Now that the January 6 committee is in recess until the fall session of Congress begins, the prime-time superstar Democrats on the committee, along with their two never-Trump Republican coconspirators have to find something to keep them busy. Liz Cheney took the opportunity this weekend to keep her face on television by sitting down with Jake Tapper on his show, perhaps hoping to ensure that there is absolutely zero chance she will win her primary in August. In addition to the usual ranting about how the Bad Orange Man is Bad and a Threat to Democracy, Cheney discussed another future target for the committee. That would be Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Mrs. Thomas has thus far not expressed any interest in testifying before the committee, so Tapper asked Cheney if she planned to issue a subpoena in an effort to force her to come in for questioning. Cheney quickly agreed that such an option was definitely on the table, though she “hopes” that it won’t be necessary. (Fox News)
Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., suggested on Sunday that the Jan. 6 committee would subpoena Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, if she does not agree to testify willingly…
“She was writing to them about efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, not to mention her correspondence with Arizona lawmakers pushing fake electors,” Tapper added. “Is your committee planning on talking to Ginni Thomas, even though her lawyer has expressed a reluctance to cooperate?”
“We are — the committee is engaged with her counsel. We certainly hope that she will agree to come in voluntarily. But the committee is fully prepared to contemplate a subpoena if she does not,” Cheney responded. “I hope it doesn’t get to that. I hope she will come in voluntarily. We’ve certainly spoken with numbers of people who are similarly situated in terms of the discussions that she was having that you’ve mentioned.”
This entire topic should have led to the obvious question that anyone would be asking, though Tapper never got around to it. What possible role could Ginni Thomas have played in the January 6 riot? What important information might she be “hiding?” Jake seemed to try to offer Cheney a lifeboat here by posing some suggestions. He mentioned that Ginni Thomas had “repeatedly corresponded with then White House chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Trump lawyer John Eastman.”
READ RELATED: What was up with that Dallas airport shooter?
Okay. And…? So she made some phone calls to members of the White House staff and one of Trump’s lawyers. So she might be guilty of what? Talking? Saying things? Is that not allowed under the Biden regime? Maybe she was just trying to pump up her prospects for a presidential run.
Let’s remember that on January 6th of last year and in the weeks and months leading up to it, Virginia Thomas was not a holder of any elective or appointed office in the government at any level. She has held various government jobs in the past, but she’s primarily worked as a lobbyist for quite a few years now unless you count a stint on the board of directors for the Library of Congress. She wields no official political power, just like any other lobbyist or spouse of a prominent political figure.
So let’s say that she actually did make some phone calls to people on Trump’s team on January 6th, something I’ve never heard her deny. Let’s paint a worst-case scenario (or at least “worst-case” in Liz Cheney’s mind) and say that she thought the election was stolen and she was encouraging people on the President’s team to stop the certification of Biden’s election. Again… what of it? She had no power to make that happen, and of course, it didn’t happen. The entire process played out the way the system is designed to operate after a brief delay caused by the riot. So she was “talking to people” which is now apparently a crime.
If she refuses to testify in front of what has obviously turned out to be a kangaroo court, what next? We’ve already seen what comes next in the case of Steve Bannon. He’s looking at two years in prison for refusing to take part in this dog and pony show. Would the Biden administration really take a 65-year-old woman and wife of a justice on the Supreme Court and throw her in prison? Such a thought would have been laughable not too long ago. But the world has changed since Biden took office, and not for the better. Frankly, I wouldn’t put it past them for a minute.
Source:
