HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Leaked Emails Show Justic...

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:25 AM

Leaked Emails Show Justice Clarence Thomas's Wife Pushing Travel Ban

Leaked Emails Show Justice Clarence Thomas’s Wife Pushing Travel Ban
In leaked emails, Ginni Thomas asked for advice on how to organize in favor of Trump’s travel ban. But by doing so, she may have inadvertently made it harder for the executive order to survive the Supreme Court


Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife is organizing in support of President Donald Trump’s agenda. And it might make her husband’s life a little complicated.

In an email sent to a conservative listserv on Feb. 13 and obtained by The Daily Beast, Ginni Thomas asked an interesting question: How could she organize activists to push for Trump’s policies?

“What is the best way to, with minimal costs, set up a daily text capacity for a ground up-grassroots army for pro-Trump daily action items to push back against the left’s resistance efforts who are trying to make America ungovernable?” she wrote.


“I see the left has Daily Action @YourDailyAction and their Facebook likes are up to 61K,” she continued.
She then linked to a Washington Post story about the group.


“But there are some grassroots activists, who seem beyond the Republican party or the conservative movement, who wish to join the fray on social media for Trump and link shields and build momentum,” she wrote. “I met with a house load of them yesterday and we want a daily textable tool to start… Suggestions?”




the rest:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/16/leaked-emails-show-justice-clarence-thomas-s-wife-pushing-travel-ban.html

43 replies, 4274 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Leaked Emails Show Justice Clarence Thomas's Wife Pushing Travel Ban (Original post)
kpete Feb 16 OP
Sherman A1 Feb 16 #1
DK504 Feb 16 #19
JHB Feb 17 #40
mdbl Feb 19 #41
Cha Feb 16 #2
LisaL Feb 16 #6
Cha Feb 16 #7
BumRushDaShow Feb 16 #3
brer cat Feb 16 #9
MyOwnPeace Feb 16 #34
grantcart Feb 16 #17
BumRushDaShow Feb 16 #18
cstanleytech Feb 17 #35
BumRushDaShow Feb 17 #38
Angry Dragon Feb 16 #30
BumRushDaShow Feb 16 #31
rpannier Feb 17 #37
BumRushDaShow Feb 17 #39
bullimiami Feb 16 #4
tanyev Feb 16 #5
lostnfound Feb 16 #8
JudyM Feb 16 #13
kwassa Feb 16 #24
ck4829 Feb 16 #25
sarah FAILIN Feb 16 #10
CK_John Feb 16 #11
BeckyDem Feb 16 #12
JudyM Feb 16 #14
BeckyDem Feb 16 #15
MiniMe Feb 16 #20
BeckyDem Feb 16 #21
MiniMe Feb 16 #22
BeckyDem Feb 16 #23
d_r Feb 16 #29
Corgigal Feb 16 #16
LisaM Feb 16 #26
putitinD Feb 16 #27
Honeycombe8 Feb 16 #28
cstanleytech Feb 17 #36
joet67 Feb 16 #32
Takket Feb 16 #33
dalton99a Feb 19 #43
lindysalsagal Feb 19 #42

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:39 AM

1. She can organize all she wants

the travel ban needs to be constitutional and legal in order to survive. What was done was clearly not so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 12:31 PM

19. Does she even have a crony-istic job in DC???

WTF is she doing thrusting herself into Executive politics? Did Clarence tell her what to do??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DK504 (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 08:40 AM

40. She's ALWAYS had a "crony-istic" job in DC. It's her career.

From 2013:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest
Is Ginni Thomas' Expanding Activism a Problem for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?
Her fierce political advocacy with Groundswell revives conflict of interest questions surrounding her husband.

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Her role in Groundswell, the coalition of conservatives waging a "30 front war" against progressives and the GOP establishment that was revealed by Mother Jones on Thursday, revives questions about the propriety of Thomas' activism on issues that have or could become the subject of Supreme Court cases.

Conflict of interest issues were first aired during Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991, when critics argued that Ginni Thomas' political work might compromise her husband's objectivity. At that time, her political resume included stints as a Capitol Hill aide to a Republican congressman; a staffer at the US Chamber of Commerce, where she fought the Family and Medical Leave Act; and as a political appointee at the Labor Department during the first Bush administration. Thomas didn't leave politics after her husband was confirmed. "I did not give up my First Amendment rights when my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court," she has said in the past. She would later return to the Hill as a staffer to House majority leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) and work for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank. But in those jobs, Thomas kept a relatively low profile.

That changed around the same time that the tea party exploded in American politics, and Thomas became an outspoken member of the movement. In late 2009, Thomas founded the political advocacy group Liberty Central, which would later become a fierce player in the opposition to health care form. Detractors pointed out that Liberty Central was a potential vehicle for people with interests before the Supreme Court to make anonymous donations that might influence her husband.

