Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

People are complicated. Love is not.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

The words do not have to be perfect.

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Insurrectionists Open Thread: Ginni Thomas Will Be ‘Asked to Cooperate’

Insurrectionists Open Thread: Ginni Thomas Will Be ‘Asked to Cooperate’

by | 56 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

She won’t, of course — not if every member of the Thomases’ security team has to throw themselves against the door to keep her from doing so, however much she might want to give those people a thorough recounting of her contempt for them, and for democracy. But the more public notice of her misdeeds, the better.

Per ABC News:

… Pressed as to whether the Senate Judiciary intends to take action on or investigate the matter, Durbin said the committee would have those discussions once they deal with the pending nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court.

“There’s plenty of time and plenty of reason for us to debate this in the future,” Durbin said. “But for the time being. I want to make sure this vacancy is filled with Judge Jackson.”

Durbin added there are “a lot of things for which we will discuss” after Jackson’s confirmation vote, but that he is “troubled to say the least by the disclosures about what Justice Thomas’s wife has been doing.”

President Biden, meanwhile, is attempting to stay out of the debate over whether Thomas should recuse himself, saying Monday at a White House event unveiling his budget that he would “leave that to two entities.”

“One, the January 6th committee and two the Justice Department. That’s their judgment, not mine to make,” Biden said…

“There were some eyebrows raised when Justice Thomas was that lone vote,” said Kate Shaw, ABC News Supreme Court analyst and Cardozo Law professor. “But he did not explain himself, so we don’t actually know why he wished to take up the case.”

There are no explicit ethics guidelines that govern the activities of a justice’s spouse, experts say, but there are rules about justices avoiding conflicts of interest. Federal law requires that federal judges recuse themselves from cases whenever their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Speaking of which, has anybody actually seen Clarence since he was discharged from the hospital on Friday?…

Reader Interactions

56Comments

  2. 2.

    Jerzy Russian

    That cartoon at the top is an unflattering image, to say the least.

     

    Regarding that David French tweet, as I haven’t heard many people characterize Thomas’s work as “intellectually rigorous”.  I don’t think many of his (Thomas’s) defenders would go that far.

  4. 4.

    Jerzy Russian

    Also too, can someone with a mind greater than mine explain the parenthetical figures in the Sarah Jeong tweet to me?

     

    My (78m) wife (65f) won’t stop texting this guy (62m) I kind of know from work

  6. 6.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @sanjeevs: ​
     

    Its been over three months since this happened and Garland has done nothing about it.

    How do you know that?

  7. 7.

    Anne Laurie

    @Jerzy Russian: Regarding that David French tweet, as I haven’t heard many people characterize Thomas’s work as “intellectually rigorous”. I don’t think many of his (Thomas’s) defenders would go that far.

    From what I’ve seen (at second hand), it’s a trope among the Very Serious Interlechual Rightist media (Cato Institute, Mercator, et al).  Their argument is that *they* love Silent Clar for his too-serious-to-contest-in-court ‘rigor’, unlike… you know, ‘sloppy’ popular not-white politicians, such as President Obama.

    Because you can’t be a serious hero to the Wingnut Wurlitzer until you’ve crammed fifteen pounds of BS into a five-pound sack…

  9. 9.

    bbleh

    @Jerzy Russian: @WaterGirl: I think it’s intended to be a parody of “relationship” sites, where various, ah, issues are discussed, and in which as a rule one tends to provide one’s age and sex. “I think my wife is having an affair.” Clarence Thomas is 73, not 78, but whatevs.

  10. 10.

    sanjeevs

    My (Clarence Thomas) (78m) wife (Ginni) (65f) won’t stop texting this guy (62m) (Mark Meadows) I kind of know from work

  11. 11.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Jerzy Russian: it’s how advice columns work now: “I’m a 78 YO man (Thomas, I assume) whose wife (Ginni) is texting a 62YO man I kind of know from work (Mark Meadows)”

  12. 12.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Jerzy Russian:

    My (78m) wife (65f) won’t stop texting this guy (62m) I kind of know from work

     

    I was puzzled, too, but I think it means:

    My (78m) = I am a 78-year-old male

    wife (65f) = my wife is a female, aged 65

    this guy (62m) = she is texting a 62-year-old man who is someone I know in a professional capacity

     

    ETA: Or what CarolPW said in three words.

