The potential of a HUGE conflict of interest exists here. A lot of valid questions need to be answered before proclaiming Justice Thomas to be compromised by his wife’s actions and interactions.
This part of the post causes (or should) one to pause and consider the implications of Justice Thomas’ ability to be impartial.
“Trump then filed suit against the committee and the National Archives, seeking to block the release of those records. This suit went all the way to the Supreme Court.
On January 19, 2022, the Supreme Court refused Trump’s request. The ruling was 8-1. Only Justice Thomas indicated in the filing that he would have granted Trump’s request to withhold the documents.
Why? He never said. He did not write an opinion.”
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
You beat me to the punch. I was about to post on the same subject.
It was a serious ethical failing. He should have followed the law and voted with the other eight Justices. At the very least, he should have recused himself because of the obvious conflict of interest. He was voting to keep his wife’s stupid and/or criminal communications out of the hands of the Congress. Not only was failing to recuse unethical, but it was also stupid since what has happened now was certain to transpire to his detriment and to the reputation of the Court.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Not only was failing to recuse unethical”..
An interesting contrast to Judge Jackson who indicated she would recuse herself from Affirmative Action cases that should come before the court.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why should he follow the other 8? They were wrong.
The idea that executive privilege belongs only to the current President defeats the purpose.
The President should hear all recommendations from his advisors, even those that are politically incorrect career enders. If his advisors know that what they say to the President in private will be in the papers as soon as the next President takes office, he will not hear those options.
Previous Presidents have understood this and protected their predecessors communications, but Biden is willing to wreck the co-equal branches of government in his blind hatred for Trump.
LikeLike
“Why should he follow the other 8? They were wrong.”
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how uninformed. I am reminded of my reference to the D-K syndrome the other day. Here you set yourself up as a better interpreter of the law and the Constitution than the District Court, than the Court of Appeals and better than not one, not two, but EIGHT Justices of the Supreme Court from both ends of the political spectrum.
I do not know where your confusion comes from except that your remarks about Executive Privilege betray a poor understanding of what that privilege is. The Court of Appeals analyzed Trump’s claim from the point of view that he was still the incumbent. They found that Executive Privilege would not have applied even if he were. The assertion of that limited privilege was bogus. SCOTUS referred to that analysis in their 8-1 ruling and found it sound.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Executive privilege does not apply to criminal acts, which is why it did not apply in Watergate, but it does apply to any advice given the President
LikeLike
…”it does apply to any advice given the President”
Even if that advice is criminal in nature? Like going against the Constitution or threatening state election officials to “find votes”.
Sorry, Don. But your attempts to say this isn’t important and has no true bearing is extremely partisan in nature.
Ginni Thomas’s activities and involvement with right wing groups were not a problem. When she started using her position as the wife of a Supreme Court Justice to push the COS to get the cases to HER HUSBAND on the court, she overstepped. Her best friend’s refusal to recuse is enough of an issue to call into to question the CONSERVATIVES on SCOTUS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ginni Thomas’s texts were from Nov 2020, and do not call for any illegal acts. They do suggest some desperate and flawed legal strategies to contest the election which were dismissed months later, They reflect frustration and perhaps some gullibility regarding Powell’s legal theories but there is nothing unlawful or seditious in them. Embarrassing, but so what?
WSJ Ginni Thomas texts
What perhaps we should be asking is why, lacking any legal issues, private communications were leaked to the press by the Jan 6 Committee simply to cause embarrassment to a private citizen. The committee has access to those communications for investigative purposes regarding the Jan 6 riot, not for political exploitation. Their unredacted release of private communications unrelated to the matter before them for political purposes is not within the scope of the committee’s authority.
That is illegal.
LikeLike
“… after Meadows thanked Thomas and pledged to help in the “fight of good versus evil,” she replied: “Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now… I will try to keep holding on. America is worth it!”
“ We don’t know for sure who her ‘best friend’ is, but people close to the couple, including Armstrong Williams, have called the couple ‘best friends’—as in, Ginni and Clarence Thomas are each other’s best friend,” writes Joan McCarter at the Daily Kos. To McCarter, it’s pretty clear she was discussing all this with her husband while he was weighing in on election cases.”
“ The messages “reveal an extraordinary pipeline between” Ginni Thomas … and “President Donald Trump’s top aide during a period when Trump and his allies were vowing to go to the Supreme Court in an effort to negate the election results,” write Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in the Washington Post.
https://www.newser.com/story/318534/question-in-ginni-thomas-texts-who-is-best-friend.html
Ginni is not just some conspiracy nut who went off the rails when the election was over. You fret over the deep state as bypassing elected officials. Well, here is a real “deep state”…a lifetime tenured Supreme Court justice, his wife, her advice to the president, an autogolpe in the planning stages…and her advice to pitch two loyal American on the 1/6 committee.
That is all three branches she was trying hard to influence or benefit from.
That is the kind of news the First Amendment is designed for.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So what?
Those messages were in November 2020. They had nothing to do with Jan 6 nor were they criminal.
It is totally improper, and certainly illegal, to release private communications between citizens that is unrelated to the topic of the committee’s investigation. They were given access to that information for the purposes of investigating the Jan 6 riot, not to fish for anything they could find to embarrass their political opponents.
This amounts to an unconstitutional search and a violation of her civil rights under the color of authority, and if we had an honest DOJ, the leaker would be found and spend a decade in prison.
But apparently that’s OK with you so long as the person whose rights are being violated is someone you don’t like and you can use it for political gain.
It is disgusting that you are examining the messages to look for something juicy when you should refuse to even read them.
It’s like child porn, the person who enjoys looking is as guilty as the one producing it as it would not be produced if you weren’t going to look.
LikeLike
It is ok to plot against our own government so long as no one knows about it?
This has little to do with embarrassing a private citizen and all to do with exposing the attempted coup and how deep the and corrupting the plans were.
All three branches were involved with essentially treasonous behavior among loyalists to Trump.
And you compare this to porn?
BTW, it had all to do with 1/6. The Big Lie was the motivator and the administration, some extremists in Congress and now we know a member of the Supreme Court were all in on the effort.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Discussing possible legal strategies to contest an election you believe to have been stolen is not a coup any more than Gore’s lawsuits against Bush were.. The Jan 6 Commitee is authorized to investigate the unlawful interference in the proceedings on Jan 6, not discussions about potential legal remedies in November.
None of the messages in any way referred to an attempt to prevent the count on Jan 6, so the release of private communications that were not relevant to the investigation was 100% a criminal attempt to embarrass Thomas.
And no, I do not compare it to porn, I am pointing out that like kiddie porn, the consumer is as guilty as the producer.
But you will continue to celebrate this unlawful disclosure of private communications because it helps your party and the ends justify the means.
LikeLike
“Discussing possible legal strategies to contest an election you believe to have been stolen “…
The texts appear to be unsolicited, so why would your argument hold water? Also, why would the wife of a sitting Justice send UNSOLICITED legal advice to the WH COS? Did she know that any cases would come before the court and that her “best friend” would be ruling on them?
