Meanwhile the election was stolen by all accounts.

Also Dan Rather has zero credibility.
What a lying tool he turned into.
The only person who thinks he was an actual journalist is Brian Willams.

AGHouston11 said:

---

Meanwhile the election was stolen by all accounts.

---

Except the accounts of any court that reviewed the evidence. At least 63 lawsuits in total.

larry culpepper said:

---

Mville Ag said:

---

Now do Hunter….

---

If Hunter committed illegal acts then he should be prosecuted too.

There.

---

But he won't and the left will keep on using and abusing the double standards with no repercussions, regret, or even an admission that it might be a problem. Corruption is A-okay as long as you're a member of the party and advancing the cause. This is what happens when half of the country completely abandons any and all ethical boundaries while weaponizing journalism, the federal bureaucracy and the judicial system.

Looks like we should stop letting Thomas's wife make opinions in the Supreme Court.

Oh wait!

pdc093 said:

---

Now the left is going after Thomas. They're alleging that he's not really in the hospital. He's 'hiding out' because his wife was in cahoots with MCCarthy to overturn the election. He MUST resign, now that ALL his opinions are 'tainted'.
Dan Rather, Rob Reiner, et al, are encouraging their fans to demand his resignation/impeachment.

This idiocy is never going to stop until they are successful in destroying the republican party altogether.

---

Just give those *******s the one finger hand wave.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

---

Yes -- the implication here from you is that Clarence Thomas is a black white supremacist.

Truly the epitome of stupid you are if you really believe that.

I guess you think he is an 'Uncle T__' too right lib?

---

That's one of the greatest skits in the history of television…it's funny…that's it.

The real takeaway here:

They realize they are losing the Senate this Fall and the Whitehouse in 2024. They realize the court will, at a minimum, be 5-4 for the next 25 years. It's a Hail Mary to give Joe and Schumer one more selection.

Why do they believe this? We are going to be in a severe recession by Christmas. That's the real takeaway here.

Prepare.

If Joe Biden was fair game because of Hunter Biden, then Judge Thomas is because of his wife.

Space-Tech said:

---

If Joe Biden was fair game because of Hunter Biden, then Judge Thomas is because of his wife.

---

Space-Tech said:

---

If Joe Biden was fair game because of Hunter Biden, then Judge Thomas is because of his wife.

---

WOW!

Read the Constitution. You might find it interesting.

Space-Tech said:

---

If Joe Biden was fair game because of Hunter Biden, then Judge Thomas is because of his wife.

---

that is weapons grade stuff right there. Imagine actually believing that.

Space-Tech said:

---

If Joe Biden was fair game because of Hunter Biden, then Judge Thomas is because of his wife.

---

You're right.

Behind door 1 we have:

Texts of encouragement discovered through a political show trial and leaked to a corrupt press.

Behind Door 2 we have:

Pay for play, graft, abuse of discretion, influence peddling, favoritism, nepotism, clientelism, rampant illegal drug use, incest, pedophilia, and sex trafficking chronicled on a computer left behind by drug addict at a computer store corroborated by multiple primary sources that was ignored by a corrupt press and suppressed by social media while individuals and journalists who reported on it were de-platformed.

So basically Libs/Dems believe that family members of Conservatives should not be allowed to have an opinion or to express that opinion to others. It appears that they are even willing to attack the Conservative for their family members opinion and seek their removal from their position/office.

I guess the 1st Amendment does not apply to Conservatives/Repubs or their family members. Libs/Dems probably believe a few other amendments need to be tossed out or just selectively enforced too. Libs/Dems are destroying the country.

PaulC_80 said:

---

So basically Libs/Dems believe that family members of Conservatives should not be allowed to have an opinion or to express that opinion to others. It appears that they are even willing to attack the Conservative for their family members opinion and seek their removal from their position/office.

I guess the 1st Amendment does not apply to Conservatives/Repubs or their family members. Libs/Dems probably believe a few other amendments need to be tossed out or just selectively enforced too. Libs/Dems are destroying the country.

---

The First Amendment actually is restricted for judges. Yes, really. This is the whole point behind the controversy.

Quote:

---

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.1

(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:

(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;

(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;

(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

---

While Ginni Thomas was the one who particiapted in these activities, Clarence ruled on cases before the court in which she had a clear, direct interest.

larry culpepper said:

---

PaulC_80 said:

---

So basically Libs/Dems believe that family members of Conservatives should not be allowed to have an opinion or to express that opinion to others. It appears that they are even willing to attack the Conservative for their family members opinion and seek their removal from their position/office.

I guess the 1st Amendment does not apply to Conservatives/Repubs or their family members. Libs/Dems probably believe a few other amendments need to be tossed out or just selectively enforced too. Libs/Dems are destroying the country.

---

The First Amendment actually is restricted for judges. Yes, really. This is the whole point behind the controversy.

Quote:

---

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.1

(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:

(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;

(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;

(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

---

While Ginni Thomas was the one who particiapted in these activities, Clarence ruled on cases before the court in which she had a clear, direct interest.

---

When was she appointed to the Court?

What crime was committed?

Why is Hunter Biden still free?

Why is his father President?

larry culpepper said:

---

PaulC_80 said:

---

So basically Libs/Dems believe that family members of Conservatives should not be allowed to have an opinion or to express that opinion to others. It appears that they are even willing to attack the Conservative for their family members opinion and seek their removal from their position/office.

I guess the 1st Amendment does not apply to Conservatives/Repubs or their family members. Libs/Dems probably believe a few other amendments need to be tossed out or just selectively enforced too. Libs/Dems are destroying the country.

