Separately or apart, the Thomases are a topic worth covering
Justice Clarence Thomas, left and his wife, Virginia Thomas, in Washington after attending the funeral of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. Credit: AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
One of the more remarkable subplots in the still-unfolding story of last year’s attack on the Capitol involves Ginni Thomas, a right-wing, inside-the-Beltway activist and the spouse of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Thomas angle isn't expected to take center stage in the special House committee’s insurrection hearings when they resume Tuesday. But it lurks in the background, with details still to be learned.
Perhaps the most interesting revelation on the Ginni Thomas front so far came in a previously disclosed email from her to Mark Meadows, chief of staff to then-President Donald Trump, sent a week after the 2020 election, which Joe Biden had obviously and fairly won.
“’Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!,” she urged. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America's constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History."
Now that we know what this kind of crazy talk helped enable, the probers would be remiss not to look into what Ginni Thomas may have done to help Donald Trump “stand firm” against the hallucinated “heist.” True to the style of potential witnesses in the Trump circle, however, she is proving shy about answering very simple official questions.
In a recent letter to the committee first published by the rightist-oriented Daily Caller website, her lawyer Mark Paoletta put her reluctance to testify somewhat politely.
“As she has already indicated, Mrs. Thomas is eager to clear her name and is willing to appear before the Committee to do so,” he wrote. “However, based on my understanding of the communications that spurred the Committee’s request, I do not understand the need to speak with Mrs. Thomas.”
At one point, she had invited John Eastman, a leader of Trump’s court efforts to cling to power, to speak to a group. Of that, Paoletta wrote, “An invitation from Mrs. Thomas is an invitation to speak, and nothing more. It is not an endorsement of the speaker’s views, nor is it any indication of a working relationship between the speaker and Mrs. Thomas.”
Either way, Eastman, a one-time law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, figured in earlier, widely-watched committee testimony. Ex-Vice President Mike Pence's counsel Greg Jacob recounted telling Eastman that the theory he peddled of how a vice president can essentially nullify the election rather than certify the Electoral College's proper vote was ridiculous.
Jacob said he insisted privately the Supreme Court would oppose it 9-0, and that Eastman reluctantly agreed, after first insisting the vote would be 7-2 against. Curiously, in a deposition before the committee, Eastman pleaded the Fifth Amendment on that and other matters. His actions are now under Justice Department investigation.
Judge Thomas, apart from his wife, has stood out in the drama over Trump's defeat. He wrote a lone dissent when the court decided in February 2021 against intervening in a GOP challenge to Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Later, he was the only high court judge to resist allowing the National Archives to release thousands of Trump White House documents to the committee. Was the issue too close to home?
The Thomases' simultaneous public roles pose obvious questions of a conflict. Perhaps they can only be said to have a rare confluence of interests since they are publicly aligned in the constitutional controversy of a generation. Either way, the matter of the Thomases will be worth the committee's time exploring, wherever it may lead.
Columnist Dan Janison's opinions are his own.
Dan Janison is a member of the Newsday editorial board.
