Ginni Thomas urged Arizona Republicans to overturn 2020 result – report

And I, you... it seems.....

 

It was just like a normal tourist day, and stuff.

 

Well, we now have confirmation of at least 1 GOP-given tour the day before the event.. would it surprise anybody to know there were others??

The only other tour that turned out worse sailed with the Skipper and his little buddy...

 

After the police raid because of the documentary 2000 Mules, looks like the corrupt election is being exposed further.

 

Aren't they still busy investigating the ballots from North Korea and all of the 10,000 other conspiracy theory nonsense that you have posted about since the election?

Meanwhile in the real world per the Yuma sheriff

I am not familiar with, nor have I ever communicated with, any individuals who may now be claiming I am investigating on their behalf or because of any supposed inspiration from a documentary film.

The Yuma sheriff isn’t investigating election fraud because of '2000 Mules' (azmirror.com)

When this conspiracy theory peters out, what is next on the agenda? Can we get a sneakpeak? Martians voting? 3 trillion dead people voted? The rules of math and logic have been changed to fit the Philly vote steal #s that make zero sense?

 

I suspect we haven't heard the last of the Chinese Communist Party Official Bamboo Ballots (R)... that hits a lot of MAGA buttons and is my personal favorite...

 

An anonymous sheriff......lolz!

 

Pressuring elected officials to overturn the results of an election has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Mr. supposed defender of the Constitution...

 

Pressuring elected officials to do the right thing has nothing to do with it. The election was corrupt.

 

Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot said in an emailed statement to the Arizona Mirror.

Yep lolz

 

Justice Thomas is a fierce opponent of the enemies of the COTUS and the USA.
He is a loner who frequently moves both factions to his position.

“But it was in a third case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., that Thomas made his voice heard most clearly—by his silence. In Walker, Thomas defected from the very First Amendment orthodoxy he defended in Reed. Remarkably enough, he joined the Court’s four moderate-liberals—Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—to provide a decisive vote to allow the state of Texas to refuse to print a specialty license plate bearing the much-loved and hated Confederate battle flag. In an opinion by Breyer, the 5-4 majority held that a government can, with few limits, decide to convey any license-plate message it wants, and bar any that it disapproves. This isn’t “content-based” regulation of speech; the plate is speech by the government itself, and the First Amendment does not apply.

In Walker, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent that could have come from Thomas’s pen. Alito argued that Texas’s rejection of the battle flag was “blatant viewpoint discrimination”—which is, in First Amendment doctrine, worse than the Sign Code in Gilbert.

Thomas goes his own way in most areas of the law he cares about—particularly in constitutional issues. He does not mind bucking even his closest allies—witness the sedate but impassioned brawl between Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia found in their dueling opinions in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Jerusalem-passport case decided last week….

Thomas’s most powerful moment on the bench occurred in a case concerning a similar symbol—the burning cross. The year was 2002; Virginia v. Black was a challenge to a Virginia criminal statute that forbade burning a cross with the intent to intimidate another person. A decade before, the Court had struck down a local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, that made it a crime to use symbols to arouse “anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” Scalia’s angry majority opinion broadly rejected “hate speech” regulation as “viewpoint based,” arguing that, “St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules.”

The Virginia statute had seemed to be on its way to a similar fate. The state, and the federal government, were defending the cross ban as a regulation of “true threats,” which the First Amendment does not protect. But Thomas interrupted this line of argument to ask, “[A]ren’t you understating the—the effects of—of the burning cross? … [W]e had almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South by the Knights of Camellia and—and the Ku Klux Klan, and this was a reign of terror and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror. Was—isn't that significantly greater than intimidation or a threat?”

