What the Jan. 6 Committee should ask Ginni Thomas

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — a private citizen, entitled to her own beliefs and her own vocation (she’s chosen conservative politics). But it’s possible that that work has included criminal actions, or at least actions that a reasonable observer might view as antithetical to the preservation of our democracy.

Following the 2020 election, Ginni urged 29 Arizona lawmakers to ignore President Biden’s popular vote victory in that state and choose a pro-Trump slate of presidential electors to certify different results. As we’ve learned in dribs and drabs over the last few months, Ginni was in frequent contact with President Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and with the legal architect of the election subversion strategy, former Justice Thomas law clerk John Eastman. The goal of these communiqués: stopping, by any means, Biden’s ascension to the presidency.

What we know at this point may just be the tip of the iceberg. Much of the picture, including whether she made money from these activities or if she discussed them with her husband, remains unclear to lawmakers and the public. So the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack has decided to bring her in for questioning, and the interview will likely take place early next month.

Ginni is not a justice, of course, but this saga presents a test for the Supreme Court. Do these ceaseless revelations spur Chief Justice John Roberts to seek a commitment from his colleagues — Justice Thomas first and foremost — that they’ll follow federal recusal laws and abide by judicial ethics standards?

Thomas flouted these laws and standards by participating in countless 2020 election petitions despite his wife’s clear interest in the result. (Federal law requires recusal when your spouse has an interest in the outcome of a proceeding.)

This fact must no longer be ignored on First Street.

News earlier this week that Eastman had “personal insight [...] into the four justices” who might want to grant review in petitions seeking to overturn election results presents another test. If multiple justices or their staff were talking to people outside the Court about these petitions while they were live, that’s another gross violation of judicial ethics and might add another case — beyond the leak of the Dobbs draft — to Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley’s investigations docket.

The Ginni Thomas interview also presents a test for Congress, since some will accuse the Jan. 6 Committee of using the investigation into her subversion activities as a way to harm her husband. But the Committee should not be cowed. The investigation must go where the facts lead, and at this point we must learn the extent to which there was any crossover between the Thomases’ work.

Here are some questions I’d like the Committee to ask Ginni:

Did she discuss the results of the 2020 election, or the efforts to produce new slates of electors in several states, with her husband, with any members of Congress or with anyone in Trump’s cabinet or staff?

Did she speak with any other Supreme Court justices, Court staff, or current or past clerks about the results of the 2020 election? (If her phone and email were subpoenaed, would what was discovered confirm her prior answer?)

Did Ginni, a lawyer by training, offer any advice to the Trump administration or Trump campaign attorneys on arguments to make in Supreme Court petitions concerning the 2020 election?

Besides Arizona, did she communicate with lawmakers in any other states, any Electoral College members or any “false” or “substitute” (read: illegal) slates of elections regarding the election results?

And, most critically, did Ginni get paid for her election subversion work and, if so, who paid her?

To this point, the Committee has been following a long and winding email trail from Eastman and Meadows that’s led us to Ginni. Fleshing out this communication network will be a necessary step toward bringing justice for the events of Jan. 6, but, just as in other criminal conspiracies, following the money will be necessary to ensure the same events will not recur.