As far as the communications being private, that is spin like a windmill. As soon as they were sent to the WH COS, they became part of the WH records. And the relevance to the investigation is not questionable to anyone with clear eyes and not someone who is looking to excuse possibly criminal behavior by TFG et. al, that appears pretty clear but turns around and throws out “theories” about the son of the sitting President.
Consider the BS flag thrown and your argument leaking like a sieve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, so what?
Ginni Thomas is a citizen, the 4th Amendment applies to her communications with Mark Meadows, which had nothing to do with the rally on Jan 6th, which had not even been planned yet.
And the committee members know it, which is why it was anonymously leaked instead of reported openly. The committee used its subpoena powers to fish for unrelated, and completely legal. communications that might be embarrassing
But rights don’t matter when they are someone you don’t like.
LikeLike
1/6 was the last ditch effort to overturn the election. All the efforts by all the parties trying to steal the election for Trump since the election are important to know if we want to avoid another violent attack.
You may dismiss Ginni Thomas’ texts as irrelevant, but they are hardly that. She was the contact point for whatever SCOTUS might contribute to the autogolpe.
Media has done exactly what the founders said they could (and should for that matter) do to expose malfeasance and other high crimes by elected and appointed officials in government.
The attack on the Capitol was unprecedented. Evidence so far indicates that concession was never an option from the day of the election, no matter if Trump lost. Every message, every document, every jot and tittle are important. The texts were in a subpoenaed trove from Meadows. The fact that a wife of a sitting justice was working with the conspirators in the White House knowing full well that election cases may get to SCOTUS is very serious. That Thomas dissented makes it probably a severe breach of ethics, if not out right criminal.
Ginni has had high paying clients that she consulted for while bringing cases to the Court in the past. So her ethics are already challenged, as are her husband’s.
You may have been rooting for a coup, but the strength of America is based on a centuries long history of fair elections and peaceful transfers of power.
Trump and his cronies and staff had no case and they knew it. So pressuring, even forcing, the VP to act illegally, is all part of the investigation. And that includes judicial ethics dumped into the sewage by the Thomases.
Her texts reveal that, and we, as Americans not only should be advised, we need to be advised when people are part of a team to usurp our elections illegally and by force.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ginni Thomas’s text messages had nothing to do with the riot on Jan 6.
You seem determined to paint anybody who advocated challenging the outcome of the election at any stage as though they participated in the riot. That is simply untrue. Most of the people present at the rally itself had no part in the riot.
You have no evidence that she made even an attempt to sway her husband, much less that he in any way would deviate from his very precise application of law.
You are projecting a lot of your own paranoia on others. You seem to paint anyone who does not fall in line with the Democrat narrative as Satan, with no room for honest disagreement.
You are a lot closer to wearing a bison helmet than me if you think I supported a coup.
LikeLike
“Ginni Thomas’s text messages had nothing to do with the riot on Jan 6.“
Do you really think the attack materialized out of thin air on 1/6? That folks just showed up a couple of weeks early for the inauguration and partied too hard?
There was a constant drumbeat of rigged elections from 2015 combined with a concerted effort by insiders, (“deep state” for real) from all three branches for months after the vote to convince citizens of the Big Lie.
I don’t think the plotters are Satan. I just think there is no doubt that the attack was planned as the final push to get the election overturned…illegally.
“No room for honest disagreement”?
On what? That satellites or watermarks or bamboo fibers or Chavez or millions of corpses or broken water pipes or all the other unbelievable conspiracies should have credence so the election is invalid? That is what you folks believed. And why? Because that is what you were told. Thousands attacked the Capitol and many of those charged thought they were obeying the president. Jim Jones would be proud.
Sorry, but this was a planned attempt over months by top players in the government some of whom even set up a “war room” in the Willard Hotel in the days leading up to the “it will be wild” rally.
You can have your bison helmet back now. It didn’t fit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Still don’t get it.
Millions doubted the legitimacy of the election but had nothing to do with the attempt to disrupt or delay the vote count.
Beliefs with which you disagree are not crimes.
Only a few hundred entered the capitol and at most a few dozen plotted ahead of time to take unlawful actions, yet you seem to think our DOJ and intelligence agencies should have license to hunt down the millions.
Absent any proof that Ginni Thomas plotted the attempted disruption or at least had prior knowledge it would happen, her communications as a citizen activist deserve the protections of the 4th Amendment. There is nothing to indicate she was even tangentally involved.
Political use of information gathered under the pretense of investigative purposes is just plain wrong in addition to being unlawful.
That you have convinced yourself otherwise makes you more dangerous than the Shaman.
LikeLike
Did you read what you wrote?
“License to hunt down millions…”?
What on earth are you talking about.
I can’t be be more clear that those who plotted and deluded the followers are responsible. And that includes those who advised and planned false narratives for the administration to spread while trying to overturn a lawful election.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You have provided no evidence that Ginni Thomas or any more of the millions who were and remain convinced there was fraud in the election had any part in the disruption of the count.
That is the only crime. Believing there was fraud is not a crime.
The lawsuits, even if ill advised, were not a crime.
But Thomas’s private communications and those of countless others are being examined. So far, OK, for the purpose of finding out who did take part in the criminal acts, but then taking those communications and using them for political purposes in the absence of any criminal acts by the citizen is an abuse of their 4th Amendment rights.
How much blackmail fodder have the Democrats squirreled away for future use from those private communications?
It’s no different than lying to a judge to get a search warrant.
LikeLike
Tjhey started in Nov 2020 and continued up to Jan 6th.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only 1 was after November, and it had no part in organizing the rally
LikeLike
And the big question now is what is the reason behind the “blackout” between those dates. Could it be the Mr. Meadows did not fully comply with the subpoena?
The right has speculated about a LOT of BS around the election. This may or may not be BS, but it is worth investigating furhter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Such an accusation would require some evidence.
Such speculation is pretty desperate in seeking justification for violating a citizen’s rights.
LikeLike
No accusation, just speculation. GOP congresses have opened investigations into fareless.
LikeLike
“[Executive Privilege] does apply to any advice given the President”
Which is the certainly reason the materials suppressed were not covered by Executive Privilege according to the District, Appeals and Supreme Court. Unless all three levels of the Court system are “corrupt” – a theory I would not put past you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Jan 6 Commitee is authorized to investigate the unlawful interference in the proceedings on Jan 6, not discussions about potential legal remedies in November.”
Nonsense. Their mandate is not restricted to January 6th but with EVERYTHING leading up to it.
Were those discussions LIMITED to “potential legal remedies” or were extra-legal remedies also being discussed? When did phony legal remedies as a pretext for intimidation of Congress come up for discussion? What has organizing a mob got to do with “potential legal remedies?” The events of January 6th were put in motion weeks earlier. Who did that? Who knew about it? Why was a mob needed?
