Clarence Thomas’ Non-Recusal Might Have Also Hidden the Missing Mark Meadows Texts

As folks were discussing in comments, yesterday WaPo and CBS revealed damning details about communications between Ginni Thomas and Mark Meadows leading up to the insurrection. About 1% of the texts Meadows turned over to the January 6 Committee involved Ms. Thomas.

The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump’s inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president’s strategy to overturn the election results — and how receptive and grateful Meadows said he was to receive her advice. Among Thomas’s stated goals in the messages was for lawyer Sidney Powell, who promoted incendiary and unsupported claims about the election, to be “the lead and the face” of Trump’s legal team.

The text messages were among 2,320 that Meadows provided to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The content of messages between Thomas and Meadows — 21 sent by her, eight by him – has not previously been reported. They were reviewed by The Post and CBS News and then confirmed by five people who have seen the committee’s documents.


It is unknown whether Ginni Thomas and Meadows exchanged additional messages between the election and Biden’s inauguration beyond the 29 received by the committee. Shortly after providing the 2,320 messages, Meadows ceased cooperating with the committee, arguing that any further engagement could violate Trump’s claims of executive privilege. Committee members and aides said they believe the messages may be just a portion of the pair’s total exchanges.

As WaPo notes, after November 24, there are no more texts provided to the Committee until after the riot.

The text exchanges with Thomas that Meadows provided to the House select committee pause after Nov. 24, 2020, with an unexplained gap in correspondence. The committee received one additional message sent by Thomas to Meadows, on Jan. 10, four days after the “Stop the Steal” rally Thomas said she attended and the deadly attack on the Capitol.

You can click through to read what a nutjob Ms. Thomas is. But for this post, I’m interested in the how the texts that got turned over or did not relate to Justice Thomas’ decision, on January 19, not just not to recuse from the decision on whether Trump’s invocation of privilege over materials at the Archives, but to cast the single vote to uphold Trump’s privilege claim. Thomas’ participation in that decision may have had the effect of making a decision that would have — if four other Justices agreed with him — had the effect of shielding damning communications involving his spouse.

This table is just a sketch, but one I hope helps the discussion among those who know the law and the details of the various requests better than I. This table shows that had Thomas’ decision been successful, it probably would have prevented damning texts from his spouse from being shared with the Committee (or, ultimately, DOJ’s criminal investigators), but just as importantly would have hidden the absence and possible destruction of some records that would be covered both by the Presidential Records Act (marked as PRA in the table) and relevant to the by-then ongoing grand jury investigation (marked as obstruction).

Several factors affect the legal status of any texts that should have been covered by Justice Thomas’ participation:

  • Trump’s claims of privilege were absurdly broad, covering things like visitor logs that under other Presidents are routinely released
  • While Mark Meadows’ claims of privilege were not as absurd as (say) Steve Bannon’s, it seems likely he, too, took an expansive approach to privilege claims
  • All of Trump’s flunkies (including Meadows and Bannon) were using Trump’s claims of privilege to justify withholding purportedly privileged in their own possession
  • Anything Meadows claimed was covered by privilege would be covered by the Presidential Records Act and so should have been — but in Meadows’ case, because he did White House business on his personal email and phone, often were not — shared with the Archives
  • Mark Meadows replaced his phone after the time multiple grand juries had started an investigation into January 6; replacing his phone had the likely effect of destroying any communications not otherwise stored in or backed up to the cloud; the risk he destroyed Signal texts is particularly high

Justice Thomas’ decision would have covered everything in the first line: privileged comms that were properly archived, privileged stuff that Meadows didn’t archive, and privileged stuff that got destroyed. The scenario I’m seeing a lot of people address is just box (A), with the logic being, what if there were comms that were actually archived involving Ginni that were deemed privileged, what if those comms were especially damning?

But the decision that such comms are not privileged means the Committee and DOJ can now address stuff in Meadows’ possession and/or that have been destroyed. As it happened, the Committee has been able to identify Meadows comms in box (E) and possibly even in box (F) via his production: things that should have been archived but were not (this post and this post address the kinds of communications described in Meadows’ contempt referral are in box (E)). It is virtually certain there are a bunch of comms in box (B): stuff Meadows treated as privileged that were not properly archived. Now both the Committee and DOJ can claim those are covered by his contempt. In the process, the Committee or, more likely, DOJ may discover communications involving the former President that should have been archived, proof not just that Meadows is in contempt, but also that he violated the PRA.

The real risk to Meadows, though — and the place where Justice Thomas’ ethical violations could turn into something else — comes in box (C): with comms that, because of the broadness of the original privilege claims, would be treated under Trump’s now defeated privilege claim, but comms that, because Meadows replaced his phone during an ongoing grand jury investigation, the destruction of which might amount to obstruction of that investigation.

What DOJ is doing with other criminal subjects in the January 6 investigation is identifying Signal and Telegram texts that got destroyed on one phone by seizing the phones of others who did not destroy their side of the communication. In the case of Meadows, for example, we’ve already identified a Signal text that seems to remain in Jim Jordan’s custody but that Meadows may no longer have.

Justice Thomas’ failed attempt to uphold Trump’s (and therefore Meadows’) insanely broad privilege claims might have had the effect of making it clear that Meadows had destroyed privileged communications that would be covered by the ongoing January 6 grand jury investigation.

It’s not just embarrassing texts involving his spouse that Justice Thomas could have covered up with his participation in that decision. It is also potential criminal obstruction exposure because Meadows replaced his phone.

Particularly given the big gap in texts in what Meadows turned over between November 24 and January 10, those might be far more important than the crazypants things Ginni said.

154 replies
  1. BobCon says:

    “What DOJ is doing with other criminal subjects in the January 6 investigation is identifying Signal and Telegram texts that got destroyed on one phone by seizing the phones of others who did not destroy their side of the communication.”

    Does this suggest they may go after (or already have) Ginni Thomas’s data or even devices in order to chase down the Meadows gap — or fill in the gaps with other people involved?

    The Post article touches on GT’s involvement with Giuliani, and one obvious question is whether she shows up on his data and devices.

  2. harpie says:

    11/24/20 [MEADOWS to V. THOMAS]: “This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

    [Almost seven weeks between texts]

    1/10/21 [V. THOMAS to MEADOWS]: “We are living through what feels like the end of America.” [] “Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!!” [] “Amazing times. The end of Liberty.”

    [Seems like we should focus on what happened between 11/24/20 and 1/10/21.]

        • harpie says:

          Hi klynn, yeah, that whole area is really murky, but I don’t think I can help you much…I feel like I can just get superficially educated about some prongs of this whole mess.

          There’s this person on twitter who’s getting into the weeds on these groups, for example, this from today, with link to previous work:

          1:43 PM · Mar 25, 2022

          Also, fellow commenter Ginevra DiBenci reminded me about
          Ann Nelson’s book Shadow Network yesterday:

          Keep letting us know what you discover!

