Ginni Thomas Has a Lot of Explaining to Do

[kpete]

Imagine what would have happened if Barack Obama had plotted to subvert and overturn a presidential election that he had lost.

Republicans would have lost their minds. Having whipped themselves into a lather over fake scandals and manufactured controversies during the actual Obama administration, they would have exploded into paroxysms of partisan rage over any one of these misdeeds. The Benghazi hearings would have looked like a sober-minded investigation compared with what Republicans would have unleashed if the shoe had been on the other foot.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/opinion/ginni-thomas-john-eastman.html

[Irish_Dem]

1. The GOP believes they are exempt from all laws, norms, customs.

They believe all is fair in love and war and will stop at nothing in their quest for power and wealth.

[2naSalit]

2. +1

[haele]

3. I don't think you can get a coherent explanation from Ms. Thomas

She appears to have always lived in a cult-driven world. She seems to need to have something in her world that allows her to be a keeper of special knowledge, putting herself above the rest of us mere mortals.
I'm sure she thinks of herself as a super patriot and wants to ensure the Jan 6 commission knows it and will afford her the proper respect as she tells them what they're doing wrong.

Haele

[MineralMan]

4. Yes, except she actually holds no official position of trust.

She is, legally, just a private citizen. Now, we all know that's not really true. As the wife of a Supreme Court justice, she has considerable influence, but that's not an official thing.

So, it's going to be difficult to pin anything on her in a legal sense. She is protected by the First Amendment in her statements, emails, letters, etc. Legally, she can say anything she wants, propose anything she wishes, and make any statement she cares to make.

That's why it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to hold her to account for any of the things she has done.

Regrettable that is, but factual.

[Novara]

6. True. However, if there is evidence ...

... that she attempted any maneuvering of any of the court cases at all towards the SCOTUS, or encouraged the fling of court cases with the hopes and assurances of eventually getting them appealed to the SCOTUS, then she better get a great fucking criminal defense lawyer.

Otherwise, yeah, she's a private citizen. The investigators need to make a connection between her efforts and any talk or assurances regarding potential SCOTUS involvement. If they can make that link, they are BOTH in a heap of fucking trouble.

[MineralMan]

8. That's very difficult to prove, though.

She sent letters and emails to people, telling them what she thought they should do. I send letters and emails to people, doing the same, but recommend exactly the opposite actions.

That's the core of the problem of doing something about Ginni Thomas.

She is reprehensible, but probably not legally liable.

[Novara]

12. Agreed, unless there's an evidentiary link

I suspect she may have been too smart to leave clear evidence.

[MineralMan]

13. Well, she clearly called for things to happen, and did so in a

pretty public way. Reprehensible as that was, I'm not seeing what she could be charged with, frankly.

She will say, "I merely stated my opinion about things." Since she has no official position in government, she is free to say whatever stupid crap she wishes to say. Her marriage to a SCOTUS justice is actually irrelevant in terms of a crime being committed. Even if she spoke about her ideas with him, she remains a private citizen and can do that if she wants, legally.

Morally, of course, she is more than culpable. But I cannot see what crime she could be prosecuted under. I simply don't. There is no law preventing a SCOTUS justice from discussing cases with a spouse. They can't discuss cases ex parte with anyone who comes before the Supreme Court, of course, but Ginni Thomas is not a party in any case before the court.

Once again, as citizens, our only recourse is to elect enough Democrats in Congress to make it possible to impeach and convict a SCOTUS justice. I think we should do that. I think that is how we can resolve many issues, if we have the will to make the effort required to elect such a majority in both houses of Congress. That is the action we can take. We are not actual players in anything else having to do with any of this. Our votes are our only voice, but that is a very powerful voice, if we will use it.

[milestogo]

5. If I see this picture one more time I'm gonna hurl.

Is she trying to get everyone to look up?

[Novara]

7. If you hate it so much why did you post it?

[milestogo]

10. I wanted to vomit.

[fightforfreedom]

9. She is Sarah Palin crazy.

[TwilightZone]

11. "Sarah Palin" was mostly an act.

People who'd been around her for years prior to her nomination were pretty clear that the whole thing was a facade. The accent, the attitude, the whole persona.

I think Thomas, on the other hand, is nuts. I think she really believes the goofy stuff she claims to.

[Kid Berwyn]

14. Impeach Clarence Thomas