It has been less than a week since 11 Oath Keepers were arrested with seditious conspiracy, but the spouse of Justice Clarence Thomas believes that they "have done nothing wrong."
Bulwark's Charlie Sykes pointed to a letter signed by Ginni Thomas along with many other fringe conservatives like the Family Research Council, the chair of the Tea Party Patriots Fund and the president of the Club for Growth. The letter speaks out against Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who serve on the Jan. 6 committee which bothers Republicans who believe the GOP should be unified in protecting those who participated in a "coup," as three retired U.S. Army generals characterized it.
"The actions of Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger on behalf of House Democrats have given supposedly bipartisan justification to an overtly partisan political persecution that brings disrespect to our country's rule of law, legal harassment to private citizens who have done nothing wrong, and which demeans the standing of the House," the letter Thomas signed says.
It adds to questions about Mrs. Thomas that surfaced after the attack at the U.S. Capitol. On Jan. 6, she was supporting the violence as it unfolded on her social media. When screen captures were being circulated, she promptly deleted her Facebook account, as Law and Crime observed at the time.
Mrs. Thomas has a "long history of incendiary rhetoric, particularly online," CNN.com reported in a report about "rankled" former clerks of Judge Thomas.
It prompted progressives to ask the Jan. 6 Committee to call Thomas to answer questions about whether she helped fund any of the operations through her Republican organization Groundswell. Others said that Thomas should be recused from any cases that ultimately involve Jan. 6 as a result.
"Even worse, however, is the fact that no matter how far his wife takes her antics, Justice Thomas will likely not face any real repercussions for it," CNN noted in their expose of Mrs. Thomas. "Under federal law, justices must recuse themselves from cases in which their 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned,' or where their spouse has 'an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.' However, such recusals almost never happen on the Supreme Court. The reality is that while Congress can impeach justices for egregious conduct -- a step not taken since 1805 -- there is no real mechanism for enforcing ethical rules against them."
