Recusal for thee but not for me.
Ethics hypocrisy
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Ethics hypocrisy? I’m more inclined to call it ethics ignorance.
Surely a spouse is entitled to express any opinion he or she wishes. If there is no illegality in the expression, then it must be impossible for the non-expressive spouse to be held accountable under any reasonable standard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You people and the WSJ want to pretend that the recusal pressure on Justice Thomas is about his wife’s bizarre beliefs and political activity. It is not. She has been there and very active in extremist politics for decades. Since at least 2010 she has been selling herself based on her family connections to paying clients with matters before the Court (looking at YOU Hunter Biden). Even though her commercial activity is unseemly, it has not generated much pressure on Justice Thomas.
The reason for the pressure now is simple. She involved herself in the plotting to overturn the election, evidence of her involvement was part of the materials that Justice Thomas (“my friend”) had to have known about when he voted to suppress it. That is a clear conflict of interest and his failure to recuse is disqualifying for Thomas with respect to future insurrection cases. It has nothing to do with abortion, guns, voting rights or any other hot button “conservative” issue.
Of course, he does not have to recuse himself and probably won’t. Years of permitting his wife’s “consulting” activities show that the reputation of the Court is not a priority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What evidence have you that she participated in the planning of the temporary occupation of the Capitol Building?
All but one of the texts was from November and none referred to anything other than legal strategy.
Do you have some secret evidence or is it just your imagination?
LikeLike
Your unending focus ONLY on the Capitol attack is blind. You refuse to accept the fact that this didn’t just happen on a whim because some tourists decide to get a little rowdy during their Capital tour. anyone involved in promoting the Big Lie is complicit in what happened, opinion or action. By feeding the lies, which you still have not backed away from, they were a major reason WHY the attack happened..
And her “legal strategies” were all based on lies, misinformation, and, to put it as bluntly as possible, Trumpist BS. Court cases tossed all of the challenges due to lack of evidence or credible information. So are you again saying that ALL of the courts in ALL of the states and all of the Federal courts were complicit? You never answered the question the first time I posed it. So now I feel the need to ask it again. And again. And again, until you answer one way or the other.
By your reasoning, the Declaration of Independence just “happened” on July 2, 1776.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I focus on the Capitol Riot because that was the part that was unlawful and because that is the extent of the Committee’s mandate.
There are lots of people who would like to try socialism, are they all responsible for the murder of the Romanov children?
Regardless of what you think of the lawsuits aimed at showing fraud in the elections, they were legal and millions of people supported them, only a few hundred entered the Capitol building and only a few dozens did so with an intent to do anyone harm.
So, no, there is zero evidence that Mrs. Thomas did anything unlawful.
LikeLike
“I focus on the Capitol Riot because that was the part that was unlawful”
Uh, that is simply wrong. Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S. Code § 2384) is far more serious than assaulting Capitol guards. That began weeks earlier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really?
Who planned the riot weeks ahead?
Legal court challenges are not conspiratorial. Do you have evidence that Mrs Thomas was any part of the plan, if there was one?
LikeLike
“Who planned the riot weeks ahead?”
Uh, that is what the Committee is trying to find out in spite of court challenges to its work, illegal stonewalling, and now a 7.5 hour gap in White House communications logs.
And, maybe you missed it, but a group of your heroes have already been indicted for seditious conspiracy. Were they alone in that? Inquiring minds want to know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uh, the “legal strategy” was part and parcel of the plans to overthrow the election. They were trying to dream up a plausible legal fiction that they could force through the Senate with the help of violent intimidation. As we now know, they came up with the fiction that the VP has the Constitutional power to simply reject any votes for any reason. (You will not like THAT power when VP Harris is in the chair).
Her discussions of “legal strategy” and her expressed intent to run ideas past “my friend” puts her squarely in the middle of the preparations which, by the way, did not begin the morning of January 6th. Her expressed intent to talk to “my friend” also drags Justice Thomas into the mess IF she really did what she said she would do.
