I must admit I missed the significance of this in the bombshell Washington Post report on Ginni Thomas’ texts with Meadows about overturning the 2020 presidential election, which I wrote about in yesterday’s post.
When Meadows wrote to Thomas on Nov. 24, the White House chief of staff invoked God to describe the effort to overturn the election. “This is a fight of good versus evil,” Meadows wrote. “Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”
Thomas 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!”
The Post added that it was “unclear to whom Thomas was referring.” But, as The New York Times points out, Ginni and Clarence Thomas have “publicly referred to each other as their best friends.”
Mrs. Thomas came up with what I called the “I didn’t inhale” excuse when she recently claimed, in a carefully parsed statement, that she stays out of her husband’s “legal lane” and that their discussions are “limited to public information.” But it’s long been obvious that the two are walking conflicts of interest which the media establishment has pretty much ignored until now. However, there has never been direct evidence, possibly until now, that Ginni and Clarence worked together.
Of course, it’s possible Mrs. Thomas was not referring to her husband in the text and it’s possible she never discussed attending the “Stop the Steal” rally with him. But only the kind of people who would paint Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as a Black racist, radical pedophilia lover could believe there's any excuse for Mr. Thomas not to recuse himself from any and all cases related to the election or the January 6th insurrection.
But perhaps this and other texts will change some minds. The Jan. 6th committee has been debating for several weeks whether to ask Ginni Thomas to testify and to subpoena her records for other communications, the Times reports, with Republican member Liz Cheney wanting to “avoid any aggressive effort that, in her view, could unfairly target Justice Thomas.” But on Friday, “despite the potential for political backlash, Ms. Cheney indicated she has no objection to the panel asking Ms. Thomas for a voluntary interview.”
Meanwhile, more shoes continue dropping. On Friday, NBC News reported that Ginni Thomas emailed an aide to incoming Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks in response to their request for her input:
Thomas wrote to the aide that Freedom Caucus members were tougher than RSC members, were in the fight and had then-President Donald Trump’s back, according to the source familiar with the email contents. Until she saw RSC members “out in the streets” and in the fight, she said, she would not help the RSC, the largest caucus of conservatives on Capitol Hill.
Her November 2020 email came in response to a request from the RSC to offer policy recommendations as Banks was set to take the helm of the group in early 2021. But when Thomas portrayed the RSC as soft in its support for Trump and told its members to take to the streets, the aide thanked her for her suggestions and moved on.
Friday night, UC law and political science Professor Richard Hasen discussed with Ali Velshi the seriousness of the situation.
HASEN: I think it's a potential liability for Ginni Thomas. That, is she could face civil or criminal liability for what she was trying to do to overturn the results of the legitimate election. … When Justice Thomas ruled on a case about whether certain [Jan. 6] documents can come in, or what's the definition of sedition is, or whether or not there was interference with an official proceeding, all kind of legal -- relating to not just the January 6th insurrection, but all of the events after November 3rd, when Donald Trump tried to turn himself from a loser into a winner, her own liability, even her freedom is potentially at stake.
I do agree … this is a game-changer. Whether Thomas knew it or not, he does now. He has the duty step aside.
[…]
Justice Scalia felt the need to write an opinion explaining why he was recusing himself [from a case involving his hunting buddy, Dick Cheney]. At the very least, I think the chief justice should ask Justice Thomas to explain himself. If he doesn't, and he does agree to hear one of these cases, I think it is appropriate for Congress to open an investigation into this crisis.
