Clarence Thomas Would Incriminate His Wife by Ruling on Insurrection Case, Legal Analyst Argues

On Thursday, Glenn Kirchner, a former federal prosecutor and legal analyst, wrote on X that Thomas risks incriminating his wife by ruling on whether the Jan 6 riot was an insurrection.

Sticky situation

Illustration. Image credit: Shutterstock

“Want to see a judicial conflict?” Kirschner wrote on X. “If Clarence Thomas participates in tomorrow’s argument in the Trump disqualification case: if Thomas rules that what happened on 1/6 was an ‘insurrection’ that will further incriminate his wife who may have assisted it. That is an ACTUAL conflict.”

Alleged involvement

close up of conference meeting speacher gestures. Politician, businessman, law — Image by Depositphotos.com

According to an investigation published in Sep 2022 by the Washington Post, Ginni Thomas pressured lawmakers in Arizona and Wisconsin to block the certification of Biden’s victory. “Take action to ensure a clean slate of Electors is chosen,” Thomas urged Arizona state lawmakers.

Disproved claims

Illustration. Image by Depositphotos.com

Thomas also claimed legislators “have the power to fight back against fraud.” In Dec 2021, the Associated Press revealed that an investigation of over 25 votes cast found fewer than 475 potential instances of fraud. Reporters confirmed these would not have affected the outcome of the election.

Other emails

Ginni Thomas also emailed John Eastman, who was Trump’s legal advisor. Eastman then tried to convince Pence to overturn the 2020 election, something Pence refused to do.

Investigated

In December 2022, the Jan 6 Committee questioned Ginni Thomas over her alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In June 2022, Thomas called these allegations “misconceptions.”

On her phone

For weeks after the 2020 election, Thomas repeatedly texted then–White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to “make efforts to overturn the results,” NPR reported in March 2022. According to CBS News, a total of 29 text messages were exchanged between the pair.

Ethical question

Illustration. Image credit: Depositphotos

“By reaching out to Mark Meadows and possibly others, [Ginni Thomas] became part of the Stop the Steal team,” an NYU law professor told NPR. “That team’s strategy included eventual appeals, if necessary, to the Supreme Court.”

Lone opposition

In January 2022, the Supreme Court blocked Trump’s attempt to withhold White House documents concerning the Jan 6 riot. Justice Thomas was the only dissenter.

Hard to believe

“NO CHANCE [Clarence] Thomas had no idea what was going on right under his nose,” Democratic political strategist Lindy Li tweeted in June 2022. “He’s either complicit and/or dangerously incompetent, both of which underscore the necessity for his swift removal for the sake of our republic. He has rendered the Supreme Court a marketplace of corruption.”

Network of corruption

Target audience, marketing segmentation, customers care, labour market, customer relationship management (CRM) and team building concepts. — Image by Depositphotos.com

“Lead insurrectionist John Eastman clerked for Clarence Thomas,” Li wrote. “Lead insurrectionist Ginni Thomas is married to Clarence. Clarence was the ONLY Justice to vote to prevent Jan 6 investigators from accessing Trump docs. Clarence is corrupt beyond repair. Long past time for him to go.”

Dark money

In 2023, ProPublica published numerous reports detailing how Thomas had benefitted from his personal relationships with conservative donors, including billionaire Harlan Crow. Thomas received numerous gifts worth tens of millions of dollars, which he did not disclose on government forms.

Unclear path forward

“The Constitution makes it virtually impossible to discipline or remove a corrupt Supreme Court justice,” Vox reported in May. “Supreme Court justices … don’t have much oversight other than Congress,” CBS News Chief Election and Campaign Correspondent Roberta Costa told NPR in March 2022. “They can be impeached, but there’s no sort of oversight board or rulebook for Supreme Court justices, so a lot of this is going to come down to what Congress decides to do, if anything.”