Is Ginni Thomas A Threat To The Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

*were

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

Maybe Mrs. Thomas runs into some issues, though I don’t know how you sanction her for using her right to speak freely. But the notion that Justice Thomas must resign underscores the Democrat plot against America. You can’t hand Biden an illegitimate chance to fill another SCOTUS seat. People forget that Justice Thomas did nothing wrong.

If somehow Justice Thomas is forced out or driven to death, his seat needs to be held open until his party takes the Presidency. It’s only fair.

There are no republican or democrat seats on the Supreme Court. You need a civics lesson.

Plotting to overthrow a free and fair election is not free speech. It remains to be proven that Clarence did something wrong but I'm of the opinion that he probably did. Guilty people act guilty and he certainly is. My mind keeps going back to Ginni's partner and co founder of Turning Point that day after the insurrection. He proudly tweeted that they paid for 80 bus loads. It was deleted but someone somewhere must have a screen shot. If true she funded the insurection. Clarence retiring does not give Biden an "illegitimate" pick for the Supreme Court. If there's an opening during President Biden's term it must be filled.

It remains to be proven that your husband is a child molester, but he probably is.
See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

Maybe Mrs. Thomas runs into some issues, though I don’t know how you sanction her for using her right to speak freely. But the notion that Justice Thomas must resign underscores the Democrat plot against America. You can’t hand Biden an illegitimate chance to fill another SCOTUS seat. People forget that Justice Thomas did nothing wrong.

If somehow Justice Thomas is forced out or driven to death, his seat needs to be held open until his party takes the Presidency. It’s only fair.

There are no republican or democrat seats on the Supreme Court. You need a civics lesson.

Plotting to overthrow a free and fair election is not free speech. It remains to be proven that Clarence did something wrong but I'm of the opinion that he probably did. Guilty people act guilty and he certainly is. My mind keeps going back to Ginni's partner and co founder of Turning Point that day after the insurrection. He proudly tweeted that they paid for 80 bus loads. It was deleted but someone somewhere must have a screen shot. If true she funded the insurection. Clarence retiring does not give Biden an "illegitimate" pick for the Supreme Court. If there's an opening during President Biden's term it must be filled.

It remains to be proven that your husband is a child molester, but he probably is.
See how that works?

He just walked out of a hotel room with a kid. Still don’t know what happened in that room but it doesn’t look good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

I agree they should be absolutely shamed but they have none. So I’m ok with him being removed. But I am a former Senate employee who was working 1/6 and think all involved are absolute garbage.

100% agree with you that anybody who stormed the capitol is garbage.

I'm curious how you define "involved" though. To me, it doesn't expand to include anyone who wanted Trump to serve another term and who litigated to advance that view. (I mean , I have some choice words for these people too. But it is of a kind different.)

How do you see Justice Thomas as being "involved"?

Ginni was involved.

Her best friend may have voted to protect her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

I agree they should be absolutely shamed but they have none. So I’m ok with him being removed. But I am a former Senate employee who was working 1/6 and think all involved are absolute garbage.

100% agree with you that anybody who stormed the capitol is garbage.

I'm curious how you define "involved" though. To me, it doesn't expand to include anyone who wanted Trump to serve another term and who litigated to advance that view. (I mean , I have some choice words for these people too. But it is of a kind different.)

How do you see Justice Thomas as being "involved"?

Ginni was involved.

Her best friend may have voted to protect her.

How was she involved in the storming of the Capitol on 1/6?

[Anonymous]

Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

It depends on what they are. If she invoked his name or his power in any way then yeah, he might be guilty. So far she hasn't mentioned her husband in any of these, which to that I can at least give her a little credit I guess. Who knows if there are more where she has.

I mean if we are engaging in hypotheticals, sure if there are any texts out there released as a result of the ruling that squarely incriminate her and he knew about them. He absolutely did something impeachable.

But based on what we have now, neither he nor she did anything any worse than what we already knew. I'm guessing it enrages people, rightly, that people in power were texting that way. But that is a far cry from anything criminal or impeachable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

Maybe Mrs. Thomas runs into some issues, though I don’t know how you sanction her for using her right to speak freely. But the notion that Justice Thomas must resign underscores the Democrat plot against America. You can’t hand Biden an illegitimate chance to fill another SCOTUS seat. People forget that Justice Thomas did nothing wrong.

If somehow Justice Thomas is forced out or driven to death, his seat needs to be held open until his party takes the Presidency. It’s only fair.

There are no republican or democrat seats on the Supreme Court. You need a civics lesson.

Plotting to overthrow a free and fair election is not free speech. It remains to be proven that Clarence did something wrong but I'm of the opinion that he probably did. Guilty people act guilty and he certainly is. My mind keeps going back to Ginni's partner and co founder of Turning Point that day after the insurrection. He proudly tweeted that they paid for 80 bus loads. It was deleted but someone somewhere must have a screen shot. If true she funded the insurection. Clarence retiring does not give Biden an "illegitimate" pick for the Supreme Court. If there's an opening during President Biden's term it must be filled.

It remains to be proven that your husband is a child molester, but he probably is.
See how that works?

He just walked out of a hotel room with a kid. Still don’t know what happened in that room but it doesn’t look good.

They will NEVER get it, PPs. Never.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

He ruled on a case to protect his wife who was involved in plotting with the WH to overthrow election results.

Neither of these two things are clearly supported by the facts we currently have. Sincerely, I really think we need to think critically here. Some people absolutely plotted to overthrow an election and some people used violence to make that happen. Absolutely.

But not everybody who wanted Trump to have a second term after election day meets that definition.

At a minimum, she encouraged the White House Chief of Staff to overturn the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

I agree they should be absolutely shamed but they have none. So I’m ok with him being removed. But I am a former Senate employee who was working 1/6 and think all involved are absolute garbage.

