The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Ginni Thomas

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed her willingness to speak to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021, in the wake of a Washington Post report that the select committee had evidence of Thomas communicating via email with Trump campaign lawyer and coup plotter John Eastman.

On Thursday, Thomas disclosed to the Daily Caller, a right-leaning outlet, her eagerness to meet with the select committee after Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), the select committee’s chairman, told Axios that the select committee thinks “it’s time that we, at some point, invite her [Thomas] to come talk to the committee.”

“I can’t wait to clear up misconceptions. I look forward to talking to them,” Thomas told the Daily Caller, reacting to reports that the select committee would seek her testimony. However, she did not specify what misconceptions she sought to clarify.

Thomas, a pro-Trump activist, attended the January 6 rally at Eclipse Park in Washington, D.C., but claimed in a March interview that she left before the cheering crowd of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, forcing lawmakers to halt the certification of electoral college votes.

In March, leaked text messages from the phone of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, obtained by the Washington Post and CBS News, showed Thomas repeatedly pressing Meadows — in 29 separate messages — to stand firm in the efforts to subvert the 2020 elections.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!...You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows [Joe] Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History,” Thomas texted Meadows on November 10, 2020, after multiple news outlets projected Biden to be the winner of the 2020 presidential elections.

In early June, new reports emerged that revealed that the extent of the Supreme Court Justice’s wife’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results was greater than previously known. Thomas had not only written Meadows but also 29 Arizona lawmakers, urging them to “consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you do not stand up and lead" before choosing the state’s electors.

While it isn’t immediately clear when Thomas and Eastman communicated, or what they talked about, Thomas has insisted that her far-right activism had nothing to do with her husband.

However, in January, the Supreme Court denied a request by Trump to shield his White House records from the select committee, and Justice Thomas was the lone public dissenter in the court’s order.

Critics have slammed Thomas for defending her activism, arguing that her activities posed problems for her husband, and thus, he should recuse himself from cases pertaining to the election.

Eastman, who authored and disseminated a sinister plan to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was at the center of a pressure campaign against then-Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally reject the electoral votes from swing states that former President Trump lost.

Besides masterminding the “alternate electors” plan, Eastman, a former clerk of Justice Thomas, claimed he possessed inside information of a shouting match within the sacred halls of the Supreme Court regarding the Trump’s election fraud lawsuits, according to the New York Times.

In a 26-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter ordered Eastman in June to hand over a trove of sensitive documents to the select committee, including those he stated “presented evidence of a likely crime.”

Eastman has denied discussing "any matters pending or likely to come before the [Supreme] Court" with Thomas and her husband. "We have never engaged in such discussions, would not engage in such discussions, and did not do so in December 2020 or anytime else," Eastman wrote in his Substack.


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Wandrea "Shaye" Moss

YouTube Screenshot

Just who deserves protection in America?

If you observe the folks this country chooses to protect and chooses to ignore, you may get an answer that doesn’t exactly line up with America’s ideals.

Keep reading... Show less
YouTube Screenshot

The First Amendment reflects a principled but shrewd attitude toward religion, which can be summarized: Government should keep its big fat nose out of matters of faith. The current Supreme Court, however, is not in full agreement with that proposition. It is in half agreement — and half is not enough.

This section of the Bill of Rights contains two commands. First, the government can't do anything "respecting an establishment of religion" — that is, sponsoring, subsidizing or providing special favors for religious institutions or individuals.

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}