your texts: 1) Appearance of impropriety. Talking to a spouse in private is “the appearance of impropriety”? To whom? They are private. 2) “Ex-parte communications concerining a pending or impending matter” You said they were talking about issues, not actual cases. 3) “. . . in a proceeding in which . . . the judge’s spouse . . .is . . .to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness[.]” What proceeding is this exactly?
For example, the previously pending matter of Mark Meadows’ emails, which included exchanges with Ginni Thomas.
Yes, lots of staffers who were tortured by the J6 committee, claim – without evidence that “Trump knew he had lost”.
Though what this really meant was that many republicans told him that he had lost, which is not at all the same thing.
Trump has consistently publicly challenged the election.
There is todate no testimony that he has ever privately contradicted that.
In fact even people who told him that he lost – such as Barr, have maintained that Trump continued to beleive he won.
Of course this all only matters in leftostan.
We now have damning evidence that the left conspired with govenrment in 2020 to rig the election.
Whether you like it or not Trump is vindicated – YOU CHEATED. The “Big Lie” is that the election was conducted honestly.
Silencing the truth – not being willing to trust your own voters, with the truth is pretty damning. Pretty despicable, pretty dishonest.
BTW there were no “fake electors” – get off the spin wagon. there were alternate slates of electors. That has occured before, And Even Hillary and myriads o democrats tried to get electors to change their vote in 2016.
Trump’s efforts to “overturn” the election, were a hail mary in 2021. but they were legal and constitutional.
My guess is that if we knew on J6 2021, what we know today about the election rigging.
J6 would have succeeded.
And that is part of what you are affraid of.
We can not have open honest elections. We can not have a media that actually reports the news.
We can not have social media were people can speak freely about politics,
We can not have any of these things because the left would lose power.
There’s a significant portion of the populous that now looks upon Democrat dishonesty with some level of incredulity. Because it seems the effort through lies and deception to belittle, denigrate, discredit, knows no bounds. While honesty is an exercise in civility, dishonesty lends itself to chaos, chaos begets chaos (one of those unremittable laws of physics), and society and culture devolve, regress, ultimately implode. The purpose of civility is to ensure the order necessary to prosperity, i.e., the ability of economy as an evolutionary outgrowth of humanity to sustain and encourage growth. Amazing to me, because honesty as a necessary tenet of civility, as primary founding principle, of the Puritan of MA Bay, from which we draw virtually all identity (tempered through meld of diversity), came into existence in America as a matter of “conviction” for reason, a reason or reasons we seem to have forgotten. We, who live in splendor, as the beneficiaries of American prosperity, have forgotten all that threatens. Likewise there’s a reason the phrase “pathological lying” has a Wiki page, a page I would encourage others to read. And recognize that we are not them, and that the unscrupulous, unethical, immoral acts of political profiteers are not tenets, as history has repeatedly proven, upon which we can build a better world.
Funny how the “Committee” had nary a word about Thomas or Ray Epps. In my little opinion it is because with Thomas there was nothing criminal that was committed by her and one, Epps, because there was plenty that was criminal by him. Or so it seems by watching the video of him doing much more than those actually arrested and charged.
What did Epps do that was criminal?
Sea lioning is so 2014
So was hullbobby sealioning when he said “Epps, because there was plenty that was criminal by him”?
What a fool you are.
Of all the people involved in J6 he is the closest to someone that actually violated the law.
Arguably he incited violence.
Arguably he conspired to violate he that.
Eps is the only person of all people involved who was advocating for both violence and criminal activity from the start.
There are credible claims that Eps isan FBI informant.
Regardless, the above is true whether he is a government actor or not.
Most disturbingly despite the fact that Eps’s conduct is most closely what the left is looking for – to prove incitement to violence, conspiracy, insurrection, … Eps was not even interviewed by he FBI until significant pressure by republicans was brought to bear and has never been charged.
This is very disturbing as hundreds have been charged for far less serious actions.
This is part of the evidence that Eps is some kind of government Actor.
Eps is also significant because protestors called him out as a “FED” on J5 and J6 when he was advocating for violence.
This is exculpatory for all those arrested.
“Arguably he incited violence.”
So you claim, without quoting anything he said that incited violence.
“Arguably he conspired to violate he that.”
Who knows what you meant by “he that,” clearly a typo, but not one that’s a simple misspelling. Whatever you meant, you don’t provide evidence for that either. All you ever do is make evidenceless claims.
Go back to sleep. Keep listening to the propaganda like a good little serf.
At Revolver there are videos of Ray Epps actions and recordings. This should stand as a basis to throw out J6 indictments.
Below is one of the articles with video and recorded proof that Ray Epps instigated and committed “crimes” far worse than many J6 defendants.
