 So we are learning more and more about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginny Thomas, and every time we learn more about her, it's frightening because this is the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Clarence Thomas serves on the highest court of the land and his wife is a 2020 election truther. Now, there was a recent report about how she is on the board of organizations that are affiliated with the organizers of the January 6th Stop the Steel Rally. Now, in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, she's going to deny these connections, but she's going to admit that she attended the Stop the Steel Rally. Now, why she admitted this? I don't know because I, being the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice, wouldn't want to admit that I'm palling around with insurrectionists and people who are trying to overturn the will of the people, but nonetheless, she just casually admits this in the interview because I think that she believes this is somehow going to make her look better because she's being honest and she's saying, well, I was there, but I'm not connected to the organizers. But if anything, this makes her look worse. So as HuffPost explains, Ginny Thomas told the Washington Free Beacon that she attended the rally in the morning, but left because she was cold before Donald Trump addressed the crowd and urged his supporters to march to the Capitol. Convenient. I played no role with those who were planning and leading the January 6th events. Thomas told the conservative news outlet. Sure. There are stories in the press suggesting I paid or arranged for buses. I did not. There are other stories saying I mediated feuding factions of leaders for that day. I did not. Thomas added that she was saddened to see the scenes of protesters clashing with police and storming the Capitol. I was disappointed and frustrated that there was violence that happened following a peaceful gathering of Trump supporters on the ellipse of January 6th. Thomas said in the interview, there are important and legitimate substantive questions about achieving goals like electoral integrity, racial equality and political accountability that a democratic system like ours needs to be able to discuss and debate rationally in the political square. I fear we are losing that ability. Oh, do you now? Well, it's a good thing that your husband's in a position of power. We can actually influence that, which is something that we should definitely talk about. So let's just stop for a moment and consider the implications of this. She was at stop the steal. So this means either, A, she's dumb because she actually believes that the election was stolen from Donald Trump when there's zero evidence to support this. Or B, she knows the election was not stolen, but she was there because she wanted democracy to be overturned. She wanted to subvert the will of the people and stop the certification of this election. So which is it? And the more important question is how much does Clarence Thomas agree with her? Because they're married. I don't know about you, but my spouse and I, we have virtually identical political beliefs. I couldn't be with someone if I'm that involved in politics. If I'm on the Supreme Court, I definitely couldn't be with anyone who had, you know, different views that are that extreme, right? I mean, it's a possibility that Clarence Thomas doesn't believe the election was stolen. And he disagrees with the stop the steal rally in Trump's lies. But is it likely that he agrees with his wife? Yeah, I'd say reasonable people would deduce that it's very likely that him and his wife are in lockstep on this issue, which means that there's a real likelihood that a Supreme Court justice, a sitting Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment. Is against democracy. That's horrifying to think about, right? And you might think, well, what do we do about this? This is a conflict of interest. His wife's political activity and his political beliefs makes him unfit. So should he resign? Sure. But will he know? OK, well, then let's impeach him. How do we do that? Well, it's virtually impossible to get that accomplished. So, you know, we have a potential capital insurrectionist, a 2020 election truther on the Supreme Court, and there's nothing that we can do about it. He can affect legal precedent in this country for decades with his undemocratic beliefs. And we just have to sit by and accept it. It's it's horrifying. Now, she is lying about her connections to insurrectionists. So she is a board member of CNP. This is the Council for National Policy. And this organization literally followed Trump's lead here. And they directed their members in Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania to pressure lawmakers to overturn the elections in their states. Right. Challenge these election results. This is an organization that she's a board member of. The wife of a Supreme Court justice. Now, she also claims that there was this allegation that she was funding bus rides there. But what she's referring to is the report that since she is a member or was a member at the very least of Turning Point's action, who Charlie Kirk admitted, they sent bus rides to get people to the capital that there's that connection there, right? Perhaps she wasn't directly involved. Maybe the reports about her directly trying to bring together feuding factions of the stop the steel movement is overblown. Either way, the connection there is very real and very worrying. This is someone who is the wife of a Supreme Court justice. And let me just put something out there. This is not the most unhinged things that she's done. I mean, with respect to democracy, it's certainly out there, right? But this is somebody who hired someone who Turning Point USA thought was too racist. So do you remember the story about Crystal Clanton, who was fired from Turning Point USA because she texted someone saying that she hates all black people? Well, Ginny Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, decided to hire that person. Now, if we want to be extra charitable, maybe she was thinking, look, I can fix her. Let me hire her and change her mind. But most people instinctively would think, wow, I don't want to be associated with them and her husband is black. So it seems weird that she would hire someone who admitted that they hate black people, wouldn't you not want to associate with people like that? Wouldn't you not want to give them a job? This is somebody who is a psychopath. She is a political extremist at a minimum, but psychopathic at worst. And she has influence over Clarence Thomas. And given that they're married, it's reasonable to assume that their views are pretty similar. Again, me and my spouse's views are virtually identical, ideologically. And I think that's probably the way that it is for most spouse spouses. I mean, I'm sure that you have some instances where there's disagreements here and there. But when it comes to major disagreements about democracy itself and whether you do or don't believe in democracy, I think that you're not going to be able to reconcile those differences. So odds are, whatever she believes, Clarence Thomas holds those same views. And we have evidence to suggest he's an extremist because we have decades worth of rulings from him where he's a reactionary and an extremist to his core. So the fact that a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment, virtually no way of getting him off that court unless he chooses on his own volition to retire is. A 2020 election truther is horrifying. I don't know what this means for the future of democracy in the United States, but it's certainly something that people should be concerned with. Because when you have somebody this close to extreme power, like a Supreme Court justice who's influencing him at a minimum, but worse, probably has the same views as him. I mean, it's it's crazy. And maybe this is a bit of a jump, but I think that whatever she believes, Clarence Thomas probably believes too. So, you know, we're dealing with the prospect of a sitting Supreme Court justice possibly wanting the election to be overturned because he's against democracy. He's in favor of a pro-Trump dictatorship. I mean, this is someone who should have no say determining the constitutionality of laws. But here we are in the United States where a potential insurrectionist or somebody who's at a minimum, you know, a sympathetic to insurrectionists is on the highest court in the land. Wow. It's very sad.