100% agree with you that anybody who stormed the capitol is garbage.

I'm curious how you define "involved" though. To me, it doesn't expand to include anyone who wanted Trump to serve another term and who litigated to advance that view. (I mean , I have some choice words for these people too. But it is of a kind different.)

How do you see Justice Thomas as being "involved"?

Ginni was involved.

Her best friend may have voted to protect her.

How was she involved in the storming of the Capitol on 1/6?

If only her spouse hadn’t voted against making the Trump WH release their documents. Then we could find out her exact involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.

Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.

If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

He ruled on a case to protect his wife who was involved in plotting with the WH to overthrow election results.

Neither of these two things are clearly supported by the facts we currently have. Sincerely, I really think we need to think critically here. Some people absolutely plotted to overthrow an election and some people used violence to make that happen. Absolutely.

But not everybody who wanted Trump to have a second term after election day meets that definition.

At a minimum, she encouraged the White House Chief of Staff to overturn the election.

+1
She and her husband are part of the GOP movement to overthrow the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

He ruled on a case to protect his wife who was involved in plotting with the WH to overthrow election results.

Neither of these two things are clearly supported by the facts we currently have. Sincerely, I really think we need to think critically here. Some people absolutely plotted to overthrow an election and some people used violence to make that happen. Absolutely.

But not everybody who wanted Trump to have a second term after election day meets that definition.

At a minimum, she encouraged the White House Chief of Staff to overturn the election.

PP here and I think I maybe agree with this. But the line for me on "overturn" the election is murky. It falls somewhere between filing a lot of lawsuits and storming the capitol. I'm not exactly sure what action she was encouraging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I know he wouldn't ultimately be convicted. But it would keep the conflicts of interest and January 6th continually in the public eye. January 6th was the lowest point in American democracy since the Civil War and Trump wanted to turn the US into an autocratic dictatorship and a substantial number of members of Congress wanted to help him do it.
And the loonies have spent the last 18 months trying to purge the Republican party of those remaining members who DID do the right thing.

So here's the thing. You're basically suggesting using constitutional processes and the power of the government to further a political party's agenda. That is exactly what was happening in the prior administration. Let's just stop doing that. All of us, regardless of party.

So the Ds should just look the other way? Disregard corruption because it might benefit them?

Ridiculous given how the Rs have actually abused their powers for their own benefit and to support illegal behavior.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done. I'm supportive of the 1/6 commission, and any prosecutions that result. I'm also supportive of everybody talking about it publicly, etc. What I am not in favor of doing is impeaching a justice "for show" and to create spectacle.

I agree. No Supreme Court justice has ever been successfully impeached. Another lost impeachment hearing will cost Democrats in the long run. Shame him into retirement or charge his wife criminally or both. Keep her conspiracy to overthrow our government in the news.

I agree they should be absolutely shamed but they have none. So I’m ok with him being removed. But I am a former Senate employee who was working 1/6 and think all involved are absolute garbage.

100% agree with you that anybody who stormed the capitol is garbage.

I'm curious how you define "involved" though. To me, it doesn't expand to include anyone who wanted Trump to serve another term and who litigated to advance that view. (I mean , I have some choice words for these people too. But it is of a kind different.)

How do you see Justice Thomas as being "involved"?

Ginni was involved.

Her best friend may have voted to protect her.

How was she involved in the storming of the Capitol on 1/6?

If only her spouse hadn’t voted against making the Trump WH release their documents. Then we could find out her exact involvement.

How did his lone dissenting vote that overall allowed the release prevent this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

He ruled on a case to protect his wife who was involved in plotting with the WH to overthrow election results.

Neither of these two things are clearly supported by the facts we currently have. Sincerely, I really think we need to think critically here. Some people absolutely plotted to overthrow an election and some people used violence to make that happen. Absolutely.

But not everybody who wanted Trump to have a second term after election day meets that definition.

At a minimum, she encouraged the White House Chief of Staff to overturn the election.

PP here and I think I maybe agree with this. But the line for me on "overturn" the election is murky. It falls somewhere between filing a lot of lawsuits and storming the capitol. I'm not exactly sure what action she was encouraging.

No the people filing the lawsuits are the same as the ones storming the Capitol. The Republican Party is an insurrectionist party. They coordinate their action from the courts to the Brownshirt thugs in the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Do not forget that this is only one batch of texts.



Please continue to push for the discovery of ALL possible communication.




If these texts are the worse Mrs. Thomas has ever sent, it's fine. The concern is that they are just the tip of iceberg.

Assume she sent worse, how is her husband guilty of anything? If you can’t hold JB responsible for HB stuff, how is this different?

He ruled on a case to protect his wife who was involved in plotting with the WH to overthrow election results.

Neither of these two things are clearly supported by the facts we currently have. Sincerely, I really think we need to think critically here. Some people absolutely plotted to overthrow an election and some people used violence to make that happen. Absolutely.

But not everybody who wanted Trump to have a second term after election day meets that definition.

At a minimum, she encouraged the White House Chief of Staff to overturn the election.

PP here and I think I maybe agree with this. But the line for me on "overturn" the election is murky. It falls somewhere between filing a lot of lawsuits and storming the capitol. I'm not exactly sure what action she was encouraging.

No the people filing the lawsuits are the same as the ones storming the Capitol. The Republican Party is an insurrectionist party. They coordinate their action from the courts to the Brownshirt thugs in the streets.

This just doesn't track in the context of what I think we're doing here, which is determining whether Justice Thomas committed an impeachable act by ruling on that case. Wouldn't your assertion mean that any republican judge would need to be recused from any case that dealt with the election?