How Clarence & Ginny Thomas are participating in the over throw of the USA as we know it He Sided with Trump in Court While She Backed Coup Attempt

[Razoo]

AMY GOODMAN: The January 6th committee investigating the deadly attack on the Capitol is reportedly deciding whether to interview Ginni Thomas — the Republican activist who’s also the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — about her efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss. The move comes after her texts with Trump’s then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the weeks following the election were made public last week in a Washington Post/CBS exposé. In a series of 29 text messages to Meadows, Ginni Thomas urges him to take action to prevent a Biden victory, citing conspiracy theories about a stolen election popularized by the far-right QAnon movement.

On November 10th, after news outlets declared Joe Biden the winner, Ginni Thomas wrote to Meadows, “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!…You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History,” she texted.

Just months ago, in January, the Supreme Court denied a request by Trump to block the release of White House documents around January 6th. In the 8-to-1 ruling, only one justice dissented: Clarence Thomas, Gina’s husband. Calls are growing for Justice Thomas to be impeached, after the release of the text messages. This comes as Justice Thomas participated remotely Monday in arguments at the Supreme Court after he was hospitalized for nearly a week with an unspecified infection.

For more, we’re joined by Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, who has long followed Justice Thomas. His new piece, out today, is headlined “Clarence Thomas’s long fight against fair and democratic elections: Like wife, like husband.” He is the author of two books on the high court: The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America and Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted.

Ian, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can talk about the significance of what has been discovered about Ginni Thomas’s texts, and the connection to her husband and the rules in the Supreme Court around partners ruling in cases that involve — that may possibly involve their spouses?

IAN MILLHISER: So, what we know at this point is we know that Ginni Thomas was very much a cheerleader, and a cheerleader at the highest levels

​

 

[Razoo]

con't

I mean, she was texting the White House chief of staff about, you know, cheering on Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. We don’t know yet if she was a co-conspirator. You know, was she in the room with people like John Eastman trying to plot the strategy to actually overturn the election? And the extent of her role could be revealed by various documents and various interviews that the January 6 committee is conducting.

You know, you mentioned in the intro that the committee sought records from the White House. Thomas — Justice Thomas — tried to block their access to these records. And, you know, we don’t yet know what’s in those records. We don’t know if they incriminate Ginni Thomas. We don’t know if they reveal her to be a co-conspirator. We don’t know if her name isn’t mentioned at all.

So, if Clarence Thomas knew that his wife was potentially implicated in this scandal, I think he should have recused himself from that case, and he should recuse himself from any future cases related to this — related to this investigation, because, you know, when you’re a judge, you can’t sit on a case where your wife has an interest.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What are the conflict of interest requirements for justices of the Supreme Court? And there has been an attempt in Congress to tighten that, but Chief Justice Roberts has warned against Congress attempting to control an equal branch of government, in effect?

IAN MILLHISER: Yeah. So, there’s really two questions there. I mean, there is a statute that lays out certain obligations. You know, a judge shouldn’t sit on a case where their impartiality can reasonably be questioned, and so on and so forth. The issue is that there’s no enforceable ethics rules against Supreme Court of the United States. So, there’s a statute which tells them what they’re supposed to do, and the justices have said for a really long time, “Oh, yeah, we are very, very careful about complying with ethics,” and so on and so forth, but, ultimately, it’s up to each individual justice.

And, I mean, this is the overarching problem we’re having with the Supreme Court right now, is when this body gets out of line, when it gets overly partisan, when it starts ignoring the law, there really isn’t a good method to rein in a rogue Supreme Court. I mean, there’s impeachment, but impeachment takes 67 votes.

We couldn’t even impeach — successfully impeach Donald Trump after Donald Trump cheered on an attack on the Capitol.

So I am pessimistic that anything is going to happen to Justice Thomas. But again, like, if his wife has an interest in a case, that is the classic case of where you need to recuse. You can’t sit on a case that you have an interest in, and you can’t sit on a case where your immediate family members have a direct interest.

AMY GOODMAN: And Justice Ian Millhiser — I mean, and, Ian, isn’t it —

IAN MILLHISER: I’ve been promoted! Great!

AMY GOODMAN: Isn’t it true that in this case where Clarence Thomas was the only dissenter — he did not want to obligate Donald Trump to send over these documents — that’s where the emails were discovered of his wife? So, I mean, there is a suggestion that he wanted to cover that up.