The Committee LEGITIMATELY wants to know the answers to every one of these questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can make the argument that the committee could LOOK AT the texts, but having found no reference to interfering in the counting of the votes, it remains a violation of Ginni Thomas’s Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure to leak them to the press.
That is why they were leaked instead of openly disclosed. They know the partisan DOJ will not track down the leaker and prosecute.
But again, for the left, the ends justify the means, You aren’t a fan of individual rights anyway.
LikeLike
…” no reference to interfering in the counting of the votes, “…
“Release the Kraken” has nothing to do with attacking the integrity of the election and therefore interfering with the counting of the votes?
You are delusional in not connecting the dots.
“Partosan DOJ”? Straws grasped. If it truly were as paritasn as you claim, TFG would be in prison already.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, legal strategies are not relevant to an attempt to disrupt and delay the official count.
The committee’s mandate is limited to the Jan 6 riot. None of the texts in any way referred to that event.
But it is interesting that you are jumping on the bandwagon for leaking citizens private conversations to the press for political gain.
After all, you swore the oath to support and defend the Constitution.
LikeLike
…”v”…
Since when did Ginni Thomas get appointed as some adviser that she could offer UNSOLICITED advice to the WH? Kid Rock was at least asked by TFG for advice on things.
And Mrs. Thomas, even if asked, should have declined because of her husband’s position. It’s called ethics and that is VERY lacking in the GOP and it’s far right wing enablers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uh, any citizen can offer advice to the President or his staff. They probably a million or so unsolicited emails every day.
Not all get read and answered but she has a personal relationship with Meadows.
Be careful about those ethics demands, several Democrat politicians are married to journalists. Should they be silenced?
LikeLike
…”she has a personal relationship with Meadows.”
She also has a personal relationship with a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court. Which makes any kind of communication with the WH COS questionable when it concerns matters that could come before the court.
If your wife was on the local zoning board and you were looking for a change to a zoning ordinance to build something on the Compound, would it be ethical for your wife to be part of the decision of the board?
Different set of ethics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True but irrelevant.
Ginni Thomas is a GOP activist and fund raiser, independent of her husband. Wives are allowed to have their own lives.
So it is entirely reasonable that she would have Meadow’s number.
And it is not unreasonable that those communications would be reviewed in the investigation, though normally by the FBI, not congressional staffers.
But upon finding no evidence of a crime related to Jan 6, that should have been the end of it, Using that information for political gain is both wrong and criminal.
How many of those communications exposed the writer to unrelated blackmail? Will we ever know if a Congressman’s unexpected vote was a change of heart or because one of those text messages was to a girlfriend?
The Jan 6 Committee should never have been allowed as the professionals at the FBI were investigating the same thing. But now that it has been formed it must adhere to the same ethical limits we place on the FBI. No political use of its powers of investigation.
This was a violation of that trust.
LikeLike
“This was a violation of that trust.”
The only violation of trust I see it that Justice Thomas did not recuse himself from the 8-1 decision concerning the documents. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is damaging to the reputation of the court.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we’re going to require government officials to recuse themselves whenever their spouse has a conflict, Nancy Pelosi could never participate in issues relating to the economy.
Multiple congressional representatives would find themselves in the same boat.
LikeLike
This discussion is about the Supreme Curt. Congressional recusal has a much higher bar. Mitch McConnel would have had to recuse himself form any discussions about transportation while his wife was the Sec. of Transportation.
Conflating the Supreme Court with Congress in this instance is a desperate strawman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not really,
It comes down to whether spouses of government officials are independent people or not.
LikeLike
Not really. the discussion comes down to whether a Supreme Court Justice can remain IMPARTIAL when cases come before it where actions by the spouse have ANY bearing on the matter.
LikeLike
So, you’re saying that justices should recuse themselves if their spouse has an opinion on a public matter? How about if they have an opinion themselves?
We trust justices to separate their own opinion from their rulings on the law, so why would their spouse’s opinion be a problem?
LikeLike
“So, you’re saying that justices should recuse themselves. . .”
This is not about his wife’s wacko political opinions
According to Constitutional precedent a Judge should recuse themselves from a case under either of two specific circumstances. . .
With his wife’s messages to and from the people whose materials are being sought, Justice Thomas should have applied the second circumstance and recused himself from the suppression case.
And if he has discussed the election-overturning “legal” strategies for Trump to employ as “her friend” with her or with others he should recuse himself from ANY case arising from the insurrection. Because the APPEARANCE of bias is palpable.
LikeLike
You want to apply that standard universally?
If so, then you better appoint only spinster and bachelors to Federal Courts.
LikeLike
“You want to apply that standard universally?”
Uh, that IS the Constitutional standard. And, yes, it should be applied universally.
I would add that it has the effect of requiring close family members of active judges to exercise more than normal caution in speaking and promoting their political beliefs because of the constant danger of creating the appearance of bias.
These January 6th events are not the first time that Ginni’s political and economic activities have brought the reputation of Justice Thomas into question. She seems not to care. With a “friend” like her, who needs enemies?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where is that in the Constitution?
LikeLike
“Where is that in the Constitution?”
I used the term “Constitutional precedent.” I have already linked to an authoritative article on how these circumstances are derived from the 5th and 14th Amendment requirement for due process of law. Here it is again.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Standards for SCOTUS are not the same as for the lower courts
SCOTUS Recusal
And in any case, there is no evidence of bias, only a presumption.
LikeLike
“The Standards for SCOTUS are not the same as for the lower courts”
I am not sure where you get THAT from.
If anything, the standards for SCOTUS are much higher for obvious reasons. However, short of impeachment there is no mechanism to hold Supreme Court Justices to account for the reputational damage they do to the Court. They must police themselves. If that is what you mean. And that is what Thomas is failing to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you not read the link?
LikeLike
So the appearance of bias isn’t detrimental to the perception of the court to be independent and unbiased?
Judge Jackson said she would recuse herself from cases having to do with affirmative action. Why? Because she is a Black woman jurist who MAY have benefitted in some way from those programs.
She showed a lot more integrity during her hearings than Thomas has io this one instance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone can claim a justice is biased about anything, Who decides if the claim is justified?
There are no substitute justices on SCOTUS, so demanding a justice recuse can change the way the court rules. If someone other than the justice himself makes the call, then we don’t get the court’s true ruling. Every important decision would be eclipsed by charges and counter charges of bias based on something a justice wrote in a high school essay.
Jackson is right to make the call to recuse herself on affirmative action issues as she was appointed based on race and gender., but even so, it is up to her, and no one else, to make that call.
BTW, Thomas has been on the losing side of more 8-1 decisions than any other justice. That is a good thing, it tells us he calls it as he sees it no matter what others think.
LikeLike
Universal recusal?
Silly because that would affect every single member of the administration and Congress. All, no exceptions. Why? Because they are responsible to constituents and by unfortunate reality, to any entity that donates.
Judges are appointed to stay above the ethical fray. As Roberts said during his confirmation, they are effectively calling balls and strikes.
