Mrs Thomas caught Trang to influence white house

[Nomad]

How long can the right pretend this didn’t happen?

Just as long as they can pretend January 6th was not an insurrection.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Trang?

 

[Monad Portal]

She is in big time trouble



Is that why her hubby is in the hospital


Heard and saw the hard copies of her communications and had a heart attack?

No she isn't.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Correct, he won’t walk, nor does he care about law, his involvement is next to zero, and his vote is always predictable, and given the makeup of the current Court, his being a nonentity doesn’t bother the majority

At the very least he should recuse himself from any case even having the remotest connection to Trump or January 6th, but we all know that ain’t happening, his wife would never allow it

I wonder what the racist right thinks of their interracial marriage. What would TDaK say?

 

[Callinectes]

I appreciate the reference to one of my fave comics growing up. But having that kind of access & using it to try to get a legit election overturned are a big deal.

Yeah, I got it from Garfield if I remember correctly. That must have been 30+ years ago and it still cracks me up.

As for the rest of it, I don't even know what information "they" have, but I guarantee you it's another tofu nothing burger.

 

[Nordberg]

Thomas is the poster boy for refusing to recuse himself in cases that are screaming for him to step out. https://fixthecourt.com/2014/11/thomas-ignores-repeated-calls-recusal/ He is a bad and slanted judge who should do the right thing and quit.

 

[martin]

Okay, here's MY answer: Big fat hairy deal.

What could be a big deal is the fact that her husband was the one and only justice who voted against releasing the White House documents that have brought his wife's text messages to light. My own take on this, however, is
different from the suggestion in the linked article. There was no advantage for Thomas being the only vote against the release...unless he didn't know what the other votes were. Instead, it could only support the suspicion raised in the article.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clar...preme-court-ethics_n_623dd29be4b0bcc5b4787724