Now you can close your mouth and comment based on the facts.
https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
Your article shows Epps saying “The only thing that meant is we would go in the doors like everyone else. It was totally, totally wrong the way they went in”
As for throwing out J6 indictments, no J6 defendant’s lawyer agrees with you.
Are you lying? Yes, because Epps said a lot more and was instigating a riot.
I do not need to provide evidence.
We can all read Trump’s public remarks.
You are the one claiming crimes.
You are also the one posting anonymously.
You are also the one without credibility.
In oh so many ways the burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.
The burden of proof rests on you, the one who lacks credibility and a name.
Do you think anyone not an avowed leftist trusts what you say? Even most of the avowed leftists probably don’t but will voice their approval in blind faith of a cause leading to dictatorship.
Nope. And ludicrously stupid.
Typical left wing nut, thinks the world is all equal.
Do I need to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 ? The proof for that takes hundreds of pages.
If a wolf wants you for dinner – he does not need to prove his claim.
You are posting as anonymous – the burden of proof is always higher for anonymous posters.
It is always higher for those with a bad track record of credibility
It is always higher for those making absurd or unusual claims.
We are not equal. Life is not fair.
We are not in a formal debate – and you would not have a clue how to manage in one.
We are not engaged in mathematical proofs.
If I claim the world will not end tomorow – is the burden on me to prove that ?
Of course not. All claims are not equal. All people making claims are not equal.
If you were smart you would erase the concept of equality from your brain.
It is rarely applicable, and more often distorts your ability to see the world as it is.
Anony(FBI)mous, you ask “what did Epps do that was criminal as if standing with a bullhorn exhorting people to march into the Capital on January 6th was suddenly ok with the FBI, Justice and Pelosi???? We had people from around the country who had their phones showing they were in DC on that day and the FBI “visited” them…just for being in DC and yet this guy was treated as if he was Gandhi or MLK.
Hey Anony(FBI)mous, why did the Committee say fail to have Epps on during their TV shows? Why did he suddenly get taken off of the FBI list? Why are you such a partisan hack? Or are you just a paid Democrat or an FBI plant…or just another contrarian who can’t exist unless HE, it is almost always a he, fights with everyone because in his narcissistic fever he thinks he is smarter than everyone?
Epps didn’t “exhort[] people to march into the Capital [sic]” Building.
Why are *you* such a partisan hack? Or are you just a paid GOP plant? or just another contrarian who can’t exist unless HE, it is almost always a he, fights with everyone because in his narcissistic fever he thinks he is smarter than everyone?
Rage is addicting, intoxicating, but it does not leave you happy.
Why should the report have referred to G or C Thomas? They were mere peripheral figures with regard to the January 6 insurrection.
Well RDKAY, if they were only “peripheral” the why did your favorite media leftists have story after story about them and J6? The point is that the media/Dems screamed about the Ginni and Clarence Thomas from the mountaintop and yet we now learn that the “Committee” actually had nothing of substance on either of them.
“There’s not a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans.” Gov. George Wallace
Republicans may be problematic.
But today they are far less dangerous than democrats.
So was Trump.
The J6 committe had no interest in actually investigating anything.
It was intended from the start to accomplish political goals of democrats.
Not find truth.
Frankly the truth was pretty simple and did not need investigating.
Though we know far more from the twitter files than from the J6 committee.
Regardless – quit rigging elections and you wont have any more J6.
The 18th of april in 75 was an actual insurrection.
The patriots had guns.
And both patriots and british soliders were killed.
If you keep rigging elections – inevitably you will get a repeat of lexington and concord.
I have no doubt King George would have been happy to have his own April 18th committee,
and he would have hung the likes of Revere and Adams and Jefferson.
Even today we see protests, sometimes violent against totalitarian regimes – were those seeking power must rig the election in order to win.
What is the difference between the people revolting in Iran, or China or Hong Kong and those on January 6th ?
Except that those on the left in the US can not accept the fact that THEY are the totalitarians.
Another example of how the left riles up its supporters with lies.
Just look at how anonymous and Svelaz (and others) froth at the mouth in support of these lies.
Lefties lie, but it is obvious that they like being lied to.
Lefties are mostly pathetic people.
It’s amazing how strong alternative facts are on this thread.
Tell your handlers they are not sending us their best. You posted that same comment last month, and the month before that, and so on. That whiny, bltchy, constipated look does not good on you and your other sock puppets
At least he uses his name.
All of this, the rage, the indignation, the suspicions etc remind me of the Spanish Inquisition. So self-righteous and so sure that others will question their claims to powers that they do not have, they rage at any who they suspect could shed light on their farce. Many “converted” to Catholicism to save their skins but under duress just as now citizens stifle their feelings and speech to avoid the Grand Inquisitors. The outcome of all that intimidation and obfuscation was, ultimately, Martin Luther. Who will be our Martin Luther?