Althouse: Here it is, on camera, Ginni Thomas explicitly and emphatically telling Trump not to concede under any circumstance. "Don't give an inch," she says, invidiously. Be "relentless," she advises, shamelessly.

March 26, 2022

Here it is, on camera, Ginni Thomas explicitly and emphatically telling Trump not to concede under any circumstance. "Don't give an inch," she says, invidiously. Be "relentless," she advises, shamelessly.

82 comments:

gilbar said...: i've always wondered (well, i never wondered one bit)..

IF Trump had 'won';
would there have been demonstrations and protests ?
would those protests have been violent?
would the MSM have thought those protests were good?

one thing IS for sure, if Trump had won, any protests would have been "mostly peaceful "; 3/26/22, 7:38 AM
Lloyd W. Robertson said...: My son is trying to tell me Clarence should have recused himself. Bullshit. The legal language says recusal if there is "an interest" at stake for the judge; normally a financial gain if the decision goes one way or the other. Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit had to explain why he wasn't recusing in 2011 when his spouse was Executive Director of the ACLU for Southern California. She was well paid to lobby strongly for one side on gay marriage; there is not much doubt she was advocating for views that she held. No judge has to recuse because the spouse or partner has a bias, not even if the spouse is acting on that bias. I guess if Clarence Thomas were married to Trump, he would have to recuse himself on whether the 2020 election was improper.; 3/26/22, 7:46 AM
Wince said...: Especially interesting to see hipster wannabe John Heilemann in the full Hillary video after his appearance on Maher last night attacking Thomas.

(Video at link.)

Watch John Heilemann absolutely destroy Ginni Thomas on HBO's 'Real Time'

Journalist John Heilemann has harsh words for Ginni Thomas on HBO's "Real Time" after bombshell revelations about the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

"The woman has been a crazy — a crazy — right-wing activist for the entire time that her husband has been on the Supreme Court," Heilemann said.

"You read the text messages, Bill, it's like, who is your nuttiest, most brain-diseased, Trump MAGA following relative," he said. "The one who has been brain-addled by syphilis or whatever and they've completely gone around the bend and they do all their sh*tposting on Facebook — that's what her text messages sound like."

He called for action from Chief Justice John Roberts.; 3/26/22, 7:53 AM
wendybar said...: It's okay when Progressives do the same....; 3/26/22, 8:00 AM
farmgirl said...: Democrats have 2faces.
Why is this?; 3/26/22, 8:01 AM
David Begley said...: These fucking insane Dems will never admit defeat and concede that Clarence Thomas has been on the Court for decades. They want him to retire now and that will never happen so they attack his wife.

What crime did Ginni Lamp Thomas commit?

Compare the Fake News interest in this with the lack of interest in Hunter Biden funneling money to Joe.

The initial NYT story on this contacted some of Ginni’s classmates at Westside high school. But they didn’t talk to anyone from Section B of the 1982 class at Creighton Law School. Ginni’s best friend in law school was Patty Rees of Hobart, Indiana. No interview of Patty.; 3/26/22, 8:04 AM
Shoeless Joe said...: Hypocrisy is the Democrats' true super power.; 3/26/22, 8:05 AM
JPS said...: This post is a thing of beauty.

Behind most of the (mostly) Dem outrage on the Nov 2020 election is the unexamined premise not only that the election results are legitimate, but that all of us know they are and some are dishonestly pretending otherwise.

It is unthinkable to them that Mrs. Thomas and others genuinely believe there was a steal, just as many on the left would have been convinced that only a steal could have put Trump back in office.; 3/26/22, 8:22 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: The 2020 anomalies tell the story. The tragic end of the American Experiment brought to you by Clinton Inc. aka DNC.; 3/26/22, 8:25 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: I don't know about ya'll, but I find revealed hypocrisy like this quite tittletattelating.; 3/26/22, 8:33 AM
Michael McNeil said...: Shouldn't there be a Hillary Clinton tag?; 3/26/22, 8:37 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Is there any conflict of interest? I'm annoyed by the swarming of Ginni Thomas and haven't really been reading much. Can someone confirm whether I'm correct to think that all she's accused of is having strong political opinions? And they're demanding that he recuse/resign/be impeached because he's married to a woman with bold opinions?; 3/26/22, 8:40 AM
tim maguire said...: Lloyd W. Robertson said...My son is trying to tell me Clarence should have recused himself.

