https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/stuff-you-need-to-know/news/?message=50612
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Complete nonsense. Nothing she said comes even close to conspiracy.
Her words are protected speech. There is no court of law involved. These are stubborn facts, I know. You cannot charge anyone over a private conversation between two people. At least not in a democracy. Police states do it all the time. Perhaps that’s why you’re so enamoured with the thought of locking up people for things they say that you don’t like.
Was there an exchange of money? Was there an attempt on someone’s life? I know you want to criminalize speech, but you guys really need to try to control your fascist tendencies.
Ok, just let me know when she’s charged. I won’t hold my breath because there’s nothing she can be charged for.
Nov 20: Thomas spouse engages White House chief on legal strategy as Trump pursues Supreme Court hearing.Jan 21: Former Thomas clerk Eastman pushes memo on Vice President.Feb 21: Thomas dissents from Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump challenges.Jan 22: Thomas dissents on rejection of Trump’s request on records.Nothing to see here! Asking any questions would be akin to a police state!
He was clearly going through his wife and others to communicate to the admin. Massive conflict of interest. Thomas should be investigated. But they know they can't pin anything on him. Sneaky like a fox.
No you remove him for his failing to recuse himself from cases in which he had a conflict of interest. How are you this dumb?
Which case was there a conflict of interest?
Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent in the Supreme Court's January order rejecting Trump's bid to withhold documents from the January 6 panelOf course we'd have to back and look to see how many other causes Ginni has had her greasy hands in that ended up on the USSC docket with that gross old sex pest sitting in judgement.
They have you here, Shady.Whether Justice Thomas's decision was legally defensible is beside the point, and whether Ginni's texts are constitutionally protected speech is also beside the point.Justice Thomas ruled on a case that decided on whether evidence that included his wife's embarrassing texts could be kept from investigators. That's a massive conflict of interest. Open and shut. -k
No it’s not. You would have to know that Justice Thomas knew of all of his wife’s texts. Without that fact, there is no conflict of interest, at least at the time. Also, the ruling had to do with presidential records, not Mark Meadows texts. It had nothing to do with them.
No it’s not. You would have to know that Justice Thomas knew of all of his wife’s texts. Without that fact, there is no conflict of interest, at least at the time.
Also, the ruling had to do with presidential records, not Mark Meadows texts. It had nothing to do with them.
At issue in the legal fight between the former president and the House select committee were reams of records related to the events of January 6, including presidential diaries, visitor logs, handwritten notes from then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, binders from then-White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, and a draft executive order on election integrity, according to a filing from the National Archives.Trump asserted executive privilege over more than 750 pages of these documents, which were at the crux of his lawsuit against the National Archives and select committee. But Mr. Biden declined to uphold the former president's claims of executive privilege over the documents sought by the panel, and Trump filed suit in October to prevent their disclosure.
lol bullshit. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is more than adequate grounds for recusal.
Yes but is reasonable to say that he might not have known AT ALL ?
When Meadows wrote Thomas on Nov. 24 to "not grow weary" in this "fight of good versus evil," and said he has "staked my career" on overturning Biden's win, Thomas replied: "Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now." She did not say who that "best friend" was, but Clarence Thomas has repeatedly referred to his wife as his "best friend."