Thomas is, by all appearances, like an Olympic judge that has been bought. Ginni has clients that have, or had, issues before the Court, yet Clarence rules on them. SCOTUS is the only court without ethics rules.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“. . . it remains a violation of Ginni Thomas’s Constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure to leak them to the press.”
That is legal nonsense.
Again, you demonstrate the ability to post like you know what you are talking about when it is clear that you do not.
As a matter of fact, it is not even clear if the leaking of this kind of unclassified information is even a crime. The laws governing leaking are designed around national security concerns and not political embarrassment. I tried and failed to find a statute covering this kind of leak. If you can cite such a law, then please do so.
I will say again after yet again being accused of indifference to the Constitution by an apologist for violent insurrection. . .
If you can get in your way back machine and tell us where you complained about them illegality of the countless leaks in the unending Clinton investigations, then you can stay on your high horse. If not, get off it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read the 4th Amendment.
The information obtained with a warrant cannot be used if it is not what is specified in the warrant.
If in the course of a search for drugs, it was discovered that a citizen owned a large collection of BeeGees albums, you would be violating his rights to leak that to embarrass him. BeeGees fandom, as embarrassing as that is, is not illegal and not what was specified in the warrant, and thus must be treated as though never seen .
LikeLike
“Did you not read the link?”
Asked and answered.
It is the second time you have asked.
I give up. What are you hinting at that you think I missed?
LikeLike
Justice Roberts detailed explanation as to why the code of conduct for lower courts does not apply to the Supreme Court,
LikeLike
“Justice Roberts detailed . . .”
You must be looking at a different link. There is no such discussion by Roberts on this brief exposition by Cornell of the Constitutional status of recusal.
I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if Roberts argues that Justices should be able to violate either of these reasons to recuse which apply to every other Court.
Cite?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again https://abaforlawstudents.com/2018/02/21/supreme-court-justices-recusal-code-conduct-united-states-judges/#:~:text=Roberts%20noted%20that%20in%20the%20lower%20courts%2C%20judges,and%20no%20other%20Justices%20to%20take%20their%20place.
LikeLike
Uh, that is an entirely different link to a different web site. It is unclear to me why you twice accused me of not reading my own link? I would hate to think it was a dishonest bit of sophistry. So, what is the explanation for these accusations?
And, BTW, highlighted in YOUR link we find this. . . “The Justices follow the same general principles respecting recusal as other federal judges, but the application of those principles can differ due to the unique circumstances of the Supreme Court”
So yes, there are unique circumstances at SCOTUS, but the PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME. Roberts was arguing for the current system of complete individual independence with respect to recusal without oversight for practical reasons. He was not arguing that they should have different principles to guide them. And the behavior of Thomas’s wife still raises the specter of bias that should have led him to recuse when voting on the suppression of her communications.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t say your own link, but I understand the confusion. I had provided that link earlier in the thread.
LikeLike
“I didn’t say your own link”
Uh, I think you did. Here is your jab in full.
“Did you read your own link?”
There was NOTHING in THAT link about Roberts views.
Later, you asked the question “Did you read the link”
I thought it was a repeat of the first jab. I see now that it wasn’t.
But, for the record, I have read both.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The appellate case
Note page 35
Prior Presidents can claim executive privilege but it is subject to the interests of the Republic and not the prior President alone. That is presumptive that privacy for advisors is generally in the interest of the Republic.
I still believe Thomas was right. The release of the entire tranche of documents rather than individually or by class was in error. For example, the President’s call and visitor logs on and shortly before Jan 6 would have a real investigative purpose, but the text of speeches written but not delivered and talking points not used should remain privileged.
Outside the scope of this particular issue, consider the deliberations within the administration over the appointment of a SCOTUS justice. The nominee and those considered but not chosen would have been carefully examined and questioned and every wart and freckle discussed. Would anybody wish to be considered if they thought such a review would be made public as soon as the White house changed hands?
Executive privilege serves a vital purpose for the republic and Thomas was right that overly broad denials are not in the public interest.
LikeLike
Again, you are changing the subject. I do not think anyone here is arguing about the value of Executive Privilege. I know I am not. But the point you keep skating around is that Trump overreached on what that is to a laughable degree. The Appellate Court did not find ANY of the materials to be covered by that privilege. And they examined them closely and listened to the arguments. Biden was 100% correct to release them. And has been vindicated at every level. But you manage to spin his correct actions and respect for Congress as a bad thing. THAT is what we are going back and forth about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think all of it was subject to release, but even if it all were, the USE of the information for political instead of investigative purposes is a violation of constitutinal rights.
LikeLike
“…but the text of speeches written but not delivered and talking points not used should remain privileged.”
An important aspect of determining culpability in crime is whether or not the person did act knowingly. Draft resolutions, speeches, strategies and advice are all part of that. That oft repeated phrase “plausible deniability” is the working mode of many leaders and their people. “What did he know and when did he know it” is also a familiar line. And a critical one when investigating presidential malfeasance.
If the president was all in on the plans and he knew, or should have known, that they were illegal or based on false premises, then such documentation is important, critical really.
Criminal conspiracies are crimes even if the planned results were not attained. In order to investigate such crimes, privileged information may not be afforded protection. For the good of the republic is now shifted to determining criminal responsibility, and no longer protecting advisors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What you see as the ‘good of the republic’ is getting convictions whether people are guilty or not, or at least destroying the careers of your opponents.
The good of the republic requires that all courses of action be presented to the President, even those you don’t really like. Again, if those are likely to be made public, they will not be presented to the President.
For example, if someone came up with a really stupid talking point, like insisting on regime change in Russia over Ukraine, the staffer should at least offer that to the President, who would hopefully reject the idea out of hand, but if the rejected talking points were to be made public, the staffer, who hopes to be employed in the future, will not advance the idea.
Oh, wait….
LikeLike
What I see as the good of the republic is to avoid another dangerous fiasco of a president who refuses to concede and endangers the peaceful transfer of power through illegal means and violence.
Plotting an overturn of an election to stay in power is an autogolpe, successful in many Third World countries. But a grave danger to the republic.
That is more important than an advisors feelings being hurt, IMO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Autogolpe? You sure like that word.
It’s not about the advisors feelings getting hurt, it’s about silencing them in advance and denying the President options that sound bad but might be necessary.
For dozens of topics, there are politically incorrect possibilities that the President should be aware of that will never be mentioned if those suggestions are not going to remain private if not adopted.
Simply pointing out to the President that efforts to suppress fossil fuel use are not worth the costs or geopolitical consequences would end a Democrat staffer’s career, even though he would be totally correct.
That is the real danger to the republic, a President who is kept in the dark about policies that don’t look good to the casual voter, or worse, to a vocal segment of his base.
Executive privilege has been part of our system since George Washington for good reason, and to discard it now in your maniacal quest for revenge is more of a danger to the republic than Trump ever could have been.
LikeLike
“Autogolpe? You sure like that word.”
I prefer “coup d’état” myself.
But it is the same thing – an attempt to gain or hold power involving violence or the threat of violence. And THAT is exactly what happened on January 6th.