  13. 13.

    sanjeevs

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Aaron Rupar on Twitter: “Rep. Zoe Lofgren with a shot at Merrick Garland: “In the United States of America, no one is above the law. This committee is doing its job. The Department of Justice needs to do theirs.” https://t.co/sMm19NP64a” / Twitter

    I presume House Reps  (Lofgren was not alone) have better sources than we do, so if they’re publicly calling out Garland…

    Plus the experience of Comey and Mueller doing everything possible to protect the guilty.

  14. 14.

    bbleh

    Re: the republican party absolutely does not want to spend the summer before mid-terms re-litigating 1/6 and talking about how absolutely bugfuck batshit crazy a large number of its major figures really are,

    I do kind of wonder whether the 1/6 Committee is amassing ammunition but largely holding its fire so far for exactly this reason.

    @sanjeevs: @Omnes Omnibus: Re: Garland has done nothing about it and similar sentiments, I’d note that so far DOJ prosecutors’ recommendations for people convicted of 1/6 offenses have generally been on the high side of what the courts have accepted, and actual sentences have often been lower, which suggests that, at least for the small fish, they’ve been pushing the envelope about as far as they can.  It remains to be seen what’s going to happen with the bigger fish, but I think it’s way too early to conclude that the answer is “nothing.”

  17. 17.

    Anne Laurie

    @bbleh: Yup!  As far as I can tell, that specific format *started* on Reddit, but it’s now commonly used in mainstream media ‘advice’ columns — Ask Amy, Carolyn Hax, Dear Prudence, et al.

    Texting someone not one’s partner too familiarly is widely castigated as ’emotional adultery’, now.  The medium changes, but the impact of clandestine correspondence remains… and, unlike former media, you can’t burn a batch of adulturous love texts & be sure they’re gone forever!

    (I’ll admit a joke like this was one of the first thoughts to cross my mind when the news broke, last Friday, and it’s there in a post if you need to check.)

  20. 20.

    SpaceUnit

    Even if they were to get her in front of the committee it would be like interviewing a goblin. Regardless of the question she’s just going to cackle and shout out the craziest thing that pops into her head.

    They could hold her in contempt I suppose, but we’ve seen how effective that is.

  21. 21.

    Martin

    So, here’s the problem. Clarence violated 28 USC 455. There’s no getting around that. He didn’t recuse on a case that involved his spouse. The remedy for that isn’t recusal in future cases, it’s removal from the bench.

    I think asking Senators for their opinions of what should happen is pointless because they are the jurors in an impeachment. They aren’t going to answer a question about removal, or volunteer one.

    IMO, the House needs to initiate an impeachment hearing against Thomas in parallel and cooperation with the Jan 6 committee. They don’t need to necessarily litigate Ginni’s actions, just Clarence’s violation of 28 USC 455. They should call Roberts to testify.

    Simultaneously, they should introduce a bill that should Thomas be impeached but not removed, that the Federal Judiciary Act should again be amended to add two more justices to the court as a remedy to a proven corruption of the court. Make the GOP choose whether they’d rather burn a 78 year old justice or find 2 new 40-something Biden appointed ones on the court.

  22. 22.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @sanjeevs: Hey, we all agree that the DOJ has a duty to act.  We don’t necessarily agree that those actions must result in indictments RIGHT NOW or on any arbitrary timescale.

  23. 23.

    sanjeevs

    @Omnes Omnibus: Contempt of Congress is new legal ground?

    The entire handling by the DoJ has been a disaster in my view. There should have been perp walks on the day Garland arrived. Send a message that this is an existential threat to the government of the United States and act accordingly.

    Instead we have these trivial sentences for minor players.

  25. 25.

    Martin

    @sanjeevs: I’ve read that the DOJ won’t act on a referral if they already have an investigation open and charges planned as the grand jury referral would undermine the ongoing investigation. They will add the charges to their charging document.

    So I have seen it argued (and it makes sense to me) that Garlands failure to act is a sign that an investigation is already underway. If there wasn’t he’d hand it off, because he’s compelled to. It’s not the kind of thing you want to go to war with Congress over, especially in such high profile cases.

