Yeah. Just do it already.
She had plenty of time to voluntary appeare if she had really wanted to do that. Her attorney’s response seems to be another clear as day signal that she is not too willing to cooperate. Issue the supeona already.
12 Likes
She held no official position in government. Least of all a position in the White House. So there’s ZERO chance of any executive privilege for her. Any direct discussions she may have had with TFG were between a president and a U.S. citizen.
There is no spousal privilege she can count on (until Clarence is on trial, that is).
The only one I can see that she retains is the 5th amendment.
BTW, I seem to remember her being EAGER to testify. Let’s see if she fights the subpoena (100% chance).
44 Likes
I think that might be before her lawyers told her to put a lid on her stupid supposition that she was going to set the committee straight.
25 Likes
The great thing about being a Trumper is that facts and objective reality do not count.
Until they do…
And that is what will be paramount in the coming days/weeks/months/years:
A battle for truth versus cover-ups. Cover-ups which will make Nixon’s look like thirteen-year-olds playing Pony League…
This is a pampered lady caught in the middle of just ONE.
17 Likes
Her personal stupidity, notwithstanding…
If she fights it in court, J6C can cite that comment as part of their case. And they will.
10 Likes
As SusanCollinsesque as “may contemplate a subpoena” sounds, I’d offer she’s just doing what her dad taught her: in an actual or quasi-prosecutorial role, you don’t say “we will file a complaint” or “we will serve a subpoena” until you know you are going to do it, at which point, you could just do it and let the gesture speak for itself; A better formulation might have been “we reserve all the authority at our disposal, including subpoena.” Or perhaps a reference to Friday’s verdict, to the effect that the Committee frowns on obstruction of its investigative authority. Or, say nothing and just serve.
Agreed otherwise that arrogance is in no short supply, and I wouldn’t mind having listened in on whatever convo Ginni had with her attorney after her initial professed eagerness to “clear up misconceptions.”
Sort of makes one nostalgic for the reports of Martha Mitchell being held hostage in a CA hotel room, telephone ripped from the wall, and being injected with a tranquilizer at Herb Kalmbach’s direction - that all seems so innocent by comparison…
9 Likes
If he dies, so is her protection.
14 Likes
We’re way past “if.”
We’ve moved on to “how.”
14 Likes
Please don’t give Clarence any ideas.
5 Likes
17 Likes
9 Likes
If she dies his brain is gone.
Or maybe he’ll be free at last.
4 Likes
Ginni Thomas was complicit in the attack to overthrow our democracy. I don’t care who she is married to, subpoena her to get her under oath and on the record. How and why is she even a friend of Mark Meadows?
21 Likes
What’s concerning is that Ginni and Clarence are a married couple and someone(s) who should have a lick of sense would know it was not just Caesar’s wife that should be above suspicion.
19 Likes
Wonder if she brings Clarence as her lawyer
1 Like
But he hasn’t practiced in decades.
6 Likes
provide “better justification”
There’s a reason she doesn’t want to testify, and it isn’t because she wants to defend rights in a Constitution she rejects.
8 Likes
Perf…ect…
5 Likes
Unless she has to invoke the 5th and knows it… plenty of interesting questions to ask this right-wing nutso if/when they can get her under oath.
6 Likes