Your hyperbolic defense of “Executive Privilege” is absurd. There is no “maniacal quest for revenge” and the legitimate use of “Executive Privilege” is not under threat. Furthermore, pretending that Trump was acting as President as he searched high and low for some way to overturn the election must be hard – even for you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If the Jan 6 committee were restricting its subpoenas to relevant documents, and keeping irrelevant private communications they stumble upon to themselves, I would agree that searching for evidence of illegal behavior would be justified, but as the committee is abusing its mandate to fish for embarrassing but politically useful tidbits they can use, they cannot be trusted with that power.
LikeLike
“irrelevant private communications”
If you think the communications of a central figure in the attempted coup d’état with a known channel to SCOTUS are irrelevant then you are delusional.
What is actually “irrelevant” is your trying to change the subject to the legality of the press getting early access to the materials gathered. You can rest assured that those exchanges between Meadows and Thomas were ALWAYS going to be part of the final public record. And would do the Democrats more political good if released in, say, October.
LikeLike
So if a president wanted to assassinate a political rival, the advisors who suggested various methods to pull it off and stay in office, privilege holds.
Sorry, but the president is not a secret office. He is our president doing our work for us.
Barring military or diplomatic confidentiality, we have a right to understand what our elected representative is doing.
Democracy is a bit messy that way. Much more efficient to be a dictator, but that is not what our nation is about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If the President seeks advice on how to commit a crime, executive privilege has never been extended to protect that.
But would you have wanted the option to take out Solymani to have been withheld from the President?
Had the President opted not to do so. would you want the fact that it had been considered to be transmitted to the world?
LikeLike
“But would you have wanted the option to take out Solymani to have been withheld from the President?”
Uh, yes.
It was both a very bad idea and of very dubious legality.
LikeLike
That’s a case that could, and should, be made, but the President should be presented with all options.
LikeLike
“the President should be presented with all options.”
Really? What if the President is a person of marginal intellect, morally vacuous, a known scofflaw, and someone who sees nuclear weapons as being a waste if they are not used?
I stand by my preference. I wish Donald Trump had never been given the option to assassinate a foreign military leader because he is obviously too stupid and too callow to pass up the opportunity for his own “We Got bin Laden” moment.
LikeLike
I see. So, the great Paul, who has not been elected should be able to decide what the President, who was elected by the people, should be allowed to choose from.
If you want to run the executive branch, get elected.
Or get installed as dictator.
LikeLike
“I see. So, the great Paul. . .”
Well, as you frequently do, you sink to this bullshit rather than address the issues. I gave a reasonable opinion not too remote from recent history and you come back with this?
Whether a President being presented with “all the options” – and you make it clear that it includes illegal options and war crimes – is a good thing or not is not the absolute good that you claim it to be. If an “option” is so bad that nobody wants to put it forward because they fear exposure of their advice at some distant future time, then it is not an “option” the President should be considering.
LikeLike
Overturning an election illegally is a crime.
You are trying hard to equate the actions of military and diplomacy with an effort to damage our electoral system to bypass a lawful election.
The first is sensitive information regarding the security of our nation in the face of enemies.
The second is about a gang of white collar thugs to compromise the security of our nation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The efforts to overthrow the election, autogolpe, is becoming more and more obvious.
I believe that Trump, with his minions, domestic and foreign, was planning to stay in office regardless of election results. Trump had been attacking our elections as corrupt since 2015.
He and his scurrilous team had pushed Barr, recruited Senators and now we’re learning they had SCOTUS with Thomas as a probable co-conspirator.
“Enemies of the people”?
We have found them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “He and his scurrilous team had pushed Barr, recruited Senators and now we’re learning they had SCOTUS with Thomas as a probable co-conspirator.”
Not necessarily. You may recall that Rudi Giulliani was the leader of Trump’s legal team. According to insider reports, a faction within the team was very unhappy with Guillani’s performance and wanted Powell to take over. Thomas may have tried to influence Trump in that context, in which case there is no issue of concern here.
We’ll need more information before leaping to conclusions.
LikeLike
…”wanted Powell to take over”
The texts have shown that Ms. Thomas was pushing Meadows to put Kraken Lady in charge.
The potential for corruption here is greater and has more proof than anything concerning the Biden’s. Yet the right wing blind crew are out in full force.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“. . . there is no issue of concern here.”
There IS a major issue of concern. No matter what Mrs. Thomas was texting about, or what she said, or why she said it, her texts were a part of the insurrection material that the Congress was seeking and which they had every right to receive. That being the case, Justice Thomas was dead wrong and drop-dead stupid to not recuse himself from the vote. He had a clear CONSTITUTIONAL obligation to do so and failed to do it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse#:~:text=Judges%20recuse%20themselves%20when%20they,interest%20in%20the%20case's%20outcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “No matter what Mrs. Thomas was texting about, or what she said, or why she said it, her texts were a part of the insurrection material that the Congress was seeking and which they had every right to receive.”
Mr. Rothman made an entirely different point, to which I responded. He accused Thomas of participating in the conspiracy to commit insurrection. Obviously, he, you and I have no basis from which to evaluate that particular accusation. The legal issues you address are irrelevant to Mr. Rothman’s charge, whether you are correct or not.
LikeLike
I think you would be hard pressed to make a case against someone based on their spouses views. That would make the spouse of everyone who is selected for a seat on any bench or who runs for any office subject to congressional hearings, political oversight and attack ads. How about their children, cousins, aunts, uncles or anyone in the family tree. This so called slarming news sounds like left wing piffle. Oh wait, it is.
LikeLike
Left wing piffle? That’s all you got?
A sitting justice has a wife who is involved DIRECTLY with the WEST Wing of the WH pushing to overturn the election. Possibly telling the COS that there is a friendly voice on the court and to push to overturn the votes of over 80 million Americans.
The solution for Thomas is pretty simple: Recuse himself from any and all cases having to do with the 2020 election and the 2024 election as well.
This ain’t piffle, Bobr. This is quite serious and needs to be viewed as such. Instead of through your orange colored glasses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uh, yes, sensationalized hyper left wing alarmist piffle.
LikeLike
So if Elena Kagan’s husband started texting Biden’s COS concerning activities about the 2024 election and push to get cases before the court and she refused to recuse, it would be OK in your book?
Your right wing intolerance for others and tolerance for rule and law breaking when done BY the right wing is assholery at its highest level.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I think you would be hard pressed to make a case against someone based on their spouses views.”
Exactly right. Spousal privilege probably applies.
LikeLike
“Spousal privilege probably applies.”
Not with regards to criminal acts. And the wife of a Supreme Court Justice who is attempting to influence and direct actions by the WH in a situation that could come before the court blows away any clear path of spousal privilege.
I also recall a lot of noise about spouse of Congress people possibly using insider info for stock trades. Amazing how that all goes away when it is a radical right wing Justice of SCOTUS and his wife in the spotlight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Not with regards to criminal acts.”
Are you accusing Justice Thomas of a criminal act? Please tell us what it is.