          • Krisy Gosney says:

            Thank you all for what you all are doing researching and keeping an eye on these Christianist and Christian Nationalist groups. They put a shiver down my spine.

        • WilliamOckham says:

          Oh my, that United in Purpose stuff is shady AF! I thought those Twitter threads that harpie and klynn posted were over-selling it.
          [40 years ago, my first job out of college was as newsletter editor/non-profit researcher, the only thing that’s changed in 40 years is everything’s online] I did a quick dive into Form 990’s, etc. and, hoo boy, they’ve a got a shell game going that is opaque, even by the standards of the vast right-wing conspiracy. I ordered Anne Nelson’s book (which covers mostly before the dirtiest deeds were done by the UiP folks). I’m going to read that and then come back to this whole thing.

          • Ginevra diBenci says:

            William Ockham, It’s true that Nelson’s book does not cover January 6, 2021, per se, but it’s important to remember that these groups have roots going back at least four decades. And their most striking element, which Nelson covers brilliantly, is the reciprocity between Dominionist Christianity and the ultra-rich. By the time you arrive at her description of Trump’s “audition” with evangelical leaders (in itself worth reading the book), what once seemed an impossible paradox begins to make terrifying sense–as do the actions and entitlement of Ginni Thomas and her ilk.

      • Leoghann says:

        That kind of apocalyptic language and manner of reference is common in pretty much every evangelistic church, even in the mainstream ones like the Southern Baptists and Latter Day Saints. The Oh Emm Gee it’s the End of Times and the Forces of Evylle are upon us! spiel is used as an excuse for every sort of behavior but kindness. Listening for those reverences in everyday speech is a good way to find out which of your regular acquaintances are of that persuasion.

    • Troutwaxer says:

      “I have staked my career on it.”

      This is an interesting phrase. Thomas is a major rightwing VIP. Who’s gonna end her career and why?

    • Eureka says:

      I love that the gap starts in time for Flynn’s 11/25 pardon when Meadows is likely fielding all sorts of comms about the Powell operation (among, obviously, many other efforts) like he is here with V/G Thomas.

      You know my fondness for the Kraken-crackling/pre-pardon week(end) timeline of events and Ginni and Mark here don’t disappoint.

      Meadows’ 11/22 reply to Thomas as to the Powell distancing is likely both true and utter bullshit (superficial/incomplete) at once. /defeat of Heisenberg uncertainty via multiple measurement conditions

      Did Flynn really get pardoned over some secret sauce Sydney et al. were “withholding” (scarequotes voice: there was no sauce)? LMAO. Please show me more of those negotiations, especially the Lin Wood Plantation(s) comms.

      This (entertaining, hypothetical scenario) would totally make sense as to why Meadows was *done* with the Powell, Byrne, Flynn (et al.) gang by the Dec. 18th WH “crazy” meeting where Navarro’s aide had to let them all in, and why Byrne on Christmas would be bitching about Meadows (along with Cipollone) keeping them away from Trump.

      One holiday -/and/+ with these nutjobs was enough.

  3. Inspector Clouseau says:

    I would love to be a fly on the wall in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers – he is known to care about the legacy of his court, this is really starting to get out of hand. This is the sort of thing that leads to revolution, if the rule of law is corrupted as the highest level; where does that leave us? Will the Roberts be willing to encourage/force Thomass to retire and draw the ire of the GQP by giving Biden two seats to save his legacy? Would we be willing to let Ginni off the hook quietly if Thomas steps down or are we about to approach a scenario where a sitting justice’s spouse is called in front of the Jan 6th committee? What happens if she takes the 5th? While she would have the legal right to, what does that do the appearance of impartiality that the court is supposed to have? Roberts can’t like the position he has been forced in.

    • harpie says:

      …responding to: Roberts can’t like the position he has been forced in.

      IMO, on a Court whose rulings are the un-appealable last word on the law, the life tenured Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is alone RESPONSIBLE for allowing this situation on HIS Court to fester.

      • bmaz says:

        Don’t know about that, there is only so much he can do. It is really the Kavanaugh/Barrett Court at this point.

        • Charles Wolf says:

          Kavanaugh & Barrett couldn’t find their butt cheeks with both hands.
          WRT the worst the Court can/will do, it’s Alito’s court now.

          If Roberts really want’s to spare his “legacy” and or the Court, he should just fade away and let Biden choose a new Chief Justice..

    • bmaz says:

      I’d start the subpoena process this morning. But the J6 Committee does not really move very fast, and Pelosi very well might shut such an effort down anyway.

      • Lawnboy says:

        Three things.

        1. Do I recall one G.T. funding bus rides to DC for 1/6 ?
        2. I miss the trash talk, wtf, March MADNESS, and no trash. F1 happening!!!
        This has gone critical …. critical bmaz. (silent b) .
        3. There is no third thing.


          • Rugger9 says:

            I miss the TT as well. I noticed that North Macedonia beat Italy to block the Azzurri from Qatar, wasn’t this the same team that beat Germany earlier in group qualifying? So, while FIFA has them at #67, they do punch above their weight like Iceland did for 2018.

          • Molly Pitcher says:

            re: TT, today is Peacock Day (who knew it was a thing? ) and the St Peters Peacocks are playing Purdue today !! An omen ?

            Hoping all becomes well for you bmaz.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          “Do I recall one G.T. funding bus rides to DC for 1/6 ?”

          Politifact & NY Times says that is not true

          https://www.politifact (dot) com/factchecks/2022/jan/11/facebook-posts/theres-no-evidence-ginni-thomas-organized-jan-6-ev/

          https://www.nytimes (dot) com/2021/01/11/technology/no-there-is-not-evidence-that-ginni-thomas-paid-for-buses-to-bring-people-to-the-capitol-siege.html

        • Fran of the North says:

          Yes indeed, I too remember those reports that GT hired buses to DC for the Jan 6 event.

          However, a quick check on Politifact says that Wapo, NYT and other independent fact checkers state ‘No Proof’ that this was the case.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Like many other events of this period in American history, the GQP and Individual-1 in particular have been pushing the limits of conduct. As we saw in the KBJ hearings most of the Ds somehow still believe in the fallacy that deals can be made with the modern GQP. It’s not possible to make deals with dishonest people, they must be crushed.

        What has to happen (among many other things) is that the RWNM machine stranglehold on flyover country media must be broken permanently, i.e. break up Sinclair Media, Murdoch, etc. because just like Russia, the PRC and the DPRK these Americans never see the truth.

        OT, it would appear that Vance and Bragg in Manhattan were co-opted by the TrumpOrg machine, to the point where the Daily Beast (IIRC) is reporting that DA Bragg is returning the evidence. It is not clear to me what DA Bragg got in exchange for being so craven, nor does it explain why AG Garland won’t shanghai the case to the federal level (or NYS AG James, either to the state level) since it had been well documented in public just how the frauds worked and the respective laws that were violated. This is yet another example of the cowards in office being too frightened of political blowback to do their damn jobs and why more than a few people are concerned about the 2024 election. It appears that the protection levers were selected well.