Some people like to pretend that having an opinion is a conflict of interest, as though judges had the same duty as jurors.; 3/26/22, 8:45 AM
Sebastian said...: "I'm annoyed by the swarming of Ginni Thomas"

You keep being annoyed and irritated. The left disappoints you. They hurt your feelings. They should be better.

At what point do you decide they are a destructive force you must oppose? Is there such a point, as long as there's a chance prog nominees will save the right to abort?; 3/26/22, 8:56 AM
Mark said...: Ann, she was in direct contact with Mark Meadows via text (and likely via personal Gmail account based on one of those e
texts).

These would be have been among the records that the Jan6 committee sued (up to Supreme Court) to access and that Thomas dissented on having released. Shouldn't records of your wife's contacts with the Oval Office be enough to recuse yourself from weighing in on the release of?

Where is the line for refusal if evidence from your wife is not enough?

But her emails ... and Meadows, whose Gmail messages from Ginni I doubt we will ever see as I don't think those records are archived.; 3/26/22, 8:57 AM
wendybar said...: But her emails ... and Meadows, whose Gmail messages from Ginni I doubt we will ever see as I don't think those records are archived.

3/26/22, 8:57 AM

We STILL haven't seen Hillary's e-mails that were on her secret server. Get over it.; 3/26/22, 9:02 AM
wendybar said...: I WANT to see Nancy's e-mails of those days. Let's see the truth about her lying about the National Guard that Trump requested.; 3/26/22, 9:05 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Ann, she was in direct contact with Mark Meadows via text (and likely via personal Gmail account based on one of those etexts)."

I know, but wasn't this just to express political opinions: Keep fighting, fight hard, be relentless -- like Hillary in that video?

"These would be have been among the records that the Jan6 committee sued (up to Supreme Court) to access and that Thomas dissented on having released. Shouldn't records of your wife's contacts with the Oval Office be enough to recuse yourself from weighing in on the release of?"

What's the big deal if your wife texts people about her political opinions? By the way, I'm still wondering what was in Hillary's email that was wiped, like with a cloth. Wasn't that maybe just a bunch of political opinions?

"Where is the line for refusal if evidence from your wife is not enough?"

Evidence of WHAT? Political opinions? The line for recusal -- I assume you mean recusal -- would have to do with financial stakes, not political preferences. I assume everyone on the court has family members with political opinions, and whenever anything is about a presidential candidate, everyone, including the justice himself, has a preference for who should win.; 3/26/22, 9:05 AM
Maynard said...: And they're demanding that he recuse/resign/be impeached because he's married to a woman with bold opinions?

Is Meade worried?

After all, you guys live in Madison.; 3/26/22, 9:06 AM
Mark said...: Planning the Jan6 rally and talking to the Chief of Staff are just opinions?

If it is financial issues only, why did Republicans ask Brown about refusing for the Harvard case? Does she have financial interest there? I don't think so.; 3/26/22, 9:13 AM
Mark said...: Ugh, recusing for the Harvard case. Darn autocorrect.; 3/26/22, 9:14 AM
Rusty said...: Mark said...
"Planning the Jan6 rally and talking to the Chief of Staff are just opinions?"
So planning stuff and talking to people is unethical.....?
Surely, Mark, someone who doesn't share you're progressive(sic) views is out there planning to talk to someone who you don't approve of and need a bold scolding from you.
How dare they!; 3/26/22, 9:31 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: In Soviet America(D) - you shall not have an incorrect opinion.

Obey.; 3/26/22, 9:32 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: This is woman so filled with hatred for Americans who refuse to worship her...; 3/26/22, 9:41 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: It's illegal to text Mark Meadows.

Why? Because the left says so.; 3/26/22, 9:43 AM
Yancey Ward said...: If judges had to recuse themselves due to political affiliations, there wouldn't be any judges to sit cases with political ramifications. Agitating for such recusals is simply stupid and dishonest- full stop.; 3/26/22, 9:45 AM
Rollo said...: One assumes Harvard is rich enough to pay its Overseers.

"Overseers"--Orwellian or just a legacy of slavery?; 3/26/22, 9:50 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: PICTURED: Joe Biden smiling alongside Kazak businessman who 'hired Hunter to help broker US investments when he was VP' - yet still Joe maintains he NEVER discussed his son's business dealings

Bigger crime-->?
Texting Mark Meadows with an unapproved opinion!; 3/26/22, 10:07 AM
MartyH said...: In answer to Gilbar’s question: had Trump won, the left would have flooded the streets across the country the day after the election.