---

The First Amendment actually is restricted for judges. Yes, really. This is the whole point behind the controversy.

Quote:

---

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.1

(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:

(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;

(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;

(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

---

While Ginni Thomas was the one who particiapted in these activities, Clarence ruled on cases before the court in which she had a clear, direct interest.

---

So no rules broken, no laws broken. But Thomas should resign, because racist democrats want to finally get their high tech lynching after 30 years. Got it.

Quote:

---

While Ginni Thomas was the one who particiapted in these activities, Clarence ruled on cases before the court in which she had a clear, direct interest.

---

So how far removed must an individual be from a privately espoused feeling that was never meant for public consumption before that individual is legally responsible due to their relationship to your definition of interest, which is apparently any private expression of a feeling involving anything potentially related to a potential political process?

Are we talking spouse, parent, child, friend, neighbor, co-worker, or a guy on the elevator?

What's the legal test for this?

Elaborate.

Door 1 has documented proof.

Door 2 is all speculation.

Space-Tech said:

---

Elaborate.

---

Article II versus Article III of the Constitution.

II is the Executive Branch, subject to elections.

III is Judicial Branch, lifetime appointments.

Space-Tech said:

---

Door 1 has documented proof.

Door 2 is all speculation.

---

What a joke, step back and realize the election was stolen, our government has been overthrown by big tech, swamp, and zucks bucks.

You lemmings.

rgag12 said:

---

How did we go so long without realizing Dan Rather was a complete nut job?

---

I figured it out back in 1984 as a student. He was that obvious.

ttu_85 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

How did we go so long without realizing Dan Rather was a complete nut job?

---

I figured it out back in 1984 as a student. He was that obvious.

---

Nixon for me.

ETA: Hated Nixon. Also in 1974, I was 15.

aggiehawg said:

---

Space-Tech said:

---

Elaborate.

---

Article II versus Article III of the Constitution.

II is the Executive Branch, subject to elections.

III is Judicial Branch, lifetime appointments.

---

If you are going to proclaim that reading the Constitution somehow insulates Ginny Thomas but exposes Hunter Biden you need be a little more specific in your elaboration.

Space-Tech said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Space-Tech said:

---

Elaborate.

---

Article II versus Article III of the Constitution.

II is the Executive Branch, subject to elections.

III is Judicial Branch, lifetime appointments.

---

If you are going to proclaim that reading the Constitution somehow insulates Ginny Thomas but exposes Hunter Biden you need be a little more specific in your elaboration.

---

Pardon me, I overestimated your knowledge.

A POTUS is elected. And when POTUS has a family member that commits crimes and use the father to cover for them and is part of the conspiracy (bribery) himself, impeachment, 25th, resignation.

A SCOTUS Justice, whose wife has text communications which are private with a WH employee, not involving criminal conspiracy, nothing actionable nor impeachable.

Just make it more clear - the President and his son if they were normal citizens would be in Prison.

rgag12 said:

---

How did we go so long without realizing Dan Rather was a complete nut job?

---

We gave him an alibi because he was from Texas.

Until he finally couldn't be excused any longer.

ttu_85 said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

How did we go so long without realizing Dan Rather was a complete nut job?

---

I figured it out back in 1984 as a student. He was that obvious.

---

Same time frame for me as well. Rather and the whole 60 Minutes crew. End of my childhood naivety in trusting anything the media said.

Liberals are racists and hate all blacks except those who obey by their plantation rules.

This thread.

All the leftists were completely gutted that a black man didn't die. So they came back here to rattle off complete nonsense about why he should at least lose his job. Wear those white hoods with pride, leftists.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

This thread.

All the leftists were completely gutted that a black man didn't die. So they came back here to rattle off complete nonsense about why he should at least lose his job. Wear those white hoods with pride, leftists.

---

Well, bro, I'm not a leftist. I watched all of the Thomas hearings as a teen. I think he's been one of the best justices other than Scalia. But this isn't good. His wife appears to be a Q loon and has given the left all they need to move to impeach. Ugh.

larry culpepper said:

---

PaulC_80 said:

---

So basically Libs/Dems believe that family members of Conservatives should not be allowed to have an opinion or to express that opinion to others. It appears that they are even willing to attack the Conservative for their family members opinion and seek their removal from their position/office.

I guess the 1st Amendment does not apply to Conservatives/Repubs or their family members. Libs/Dems probably believe a few other amendments need to be tossed out or just selectively enforced too. Libs/Dems are destroying the country.

---

The First Amendment actually is restricted for judges. Yes, really. This is the whole point behind the controversy.

Quote:

---

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.1

(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:

(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;

(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;

(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

---

While Ginni Thomas was the one who particiapted in these activities, Clarence ruled on cases before the court in which she had a clear, direct interest.

---

SCOTUS Justices do NOT have to follow the Code of Conduct...

Quote:

---

"Unlike all federal judges, Supreme Court Justices are not required to follow the Code of Conduct for United States judges a binding code of ethics that ensures neutrality and transparency in our judiciary," said Johnson, a former county magistrate judge.

---

Just stop.

Jay Reimenschneider said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

This thread.

All the leftists were completely gutted that a black man didn't die. So they came back here to rattle off complete nonsense about why he should at least lose his job. Wear those white hoods with pride, leftists.

---

Well, bro, I'm not a leftist. I watched all of the Thomas hearings as a teen. I think he's been one of the best justices other than Scalia. But this isn't good. His wife appears to be a Q loon and has given the left all they need to move to impeach. Ugh.

---

On what grounds?

His wife is a loon?

That he didn't recuse himself because his wife is a loon?

He didn't recuse himself because his wife is a loon and sent texts?

Is that pretty much it