LikeLike
“Please tell us what it is.”
If the evidence shows that his wife was part of the criminal conspiracy and he discussed her plans with her and how he might vote should they succeed in overturning the election, then he became part of the same criminal conspiracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If the evidence shows…”
Yeah, so what does the evidence show at present? Is there enough to pursue an indictment against anybody?
LikeLike
No. His wife.
I do accuse Thomas of misconduct for not recusing himself in any case having to do with the election. His “best friend” is part of the BIG LIE pushers and if you think they don’t talk, your are blind to reality. Again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one but you, Paul and Len have considered anything in this case to be illegal. Even your extremist melodramatic source didn’t broach claiming any illegalities in its “story”. Leave conspiracy stories to Sue Grafton, you aren’t sny good at it.
LikeLike
1) No one said anything was illegal; just against the ethical standards supposedly maintained by SCOTUS.
2) Sue Grafton, rest her soul, was a personal friend of my step mother who read her recorded her audiobooks. I leave my conspiracy theories to Mr. Roberts and his “sources:.
LikeLike
…”your extremist melodramatic source “..
So anti-Trump conservatives are now “extremist”? I’m sure that will be news to the CONSERVATIVES who run and write for The Bulwark. Including Bill Kristol and Charlie Sykes.
You may want to take a closer look at who you are labeling “extremist”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spousal privilege went poof when Ginny’s text messages begging, imploring and calling on God to not concede and then working OT to overturn the election. Trying to get SCOTUS rulings so Thomas can maybe cast a vote favorable to Trump.
Right wing pundits wet their pants about a reference the “the big guy”, but having a “friend” on the court is just peachy.
You want to root out the deep state? Well, the efforts to deny Americans their rightful winner in the election is exposing a much more pernicious deep state among all three branches of government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Spousal privilege went poof when Ginny’s text messages begging, imploring and calling on God to not concede and then working OT to overturn the election. Trying to get SCOTUS rulings so Thomas can maybe cast a vote favorable to Trump.”
How do you know Ginny did all the things you allege? Also, can you explain why spousal privilege went poof?
LikeLike
Read the texts? Obviously not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The texts are not reproduced in the NYT source on which this thread is based. Do you have them?
LikeLike
If we’re going to invoke conflicts of interest for spouses of political figures, then aside from stifling free speech for those spouses, you’re going to burn down your own house.
LikeLike
This is not about Ginny Thomas’s radical unpatriotic beliefs or her right to express them. It is not about whether she committed crimes during the insurrection or was just honestly stupid. It is not even about the possible complicity of Justice Thomas in any such crimes.
It simply about the CONSTITUTIONAL obligation of Justice Thomas to recuse himself when her writings are part of a record being contested and his failure to meet that obligation in a case brought to suppress them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, are we going to insist that Nancy Pelosi step aside whenever an issue that can affect the stock market comes up?
How about Congressional Representatives and staff married to journalists? Should they be censored?
LikeLike
The CONSTITUTION does not deal with the need for Members of Congress to recuse themselves from proceedings. The Congress is left to police itself. (And does a poor job of it).
However, the CONSTITUTION does require that JUDGES recuse themselves – at least according to SCOTUS cases involving the Due Process language of the 14th Amendment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse#:~:text=Judges%20recuse%20themselves%20when%20they,interest%20in%20the%20case's%20outcome
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have seen no evidence of a “strong possibility” that Justice Thomas would be biased in his ruling on the case. If his wife’s written materials and actions were legal in themselves, then he had nothing to protect her from.
LikeLike
Did you read your own link?
LikeLike
Uh, I read my own link.
And I understood what it said.
It was actually quite easy to comprehend. I am not sure what you found to be difficult. Here, try again. . .
“Judges recuse themselves when they take no part in deciding cases that they would otherwise help decide. The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:
In either case, it does not matter whether or not the judge is actually biased. What matters is that even if the judge is not biased, the high probability of bias still damages the integrity of the judicial system. Any party in a lawsuit may request that a judge recuse him or herself.”
If you are going to argue that neither party asked him to recuse that would be that with the documents suppressed only he would know about the obvious conflict of interest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Uh, I read my own link.”
Did you understand it? Please tell us, where is the “high probability of bias” if Mrs. Thomas’s “written materials and actions were legal in themselves,” If she did nothing wrong, what did her husband have to be biased about?
LikeLike
The materials created by his wife which Thomas voted to suppress may or may not have been illegal in themselves, they may or may not have been evidence of seditious conspiracy, but they are certainly embarrassing and politically damaging. That is plenty for the second standard which involves the integrity of the Court. He should have voted according to the law – as the other Justices did – or he should have recused himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”political figures,”
SCOTUS justices are NOT political figures. THey are to be INDEPENDENT jurists.
You just fleeced yourself with that observation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ginni Thomas is not on the supreme court.
It was her rights which were violated.
LikeLike
“It was her rights which were violated.”
What right was violated?
Her right to privacy?
A right which you people say does not exist when you attack Roe V. Wade which was based on that right.
If you can get in your way back machine and tell us where you complained about them illegality of the countless leaks in the unending Clinton investigations, then you can stay on your high horse. If not, get off it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
4th Amendment You know, the Constitution.
LikeLike
“4th Amendment You know, the Constitution.”
I know it. You apparently don’t.
The materials in question were lawfully subpoenaed. That has been decided at every level of our Court system. Too bad for Ginni that she sent stupid and embarrassing text messages to a senior government official lawfully subject to that lawful subpoena.
Was it unlawful for a member of Congress to share materials gathered with the public before they were published by the Committee? I honestly don’t know, and since you ducked the challenge to cite the law violated it seems you do not know of one either. So, I doubt there is a prosecutable crime involved. If there is, it is a crime that has not bothered you when Republicans have done the same thing countless times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She sent unsolicited legal advice to the Chief of Staff of the President. Do you have Mark Meadows’ cell phone number, official or personal, in order to do that? Her “best friend’s” position of trust on the court calls into the question of conflict of interest for the Justice. Unless of course you believe the cock and bull story she told prior to the reporting of her texts that she and her husband don’t talk about politics.
Consider that her entire being is taken up these days with attempt to overturn the election by any means necessary. And spreading baseless almost unbelievable stories. Like election workers and Biden himself were being held off the coast of GITMO awaiting military tribunals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Her rights were not violated by the release of the texts. Congressional investigations have info leaked all of the time, by both sides. You take no issue when the investigation is against anyone on the left. But as soon as it is a right wing conspiracy theorist, or spreader, their rights are violated.
You are blatantly so hypocritical you can’t even see when you do it. It is akin to telling a lie so often, it becomes truth in the mind of the teller.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The hypocrisy belongs to you.
It doesn’t matter which side does it, leaking information obtained by subpoena that is not criminal and is unrelated to the probable cause for the subpoena is a violation of the 4th Amendment. .
LikeLike
“… is unrelated to the probable cause for the subpoena is a violation of the 4th Amendment…”
Unrelated?