        • Norskeflamthrower says:

          “…the D’s somehow still believe in the fallacy that deals can be made with the modern GQP…”

          Indeed, the D’s need to understand what many of us have been trying to tell them since 1968: There can be no compromising with fascists or fascism (or neoliberals in your own party).

      • BobCon says:

        The Post article sources were awfully coy on the question of whether there was more in the pipeline.

        It could just be a bluff. But it could also be a warning.

        And who knows how much this is aimed at Thomas, who stated he was opposed to the privilege ruling, and how much this designed to put some steel in the backbone of Kavanaugh, who was the name appearing on the majority side.

        This seems like a pretty clear message that the people who will be named in the future aren’t just relatively disposable people like Giuliani — they have embarassing evidence on someone under the protection of an (essentially) untouchable power player and they’re not afraid to use it.

  4. Jenny says:

    Thank you Dr. Marcy.
    More exposure of an inside job. More gunk surfacing to the top. More to be revealed.

  5. Ravenclaw says:

    Obviously Justice Thomas is not going to be impeached over this. What other recourse exists? Presumably an ethics complaint to the Bar association would have no teeth, since supreme court justices don’t need to be lawyers anyway? Forgive me if that’s too bone-ignorant, but it would be lovely to see the guy pilloried for his failure to recuse himself from a case that involved his wife…

    • Rugger9 says:

      What history has demonstrated repeatedly is that when all other methods to redress grievances (or even be heard) are taken away, the pitchforks come out. However, the GQP in its anti-intellectual way thinks history is for poindexters and will have its opportunity to re-learn it. The costs will hit all of us, though.

      SCOTUS, like Congress, has exempted itself from obligations it imposes on everyone else.

      OT, Omicron-2 is here so get the jab(s) if you haven’t already.

        • Ken Haylock says:

          It’s never the result until the moment it is. If you’d taken a bet that a bread riot in St Petersburg would have ended the old Russian empire, you’d have been rich, but nobody did. I’m sure a thousand other groups of hungry people had expressed their anger at this or that over the preceding century, but the volatility of the mix around those angry mobs wasn’t quite right for the detonator to set off a revolutionary bomb. But look at the US Revolution, or Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine come to that – they are not things that happen in places where there is little inequality & everybody is fat & happy & doesn’t feel existential dread regularly. Since 2008, not that many people who aren’t millionaires or billionaires have that luxury, & it’s not getting better. Ukraine is adding an energy crunch but also a global food crunch to the existing challenges. Now wouldn’t be a great time for the US to experiment with becoming [even more of] a post-democratic authoritarian kleptocratic ethno-theocracy where the competence of the most recent & it turned out final example of imperfectly small-d democratic governance & the alleged credibility/universal applicability/morality/virtue of the rule of law is held by most to have been pathetic & inadequate, & grievance & anger on all sides will be multiplied by up to 11-ty stupid.

            • Ken Haylock says:

              I sense sarcasm, but the more the institutions of established systems of governance & the rule of law are widely perceived to have broken down, as people’s economic lot becomes worse & worse, & as decisions are blatantly taken against the interest of overwhelming majorities of voters on all sides [see prescription drug costs in the US as one emblematic example], with seemingly no mechanism for that overwhelming majority to effect any change through the ballot box, protest, petition or Ouija board, & the more various kinds of evildoers are seen to be getting away with everything if they are rich or connected enough, while others seem to lose everything for minor infractions, the worse the mood music gets & the more combustible material there is to turn a random demonstration, strike, police shooting protest or vigil into something all consuming…

              • Ken Haylock says:

                …& that’s the left wing backlash to a right wing anti-democratic/ethno-nationalist/theo-fascist/corrupt take-over of US governance by people who many people believe should be in jail but who aren’t shy about being smug that they aren’t scenario. On another timeline, Jan 6 could have ended with state capitols occupied by white supremacist militias & Trump declaring himself president as progressive or minority lawmakers were sentenced to death one by one in the Senate chamber in hearings presided over by the Qanon shaman, so it’s not _that_ far fetched…

          • Krisy Gosney says:

            There are a lot of people in this country, gays and lesbians, who are not going to simply and quietly let these people take marriage from us (and everything else that will be taken from us if they get the power to take away marriage). Pitchforks? Hardly. It’ll be ruthless, clever and devastating.

            • Leoghann says:

              Senator Braun said the quiet part out loud last week, didn’t he? He might as well have put it on a billboard, too. I wonder if the hypocritical Justice Thomas would vote to overturn the ruling in Loving vs Virginia.

      • Ravenclaw says:

        I get the jab whenever allowable. May be developing a bit of a Moderna addiction as a way of coping with the anxiety of breathing the same air as others. Probably not as much fun as morphine, but I’m hoping to kick the habit without undue lachrymosity or diaphoresis, so I guess that balances out.

        • Lawnboy says:

          Its a free country!

          You can “take the jabb-er-walk”! Your choice.
          “But beware the Jabberwalk, my son.
          The germs that bite, the claws that catch!”

          John Lewis would not “Carr-ol” that much.
          He might make good trouble though.


      • Charles Wolf says:

        My booster shot is getting old. Soon it will need a boost.

        When we run out of Greek letters for the never-ending Covid variants, will they begin using girls ‘n boys names instead?

        • Ravenclaw says:

          The Omega Variant will do us all in first. Except maybe for some of those who read books with titles like that.

    • Fenix says:

      Forgive my ignorance but, SCOTUS justices don’t need to be lawyers? What’s to stop the GQP from appointing a religious zealot with no law degree? ACB is pretty close as it is. I imagine the faux-outrage as: ’if you dare oppose the nominated zealot you must be anti-Christian’ – I find it terrifying

      • Ravenclaw says:

        In theory, yes. In practice, imagine the outcry! Besides, there are plenty of lawyers who are also religious zealots.

        For the record, here’s what the Supreme Court website has to say on the subject:

        “The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

        The last Justice to be appointed who did not attend any law school was James F. Byrnes (1941-1942). He did not graduate from high school and taught himself law, passing the bar at the age of 23.
        Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954). While Jackson did not attend an undergraduate college, he did study law at Albany Law School in New York. At the time of his graduation, Jackson was only twenty years old and one of the requirements for a law degree was that students must be twenty-one years old. Thus rather than a law degree, Jackson was awarded with a “diploma of graduation.” Twenty-nine years later, Albany Law School belatedly presented Jackson with a law degree noting his original graduating class of 1912.”

    • Scott Johnson says:

      He could indeed be impeached over it; such chatter has started in Democratic circles.

      Of course, he won’t be REMOVED over it, for the same reason that Trump was not; there’s not enough principled Republicans who would pull that trigger.

