Ginni Thomas and the Jan. 6 Committee
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the January 6 Committee’s decision to interview Ginni Thomas. I argued that there is no legitimate reason for such an interview and that the Committee’s move seems like an attempt to embarrass her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas.
Ginni, however, had expressed a desire to testify. I stated that this “may or may not work out well for her.” My fear was that it would work out badly.
Therefore, I’m happy to report that, although Ginni has reaffirmed her willingness to talk to the Committee, her lawyer advised it that “before I can recommend that she meet with you, I am asking the Committee to provide a better justification for why Mrs. Thomas’s testimony is relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose.”
Ginni’s lawyer is our friend Mark Paoletta. Mark, then with White House counsel’s office, was a member of the team that heroically helped Justice Thomas obtain Senate confirmation in 1991, after Anita Hill lodged her last-minute charge of sexual harassment against the nominee.
Mark has been a friend of the the Justice and his wife ever since. And now, he (along with co-author Michael Pack) has written a book called Created Equal, Clarence Thomas in His Own Words.
Mark is determined to a provide a true, candid, and unadorned portrait of Justice Thomas. To this end, he showcases Thomas’ jurisprudence which, although it often consists of dissents, has at times influenced the direction of the Court and consistently promoted intellectual rigor.
In addition, Mark has focused on Justice Thomas’ humanity and humility.
Mark isn’t alone in extoling Thomas’ personal qualities. Justice Sotomayor, a near polar opposite of Thomas in terms of jurisprudence, also did so recently.
She stated that Thomas cares deeply about the people who work at the Supreme Court and knows the name of every employee in the building. Compare this with Donald Trump who claims he hardly knows the top aide to his former chief-of-staff, even though her office was a very short walk from his.
As for Ginni Thomas and the Committee, I strongly recommend Mark’s letter on her behalf. He argues persuasively that the Committee’s alleged justification for talking to his client — John Eastman’s emails, Ginni’s text messages to Mark Meadows, and her form letters to state legislators — provide no basis for an interview.
In addition, the letter contains some gems:
The topics discussed above do not warrant interviewing Mrs. Thomas, and thus all that we are left with to assess the Committee’s intentions is the way the Committee has otherwise communicated about her and other witnesses, or about her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas. For instance, the media’s distorted narrative about Mrs. Thomas, which this Committee has fostered—that she pursued “unrelenting efforts to overturn” an election—is blatantly false.8 And in fact, Members of this Committee and other Members of Congress have taken far more significant steps to challenge election results.
Mark cites, for example, the efforts of Bennie Thompson and Zoe Lofgren to prevent George W. Bush from being certified the victor in 2004.
There’s also this:
There also does appear to be some animus exhibited by Chairman Bennie Thompson toward Mrs. Thomas’s husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Mr. Thompson called Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom,” for the views Justice Thomas holds, despite those views being in line with the majority of black Americans.
Shockingly, Chairman Thompson made these remarks while speaking to The New Nation of Islam, a group that believes, among other things, “that intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited.” Chairman Thompson later doubled down on his comments and said that Justice Thomas “doesn’t like black people” and “doesn’t like being black.
Bennie Thompson is a disgrace. His efforts to come across as a bipartisan voice of reason and defender of “our democracy” are farcical.
The letter concludes with this thought:
Without more information [about why the Committee needs to talk with Thomas], I am left to believe that, if her name were Ginni Jones, the Committee would never even entertain speaking with her.
Mark’s belief is fully justified.
I'm very happy to learn of this. Now Clarence and Ginni can start their motorhome adventures this summer. (Ginni: If you read this and are planning on visiting Nebraska this summer, contact me and will go to Buck's Bar in Venice. Great music and food. The patrons are our peeps. You'll love it.)
Seriously, this was pure Demorcat harassment of the first order. I can only imagine what kind of questions those clowns would ask Ginni. This is just a continuation of the high-tech lynching confirmation hearings. After watching that show trial, I switched parties. I didn't want to be associated with the terrible lying creeps that inhabit the Democrat party. The scales fell from my eyes.
The other thing that really pissed me off was how the Dems said Judge Thomas wasn't intellectually qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. I knew at the time he earned Alpha Sigma Nu honors at Holy Cross. I had to buy my ASN pin, years later, on Ebay.
And how wrong was the assertion that Thomas was a dope? Justice Thomas was not only qualified to sit on SCOTUS, he's turned out to be an intellectual leader.
I've long been a fan of Justice Thomas. I remember one of his dissents in particular, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, it demonstrates Justice Thomas' unique, and in my opinion correct, approach to the Constitution. The case involved jail guard abuse of inmates The Court ruled 8-1 this constituted cruel and unusual punishment. In his dissent, Justice Thomas said punishment required state action, and the guards' actions were private torts. He also supports a much needed review of the Court's interstate commerce decisions, which constitute a bottomless fount of federal power.