The group was formed with a $500,000 anonymous donation that came as the Supreme Court was considering Citizens United, a case that ultimately resulted in loosening the restrictions on corporate giving to political campaigns. The anonymous donor was later revealed to be Harlan Crow, the Texas real estate developer. Crow was also a friend of Clarence Thomas', and he was later linked to a scandal involving the justice's failure to publicly disclose gifts from the developer and trips aboard his private jet. (It didn't help that Justice Thomas had also failed to include his wife's $150,000 annual salary from Liberty Central on his financial disclosure forms, which he later had to amend.) In January 2011, the good-government group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justice Thomas should have recused himself from Citizens United based on his wife's role at Liberty Central. (Common Cause also asked the IRS to revoke Liberty Central's nonprofit status. Nothing came of either request.)


What is "Groudswell" you ask?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/groundswell-rightwing-group-ginni-thomas
Inside Groundswell: Read the Memos of the New Right-Wing Strategy Group Planning a "30 Front War"
Ginni Thomas, Allen West, and a crew of conservative activists and journalists have formed a hush-hush coalition to battle progressives—and Karl Rove.

Believing they are losing the messaging war with progressives, a group of prominent conservatives in Washington—including the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and journalists from Breitbart News and the Washington Examiner—has been meeting privately since early this year to concoct talking points, coordinate messaging, and hatch plans for "a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation," according to documents obtained by Mother Jones.

Dubbed Groundswell, this coalition convenes weekly in the offices of Judicial Watch, the conservative legal watchdog group. During these hush-hush sessions and through a Google group, the members of Groundswell—including aides to congressional Republicans—cook up battle plans for their ongoing fights against the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, progressive outfits, and the Republican establishment and "clueless" GOP congressional leaders. They devise strategies for killing immigration reform, hyping the Benghazi controversy, and countering the impression that the GOP exploits racism. And the Groundswell gang is mounting a behind-the-scenes organized effort to eradicate the outsize influence of GOP über-strategist/pundit Karl Rove within Republican and conservative ranks. (For more on Groundswell's "two front war" against Rove—a major clash on the right—click here.)

One of the influential conservatives guiding the group is Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a columnist for the Daily Caller and a tea party consultant and lobbyist. Other Groundswell members include John Bolton, the former UN ambassador; Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy; Ken Blackwell and Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council; Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch; Gayle Trotter, a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum; Catherine Engelbrecht and Anita MonCrief of True the Vote; Allen West, the former GOP House member; Sue Myrick, also a former House GOPer; Diana Banister of the influential Shirley and Banister PR firm; and Max Pappas, a top aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Among the conveners listed in an invitation to a May 8 meeting of Groundswell were Stephen Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News Network; Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent who resoundingly lost a Maryland Senate race last year (and is now running for a House seat); Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society; Sandy Rios, a Fox News contributor; Lori Roman, a former executive director of the American Legislative Exchange Council; and Austin Ruse, the head of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Conservative journalists and commentators participating in Groundswell have included Breitbart News reporters Matthew Boyle and Mike Flynn, Washington Examiner executive editor Mark Tapscott, and National Review contributor Michael James Barton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #40)

Sun Feb 19, 2017, 06:28 AM

41. Is Ginni Thomas' Expanding Activism a Problem for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

Not when you have the magic (R) next to your name, as Bill Maher would say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:42 AM

2. It seems like I missed a step.. who leaked these emails

to the Daily Beast? Certainly not wikileaks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 09:05 AM

6. She send it to the listserv.

Anybody on the list could have leaked it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 09:10 AM

7. Thanks I just looked that up since I hadn't heard of that term before..

so it seems like it was a friendly betrayal. How good since it might compromise the situation..

" But by doing so, she may have inadvertently made it harder for the executive order to survive the Supreme Court"

she deserves some long overdue karma

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:49 AM

3. He will refuse to recuse from anything

that is how he rolls - ethics be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 09:51 AM

9. You are right, BRDS.

He considers himself exempt from conflicts of interests just like baby fuhrer does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brer cat (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 11:53 PM

34. Agree also..........

Thomas and the late (but not "late" soon enough!) Scalia (may he rest in peace - NOT!) continually refused to exempt themselves from obvious "conflicts of interest" cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 11:18 AM

17. Robert's may push the issue

I have a feeling that the CJ would like to send the President and unanimous decision to signal strong displeasure on constitutional issues and to stop attacking the costs in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 11:23 AM

18. Even if they did that

Drumpf would double-down via twitter and stomp and fume.