      I wouldn’t expect the Speaker to start the process now; but if a few more shoes drop…

  6. Joberly says:

    Question: do we know the date when “Mark Meadows replaced his phone…” and presumably destroyed privileged & non-privileged documents? Was it before or after Sept 23, 2021? That was the date the House Special Committee on Jan 6 issued subpoenas to Meadows, Scavino, Katel, and Bannon to produce documents and communications, and in the Bannon case, the grand jury quickly followed up the full House referral with an indictment for contempt of Congress. It seems as if the Obstruction element EW points to in Cells “C” and “F” of the table would be in play if Meadows destroyed his phone after receiving the House subpoena. Here’s hoping the Special Committee will subpoena Ms. Thomas before she gets a chance to throw her phone into the Potomac alongside the one Meadows deep-sixed.

  7. Savage Librarian says:

    Maybe it’s just me, but I’m hoping to see more about what Patrick Philbin has to say. Remember, he was one of Trump’s defense attorneys during the 1st impeachment hearings. Philbin also clerked for Thomas at one time. And, as you see in the excerpts from the citation below, the NYT specifically mentions Philbin, among several others. Something tells me Philbin might be cooperating with the J6 committee…

    Not that it has relevance to this, but I find it interesting that Ginni was a special correspondent for the Daily Caller, too.

    “Court Filing Lists Documents Trump Seeks to Withhold From Jan. 6 Inquiry” – 10/30/21

    “According to the filing, Mr. Trump has asserted executive privilege specifically over 770 pages of documents, including 46 pages of records from the files of Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff; Stephen Miller, his former senior adviser; and Patrick Philbin, his former deputy counsel. Mr. Trump is also objecting to the release of the White House Daily Diary. — a record of the president’s movements, phone calls, trips, briefings, meetings and activities — as well as logs showing phone calls to the president and to Vice President Mike Pence concerning Jan. 6, Mr. Laster wrote.”

    “Mr. Trump has also asserted executive privilege over 656 pages that include proposed talking points for Kayleigh McEnany, his former press secretary; a handwritten note concerning Jan. 6; a draft text of a presidential speech for the “Save America” rally that preceded the mob attack; and a draft executive order on the topic of election integrity, the filing states.”

      • TooLoose LeTruck says:

        Apart from using it to hide behind and protect himself and his corrupt underlings, I doubt if the former guy has ever had even the tiniest sliver of interest in what ‘executive privilege’ for a POTUS is really about.

  8. Kalkaino says:

    Clarence Thomas has been a stain on the American judiciary from the moment he was first nominated to his first bench, and he’s only gotten worse with time. He was always a liar and a creep, but teemed up with Ginni he turned out to be a crook as well. Let’s not forget the money paid his bagwoman that he simply refused to disclose:

    Even putting the absolute best face on his executive-privilege vote, he allowed solidarity with his grifter wife to deny the people of the U.S. a unanimous ruling that ‘the President is not a king.’

    I myself am pulling for the flu-like symptoms.

    • Eureka says:

      With perhaps some Hitlerian historical exceptions, death-and-sickness wishes aren’t cool however coyly phrased.

      Y’all might also consider the pragmatics of getting what you wish for.

      There’s that corollary to ‘don’t count your chickens until they hatch’ where the GOP, dark-money groups, and their respective caucusing pseudo-dems freak out should Long Dong Silver Fan tap out — via retirement or otherwise. We’re lucky the mere evocation of his mortality salience hasn’t gotten them scrambling for their gears-sand _now_.

      Let’s get KBJ confirmed first.

  9. gmoke says:

    “Trump’s claims of privilege were absurdly broad, covering things like visitor logs that under other Presidents are routinely released…”

    As I recall, the White House vistor logs for George W Bush were never released but I could be wrong. My operating assumption is that “routinely released” applies only to Democratic administration as everybody knows Republicanists can do whatever they please.

    • rip says:

      I don’t know about all of the logs, but the ones involving Cheney and his energy task force that led up to the Iraq invasion were definitely not disclosed.

  10. I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

    Time to have a grand jury look at this, if they are not looking already. The obstruction of justice angle is particularly important. Wondering if Ginni also took actions that might constitute obstruction.

    Careful consideration might be given to the concept of granting some form of immunity to someone with knowledge..

    I concur that CJ Roberts is in a (well deserved) uncomfortable position. But I bet that the first words out of his mouth to Thomas, J., on this subject are/were: “Get yourself a really good attorney.” Sidney? L. Lin ? Alina? Too bad Rudy and Michael Cohen don’t have active licenses. They could have been be part of the ultimate Dream Team.

  11. icelanterns says:

    Erwin Knoll, editor of the Progressive Magazine, when asked if Clarence Thomas would be confirmed to the Supreme Court, replied, “He’ll be confirmed and it will be a tragedy”

  12. Riktol says:

    (I am not a lawyer) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Ms Thomas and Justice Thomas don’t discuss her work at all, Justice Thomas wouldn’t know that Meadows’ communications involved his wife. Even if they didn’t maintain an airtight separation, it is plausible that she never mentioned Meadows, either because she didn’t go into detail or because she thought it better not to mention him.

    Meadows knew about the communications, and presumably so did his lawyers when they reviewed them.

    Who, if anyone, had an obligation to inform the court that some of the communications involve Ms Thomas? Would they need to inform the whole court, or could they tell Justice Thomas in private?

    I read this article about SCOTUS recusal, it sounds like recusal decisions are unreviewable, even by other justices.

    It also has this gem from Justice Roberts “Consequently, in the event that a Justice did decide to recuse, the Court would have to sit with less than a full panel.” This seems absurd, a decision made by a smaller panel would be better and more legitimate than a decision made by a panel where one or more members have a conflict of interest.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      I’m also not a lawyer.
      But one need not be a lawyer to be concerned about this situation, and IMVHO, it does not require discreet conversations in muted tones to acknowledge that things are deeply wrong in SCOTUS-ville.

      Anyone with a conscience had an obligation to go to CJ Roberts, as well as the other SCOTUS members.

      The dangerously cartoonish ‘good vs evil’ language of Ginni Thomas must have affected her spouse over time. It may help explain why he seems so injudicious.

      She appears to have lost sight completely of the fact that she lives in a nation of auto mechanics, surgeons, researchers, ranchers, and ‘normal’ people who daily go about their responsibilities without viewing everyone who disagrees with them as ‘evil’.

      • Riktol says:

        The crux of my question is not whether someone had a *moral* obligation to disclose information (I’m sure that would extend to Ms Thomas), I’m asking whether anyone had a *legal* obligation, and how far that would be shared.

        If the information was not disclosed, that might be a breach of duty to the court by Meadow’s lawyers, or Meadows himself.

        If this information was disclosed only to Justice Thomas, that has a different look (to the public) compared with the whole court being told and keeping that information quiet.

        • timbo says:

          IANALIRL but…

          If you are aware a serious crime has been committed, you indeed have a legal obligation to disclose that. The issue here is if any law has been broken. In a quick look over the legal code, there doesn’t appear to be a direct violation here with regard to Justice Thomas’ ruling… >unless< a crime has actually been committed. So the question then arises as to what crime was committed here that would require a reporting thereof. It's all fine and dandy to claim that one knows a crime when they see it, but there's a different burden if there isn't any Federal code that specifically covers what happened here…so which Federal code has been violated here specifically by Justice Thomas?