    That said it does seem odd that the committee and the DOJ don’t seem to be on the same page here and the committee seems frustrated.

  29. 29.

    burnspbesq

    @sanjeevs:

    Sorry, but you have no earthly clue what you’re talking about. And the reasons why have been explained here many times.

  30. 30.

    Martin

    @bbleh: Garland has gotten guilty pleas for seditious conspiracy from some pretty key players, including one that wasn’t at the Capitol, but was in the hotel with Roger Stone. That seems like a big fucking deal to me, considering that many people were skeptical the DOJ would get those charges for people who committed violence directly.

    It seems to me that Garland is going for seditious conspiracy for the whole lot, including Bannon and possibly G. Thomas and Navarro and Trump(s). That might also involve the same charge for people who worked at DOJ.

    I understand the frustration, but we’re seeing some results we thought ought to happen, but most of us had no real faith would happen. Yeah, it’s taking a long time. Yeah, I wish this was happening more in conjunction with Congress. I’m willing to be there are investigations open on a bunch of members of Congress as well.

  31. 31.

    Martin

    @SpaceUnit: I don’t think so. I mean, yeah, maybe. But this is different. This isn’t Democrats disliking the makeup of the court. This is the court being objectively corrupted by a Justice with a lifetime appointment whose only remedy is impeachment and removal, and if we read these communications correctly was also a seditious conspirator if Eastman got any kind of assurance from Thomas that his theory would be supported as he claimed. That changes the game rather a lot.

  32. 32.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @burnspbesq: oh, so this isn’t just a matter or Garland having the balls to yell SEIZE THEM! and ordering people cast into irons?

  38. 38.

    piratedan

    I can see why Schiff feels like he should at least be clued into what the DOJ is doing since both are apparently seeking remedy against the breaking of the law.  Can’t say that the DOJ is doing themselves any favors by blocking out the people who are sending them the criminal findings.

  40. 40.

    burnspbesq

    @Martin:

    Your lack of understanding of the statute is apparent.

    Section 455(a) says that a judge should recuse if his/her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Courts have consistent held that that language creates an objective, reasonable-person standard. But the courts have also cautioned that “[r]umor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspi- cion, opinion, and similar non-factual matters” are not enough to warrant recusal. See Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995).

    455(b)(1) only applies to “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party (emphasis added). AFAIK, Ms. Thomas has never been a party to any proceeding before the Supreme Court. If you’re aware of one, kindly provide a cite.

    455(b)(2) is highly unlikely to be implicated, since Justice Thomas hasn’t been in private practice since at least 1979.

    Similarly, 455(b)(3) is highly unlikely to be implicated, since Justice Thomas left the EEOC in 1990.

    455(b)(4) is highly unlikely to be implicated. AFAIK, there is no evidence that Justice Thomas has ever failed to recuse himself from a case in which he or Ms. Thomas had a financial interest.

    455(b)(5)(i) and (ii) are both clearly inapplicable, since Ms. Thomas is neither a party to or counsel in any case. 455(b)(5)(iii) is your best shot, but AFAIK there is no reported case in which a judge has been forced to recuse because of his spouse’s political views about the subject matter of a case. If you’re aware of one, kindly provide a cite.

    Here’s a useful reference on the subject.

    https://www.courtappointedmasters.org/acam/assets/File/public/resources/Recusal.pdf

  42. 42.

    Martin

    @piratedan: If the communication back to the House would be available for the Minority Leader to see, I could see why the DOJ isn’t sharing.

    I mean, we’re talking about a conspiracy to overthrow the govt that involves every branch of the government, some state governments, and some members of the DOJ. If there was ever an environment for not sharing, it’s this one.

  43. 43.

    burnspbesq

    @bbleh:

    can we have dungeons?

    The Feds have a big-ass dungeon in Florence, Colorado. For better or worse, none of the people we’re talking about will be going there. At best they’ll be going to Level 3 shitholes like Lewisburg or Lompoc.

  44. 44.

    Martin

    @burnspbesq: Yeah, I won’t dispute not being a lawyer.

