All Perfectly Mainstream And Normal Stuff

normal stuff pic.twitter.com/ixAjSBPzXB

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 2, 2023

According to MSNBC, straight outta Q-Anon. Gitmo; barges; "Biden crime family"; military tribunals: the whole nine yards.

My statement on the release of the transcript of Ginni Thomas's interview with the January 6th Committee: pic.twitter.com/NshLQF8xdB

— Mark Paoletta (@MarkPaoletta) December 30, 2022

"Mainstream." Her activities were "minimal."  She was texting with the White House Chief of Staff.  How many other people even have that phone number, much less that access? She was texting about barges and Gitmo and the "Biden crime family" and "military tribunals" that would be prosecuting that family for "sedition."

And now she's sorry those texts exist.  But, you know, it was an "emotional time."  Women, amirite guys?

She's the wife of an associate Justice of the Supreme Court, with full 1st Amendment rights of free speech and association.  That doesn't mean her associations or speech are ever "minimal," however, and there's nothing about Q-Anon which is mainstream.  Her position gives her access to people in power that even sitting Congressmen may not have (is the spouse of an incoming freshman House member going to have the same easy access to Biden's COS?).  She's not necessarily criminall liable for what she said, but what she said certainly indicts her common sense and her credibilty as a thinking person and as a lawyer.

Let's go to the transcript:

Q Okay. But previously you had been involved in-well, let me ask you. Were you involved in any efforts to change the results of the 2020 election?

A To change? I was involved in trying to identify fraud in a timely manner by certain States that iI had heard through friends or what not or the media. So I certainly was involved in things that were trying to get to the truth, yes.

Let's pause there and point out she preaches it round and square, as the old judge I knew once said.  She's getting reports of fraud from the media, which she deems reliable.  But just a moment before:

They [her friends] don't know if the mediaawill take something that's said out of context, which happened in 2000 when a Washington Post reporter went a little crazyaabout what my work was at the Heritage Foundation where I asked Hill staff for resumes for the new administration, and it became a big curfufle in the press,which seems to be happening today.

Ginni Thomas is just a victim of being misunderstood.

Now follow this closely, I think it's important:

And so based on that and the things I was hearing from friends across the movement, it was quite exciting that there was a new coalition coming together to support President Trump, many more Democrats than we had ever seen in any other elections, in my opinion.

She was getting high on her own air supply, IOW.

And so for those reasons, I was an activist. I was an ordinary citizen activist [who just happens to be married to an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court] in Virginia, not paid by anyone to do what I was doing, but I was active with the Trump campaign and thought he was winning.

Clearly, then when he lost:  fraud!  Except not so fast, because what she says next goes directly to the heart of a case recently argued before the Supreme Court, on which her husband sits.

Q And in the post-election timeframe, did you continue to stay involved in efforts to question or challenge the results of the election?

A I wouldn't necessarily phrase it that way. What I was doing was seeing that it was the State legislators who had power to decide if there were problems in their election.

And so I participated in a mass communication device called FreeRoots that has been, I'm sure, the subject of some of the conversations you guys have had and the media has been interested in, I joined with thousands of people [none of whom are sleeping with a Supreme Court Justice] to push a button [see! I did almost nothint at all!] that sent an automatic email to some State legislators that O did not choose [no fingerprints! Nothing!  I had no responsibility for that button being pushed!] I did not edit that letter. [NOT ME! NOT ME!  NOT ME!]

And so, if that was what you would put in that category of things, doing something [pushing a button is 'doing something'?  Really?  Really?] about the fraud and irregularities at the State level in a timely manner [I thought Trump was winning!  All of my friends said so!], I wanted to get at those because I thought the election was not going the right way.

Let us pause here to note Ginni Thomas is, in fact, a lawyer, and so at a minimum knows that election fraud is proven in a court of law, not by "media accounts" and stories from friends and pushing a button to automatically send an e-mail via a listserv.  And yet this is how she justifies her actions:  there was fraud, it needed to be exposed and state legislatures needed to usurp the democratic process in an unconstitutional manner in order to achieve the electoral outcome she desired, and if her prominence as an activist (newly aroused and activated one, per her own testimony) and spouse of an Associate Supreme Court Justice could help that cause well, then, that's what makes America great, innit?  And besides:  Gitmo!  Crime family!  Sedition! Barges! Military tribunals!

I'm perfectly serious about the usurpation language I used:

Q So there are a few parts of that answer, if I could, that I want to sort of go back and explore a little more with you. The first is this issue of State legislators and their role. I took it from your answer that you came to believe or understand that the State legislators had some role or could have a role in determining the outcome of the election. Is that accurate?

A I would rephrase it just slightly to say I think State legislators are in the position to know whether there were problems, irregularities, or fraud that came to be at their State elections.

Let me just pause here and say it baffles me how anyone can say that with a straight face.  At the same moment Ms. Thomas herself would probably have happily denounced the Committee she was testifying to as being a "witch hunt" if it had served her purpose.

Q And that they had some-that they could do something about that if they determined that there was fraud?

A I hoped so.

I would refer you all, again, to that system of governance we have, where even Congressional committiees that issue findings of fact and criminal referrals, do not sit as courts of law making final determinations as to the outcome of conflicts (such as, was there electoral fraud, or not?) between parties.  As a lawyer and the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, Ginni Thomas certainly knows at least that.

Q How did you come to that understanding that State legislators had that abilityor that role to play?

A How did I? I think it was commonsense at that point. I think you just know that Congress can't exactly do anything, and the people closest to where the voting happened seemed to be who had authority in a time-sensitive way to identify fraud. I know that Congress can't exactly do anything, and the people closest to where thevoting happened seemed to be who had authority in a time-sensitive way to identify fraud.

I will just say the "people closest to" argument is not a legal principle nor even a constitutional one.  It's a conservative talking point popularized by Ronald Reagan but key to the opposition to the civil rights movement and aimed as mainting the white power status quo in southern and western states.  It has bugger all to do with establishing and correcting fraud in elections or any other situation.  Ginni Thomas is arguing for a suspension of almost all the provisions of the Constitution in order to ensure the political outcome she desired.  There's no other way to understand what she is saying.

All perfectly mainstream stuff.  

I'll retire to Bedlam.