Do you know why the Capitol was attacked by people who had cuffs and weapons?
A concerted effort for months to overturn the election with courts, phony statements, crazy theories, extortion…that is just for starters. Any parties’ communications involved in that are legitimate and relevant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Millions of people believe that the election was tainted in some states, but only a few hundred participated in the riot.
If you think that the actions of those few make the millions criminal, you have become far more deluded than Trump.
LikeLike
“If you think that the actions of those few make the millions criminal…”
You have that backwards. The actions of a few criminal insiders made millions believe the elections were tainted. And those insiders are the folks that need to answer for 1/6.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is nothing to indicate Gini Thomas was one of those who plotted the disruption of the count.
Believing the election was tainted is not a crime.
It was.
You might remember that within a week of the election I wrote that it had been successfully stolen and that nothing could change it once the states certified the vote. The unlawful changes to the voting procedures did change the outcome but by waiting until after the results, the GOP had lost its chance to hold a fair and honest election.
After the fact there is no way to unwind the fraud made possible by ballot harvesting. Little by little the truth comes out but too late. Nursing home fraud, in particular, was massive and in many states.
But we can’t ever prove or undo it, and at the same time, we know that fraud was rampant.
You would have to expect frustration and anger, but of the millions furious over the fraud, only a few hundred took unlawful actions. That’s actually proof of their acceptance of the Rule of Law.
LikeLike
Your attempt to claim massive fraud has been laid to rest so many times I have lost count. Not one single court in the country found any evidence of the widespread fraud you keep whining about.
Facts and legally proven lack of evidence do not sway the blind. Powell and Giuliani claimed fraud repeatedly in court yet never produced any real evidence or proof; just random piece of flotsam and jetsum that no court found credible. So based on what you are saying the entire justice system is now corrupt and complicit in the massive fraud whereby 80 million voters “stole” the election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet that belief is not a crime, and thus my 4th Amendment rights are retained.
And so are Ginni Thomas’s
LikeLike
Answer my statement: Is the court system in the several states, as well as the federal judiciary complicit in the fraud you claim? You brought it up. I called you on it.
And I do not believe that Mrs. Thomas’s rights were violated. Her texts show her involvement in a conspiracy to overturn the results of the election. They are also clear enough to indicate her “best friend” should recuse himself form any case that comes before the court concerning any of her involvement with her far right wing conspiracy laden accusations.
LikeLike
The texts show no participation in planning the Jan 6 disruption.
Contesting a suspect election in the courts is not illegal.
The two things are not connected.
At that point, further inquiry is an abuse.
LikeLike
“ The two things are not connected.”
So the attacks on 1/6 would have happened anyway, whether Trump conceded or not. Whether he spread the Big Lie or not?
1/6 was all about the election unless you can come up with another theory. “Hang Mike Pence” was not about his bad choice of ties.
First, the job was to cast doubt on the election. Then conjure the the illegal concept of a VP picking the president through rejection of ballots. Then holding a rally with rousing call to “trial by combat”.
The traitors in the administration, Congress and now the Court were choreographing and pulling the levers for months.
That is the abuse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Did Ginni Thomas suggest hanging Pence? or unlawfully interfering in the process?
Nope. She only advocated legal challenges in the courts.
A few of our posters here have advocated a drift toward socialism. Trying to achieve that end through persuasion is legal, violent revolution is not. The flawed economic theories are behind both approaches. In the same way, belief that the election was flawed could lead to both legal and illegal means of resolution. You still can’t punish the legal approach because it stems from the same belief.
There is a sharp line between what is legal and what is not. and since Mrs. Thomas did not cross that line there is no justification for political use of her private communications.
LikeLike
…”that the election was flawed could lead to both legal and illegal means of resolution”
The legal means of resolution were done. PERIOD.
Yet the ILLEGL means continued by the “Stop the Steal” crowd.
LikeLike
Do you have any evidence that Ginni Thomas participated in any unlawful effort?
If not, then her 4th Amendment rights apply and have been willfully violated. Why is it you have no interest in investigating that crime?
LikeLike
“She only advocated…”
And why would anyone acknowledge a conspiracy nutjob unless they has contacts? And that included a sitting justice that would be favorable to planner of the autogolpe.
And he showed his bias when ruling on election fraud appeals and suits.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Guilt by speculation.
Small wonder the Democrats are trying to remake the FBI in the image of the KGB
LikeLike
The commission is not a court of law. It is a bipartisan inquiry into the unprecedented attack on our Capitol so we can prevent such things in the future.
Legal issue will be adjudicated in the courts if needed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And how does releasing the private communications of citizens who had no part in that attack further that cause?
It’s time you admit it was pure political abuse of the access they were given.
LikeLike
…”trying to remake the FBI in the image of the KGB”
Sorry, but you are projecting what TFG attempted to do.
LikeLike
Yet you still refuse to answer if the several courts, including federal, were complicit in the non-existent fraud you keep claiming.
“Contesting a suspect election in the courts is not illegal.”
True. And it was done. And the courts threw out almost every single case based on the merits (ie, lack of credible evidence). To continue that fight, even AFTER all of those decisions were handed down, is pointless. Yet the “Stop the Steal” crowd, including Ginni Thomas, continued. And when the courts failed to rule in their favor, based on a preponderance of the evidence, or the lack of credible evidence, they concocted the rally which led directly to the attack on the Capitol. She may or may not have been part of the planning. The blackout period of her texts with Meadows between November and January 10th may show how much involvement she had.
It all ties together nicely. And the attempt of Clarence Thomas to deny access to records relevant to potential criminal activity now show a great potential for a serious breach of ethics in his not recusing himself form that particular case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Conviction by speculation?
How KGB of you.
LikeLike
All I am calling for his recusal due to the UNSOLICTED advice sent by his wife. Conflict of interest applies here.
LikeLike
How? Do you even know if he agrees with her?
LikeLike
“Do you even know if he agrees with her?”
His lone dissension in the one case that has come before the court seems pretty damning.
Oh, wait. He is the only one who interpreted the law correctly. 😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now you get it.
LikeLike
Sarcasm emoji!
LikeLike
“ But we can’t ever prove or undo it, and at the same time, we know that fraud was rampant.”
I am relieved to finally understand your position.
You have no evidence and no proof, but you just know that fraud was rampant. Fraud so poorly executed that Republicans gained seats on the same fishy ballots.
Because you say so.
Silly for sure, but at least I know how you arrived at your conclusions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, just for a start
Wisconsin Nursing home fraud
Do you seriously think this was only done in Wisconsin and Louisiana?
And that is far from the total doors opened by ballot harvesting.
Ballot harvesting makes it impossible to ever know to what extent the vote was fraudulent. But to claim no fraud is ludicrous.
LikeLike
“ The elections commission, split evenly among Republicans and Democrats, in March 2020 voted unanimously that poll workers could not be sent into nursing homes. The commission voted 5-1 in two follow-up votes extending the order through the November 2020 election before rescinding it in March 2021. Instead of sending in voting deputies, the commission directed clerks to mail absentee ballots to nursing home residents who had requested them.”