Even on the audio, the impact of this comment is vivid. Rodney A. Smolla, who was representing the cross burners, remembered in a recent email:

I have never seen the atmosphere in a courtroom change so quickly. Justice Breyer, who sat next to Justice Thomas, put his arm on him, as if to say “I feel your pain.” Justice Scalia was staring at Thomas with extraordinary intensity—the sense of empathy and support was virtually palpable. Justice Scalia’s eyes left his friend Justice Thomas and he looked down and scowled at me, as I was only minutes from getting up to make my argument, and I immediately knew, from his look, that his views on the entire case had just pivoted, and that he was about to come after me—which proved entirely prescient.

Instead of striking the statute, the Court majority only narrowed it slightly. The state had to prove intent to threaten, it held, rather than assuming it from the fact of the burning cross. Thomas dissented even from that. “In every culture, certain things acquire meaning well beyond what outsiders can comprehend. That goes for both the sacred and the profane. I believe that cross burning is the paradigmatic example of the latter,” he wrote. Cross burning, he argued, is not “expressive activity”; it is “a signal of impending terror and lawlessness.”

Thomas changed the law by speaking up that day against the fiery cross. On Monday, he said nothing about the decision he joined. Breyer’s opinion, couched in the dry doctrinal language of “government speech,” said nothing at all about the history or meaning of the Confederate battle flag.

But that history is there on the page, as silent, and powerful, as Thomas’s voice Monday.”
THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Clarence Thomas Takes On a Symbol of White Supremacy, The justice casts the deciding vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, as it backs Texas’s refusal to print a Confederate flag on its license plates., By Garrett Epps, JUNE 18, 2015.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/clarence-thomas-confederate-flag/396281/

 

*LOL*

Yep. Dinesh D'Souza is a great big pile of truth.

 

An emailed statement.....lolz!

 

All that's left is:

Arizona Mirror .... lolz! or
Leon Wilmot.....lolz!

Complete owned.... collar, leash, and all...

 

Hmm... Why was this moved from Current Events to PO&B?? How is this not a current event?

New email disclosures (published by WaPo on 5/20) about a public figure and her un-American activities.

It might be because you didn't ask the obligatory question to stimulate debate.

Next time, go with "Does Clarence Thomas have any credibility as a judge anymore?"

Personally, if he recused from any decisions surrounding the 2020 election, I'd be fine with his wife running her gums 24x7

 

Even the bone as well,

 

Do you want the government to silence her? To forbid her from speaking her mind or freely coming to her own independent opinions as a strong woman, and if she refuses to comply with the received narrative, that her husband will be removed from office?

And you wonder why the Country hears this kind of crap from the Left and thinks they may have lost their collective minds?

Curiously, look what Bill Clinton's wife did: WSJ Editors Eviscerate Lying Crooked Hillary, Lapdog Media in Blistering Op-Ed About Russia Collusion Lies.

​

'It’s time to drop the words “fake news,” “hoax,” and any other descriptor short of blatant and purposeful lies, in reference to Hillary Clinton’s engineering, oversight, and final approval of releasing to the sock-puppet media a preposterous fairy tale that even the worst of armchair sleuths could spot as complete bullcrap."

Bill's wife actually actively worked to rig an election and then overturn the results. Clarence's wife commented after an election and urged the Legislature to ensure that a slate that reflected an unaltered vote was sent to be counted. Bill's wife sent a representative to lie to both the FBI and CIA about a candidate, Clarence's wife did no such thing.

Bill's wife arranged for a Fake News Dossier to be laundered into illegal spying warrants that were used against her political opponent and then used to try to overturn the election results, Clarence's wife did no such thing.

Bill's wife had operatives hack into Trump Towers and into WH servers, Clarence's wife did no such thing.

So, do you see why we are unimpressed with your calls to be outraged at Clarence's wife when you don't have squat to say about Bill's wife?

 

Urging officials to investigated voter fraud and use the same tactics as Dems is free speech.

 

Can you point to some law or some requirement that spouses give up their own personal political beliefs or must somehow censor themselves and just stand quietly behind their husband or wife?