So, you see, no “secret evidence.” Everything I just said is public knowledge at this point. And it is damning to the extent that Justice Thomas wanted her role in it suppressed. All you need is an open mind and a little common sense to understand that there are very serious issues here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, you have no evidence.
LikeLike
“So, you have no evidence.”
Her text messages are plenty of evidence that she was part of the discussions leading to the events of January 6th. And her husband voted to suppress them. Many people believe that he should have recused himself because of the obvious conflict of interest. That is what we are discussing. In case you have lost track.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Millions of people supported challenging the election on court. A few dozen at most sought to break into the Capitol to stop the proceedings.
As I pointed out earlier, not everyone who supports trying socialism was guilty of the murder of the Romanov children.
LikeLike
If her conversations were with her fellow right-wing provocateurs, then it is no issue. Once she crossed the Rubicon of pushing unsolicited legal advice to the COS of the WH, it then became part of the record. Not to mention that she included in her “strategies”, a reference to her “best friend”, and that getting the cases to SCOTUS would find a friendly hearing there, because of her “best friend”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did she advocate to the COS that he take and unlawful action? Or just pursue all legal means?
If nothing illegal was advocated, then her communications were irrelevant to the committee’s mandate and releasing the contents of those private communications, regardless of the position held by Meadows, was a violation of her rights.
LikeLike
RE: “Many people believe that he should have recused himself because of the obvious conflict of interest.”
There is no conflict of interest unless Ms. Thomas did something illegal. Are you accusing her of a crime?
LikeLike
“There is no conflict of interest unless Ms. Thomas did something illegal.”
That is simply not true.
It was NOT in the Thomas family interest that these messages be made public. They are embarrassing to her reputation and to his.
Should, for example, a Justice be giving legal advice (as “my friend”) on any matter that might come before the Court? These messages indicate that his advice was going to be sought. Completely innocent? Or casting about for a legal fiction that might lead to a repeat of Bush v. Gore?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So now Pope Paul Murphy is the arbiter of what opinions Mrs. Thomas may hold?
Certainly the messages were an embarrassment when made public, which is why they were leaked, But doing so was outside the mandate of the committee and thus a violation of the 4th Amendment.
LikeLike
“So now Pope Paul Murphy is the arbiter of what opinions Mrs. Thomas may hold?”
Again, you descend into this nonsense. It is what you frequently do when the discussion is not going your way. No answer to the valid points being made so this. BTW, what happened to “Paul the Great?”
Since you are having trouble keeping up, let me help. I said NOTHING about “what opinions Mrs. Thomas may hold?” You pulled that out of your ass. I simply said, and I was clear, that there need not be a crime for Thomas to have a conflict of interest. Avoiding embarrassment is a non-criminal motive to keep things hidden. Their very existence, let alone their content, is embarrassing.
You just agreed that the messages are embarrassing so in your own back asswards way you have confirmed my simple point – wanting something to remain secret can be motivated by things that are not criminal. Thank you.
LikeLike
But releasing those private communications is excusable ONLY if there was a violation of law related to the Jan 6 riot.
That is the mandate given the committee, and anything non-criminal but private they encounter pursuing their mandate must remain private.
They violated the terms of the mandate they were given and violated her rights.
It’s no different from searching without a warrant, as in Watergate.
LikeLike
Laughable. Again.
I challenged your referring to me as “Pope Paul” and attributing to me things I did not say and what do we get? You expressing your opinion AGAIN of how terrible leaking Meadows’ communications was. And you cannot even cite a law that was broken.
You believe in the law – when it suits you. I have not heard one word of protest about material witnesses defying lawful subpoenas of the Congress. That unlawful defiance is a far worse crime than a leak of unclassified documents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I looked up Democrat in the OED and it’s pronunciation is amazingly hip-o-crit. It’s settled.
LikeLike
You misspelled REPUBLICAN. Bigly!
LikeLike