But at this point, a case would need to actually reach them in order for them to do that and it seems that there is wavering on whether to appeal their current fiasco to the SCOTUS or rewrite it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 12:28 AM

35. If he did that to a unanimous SCOTUS ruling that might actually

give the Repugnants the excuse they need to remove him and put Pence in his place which was probably the plan all along as I think they knew Trump was unfit but they were probably thinking that they wouldnt have to do it for atleast a year or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 07:57 AM

38. Right.

He is being used by the GOP and by Putin. And agree that both mistakenly thought they could keep him "sane" (or at least "controlled") long enough to get their draconian agendas enacted, but they are in for a rude awakening!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:37 PM

30. so true ........ I wonder if he has any good ethics??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:45 PM

31. Answer is no. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 07:32 AM

37. Yep

Though I'd be curious how CJ Roberts or AJ Kennedy would feel about this
They might either strong arm (verbally, not physically) into stepping aside or they may intentionally vote against him if he refuses to recuse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 08:21 AM

39. It may depend on the sense of where the vote is going

and whether it could move the final decision one way or the other (outside of a unanimous 8-0 or a 4-4 tie) - i.e., 5-3 . I did a quick google and Thomas has actually recused himself from a case at least once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:53 AM

4. Exposed. RW "grassroots army". Organized, paid for and used by the powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullimiami (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 09:04 AM

5. I know, right?

That word doesn't mean what you think it means, Ginni.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 09:38 AM

8. The left who are trying to make America ungovernable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 11:06 AM

13. That f'd up view is how they're all seeing it. A woman sitting next to me on a plane last week,

a held-her-nose tRump voter, was lamenting the crowds of protestors not giving him a chance to try to fix what's wrong with our political system. Like we're the ones hurting democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 02:33 PM

24. Trump has made it ungovernable all by himself.

After all, nobody governs him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lostnfound (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 04:02 PM

25. She forgot an extra un-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 10:00 AM

10. She met with "a house load of them"....

I want to know whose house and who was there. If theirs, then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 10:29 AM

11. "with minimal costs", she is driving Justice Thomas to quit and make the big bucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 10:34 AM

12. I would like to thank whoever leaked the e-mail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeckyDem (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 11:08 AM

14. Ditto. Welcome to DU, Beckydem!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 11:11 AM

15. If we know what they're up to at least we have a better chance at fighting back.

Thank you for the welcome, JudyM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeckyDem (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 12:58 PM

20. It wasn't an email, she posted it to a listserv

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 01:50 PM

21. I'm not following you, what am I missing?

LISTSERV

I was never on JournoList, and it has always sounded like an unworkable idea to me—how can you expect a bunch of reporters to keep all those discussions secret? (Blogger David Weigel, whose leaked JournoList e-mails led to his resignation at the Washington Post, was recently hired by Slate; I've never met Weigel or even e-mailed with him.) At the same time, I understood Klein's impulse. That impulse being: Listservs are wonderful! For a lot of topics, e-mail lists—especially off-the-record lists—are better than Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr at fostering a sense of community and generating deep, thoughtful conversations.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/08/the_joy_of_listservs.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeckyDem (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 02:14 PM

22. Anything posted on a listserv is available to anybody who is a member of the listserv

Ginny posted her comments on a listserv, that is not a private means of communication, it is available to a wide number of people. Listserv may not be the best way to get an answer, but it is a public way to ask for info. I have been on listserv's in the past, and everybody sees everything that people put on there. It is old technology, message boards are a much better way to keep track of what is posted. Can you imagine not having any organization or order to everything that is posted at DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 02:27 PM

23. Ok, I see your point. She is clueless on how vulnerable she was to how her messages were not

private. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MiniMe (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 05:12 PM

29. a listserv is e-mail

you send an email to the list and the mail is sent to all members of the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 11:15 AM

16. Is she aware she married to a black man?

After the brownish colored human get booted, what color does she think is next? We're all on the list, some just can't imagine that they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 04:04 PM

26. Thomas should have recused himself from Bush v. Gore because of her. He didn't.

Which tells you everything you need to know about this crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 04:15 PM

27. Thomas should be removed from the court!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 04:26 PM

28. This isn't the 1st time she's done this sort of thing.

As I recall, she's been caught doing something like this before.

Activism by a Justice's spouse, on a matter that is likely to reach the Supreme Court? That must be unethical on some level. She's still a citizen, but surely there are some limitations when you are married to a S.Ct. Justice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 17, 2017, 12:32 AM

36. No, its not unethical on her part just because her husband is on the court.

Nonetheless he should recuse himself from the muslim ban case should it go to SCOTUS to avoid any potential ethic issues himself but he isnt required to by law, sucks though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 09:56 PM

32. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the full import of this actually means just about anything at all

that comes before the court would really be coming up against a 4-3 court then, wouldn't it? At a minimum. I can't remember now the extent of her activism, but if memory serves, Mrs. Thomas may have just handed us a much-needed gift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 10:05 PM

33. 45 isn't taking the ban to SCOTUS, so it is a moot point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 19, 2017, 10:17 AM

43. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Feb 19, 2017, 10:15 AM

42. Deplorables meet "ungovernable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread