'Impeachment Material': Ginni's Jan. 6 texts

[struggle4progress]

By Tommy Christopher
Mar 26th, 2022, 11:59 am

Former federal prosecutor and current MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner .. Clarence Thomas could be “impeached” based on the reporting that came out this week ...

MR. KIRSCHNER: What Justice Thomas did was deeply, deeply unethical at a minimum. Mm-Hmm. I mean, a sitting Supreme Court justice who decided to participate in a case that involved his wife’s wrongdoing, not recusing himself, not removing himself as every judge in the land knows he or she is supposed to do when they even have the appearance of conflict. Right? Not just an actual conflict. Actual conflict is the third rail of conflict law. And Thomas knows that, and he ignored it. And instead, he voted to hide from the J-6 committee and by extension, from the American people, deeply damaging evidence of his wife’s misconduct. And it wasn’t just shoplifting. It was an attempt to overthrow our government in the presidency. And Justice Thomas voted to bury it to protect his wife. That’s, again, I don’t want to jump right to that’s impeachment material. But that’s impeachment material if it is proven the way it appears to be based on the reporting. So, I mean, the legitimate legitimacy of the Supreme Court is lower than whale droppings.

...

https://www.mediaite.com/news/impeachment-material-msnbcs-glenn-kirschner-says-clarence-thomas-could-be-ousted-over-ginnis-jan-6-texts/

[Zeitghost]

1. The committee already had her communications

The case did not involve her directly.

[stopdiggin]

3. not aware of that ...

that kind of pokes a pin in that balloon ...

[struggle4progress]

5. If she's actively involved with people closely involved in the case, it matters

[Zeitghost]

6. Not really

She has no direct interest in the outcome. Sure, she has strong feelings on the case, but so do millions of other Americans. But she doesn't stand to lose or gain anything directly from the outcome.

When the recent story broke and there were reports that her communications were included in the request before the court and I started to think that maybe there was something there. But those reports turned out to be false, the committee already had those records.

You will need direct involvement by Ginny to even try to build an impeachment case on Clarence and even then, it's a weak case without something criminal on both of them. Until then, we don't have the votes in the House to start anything and we will never have the votes in the Senate short of irrefutable evidence of a felony.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. The Senate GOP

Won't vote to to convict.

[Zeitghost]

4. And the House won 't vote to impeach

Even if you can find something to convict Ginny on and that's a huge if, you would still need to have evidence in Clarence's direct participation. The House will never impeach a sitting Justice because of the political activity of their spouse. To believe otherwise is fantasy, to put it nicely.