          • Riktol says:

            Lawyers are subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and state and/or local rules. I think this can be said to be beyond the text of the US code.

            If a lawyer has any inkling that their client was in contact with the judge’s spouse, my gut instinct (as a non lawyer) is that the lawyer should make that known to the court before anything happens in the case, or as soon as practical after it starts. Failure to do so seems a plausible basis for sanctions (at least to me, a non lawyer).

            Another possibility is that Meadows kept the communications secret from his lawyers. My assumption is that at some point in the proceedings, Meadows will have declared that he was not aware of any conflicts, which would presumably be perjury (at least to me, a non lawyer).

            Third there is the possibility that everything was done correctly by Meadows and his lawyers, and Justice Thomas had full information when he decided not to recuse.

            In any of these cases I was hoping an actual lawyer could provide a little bit of insight into how client/judge conflicts are normally discovered and handled in the real world. This might make it clear which of the above is the more likely scenario. Also if I knew more about the mechanics of disclosing conflict information/allegations, it might be clear whether anyone else was aware that Justice Thomas had a conflict when the case was heard.

            Finally there is the possibility (or even high likelihood as some insist) that Justice Thomas knew all along, but frankly that has no bearing on any of the things that I was hoping someone would illuminate. I know how to get rid of him, that’s through impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.

            • timbo says:

              You don’t need to be a real lawyer to understand that if there is no applicable Federal statute then there isn’t anything to be obstructing from a legal standpoint. What I’m more and more curious about is what laws that Congress has passed that specifically deal with its own ability to issue subpoenas and which of those might have been violated in this particular case. If any. And I add that because we saw in the 45th President’s case many instances of Congressional subpoenas/official summons, etc, being effectively ignored by officers and agents of the Executive Branch. Thomas’ failure to recuse falls into the realm of a significant balance of powers issue too, as it involves Congress vs the Judicial Branch of the government in a significant sense…where, yep, impeachment is a strong option if the Congress really does want to assert itself here. Anyhoo, as far as I can tell, Thomas is currently more in potential violation of political laws here, not Federal ones. And, yep, let’s hope that some who are much more knowledgeable about the Federal codes here will chime in.

    • Steve in MA says:

      Re: the assumption that “Ms Thomas and Justice Thomas don’t discuss her work at all,”

      That’s quite a leap I think, especially in light of her text to Meadows that stated she discussed the post-election fight with “her best friend”. A description CT has used for Ginni. Her own words support the conclusion that she did discuss it with CT.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I might be a tad sensitive about these things, but the Guardian’s headline writer needs a new job, I think: on a street corner, selling the dead-tree version.

    Regarding the KBJ hearings, for example, they did not reveal Republicans’ “racist fears.” That’s close to saying racism was “hovering” over the hearings, like pixie dust from an unknown southern pixie that has yet to settle. What they showed was Republicans’ overt and performative racism.

    • rip says:

      Agree. That was a totally misleading headline. Maybe trying to get as many keywords into the final URL as possible.


  14. Charles Wolf says:

    IANAL either, but assuming for the sake of logic and sanity, that Mrs. Thomas and Justice Thomas discuss their work all the time, it would be fair to say that he is complicit.

    For evidence of those discussions we have at least this:
    “When Meadows wrote Thomas on Nov. 24 to “not grow weary” in this “fight of good versus evil,” and said he has “staked my career” on overturning Biden’s win, Thomas replied: “Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now.” She did not say who that “best friend” was, but Clarence Thomas has repeatedly referred to his wife as his “best friend.”

    And this:
    “Public documents and speeches show that Ginni Thomas and Clarence — the Supreme Court justice — have both referred to each other as “best friend” in the past.”

    • Eureka says:

      “…but assuming for the sake of logic and sanity…”

      Yes, and with gusto (you respond to the same otherwise reasonable line of Riktol’s above that I wished to).

      Besides all the “best friends” stuff, ask yourself if any two individuals with the publicly-documented boundary issues of these two would suddenly up and become ethical — beholden to some higher-order notion of dignity — in violation of their partisan desires *and* _within a marriage_ (the cardinal relationship where people with such issues typically act out their bad shit, besides).

      I mean it’s easy (recency bias, nuttery, sexism, her own words to Meadows) to envision Ginni blabbing but thanks to Anita Hill’s testimony and common sense we know that Ginni’s spouse can’t contain himself either, if perhaps differently expressed.

      • harpie says:

        That is such a good point. Ginni did bring up all that,
        just after she alleges threats against Barrett and others:

        V. Thomas to Meadows, 11/19/20 [partial]:
        “You guys fold, the evil just moves fast down underneath you all. Lots of intensifying threats coming to ACB [Justice Amy Coney BARRETT] and others.”
        “The intense pressures you and our President are now experiencing are more intense than Anything Experienced (but I only felt a fraction of it in 1991).”

        Notice the missing word/name.

        • Eureka says:

          I did get a LOL out of that 11/19 segment, her ass-kissing in FedSoc love language [~ Wow, she really does believe in the Unitary Executive & Friends Plan (“…the evil moves…*underneath* _you all_”) — or she (reflexively) thinks Meadows needs to believe she believes this].

          Yep, and Costa and Woodward note @ WaPo that they have no idea what alleged ACB threats GT could have been referring to (and I feel no need to fact check them).

          I agree, “and others” were to include her BFF and *just to be on the safe side* she hits Meadows over the head with a hammer to be sure he gets it.

          They are each and every one of them so manipulative — the Thomases, Meadows, ALL.

          The degree of manipulativeness suggests that GT especially here knew that there was no legitimate cause to stand on. Else why the need for her and all the other grifters to try so hard to convince their fellow ideologues to act, for real?

          Texts like these are super revealing as goes theory of mind (or mens rea for the court … of public opinion).

          • Eureka says:

            On being manipulative, let’s throw in Thomas’ ~ origin story for good measure:

            Kaitlyn Greenidge: “Remember when Clarence Thomas lied on his sister for Republican’s approval, claiming she was a welfare queen when she had, in fact, worked to put him through school? [links to THOMAS` SISTER`S LIFE GIVES LIE TO HIS WELFARE FABLE by Clarence Page July 24, 1991]” [thread]
            12:02 PM · Mar 25, 2022

            NOTE: the thread author is AFAIK mistaken that Thomas’ sister [I omit her name here so as to _not_ further deperson her by associating it with his or GT’s bullshit] worked to “put him through school”. I believe this is an innocent misreading of the Chicago Trib piece, how it’s phrased, which is itself based in part on Karen Tumulty’s July 5, 1991 LA Times article (archive version linked later in thread). If you read Tumulty, the Thomas siblings — abandoned by their father, their mother’s house since burned to the ground — had already been sent to separate homes by this point in time. Still worth (re-)reading both, as Page adds more layers (such as how Thomas’ cruel, dishonest speech, by gaining Reagan’s attention, was Thomas’ springboard to the EEOC chairmanship … and here we are today).