If she violated the law in anything she said then prosecute her, but stop trying to use her to silence Justice Thomas. Ain't gonna work.

 

It's the appearance of inproprietary. It matter when you are a judge, especially a SCOTUS justice.

 

What on earth could you possible charge Justice Thomas with? And yes please cite what law she violated? Do you think we should prosecute everyone who urges others to fight for their causes and justice when they are wrong about it? I don't see where she did anything other the take her belief there was fraud and or unconstitutional acts by local officials which should disqualify electors and the electors should be decertified. The same as Democrats have done the last several elections for President when they objected to certain state's electors.

What "actions" are you talking about?

 

I don't know that we have ever required spouses of judges to give up their free speech and muffle themselves.

Here this article discusses spouses of former justices and how some were activist and some practiced law and no recusals required with case their firms represented.


Ginni Thomas is not the first spouse of a Supreme Court justice to make headlines

The nation’s highest tribunal is normally wedded to precedent. For the sake of the law’s stability and to maintain its own legitimacy, the Supreme Court tries to avoid decisions that would muddy legal interpretations if they changed every few years. The
current controversy over the partisan political activities of Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, raises an intriguing query about another kind of precedent: whether spouses of past justices have engaged in questionable personal or professional behavior.

The modern era of Supreme Court nomination fights began with President Woodrow Wilson’s appointment of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis, in 1916. His progressive ideals, combined with his religious affiliation, made him an obvious target for conservatives and anti-Semites. Known as “the People’s Lawyer,” he shared his liberal ideology with Alice Goldmark Brandeis, his wife, and her sister, Josephine, an activist in the National Consumers League.

Mrs. Brandeis continued championing progressive causes even after her husband’s appointment to the court. At their Washington home, they frequently convened salons where fellow liberals discussed public policy. In the 1924 presidential race, Alice Brandeis supported the candidacy of Wisconsin Sen. Robert La Follette, who headed what was considered a radical Progressive Party ticket. La Follette offered Justice Brandeis the vice presidential nomination, but he declined.

Mrs. Brandeis joined other liberal stalwarts, including her husband’s ally and future Supreme Court justice, Harvard Law professor Felix Frankfurter, in defending two Italian immigrant anarchists, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Venzetti, accused of murder and armed robbery in Massachusetts. She provided Sacco’s family lodging in the Brandeis’s home near Boston. During America’s first Red Scare, supporting leftists was indeed a bold act......

cont..
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...st-spouse-of-a-supreme-court-justice-to-make/

 

Did she have anything to do with the fake elector scheme in Arizona that the DOJ is investigating...

If she was just running her gums, and didn't actually do anything, she's just un-American....

 

While we are talking about official and their wives that may affect our elections... Here is a wife that will never been looked into...

The wife of the judge and judge trying Sussmann's case is a big DNC and Hillary donor.

On top of the $30k her husband Judge Cooper pumped into Dem coffers (inclg $5K to DNC), Cooper's wife Dorothy "Amy" Jeffress donated $26,800 to Dems -- inclg $2,700 to HILLARY in 2016. Sussmann billing Hillary campaign is at the heart of trial Cooper is hearing.

FEC records reveal that Judge Cooper and his wife have given several thousand dollars to the Hillary Clinton campaign & the DNC, yet Cooper is supposed to be objectively hearing a criminal case vs a Hillary campaign lawyer whose firm also represented the DNC

https://mobile.twitter.com/PaulSperry30/status/1528434627718807552?cxt=HHwWgICw-cTMi7YqAAAA

https://mobile.twitter.com/PaulSperry30/status/1528439134209056770?cxt=HHwWhICx9ezSjbYqAAAA

https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Jeffress,+Ames&contributor_name=Jeffress,+Dorothy&contributor_state=DC

 

She didn't ask for an investigation of fraud (which doesn't exist anyway), she asked that the Arizona electors be replaced so that Trump could win the state.