Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is a lawyer and conservative activist. She was called to testify before the “January 6 Committee” on Thursday. The first question is: about what? As to what purported criminality is she a witness?
NPR says that the committee’s chief focus was Thomas’s communications with John Eastman, quoting California Democratic Rep. Pete Aguilar:
“I’ll say broadly that the committee has been very clear that we’d like to hear from Ginni Thomas, her discussions and coordination to Mark Meadows and specifically to John Eastman,” he said.
Eastman is a law professor who had an interpretation of the Constitution and applicable federal law under which President Trump may have been able to legally challenge Joe Biden’s purported election victory. That didn’t happen, obviously, but so what? Is it somehow illegal to discuss legal ways of challenging alleged election results? Election challenges happen all the time, and occasionally they succeed.
Jonathan Turley, like Eastman a law professor, asks, “Why does a congressional committee care what Ginni Thomas ‘believes’”? Good question! Liberal media have accused Thomas of some kind of thought crime:
Now the media is breathlessly reporting that “Ginni Thomas tells Jan. 6 panel she still believes false election fraud claims,” as if it were a public confession of a reactionary resisting reeducation. On CNN, anchor Jake Tapper declared to viewers that Thomas has not changed her mind and remains “untethered from all of the facts and evidence.”
Select committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) left the voluntary interview with the Committee to report, according to Politico, “she still believes false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.”
Since when is America a country that criminalizes thoughts? Many millions of Americans share Ginni Thomas’s concerns about election integrity–a majority, in fact, according to many polls. As I have said before, I don’t know whether the Democrats stole the 2020 election, but I know for sure that they tried hard to steal it. Much could be written on this subject, but Mollie Hemingway’s Rigged is a good place to start.
Why are Democrats so desperate to ban any suggestion that the 2020 election may not have been entirely on the up-and-up? After all, the Democrats themselves claimed that the 2000, 2004 and 2016 presidential elections were invalid and that the Republican presidents elected in those years were “illegitimate.” So what has changed?
Party designation, obviously; but beyond that, I think Democrats are sensitive about the fact that criticisms of what happened in 2020, often under the guise of a “covid emergency,” are valid. Laws were illegally and unconstitutionally changed so as to weaken ballot integrity in many states. The Democrats deliberately opened the door to voter fraud. Now, we probably will never know whether the margin of fraud was decisive in the presidential election, or not.
Professor Turley adds this:
None of the media even raised the question of whether such interviews could be viewed as harassment or pressure on a member of the Supreme Court.
Good point. One can imagine the outcry if a Republican-led committee interrogated the spouse of a Democratic Supreme Court Justice in a hearing, over which hovered the potential for criminal charges. For disagreeing with Republicans! That, of course, would never happen. But, with Democrats in control of the absurd “January 6 Committee,” that is exactly what just took place. Americans of all political stripes should be outraged.