So, it was unanimous and bipartisan.
I think we all know most of the older folks voted Republican. “Everybody knows that.”
You want mentally incompetent people who cannot handle their own affairs so they receive SS disability checks to have access to guns.
But they shouldn’t vote?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mentally incompetent in the sense used in the try to eliminate gun rights was needing help to balance their checkbooks.
We had 95 to 100% voter participation in nursing homes where half the residents couldn’t recognize their children.
But true, old people do tend to vote Republican, at least util they become mentally incompetent, or die, then they vote Democrat.
LikeLike
Whether or not the states, (most of them, red and blue, BTW not just the swings) used emergency rulings for the pandemic is up to the states.
Suing after the fact was tried and slammed for obvious reasons: you can’t change the rules because you lost. And we know there was literally no fraud among the voters. Aside from a few Trump voters who thought their dead mothers could vote.
I would worry more about the new voting rules in red states that are so complicated, even Republicans can’t figure them out. (See Texas primaries.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you remember, I wrote that waiting until after the election was too late.
But of course we aren’t talking about changing the rules we were talking about blocking unlawful changes to the rules.
Still, before the election was the time.
LikeLike
It PA it was a bipartisan change. I don’t recall exactly but so were other states.
Bottom line is that all voters had the same rules.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It was bipartisan in PA, but contrary to their own law, which required an Amendment to the state constitution.
In most of the states, they were made by the executive branch, or local registrars, and the US Constitution requires the election to be held in the manner prescribed by the legislature.
LikeLike
I understand your point, but there is also the matter of states’ rights. If a particular state decided that the pandemic emergency would be best handled by allowing more mail in voting and other reasonable accommodations and those emergencies were codified earlier or state officials got the nod, then legality would have to be determined by a court within the state.
Before the election.
As I wrote, all voters were accorded the same accommodations no matter their party.
If, in fact, these changes were the main argument for fraud, they did not emphasize or even mention it in most, if not all, the 60 odd court cases. What was offered were bogus reports, hacking by satellites, leaky pipes, suitcases in the night, etc.
I would wager that if you asked most Americans who believe Trump, they would not refer to a possible legislative issues with regards to both the Constitution and its interpretation on the state level about its legality.
Considering all the high powered legal ammunition that the previous administration dealt with, I think that if the cases had a better shot about legislative malfeasance in the states, they would have gone that route rather than statements about not sitting close enough to the counters. I think that is why the prestigious firms quit. There were no cases that could overthrow the election. And most of the conspiracies were ridiculous.
Bottom line, if there were no true legal remedies, then the attack on 1/6 was not only illegal, it was based on nothing except exhortations to use violence by numerous parties before and during the rally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I really don’t care if most Americans don’t understand the issue. The Constitution requires that electors be chosen in the manner designated by the legislature.
Unless the legislature has specifically authorized the executive to make emergency changes then any change made by the executive or bureaucracy is unconstitutional.
There is no wiggle room because you or I think it is a good idea. It’s black letter law.
LikeLike
“It doesn’t matter which side does it”.
I don’t recall ANY condemnation from you on anything that has leaked about Hunter Biden or any other Democrat. Yet you are crying to the hilt because Ginni Thomas’s text messages, which became part of the public record when they were sent to the WH COS have been released.
Yeah, You are the hypocrite, not I.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about Hunter Biden has been obtained under Subpoena and leaked to the press?
HB abandoned a laptop at a repair shop, signing a work order that specified that if not reclaimed and paid for in 90 days it became the property of the shop owner.
The contents were copied and the laptop turned over to the FBI. The copy was delivered to Guiliani and was legally released.
The press suppressed the true and factual information until after the election.
Mrs Thomas’s texts were sent to Meadows, and were communications by a private citizen.
Not at all the same thing.
LikeLike
…”communications by a private citizen.”
As soon as they were transmitted to Meadows, they became part of the PUBLIC record as White House Records due to his position as COS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps, but they are still irrelevant to the mandate of the committee and thus should not be used for political gain or blackmail.
In your quest to destroy Republicans, you have blinded yourself to a real danger, When records are scooped up en masse, lots of irrelevant things are captured. That could include messages form a Congressperson to a paramour, or posts to a Bee Gees fan club. Would you want such things held for future blackmail? Keep in mind that it won’t always be Democrats doing the investigating.
Is that how you want government to be run?
LikeLike
“… it won’t always be Democrats doing the investigating.”
We already know how that works. Benghazi had more lives than a cat.
Which, BTW, was about an attack on American soil by terrorists for political reasons. 1/6 was pretty much the same except closer to home. Except it will be done with one Congressional investigation instead of multiples.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Is that how you want government to be run?”
You didn’t seem to have issue with it for the previous 4 years.
And it is not a quest to “destroy Republicans” as you assert. (Funny how you want to destroy Democrats and that is just fine.). I DO want the rule of law to be followed, and not some definition that you have made up.
Mrs. Thomas’ right to privacy, vis a vis, the 4th Amendment, was lost when she sent her text to a public official and it it became part of the public record. Unless you are claiming that Mark Meadows’ position is not that of a public official.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Jan 6 committee has a mandate ot investigate that incident, not to use subpoena powers to spy on Republicans for political advantage.
And I don’t want to destroy Democrats, I want people to see them as they are, and the rest will take care of itself.
LikeLike
“The Jan 6 committee has a mandate to investigate that incident, not to use subpoena powers to spy on Republicans for political advantage.”
Sorry, that ship has sailed. Investigating the seditious conspiracy leading up to January 6th is inseparable from political advantage for the Democrats. The reason is obvious – trying to overthrow the government is a bad thing and the people who did it are going to be hurt politically when the facts surrounding their crimes are disclosed. Investigating what they did is not “spying.” And the communications you say are irrelevant are, in fact, highly relevant.
LikeLike
“And so are Ginni Thomas’s”
Your stubborn confusion about 4th Amendment rights is edging on the bizarre.
She was NOT the subject of any search and seizure. Reasonable or otherwise. When the text communications of those involved in the events of January 6th were lawfully gathered hers came to light. Too bad they were stupid, embarrassing, and worse. They were legally and constitutionally obtained, and they enjoy no particular privilege any more than the PRIVATE messages of Sidney Blumenthal were accorded when Hillary Clinton’s communications were subpoenaed.
These legally obtained messages were leaked. That does not change the legality of how they were obtained. Was it a crime to leak unclassified materials? If it is, you have failed to cite which law was violated. And you never objected when the Clintons’ private messages were leaked on a daily basis.
You keep saying that spreading and communicating about bogus legal theories is not relevant to January 6th. Wrong! It was a bogus legal theory that was settled on to play the role of pretext for violence. To his eternal credit, Mike Pence would not go along, and the coup d’état failed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“How KGB of you.”
Less KGB than accusations of serious crimes without ANY evidence.
Something that you do all the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person