    If his spouse would have been implicated in a conspiracy over communication that was before the court, wouldn’t that be relevant? And if that communication might have implicated him in the same conspiracy?

  45. 45.

    burnspbesq

    @piratedan:

    kindly identify which exception to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure you think would allow DOJ to share grand jury materials with the 1/6 committee.

  46. 46.

    burnspbesq

    @Martin:

    If the existence and scope of the conspiracy had been known to Justice Thomas at the relevant time, we might be having a different conversation. But there is no evidence that it was.

  48. 48.

    JoyceH

    @SiubhanDuinne: The formatting of the sentence is identical to the beginning sentence of a post on the sub-reddit “Am I the asshole?” People go there to post their recent controversy and ask strangers to pass judgment. Sometimes they’re being gaslit and the verdict is NTA (not the asshole), and sometimes the readers post “OMG! YTA YTA YTA!”

  49. 49.

    RaflW

    @SpaceUnit: Regardless of the question she’s just going to cackle and shout out the craziest thing that pops into her head.

    I don’t see why this is a problem. The J6 Committee needs to hold the crazed right up to the light of day (not that Ginny will comply, but if she did show up of her own accord, she’d screech like a stepped-on weasel and I for one would welcome such unbecoming spectacle).

  50. 50.

    burnspbesq

    Thomas is getting the same treatment as every other witness. If she declines the invitation to appear voluntarily, she’ll get a subpoena. If she blows off the subpoena she’ll get referred.

  51. 51.

    RaflW

    Merrick Garland was an overly cautious choice by Obama in an effort to appease the unappeasable. I know it was discussed around here at the time, the strategy considering how terribly the GOP was likely to react to any Obama nominee should have been to have nominated someone who was willing to be very, very vocal when screwed over by Mitch.

    Bork was a bad judge who lost votes of Republicans when it came right down to it. But he was more than willing to be a cause célèbre for the lager conservative project.

    Biden’s appointment of Garland was in a small ball way a nice thumb in the eye to McConnell and the GOP. But IMO we would be better served by a more aggressive and more politically savvy Dem A.G.

  52. 52.

    burnspbesq

    @Martin:

    i do not know. I vaguely remember hearing about prisoners being moved from Marion or a Level 5 facility to Florence for their own protection.

  53. 53.

    Mai Naem mobile

    Just for what Mitch McConnell did with Merrick Garland the Dems need  go balls to the wall on Ginni Thomas and even more on Clarence Thomas. John Roberts needs to be called to a hearing on this. Multiple hearings.  The Dems need to stop  bringing wet noodles to a knife fight.  Fuck these people. Thomas needs to resign. For.crying out loud he’s a goddamned Supreme.Court Justice not some fucking small town judge presiding over traffic tickets.

  54. 54.

    Ancient Atheist

    Good grief folks. Ginni Thomas will never appear before Congress. Merick Garland will not indict anyone. The Republicans will win the midterm elections and all of this will be shut down. American democracy is kaput!

  55. 55.

    J R in WV

    @Ancient Atheist:

    So full of shit!

    It is true that the MSM doesn’t report the sentence recommended for most Jan 6th defendants, but actual sentences on the order of dozens of month for low level participants are common.

    A few high level guys have pled out, for many of these defendants sentenceing is on hold until their cooperation is complete.

    Lots of real serious sentences are common in this large case!

    ETA to get the full scoop on these cases check EMPTYWHEEL.NET, where Dr Marcy Wheeler covers the Jan 6th Insurrection like a blanket!

  56. 56.

    Kay

    “There were some eyebrows raised when Justice Thomas was that lone vote,” said Kate Shaw, ABC News Supreme Court analyst and Cardozo Law professor. “But he did not explain himself, so we don’t actually know why he wished to take up the case.”

    Well, that’s a strong ethical standard from the law professor. Can she bend over backwards any further to excuse this? Under this standard there’s no conflict of interest, ever.
    They’re going to circle the wagons. They think they’re protecting the legitimacy of this court by pretending that everything is just fine but they’re not- they’re helping to destroy it. At the end of this there will be the justices who eroded legitimacy but there will also be the thousands of enablers who refused to admit it was happening.

Comments are closed.