There have been a lot of headlines about Ginni Thomas these days. But in somewhat lazy editorial fashion the description of her in these headlines typically includes the description, “right wing activist.”
Nope. She is an insurrectionist. The recent Washington Post revelation that she contacted 29—not just 2 as previously reported—Arizona lawmakers trying to overturn the 2020 election is just the latest.
The evidence presented in the Washington Post clearly shows her relentless pursuit of support for Trump’s fabricated election fraud allegation.
A little background look at Ginni Thomas is interesting. She runs a little-known consulting firm called Liberty Consulting. According to data published by CNBC,
Located in a nondescript strip mall in suburban Virginia, Liberty Consulting’s few known clients range from the Center for Security Policy, a nonprofit founded by a conservative activist accused of anti-Muslim rhetoric, to a political action committee titled FedUp PAC, according to a review of public filings by CNBC and researchers at watchdog Documented. The political action committee backed failed Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, according to Center for Responsive Politics’ data. Moore was accused of sexual misconduct and has denied wrongdoing.
Aside from the obvious facts of Thomas forwarding the “Big Lie” that Trump had the election stolen from him, the big question is why would anyone listen to this woman or give her the time of day. The answer is painfully obvious. She is married to Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
The simple observation is that her influence derives its power from his status.
The Brennan Center for Justice cites:
The facts are simple yet jaw-dropping: Between the November 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, Ginni Thomas texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows 29 times, urging him to stop “the greatest Heist of our History.” One year later, Justice Clarence Thomas, Ginni’s husband, voted to block the release of White House records regarding the insurrection — records that likely include communications by his wife.
The immediate response should be clear: at a minimum, Justice Thomas should publicly explain what he knew about his wife’s communications with the White House, when he knew it, and why he participated in cases related to the insurrection and the results of the 2020 election. He should also pledge to step aside from any such cases going forward.
The Brennan Center goes on to point out that “Supreme Court justices are the only judges in the country without a binding ethics code.” This of course needs to change.
Clarence Thomas’s financial disclosure forms list his wife’s form, Liberty Consulting, as an asset. Little is known about the company and its website has been wiped.
Watchdog group Common Cause wrote more about Liberty Consulting:
Ginni Thomas’ LinkedIn profile says she’s worked since 2010 as the founder and president of Liberty Consulting with “citizen activists, leaders and nonprofits to succeed and have impact in defending the principles that have made America an exceptional nation. — offer strategic advice, build coalitions, connect people and projects (this is my passion and joy!).” Thomas notes on her page that she’s not a lobbyist, even though a Virginia state record shows that the firm was once called Liberty Lobby.
In 2010 the Washington Post noted that Liberty Consulting was:
…a one-woman shop offering herself as a “political entrepreneur” who could advise donors on how to direct their funds. Politics was flush with new money after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, in which her husband voted to allow unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. Critics wondered whether Thomas’s work — and her appeal to clients and collaborators — could be separated from the fact of her marriage.
That question of whether her political activities and her marriage have any daylight between them remains. And with the June 9th first presentation by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Insurrection, this question takes on a new and more urgent level of importance.
Clarence Thomas was the only justice to vote against the release of communications from former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to the January 6th Committee. Which release revealed some of the involvement of his own wife. The need for a ethical standards for Supreme Court Justices is more than obvious. Again from the Brennan Center:
Justice Thomas’s failure to recuse reflects less a gap in the law than a lack of tools for holding justices to it. A code of conduct and public explanations won’t solve the Court’s legitimacy crisis, but they would set expectations for the justices’ behavior. Clear standards — and the accompanying added public scrutiny — would provide an incentive for judges to live up to them. It is urgent that either the Court or Congress put those tools in place.
The tool of impeachment exists, but while we have a Democratic majority in the Senate, Republican obstructionism still dominates that body and thus no remedy really exists there.
The January 6th Committee has a lot more data to present and bombshells to drop. We’ll have to wait and see if some of these land on the Thomases.