            The misread is easy to make in that Thomas’ and sister’s contrastive fates are themselves echoes of the cyclic female sacrifice in this family, and is sadly faithful to the overarching story.

            That clarified, the thread and discussion are worth reading.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Thomas would throw anyone under the bus, and has, except for She Who Must Be Obeyed. (h/t H. Rumpole)

  15. punaise says:

    This doesn’t really go any where, so apologies to David Bowie:

    A small Gin Ginni snuck off to DC
    Strung out on lasers and slash back blazers
    Ate all your razors while pulling the waiters
    Talking bout Meadows and walking on snow white
    Supreme Court’s a go-go and everything tastes nice
    Poor little greenie, woh ho
    Get back home

    Gin Ginni lives on his back
    The Gin Ginni loves chimney stacks
    She’s outrageous
    (Gin Ginni)
    She screams and she bawls
    Gin Ginni, let yourself go
    Ooo, oww

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      Also from Aladdin Sane:
      She looked a lot like a crazy MAGA, a real Trumpy fan
      And thought all her texts were hidden, but now it ain’t going to plan
      She’ll never survive the Liz Cheney Gang
      Panic in D.C., they asked for all our texts
      They wanted our iCloud and records from our phones
      Panic in D.C.

  16. Rugger9 says:

    OT: Just saw another Hannity clip about getting tough with Ukraine, so they can pay for the war. Goddam, what an chickenhawk. IIRC he still owes Bill Maher a waterboarding session for charity (I think Maher offered $1000 per second) so he’s pretty much a spineless coward in my book.

    Let’s also remember that Hannity has been cited as trying to call the WH during J6, currently claiming that he was trying to get Individual-1 to call off the rioters. I’ll bet there are a few other messages to find.

    • Troutwaxer says:

      So Hannity is a cowardly Putinist who supports the Rape of Ukraine? I’ve got to wonder how many of these people are followers of Ivan Ilyin or Aleksandr Dugin?

  17. harpie says:

    Ginni Thomas pressed for GOP lawmakers to protest 2020 election results
    The conservative activist and wife of a Supreme Court justice said in a Nov. 2020 email that Republicans weren’t doing enough to help Trump and needed to be “out in the streets.” Scott Wong March 25, 2022, 5:13 PM

    Shortly after the 2020 election, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent an email to an aide to a prominent House conservative [Jim BANKS] saying she would have nothing to do with his group until his members go “out in the streets,” a congressional source familiar with the exchange told NBC News. […]

    • harpie says:

      There are some changes / on-going discussion there now,
      incorporating Eureka’s thoughts, and adding some context.

  18. Joberly says:

    I wonder why the Ginni Thomas-Mark Meadows text messages shown to Woodward & Costa were leaked yesterday, presumably from somebody on the Jan 6 Committee. The Committee has had them in its possession since late Sept when Meadows turned them over in response to the Committee’s Sept 23rd subpoena. The Ginni texts were not released in December when the Committee published texts to Meadows from Fox News personalities and from Don, Jr. Instead, silence from the Committee on the Ginni texts until yesterday. Maybe payback against Repubs on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their disgraceful treatment of Judge Jackson this week? Maybe make Ginni squirm about how many other texts there are to be released, especially from late November ’20 up until Jan 6.

    • Dizz says:

      So interesting to speculate …
      I’ll put the Judge’s recent hospital stay into the pot to stir. Was he given warning of their publishing timeframe? Is his hospitalization a ruse for him to retire, with some semblance of dignity, based on ‘health reasons’?
      Thomas wouldn’t retire, during a Democratic presidency, unless he absolutely had to. Is there (finally) enough there there?

      • punaise says:

        I doubt there could ever be enough “there” there to shame Thomas into departing voluntarily.

          • punaise says:

            I’d make some snide remark about some scandal involving p*d0phelia, but nope, that’s not a laughing matter.

            • bmaz says:

              By chance, and in a way totally by chance, I saw a Ziggy and Spiders show. Wow does not do it justice. It was that good.

              • Leoghann says:

                I saw a show on that tour at the Houston Music Hall. The acoustics were great, and the sound was amazing. That supplanted Tommy as the best concert I’d ever seen, and held that title until the Glass Spider concert I saw. It was in Reunion Arena in Dallas, a much larger venue not designed for acoustics, but for basketball. But the elaborate set, choreography, and show made up for the acoustics.

              • Ginevra diBenci says:

                Me too. And several later tours. Bowie was underrated as a live act. I sought him out anywhere I could get close to.

                • bmaz says:

                  I have, over too many years, seen pretty much everybody (not the Beatles, but Wings at their best). Bowie back in the day was as good as it gets.

            • Troutwaxer says:

              If he retires in the next few days and doesn’t die soon we’ll know there was something there. Otherwise it’s GQP business as usual…


  19. rip says:

    So might there be competing depositions? Could the J6 committee make both Clarence and “Jinni” present independently? I realize the word “make” is rather too strong given their exalted positions. Perhaps request. The Fifth Amendment right may get really overworked,

  20. pdaly says:

    Someone may have linked to this 2021 New Yorker article before now. But it may bear repeat linking.
    Clarence Thomas, Cleta Mitchell, Mark Meadows, overturning an election with “Independent Legislature Doctrine”, guillotine in AZ. Same characters, same themes.

    “{Shawnna] Bolick has since announced her candidacy for secretary of state in Arizona. Her husband, Clint Bolick, is an Arizona Supreme Court justice and a leader in right-wing legal circles. Clarence Thomas, one of the three U.S. Supreme Court Justices who signed on to the concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore laying out the Independent Legislature Doctrine, is the godfather of one of Clint Bolick’s sons. If Shawnna Bolick wins her race, she will oversee future elections in the state. And, if the Supreme Court faces another case in which arguments about the Independent Legislature Doctrine come into play, there may now be enough conservative Justices to agree with Thomas that there are circumstances under which legislatures, not voters, could have the final word in American elections.”

    • harpie says:

      THANKS for excerpting that part, pdaly!
      [There’s SO much important info in that Jane Mayer article!]

      • pdaly says:

        Thanks, harpie.

        Glad that you highlighted the fact Jane Mayer is the author.
        I also meant to point out that Shawna Bolick (married to AZ Supreme Court justice Bolick) signed a petition as an Arizona Republican state representative to block Congress’ certification of Biden as the winner (and also introduced legislation to allow state legislators to overturn an election), similar to how Ginni Thomas (married to a US Supreme Court justice) publicly pushed for the same radical result.

        Clarence Thomas is friendly with the Bolick’s (Clarence is the godfather to one of the Bollick’s children).

        Thomas’ former clerk John Eastman tried to pull the same legal mumbo jumbo ‘block Joe Biden’s certification’ with VP Pence.

