Seth Abramson on the coming constitutional crisis

[NWRatCon]

What org is that?

Why am I not finding any information on this in the thread? What am I missing? What is this secretive group he keeps referring to?

I can simplify this in a number of ways:

1. Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is an extremist right wing advocate of the TEA party/freely dumb caucus ilk. She runs a Super PAC that has an "undisclosed donor list", but may be only one person funding the whole thing.

2. She recruited "like-minded" extremists to populate the "steal-the-presidency" campaign, many former CLARENCE THOMAS law clerks, the network she talked to for recruitment. (See that connection, and why it is problematic?) Their listserve was the recruitment tool.

3. Some of those campaign operatives were directly involved in a covert criminal conspiracy, including Ginni Thomas herself, and certainly Eastman.

4. Attorney-client privilege does not apply to co-conspirator communications, which the judge explicitly ruled these are.

5. Their activities are not covered by executive privilege because they were campaign activities.

 

[MaryP]

I can simplify this in a number of ways:

1. Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is an extremist right wing advocate of the TEA party/freely dumb caucus ilk. She runs a Super PAC that has an "undisclosed donor list", but may be only one person funding the whole thing.

2. She recruited "like-minded" extremists to populate the "steal-the-presidency" campaign, many former CLARENCE THOMAS law clerks, the network she talked to for recruitment. (See that connection, and why it is problematic?) Their listserve was the recruitment tool.

3. Some of those campaign operatives were directly involved in a covert criminal conspiracy, including Ginni Thomas herself, and certainly Eastman.

4. Attorney-client privilege does not apply to co-conspirator communications, which the judge explicitly ruled these are.

5. Their activities are not covered by executive privilege because they were campaign activities.

Wow. Thank you for that link!

 

[Ug make hammer]

If Thomas does not recuse himself on a case about his own wife's emails then he simply must be impeached. The combination of partisan interest and outright corruption is intolerable.

And the impeachment fails because Republicans don't want a replacement named while Biden is still President? Very well then. Impeachment would still be the right thing to do.

 

[Nickyjo]

The sad, depressing thing about all of this is that Ginni Thomas and others who bought or pretended to buy Trump’s Big Steal story are victims of this little, insecure man’s pathology. To paraphrase the Bard’s phrase in Hamlet, “Trump doth make liars of them all.”

Why sell your soul for such an obvious fraud?

 

[NWRatCon]

Wow. Thank you for that link!

You are welcome. There is much more. Here's one from The Bulwark - Is Ginni Thomas’s Story Believable? "Let’s apply some common-sense tests."; and Ginni Thomas's activism sparks ethics questions for Supreme Court justice (The Hill)
I cited those two because they are conservative outlets.

 

[NWRatCon]

Why sell your soul for such an obvious fraud?

That is the thing I have never really understood. How can anyone with a lick of sense not perceive the obvious and brazen fraud that he is? He doesn't even try to hide it. It's mind boggling.

 

[Ug make hammer]

That is the thing I have never really understood. How can anyone with a lick of sense not perceive the obvious and brazen fraud that he is? He doesn't even try to hide it. It's mind boggling.

Justice Thomas doesn't have a lick of sense though. He uncritically followed Scalia when he was still alive, which isn't so bad considering Scalia had a strong legal mind. But since then, Thomas has uncritically followed Alito, who is frankly dim.

After 30 years on the court he must surely know when it is obligatory to recuse himself. Jeez.

 

[LostinThought]

You people really need to find a new bone to chew on, because this idiocy is taking you nowhere.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You people really need to find a new bone to chew on, because this idiocy is taking you nowhere.

Oh really. There isn't anything we can do about it, and even Congress could only impeach Thomas. But any judge ruling on a case involving their own family is objectively corrupt.

I bet you thought Jeff Sessions recusing himself from anything regarding Russia was unnecessary. Lying to Congress no big deal in the Trump White House, am I right?

 

[LostinThought]

Oh really. There isn't anything we can do about it, and even Congress could only impeach Thomas. But any judge ruling on a case involving their own family is objectively corrupt.

I bet you thought Jeff Sessions recusing himself from anything regarding Russia was unnecessary. Lying to Congress no big deal in the Trump White House, am I right?

I care not for your hollow banter or the red herring. The search for someone to fully punish of Jan 6th is getting closer to it's sad, little ending. So I'm not surprised that the committee are doing as much as possible, to place the blame on anyone that they can reach at this point. No matter just who's rights they have to trample on or how many unconstitutional methods they need to use.

It's the same boring circus at this point.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I care not for your hollow banter or the red herring.

Oh very haughty. Have fun talking to yourself then.

 

[LostinThought]

Oh very haughty. Have fun talking to yourself then.

And you have fun advocating for the same sort of crap that made Castro so famous.

 

[Ug make hammer]

And you have fun advocating for the same sort of crap that made Castro so famous.

Castro prosecuted judges for being implicated in crime? I didn't know that.

 

[NWRatCon]

You people really need to find a new bone to chew on, because this idiocy is taking you nowhere.

I suspect you got this out of some playbook somewhere, "how to troll a discussion". "You people", "new bone", "this idiocy". Nothing of substance. Nothing related to the thread. Nothing of merit. Reported. Bye again.