No matter who won, there were going to be riots. The riot by Trump’s supporters was delayed, spontaneous and localized. The riots by Biden supporters would have been immediate, sustained, organized, and nationwide.; 3/26/22, 10:09 AM
Michael K said...: I guess the Democrats will start having hearings for the spouse now.; 3/26/22, 10:10 AM
Michael K said...: If only Thomas had a history of lenient sentences for perverts. All would be forgiven.; 3/26/22, 10:13 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: In Soviet America - you cannot express political opinions that are not approved by the state run media.; 3/26/22, 10:16 AM
Mike of Snoqualmie said...: Democrats hate strong-willed women. Especially Republican strong-willed women. Of course, Democrats can't define the word "women", so they have to hate all Republicans, just to make sure they can cancel strong-willed Republican women.; 3/26/22, 10:17 AM
JRoberts said...: Feminists expect Ginni Thomas to stay home, stay quiet and bake cookies...; 3/26/22, 10:18 AM
Drago said...: Dumb Lefty Mark: "Planning the Jan6 rally and talking to the Chief of Staff are just opinions?"

We all see what you did there.

Ginni Thomas was at the completely legal rally on the ellipse.

She was not at the capital complex nor had anything to do with what happened there.; 3/26/22, 10:19 AM
dwshelf said...: And they're demanding that he recuse/resign/be impeached because he's married to a woman with bold opinions?

Not just bold opinions, but expressing them in public. Thomas is guilty of failing to control his wife's speaking. Impeach!; 3/26/22, 10:22 AM
jim said...: Isn't that the whole question: was she in on planning the illegal acts? Or just generally encouraging others to prevent the election process from taking its course? Is tt=hat the line?; 3/26/22, 10:29 AM
Drago said...: Ginni Thomas did not want to give an inch. Nor have Trump concede under any circumstances. And she wanted the republicans to be as focused and relentless as the other side is.

Naturally, the democraticals want her jailed and her husband impeached because she felt that way......; 3/26/22, 10:32 AM
Earnest Prole said...: Remind me again what position of public trust Ginni Thomas occupies.; 3/26/22, 10:35 AM
Achilles said...: Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Is there any conflict of interest? I'm annoyed by the swarming of Ginni Thomas and haven't really been reading much. Can someone confirm whether I'm correct to think that all she's accused of is having strong political opinions? And they're demanding that he recuse/resign/be impeached because he's married to a woman with bold opinions?

Ann notices that the Democrats and leftists don’t have any principles or morals whatsoever.

Still supports them.

At some point Ann will prove rhhardin wrong.

That day is not today.; 3/26/22, 10:43 AM
Earnest Prole said...: Can someone confirm whether I'm correct to think that all she's accused of is having strong political opinions?

I agree with your intuition here, but to argue the other side, I believe Thomas dissented in the executive privilege ruling, leading some to assume his motive could have been to protect his wife.; 3/26/22, 10:43 AM
MayBee said...: People have been pushing for Clarence Thomas-- the only black man on the Supreme Court- to be impeached or disbarred for over a decade.

Here is an article from the Huffington Post in 2011, about a push to punish him, lead by Anthony Weiner.

Compare this to the racism of simply ask a black woman questions as she tries to rise the the Supreme Court. And know that nobody means anything with their accusations of racism.

Or sexism. How dare a wife have a stronger or different political opinion than her husband? Republican women are just supposed to do what their husband tells them to do!; 3/26/22, 10:59 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Mark - Did Ginni plan the.... INSURRECTION!

Perhaps Ginni told Ray Epps to tell people to "GO INTO THE CAPITOL"..
Which just so happens to be illegal, even when Capitol police (who end up dead of suicide) hold the door open for you.; 3/26/22, 11:22 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: Justice Stephen Reinhardt on the 9th Circuit was known for his "wacko bird" progressive philosophy. His wife was the head of the Southern California ACLU. I didn't hear the Los Angeles Times editorial page calling for his recusal--but lo and behold this morning's paper called for Thomas's recusal.

OTOH the editor's pointy little heads would explode if someone suggested that the editors should control what their wives said.; 3/26/22, 11:27 AM
J Melcher said...: "Planning the Jan6 rally..." asserted without evidence?

Y'know, "asserted without evidence" is sort of like the puerile joke phrase "between the sheets" or "in bed" or even "That's what SHE said!" in that it's a rhetorical technique for provoking amusement and dismissing the claim. So, that's why, and how, I use it here. I actually don't know AND don't CARE if there is evidence about Mrs Thomas's role in the January 6th "rally" (riots, protests, insurrection, violent rebellion, give credit where due "rally" is about the most neutral expression for events of that occasion that I can imagine...) I simply assert there was no evidence included or linked with the original accusation, and so leave my reader to infer no such evidence does, or could ever possibly, exist.; 3/26/22, 11:31 AM
Narayanan said...: JRoberts said...
Feminists expect Ginni Thomas to stay home, stay quiet and bake cookies...
=========
this could be appropriate?!

feminist+oreo cookies; 3/26/22, 11:36 AM
Ann Althouse said...: If Thomas should have to recuse here AND future recusals follow the same approach, then the spouses of judges will be given tremendous power. Let's say you don't like the way your husband/wife is going to vote on some upcoming issue. Just mouth off your opinion conspicuously, and he/she will have to recuse. This works best when the non-judge spouse is not especially under the control of the judge. This could be a funny TV sitcom — a present-day Lucy and Ricky.; 3/26/22, 11:44 AM
Douglas B. Levene said...: @Mark: Judge Jackson properly said she would recuse herself from the Harvard affirmative action case because she is on the Harvard Board of Overseers. It’s the same as if she had been on the Exxon Board at a time when Exxon did something that was currently being litigated in a case before the Court. If the Harvard Board of Overseers had no involvement at all in Harvard’s admission policies - had never discussed them , never been briefed on them , then I suppose she might not have to recuse herself. Judges shouldn’t serve in cases where they might have to rule on their own conduct.; 3/26/22, 11:48 AM
Douglas B. Levene said...: What’s astounding to me is the refusal of the Democrats to even engage with the Reinhardt opinion or to argue that Reinhardt got it wrong. Their legal argument against Justice Thomas boils down to, “I really hate your wife’s politics so you should recuse yourself from cases touching upon her politics.”; 3/26/22, 11:51 AM
Joe Smith said...: She fights...; 3/26/22, 11:52 AM
Iman said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/26/22, 12:08 PM
Iman said...: “Control your woman, Clarence Thomas!”

—- Feminists of Amerikkka; 3/26/22, 12:09 PM
Drago said...: Can Of Cheese for Hunter: "It's illegal to text Mark Meadows.

Why? Because the left says so."

Ginni Thomas probably also illegally crossed State lines with an Assault Cell Phone!; 3/26/22, 12:09 PM
gadfly said...: There are messages which also suggest that Ginni Thomas was in contact with Jared Kushner. This makes clear that she is, at a bare minimum, a witness who should be interviewed as part of the House Select Committee’s investigation into the efforts by Trump — helped by support from a serious contingent of weird conservative extremists and activists like Ginni — to remain in power despite having decisively lost the election — but don't hold your breath.; 3/26/22, 12:29 PM
frenchy said...: I especially like the way people expressing their legitimate concerns about a blatantly stolen election is a horrible, horrible thing.; 3/26/22, 12:32 PM
Rollo said...: I don't understand why HRC never did anything about that annoying nails on chalkboard screeching voice of hers.

Or maybe I do understand. It was the only authentic thing about her.

In hindsight, the best course would have been for Biden to concede before any votes were cast.

Let's say you don't like the way your husband/wife is going to vote on some upcoming issue. Just mouth off your opinion conspicuously, and he/she will have to recuse.

Martha Mitchelling? But then you get a reputation for being a wacko bird moonbat wingnut and then your friends will think that you are the enemy and won't hang with you anymore. That strategy only works if you are deep undercover and playing a very long game indeed. We won't see anything like that happen until we get Chief Justice Swallwell.; 3/26/22, 12:38 PM
William Tyroler said...: Lloyd W. Robertson alluded to Stephen Reinhardt's refusal to remove himself from a case where his wife had pronounced views. Here's Reinardt's memo: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/.../2011/01/04/1016696memo.pdf, from which I quote liberally:

"The chief basis for the recusal motion appears to be my wife’s beliefs, as expressed in her public statements and actions, both individually and in her capacity as Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC). She has held that position for 38 years, during 20 of which we have been married, although over one year ago she announced her retirement effective next month.
My wife’s views, public or private, as to any issues that may come before this court, constitutional or otherwise, are of no consequence. She is a strong, independent woman who has long fought for the principle, among others, that women should be evaluated on their own merits and not judged in any way by the deeds or position in life of their husbands (and vice versa). I share that view and, in my opinion, it reflects the status of the law generally, as well as the law of recusal, regardless of whether the spouse or the judge is the male or the female. ...
Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses. ...
Nor can I accept the argument that my wife’s views constitute an “interest” that could warrant my recusal under § 455(b)(5)(iii), as such a reading would require judges to recuse themselves whenever they know of a relative’s strongly held opinions, whether publicly expressed or not. ..."; 3/26/22, 12:41 PM
gadfly said...: Ann Althouse said...
"Is there any conflict of interest? I'm annoyed by the swarming of Ginni Thomas and haven't really been reading much. Can someone confirm whether I'm correct to think that all she's accused of is having strong political opinions? And they're demanding that he recuse/resign/be impeached because he's married to a woman with bold opinions?"

So Ginni has freedom to act on her own but Joe is guilty for allowing Hunter to be employed by Burisma?

According to WaPo, we don't know from the SCOTUS hearing on permitting the Jan 6 inquiry, whether or to what extent, Clarence (who voted nay in an 8-1 decision) was able to keep hidden some additional texts his wife may have sent to Mark Meadows.

The text exchanges with Thomas that Meadows provided to the House select committee paused after Nov. 24, 2020, with an unexplained gap in correspondence. The committee received one additional message sent by Thomas to Meadows, on Jan. 10, four days after the “Stop the Steal” rally Thomas said she attended and the deadly attack on the Capitol.

As far as I am concerned, Mrs. Clarence Thomas in written texts, encouraged Meadows and Trump to break the law - which has to be a big NO-NO.; 3/26/22, 1:06 PM
Gahrie said...: Ann notices that the Democrats and leftists don’t have any principles or morals whatsoever.

For the first time. Again. As she will in the future. History begins anew every day for the Left and their enablers.; 3/26/22, 1:06 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: From The Hill:

“Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) wrote on Twitter in the hours after news of Ginni Thomas’s text exchanges with Meadows surfaced.

That call was echoed by progressive groups like Women’s March.

"The revelations that Ginni Thomas advocated for the overthrow of our democracy are disqualifying — not just for her as a human being of any decency, but for her husband Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas," the group’s executive Rachel O'Leary Carmona said in a statement.

Wow-
The Soviet Left demand Ginni and her Husband be removed or "Disqualified" from the human race. Isn't that a threat of violence?; 3/26/22, 1:12 PM
Mark said...: Earnest Prole ... that's exactly what I hear people saying.; 3/26/22, 1:13 PM
effinayright said...: Iman said...
“Control your woman, Clarence Thomas!”

—- Feminists of Amerikkka
**********

Imagine if John Mortimer's barrister "Rumpole" repeatedly referred to his wife Hilda as "She Who Must Be Ignored"?

How would that have gone over?; 3/26/22, 1:47 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: We won't ever see the texts between Joe "the big guy" and Hunter - (circa Joe's time as VP) - Those will be kept safe/washed clean.; 3/26/22, 2:04 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: Protect his wife from what?

Supporting Trump is illegal now?

There are millions of people who believe the 2020 election was a fraud. Gonna throw them in the gulag?; 3/26/22, 2:06 PM
effinayright said...: gadfly said:

As far as I am concerned, Mrs. Clarence Thomas in written texts, encouraged Meadows and Trump to break the law - which has to be a big NO-NO.
****************************
What law? Get goddamn specific, and tell us how it applies.

From the texts already public, Ginni Thomas advised "resistance" to the 2020 election's outcome. But Trump left office at the end of his term.

Yet from the day after the 2016 election Democrats openly and notoriously called themselves "The Resistance" For years they falsely claimed Russian Collusion, and hobbled the ELECTED POTUS.

You wanna 'splain why the former is a NO-NO, but the latter is hunky-dory?

And a gap in texts does not mean that inculpatory texts exist during the gaps.

FAIL; 3/26/22, 2:11 PM
effinayright said...: So Ginni has freedom to act on her own but Joe is guilty for allowing Hunter to be employed by Burisma?
*********************

What a dullard you are, gadfly, not to understand that Joe got his son Hunter the no-show job and--- according to Hunter's repeated references on his own laptop to "the Big Guy's cut"--- financially benefitted from it. Not proven in court, but strong evidence nonetheless.

In contrast, Ginni Thomas just offered her opinion, performed no illegal overt action, and did not financially benefit from asserting her opinion.

You may hold yourself out as an intellectual gadfly.

But you are just an annoying pest, easily swatted down.; 3/26/22, 2:23 PM
Readering said...: She started immediately after the election. Wonder if this contributed to Trump's confidence that he had the Supreme Court in his pocket.; 3/26/22, 2:26 PM
rcocean said...: Invidiously. Defined as:

of an unpleasant or objectionable nature : obnoxious invidious remarks. b : of a kind to cause harm or resentment an invidious comparison. 2 : tending to cause discontent, animosity, or envy the invidious task of arbitration. 3 : envious.

I'll take words that don't apply Alex, for $100.; 3/26/22, 2:43 PM
rcocean said...: SCOTUS Justice Felix Frankfurter ghostwrote FDR speeches.
SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas talked to FDR/Truman about being on their Tickets as VP.
SCOTUS Justice Abe Fortas was LBJ's lawyer.

But most Liberal justices since Fortas have never had to talk to the Democrats POTUS. Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan vote the DNC party line on every issue before the SCOTUS, 99 Percent of the time.; 3/26/22, 2:48 PM
wendybar said...: I'll bet Mark was okay with Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting.; 3/26/22, 2:52 PM
Michael K said...: So Ginni has freedom to act on her own but Joe is guilty for allowing Hunter to be employed by Burisma?

I'm sorry but I missed the part that Mrs Thomas was selling influence. Link please ?; 3/26/22, 3:23 PM
Dave Begley said...: Ginni Lamp was so sweet and nice in law school. And an absolute knockout! Why don't these mean Democrats just leave her alone?; 3/26/22, 3:42 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Once the Milwaukee, Fulton Country, Detroit, and Philly "vote counters" shut down on Election night while there were still votes to count, and kicked out all the poll watchers who could keep them from doing illegal things to the ballots, there stopped being any reason for Trump to accept the outcome of the vote that was corrupted by "votes" coming out of the "counting" places.

So, her advice was correct.

If you don't want to be accused of vote fraud, you can't act like you're committing vote fraud

But the Democrats acted like they were committing vote fraud; 3/26/22, 3:47 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: gadfly said...
So Ginni has freedom to act on her own but Joe is guilty for allowing Hunter to be employed by Burisma?

If Ginni starts selling Thomas's vote, and we get evidence that Thomas using his power as a member of SCOTUS to help people who are paying her, who he wouldn't have helped the exact same way if they were NOT paying her, then Thomas should of course be held responsible for his actions.

Joe Biden provided services for Burma in exchange for the Hunter Biden payoffs. THAT is why Joe Biden is guilty of crimes there.

You have 0 evidence that Thomas acted that way; 3/26/22, 3:50 PM
jim5301 said...: More raw meat for your readers Ann? Instead of discussing whether it was appropriate for Thomas to rule on the disclosure of Jan 6 records, which happened to include a couple dozen over-the-top emails from his wife to Meadows, we're talking about Hilary? I had hoped you would provide thoughtful views on the question of recusal of Justices.

BTW, Clinton was referring to election night - Biden should not concede on election night. That is clear from the complete context; 3/26/22, 4:05 PM
jim5301 said...: Lawrence Tribe was so sweet and nice in law school. And, compared with Ginni Lamp, an absolute knockout. Why don't these mean Republicans just leave him alone?; 3/26/22, 4:17 PM
Jim at said...: I love it when the left says Thomas needs to recuse himself for the deeds of his spouse ... while they had no trouble with Kagan sitting in on Obamacare. You know. The legislation she argued FOR as Solicitor General.

Cracks me up, it does.; 3/26/22, 4:17 PM
Jim at said...: Ann, she was in direct contact with Mark Meadows via text...

So. Fucking. What.

Has nothing to do with Clarence, dumas.; 3/26/22, 4:21 PM
David Begley said...: Okay, Althouse community. I’ll admit to a bit of a crush on Ginni Lamp and Patty Rees in law school. They were both beautiful. Patty was in a bad motorcycle accident that killed her husband.; 3/26/22, 5:40 PM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: I missed the link where Mrs Thomas was benefiting from selling influence.

Oh yeah - that's Bidens and clintons.; 3/26/22, 5:48 PM
Rigelsen said...: Ernest Prole: “ I agree with your intuition here, but to argue the other side, I believe Thomas dissented in the executive privilege ruling, leading some to assume his motive could have been to protect his wife.”

That’s a disingenuous take because it was a public dissent. It’s not like there was a secret ballot that got published after the fact. The Justices discuss their decisions before they take a “vote”, and the “votes” may change with their discussions. Thus, protecting his wife would have been a completely moot issue when the dissent was published.; 3/26/22, 6:03 PM
Original Mike said...: The left is restless. It's been over a year sine they impeached somebody.; 3/26/22, 8:38 PM