        It is starting to look like the radical legal theory to overturn the popular vote is a penumbra emanating from Clarence Thomas.
        Or if he disagrees with it, he must be really lonely among his close friends and allies.

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, I know the Bolicks. Bollocks not for Bolicks. Clint is not stupid, even if no guiding light. Shawna, well, ….

  21. harpie says:
    12:30 PM · Jan 27, 2020

    Members of Eldred’s UiP [United in Purpose] who’ve had meetings with and access to Trump include Bill Dallas (President), David Barton (a director), Jim Garlow (a director), and–most importantly–former Rep @BobMcEwen (a *paid* director), who’s particularly close to Trump./5

    Photo # 2:
    Am I correct that the people in this 10/10/18 PHOTO [l-r] are:


    Just want to mention here that KAVANAUGH assumed his SCOTUS seat on 10/6/18

    • Eureka says:

      ? if that’s the right link or I am having operator error, but the third from the left is Don McGahn in the 2nd photo I see

      [Thomas, Trump, McGahn, …]

      • Eureka says:

        Yep, we’re looking at the same picture (it has that 10/10/18 date stamped on it) and I agree with your other identifications (including [???] –dk who that is) except that the third from the left is McGahn, not Kav.

        # allthepastyfedsocboyzlookalike

        • harpie says:

          Oh! Don McGahn…thanks!
          LOL! yep!
          But still, I think it’s interesting that these four we can ID
          are there, together, then.

          • Eureka says:

            Oh, definitely.

            You know who must have file folders upon cabinets upon e-reemz of these details? Sheldon Whitehouse.

            Bet his staffers know exactly who that other dude is.

            Weds. 10/17/2018 was McGahn’s last day at WCHO (to be replaced by Flood as temp [that news may have come on 10/18] until Cipollone came on as WHC 12/10/2018).

            Closing the Kav deal was to be his exit job (widely known at the time).

            • Ginevra diBenci says:

              McGahn considered ACB’s ascension to SCOTUS his supreme achievement. He promoted her for years within Fed Soc, and may have been the central figure behind her nomination.

              • Eureka says:

                And recall they trial-ballooned ACB prior to Kav’s nomination.

                OT: I hope you’ve been able to make contact with your Ukrainian family, Ginevra, and that they are safe wherever they might be.

                • Ginevra diBenci says:

                  Eureka, Your thoughtfulness–to say nothing of your memory!–brought tears from my eyes. My stepmother and stepsister left Odessa in the 1970s, as did many but not all of their friends. They only started referring to their home as Ukraine instead of Russia in 1991, but their love for Odessa never waned. When I see what is happening there now, all I can think of is the lovely city they described.

                  My stepmother died in 2018. My stepsister now lives in DC. She has Israeli citizenship too, as do her two daughters who were born there. The younger one is a career Israeli army officer, and I worry about her a lot. None of this hatred respects the borders it pretends to own, or the people it relentlessly dehumanizes. Our infatuation with bullies reflects profound insecurity in our nature, and the bullies have weaponized it in systematic ways.

                  Thank you for thinking of my family. It means more than I can express.

                  • Eureka says:

                    You said it beautifully, Ginevra. The pain is boundless.

                    I declined a recent headline that promised to explain how empathy made it harder to live in these times. Eff that; how about it’s the best glue we’ve got [distress-clicks which place what should be the lede as instead a denouement of relief being of a piece with the bully-infatuation complex you describe].

                    And so as always my best to you and yours (including the dead ones, who are always with us on this ride).

  22. Eureka says:

    February 2019 thread on the inappropriate/appearance of a G. Thomas-Trump WH-C. Thomas/SCOTUS circuit (cont. from discussion here:

    Jeff Bergman: “At the end of January, Ginni Thomas, J. Thomas’s wife, “met with Trump at the White House to lobby for patronage jobs.” [links to https : //] Three weeks later, J. Thomas issues a concurrence arguing for fewer restrictions on libel suits, as Trump has requested. This stinks.”
    12:56 PM · Feb 19, 2019

    “In case you missed it, J. Thomas calls on court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, which since 1964 has made public figures show “actual malice” in defamation suits. The president has often complained how unfair this is. [links to Justice Thomas calls for reexamining landmark libel decision in case involving Cosby accuser He agreed with the court’s decision not to take the case, but questions 1964 N.Y. Times v. Sullivan ruling.]”
    1:04 PM · Feb 19, 2019

    • Eureka says:

      Atop Marcy’s twitter:

      “Can we go back to Ginni Thomas’ role in getting Jessie Liu fired?”
      5:17 PM · Mar 28, 2022

      “Firing Liu played an ENORMOUS role in Billy Barr’s interference in the Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, and Erik Prince investigation/prosecutions — and who knows who else was being prosecuted…”

      Yes, let’s do.

      You can click through the discussion linked above to the “Liu Memo” courtesy of Barbara Ledeen working with Ginni Thomas, via Axios:

      Search EW’s “Jessie Liu” tag for much more info on how it all worked (out).

    • harpie says:

      XX/XX/XX Ginny THOMAS tries for months to get arrange a meeting with TRUMP about hiring certain people.
      XX/XX/XX Ginni and Clarence THOMAS dine with TRUMP/Melania

      [NYT]: […] The meeting was arranged after months of delay, according to the three people. It came about after the Thomases had dinner with the president and the first lady, Melania Trump, the people said.

      1/24/19 Ginni THOMAS hands a memo of names [The GROUNDSWELL Memo] directly to TRUMP

      […] [Axios]: Potential hires she offered to Trump, per sources with direct knowledge:
      – Sheriff David Clarke for a senior Homeland Security role.
      – Fox News regular and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino for a Homeland Security or counterterrorism adviser role.
      – Devin Nunes aide Derek Harvey for the National Security Council (where he served before McMaster pushed him out).
      – Radio talk show host Chris Plante for press secretary.
      – Federalist contributor Ben Weingarten for the National Security Council.

      • harpie says:

        2/5/20 TRUMP is acquitted by the Senate in the Frist Impeachment

        2/6/20 [Axios]: TRUMP feels his government — from Justice to State to Defense to Homeland Security — is filled with “snakes.” He wants them fired and replaced ASAP.
        He begins to revisit Ginni THOMAS’ [GROUNDSWELL’s] recommendations.

      • harpie says:

        2/15/20 [ON or ABOUT]

        […] In mid-February, Trump called his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to a meeting. […] “I want to put Johnny [McENTEE] in charge of personnel,” the president told Mulvaney. […] “You people never fucking listen to me!” Trump screamed. “You’re going to fucking do what I tell you to do.”

        A few hours later, Doyle was on Air Force One, along with McEntee, en route to a Trump rally in New Hampshire. She asked him about his interest in the position.

        [McENTEE]: “People have been telling me I should do that for a long time,” McEntee told her. “I didn’t feel ready before, but I am 29 now and I’m ready.” He added, “I’m the only person around here that’s just here for the president.” […]

        I wonder WHICH “people” had been telling him he “should do that for a long time”, and for HOW long they had been telling him that.