 

[Roadvirus]

Recusal is nowhere near enough. If he doesn't step down immediately impeachment should result. He cannot make impartial rulings.

Oh yeah...that'll be politically popular. Not to mention the GOP will use it as a cudgel against the Left from now until November.

Everyone will see it for what it is: A power grab.

The Dems can't pack the court due to Manchin and Sinema blocking their attempt, so they'll go down this road instead, using the 1/6 hearings and his wife as a justification.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Oh yeah...that'll be politically popular. Not to mention the GOP will use it as a cudgel against the Left from now until November.

Everyone will see it for what it is: A power grab.

The Dems can't pack the court due to Manchin and Sinema blocking their attempt, so they'll go down this road instead, using the 1/6 hearings and his wife as a justification.

A "power grab"? To remove a hopelessly compromised justice?

In what world?

 

[HangLow]

You are welcome. There is much more. Here's one from The Bulwark - Is Ginni Thomas’s Story Believable? "Let’s apply some common-sense tests."; and Ginni Thomas's activism sparks ethics questions for Supreme Court justice (The Hill)
I cited those two because they are conservative outlets.

************

**********​

 

[Ug make hammer]

The Dems can't pack the court due to Manchin and Sinema blocking their attempt

That's not what happened. As you can see HERE the bill has only been introduced, not voted on. And until it is voted on (which will be never) you can't claim that Manchin nor Sinema "blocked it".

There's a process to these things you know. Random rat****ers in the Democratic caucus do not represent party policy.

Pelosi, Schumer AND BIDEN have all expressed their opposition to it. Pelosi went so far as to say she would never let it pass, which as you know is a power of the Speaker. She can simply refuse to hold the vote, and that's if the bill isn't killed in committee which it will be.

 

[NWRatCon]

A "power grab"? To remove a hopelessly compromised justice?

In what world?

In the fantasy world occupied by the hopelessly partisan. They're so used to gaslighting, they gaslight themselves. It's remarkable.

 

[Ug make hammer]

A "power grab"? To remove a hopelessly compromised justice?

In what world?

I don't consider him "hopelessly compromised" just yet. It would be unreasonable to ban spouses from any political activity, and our view that the political activity is intolerably extreme, is after all, a partisan judgement.

I say we give him a chance to recuse himself, and only if he stands on his constitutional right not to do that, do we prosecute him. Prosecute, and then if he still won't go, impeach him.

Is a Supreme Court Justice above the law? I don't know. And hopefully it never comes to that: I see Thomas a weak-willed person who was embroiled in trouble by his wife, not an arch villain like Scalia was. A graceful retirement now, would satisfy me.

We don't have to leave a horse's head in his bed! Uh, what? You mean there wasn't a horse's head in Scalia's bed? I need better sources.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I don't consider him "hopelessly compromised" just yet.

You're lying to yourself.

Try this:

Imagine a judge appointed by a democratic president who usually comes down on the far left of arguments who's wife was implicated in coordinating an attack on our capitol to prevent the democratic process and install the loser of the election by main force. And we have her email and other evidence supporting that. Now imagine this judge was the sole dissenting voice in turning over that evidence, along with other suspect votes.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You're lying to yourself.

Try this:

Imagine a judge appointed by a democratic president who usually comes down on the far left of arguments who's wife was implicated in coordinating an attack on our capitol to prevent the democratic process and install the loser of the election by main force. And we have her email and other evidence supporting that.

I'm aware of that.

Now imagine this judge was the sole dissenting voice in turning over that evidence, along with other suspect votes.

Maybe I'm not up to date on that.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Maybe I'm not up to date on that.

Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent in the Supreme Court's January order rejecting Trump's bid to withhold documents from the January 6 panel

Thomas' vote came under scrutiny Thursday following reports that his wife, Ginni Thomas, texted Mark Meadows about overturning the 2020 election.

www.businessinsider.com

That includes Ginni Thomas's texts with Eastman.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent in the Supreme Court's January order rejecting Trump's bid to withhold documents from the January 6 panel

Thomas' vote came under scrutiny Thursday following reports that his wife, Ginni Thomas, texted Mark Meadows about overturning the 2020 election.

www.businessinsider.com

That includes Ginni Thomas's texts with Eastman.

OK, I see your point. It wouldn't have taken a competent Justice long at all to write a dissent along the lines "Long standing tradition of the fifth amendment applying to spouses gives me grounds to refuse this order to turn over evidence which may incriminate my wife Ginni" but instead he went the full bonehead. Why didn't the fool just abstain?

I still feel some sympathy for Thomas though. I've always felt he was out of his depth on the Court. A graceful retirement would still be the best thing.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

OK, I see your point. It wouldn't have taken a competent Justice long at all to write a dissent along the lines "Long standing tradition of the fifth amendment applying to spouses gives me grounds to refuse this order to turn over evidence which may incriminate my wife Ginni" but instead he went the full bonehead. Why didn't the fool just abstain?

I still feel some sympathy for Thomas though. I've always felt he was out of his depth on the Court. A graceful retirement would still be the best thing.

If he would just do it.

I doubt he will. Impeachment is in the air yet again.