        From: THE MAN WHO MADE JANUARY 6 POSSIBLE The story of Johnny McEntee—the “deputy president” who rose to power at precisely the moment when democracy was falling apart Jonathan KARL 11/9/21

        • Eureka says:

          “…but I am 29 now and I’m ready.”

          Maybe he was. Quote suggests that at the wizened age of 28/27 or so, Johnny alone had insight that he was running up against a Trump-world version of a Peter Principle.

        • harpie says:

          So far, the next time Solar Wind comes up my J6TL is when TRUMP minimizes it in a tweet [The Cyber Hack is far greater in the Fake News Media than in actuality. I have been fully briefed and everything is well under control […]] on the SAME day he invites everyone to the insurrection [retweeting NAVARRO’s “report”, Be there. Will be WILD!!]:

          • Eureka says:

            This is not specifically SolarWinds but a hack of the European Medicines Agency reported around the same time. See my comment on Marcy’s SolarWinds post here:


            De Volkskrant has since reported these attributions:

            Russian, Chinese hackers targeted Europe drug regulator: newspaper | Reuters
            March 6, 2021 8:40 AM Updated a year ago

            De Volkskrant on Saturday reported that the EMA was targeted by Chinese spies in the first half of 2020, followed by Russian intelligence agents later in the year.

            The Chinese gained access by hacking the systems of a German university, the newspaper quoted sources as saying, while the Russians are alleged to have exploited flaws in the EMA’s two-step verification login and other types of cyberdefence.


            [The alleged Russian hackers] were mainly interested in which countries would use the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech and how much they would buy, the newspaper added.

            [emphasis added]

            So more part of the broader Russian operation than J6 specifically.

            And in parallel to parts of SolarWinds (at minimum NIH was hacked in SW and other American orgs with healthcare/research data made vulnerable as well).

            Also, was this two-step/two-doors/two-govs process wrt to the EMA hack entwined in any ways?

            • Eureka says:

              ^ i.e. was there any coordination or piggy-backing (or stealing fruits from another) between the alleged Chinese and Russian groups? Not necessarily, but questions.

  23. harpie says:

    This is a list of TRUMP 1/6/21 phone conversations from this article:

    Who Trump talked to on the day of the Capitol riot
    Philip Bump 3/29/22

    […] As The Washington Post reported Tuesday, call logs obtained by the House select committee investigating the day’s violence track Trump’s conversations that morning, before he spoke at a rally near the White House, and in the evening after the worst of the violence occurred. The hours between, though, are empty — despite reported conversations between Trump and others. [McCARTHY and TUBERVILLE] […]

    8:23 AM TRUMP attempts c/w SCAVINO
    8:34 AM TRUMP c/w Kurt OLSEN (3 min) [attny for TX law suit]
    8:37 AM TRUMP c/w BANNON (2 min)
    8:42 AM TRUMP c/w GIULIANI (4 min)
    9:02 AM TRUMP attempts c/w PENCE
    9:03 AM TRUMP c/w MEADOWS (5 min)
    X:XX AM TRUMP attempts c/w McCONNELL [“Declined”]
    9:24 AM TRUMP c/w Jim JORDAN (11 min)
    9:41 AM TRUMP c/w GIULIANI (7 min)
    9:51 AM TRUMP c/w Stephen MILLER (28 min)
    10:32 AM TRUMP c/w Nick LUNA (2 min) [personal assistant]
    10:45 AM TRUMP c/w William BENNETT (2 min) [former Cabinet; pundit]
    11:04 AM TRUMP c/w David PERDUE (3 min)
    11:17 AM TRUMP c/w UNKNOWN [>Kelly LOEFFLER]
    11:20 AM TRUMP c/w PENCE

    • harpie says:

      2:26 PM TRUMP c/w TUBERVILLE [NOT in LOGS]
      3:30 PM TRUMP c/w McCARTHY [NOT in LOGS]
      Shortly before 4:17 PM TRUMP c/w SCAVINO (duration?)

      Before 7:01 PM TRUMP attempts c/w SCAVINO
      7:01 PM TRUMP c/w Pat CIPOLLONE (7 min)
      [Early evening] TRUMP call FROM Josh HAWLEY
      7:08 PM TRUMP c/w SCAVINO (8 min)
      7:17 PM TRUMP c/w Kurt OLSEN (12 min)
      7:30 PM TRUMP c/w Mark MARTIN (10 min) [former NC SC justice]
      [TIME?] WHITE HOUSE calls Bill HAGERTY [new TN Senator]
      7:53 PM TRUMP c/w Cleta MITCHELL (3 min)
      9:23 PM TRUMP c/w Jason MILLER (19 min)
      9:42 PM TRUMP c/w Kayleigh McENANY (12 min) [Press Secty]
      9:55 PM TRUMP c/w SCAVINO (16 min)
      10:11 PM TRUMP c/w Mark MEADOWS (9min)
      10:19 PM TRUMP c/w BANNON (about 8 min)
      10:50 PM TRUMP c/w Eric HERSCHMANN (6 min)
      11:08 PM TRUMP c/w Sean HANNITY (9 min)
      11:23 PM TRUMP c/w John McENTEE (19 min)

    • Eureka says:

      I think some of these are teleconferences (with multiple people in the room, and/or multiparty lines / hold on while I check with ___). What could anyone talk to Jordan about for 11m? Also eyeballing Miller at 28m, etc., not that length necessarily covaries with the number of parties on the line. But we are all aware of Trump’s attention span.

      Another option: longer calls involved the party/ies _giving direction_ (as opposed to just checking in) _to_ Trump (cf. how Hannity does same in any given “interview”).

      Of course, the other party could merely be captive to Trump’s grousing and general disorganization, as well, as to some of the longer calls.

    • harpie says:

      10:50 AM TRUMP schedule: “Depart White House”
      11:00 AM TRUMP schedule: “Speech begins”
      11:39 AM TRUMP departs the White House by motorcade for the quick drive to the Ellipse where he gathers with aides, allies and family members beneath a white tent

      Look again at that list of calls TRUMP is making around this time.

      10:32 AM TRUMP c/w Nick LUNA (2 min) [personal assistant]
      10:45 AM TRUMP c/w William BENNETT (2 min) [former Cabinet; pundit]
      11:04 AM TRUMP c/w David PERDUE (3 min)
      11:17 AM TRUMP c/w UNKNOWN [>Kelly LOEFFLER]
      11:20 AM TRUMP c/w PENCE

  24. harpie says:

    I was finally able to read the original WaPo article on this [It includes some docs]:

    Jan. 6 White House logs given to House show 7-hour gap in Trump calls The House select committee is now investigating whether it has the full record and whether Trump communicated that day through backchannels, phones of aides or personal disposable phones, according to people familiar with the probe. Woodward / Costa 3/29/2022 7:00 a.m. Updated 3/29/22 1:28 p.m.

    DOCS here:

Comments are closed.