>

but it took them until now to figure it out! that's something! /s
It's a missed opportunity to be sure, and doesn't make any sense. >

The focus of the committee report appears to be on people who were part of the government... and Ginni Thomas was technically only an activist who was tangentially organizing the events and people who would then go on to be the rioters.
This does not mean that she won't be a target of Jack Smith's investigation though. >

I agree with you — Jack Smith will be able to follow a lot of threads and unlike previous joke special counsels (Ken Starr and John Dunham), Smith has a wide remit, documented criminality, and a vast array of background investigative material to work with. Ginni Thomas probably believes she’s above the law and immune from scrutiny because of her marriage to Clarence Thomas, but I have a feeling Jack Smith already has her on the radar and could — quite possibly — mention the refusal by Justice Thomas to recuse himself in the case involving January 6 records from the White House. >

Doubtful.  The powerful will pervert the outcome.  See: Mueller. >

See Barr. >

Barr could be in charge by the time things are completed.  If I’m not mistaken, we all saw the crime on TV in real time, and no one organizing the violence has been arrested let alone charged. >

Wasn’t Stuart Rhodes just convicted of sedition like a month ago?
They have to get the people on the bottom and work their way up. >

I’d love to be wrong, but along the way to the top they’ll stop for the good of the country, aka rich people. >

The best thing for rich people is to dump trump because he will probably cost the Republican Party a chance at presidency if he isn’t in prison or barred from running. >

All of the conspirators meed to be brought to justice or they will be tempted to try again. The layers, staff, congressmen, and ginni thomas. >

I think the reason is the committee didn’t want to dilute the core story of the people at the top who were most responsible. 
If they had released a full laundry list of crimes they uncovered during their investigation it would have been easily waved away with Trump and co also using it as a foil to argue partisanship (witch hunt anyone). Instead they identified the key players that committed the most serious crimes, so now the answer to “witch hunt” is “yes, look at this coven of egregious witches and the clear evidence of their crimes”. >

All of us waiting for Watergate style indictments to start dropping need to realize that there was broad bipartisan support for such prosecutions then because the Republicans didn’t have Fox News et al to run interference for all the criminals in the government. >

Literally why Fox was started was to run opposition when they got caught after the next Watergate >

It was probably strategic, as much of this stuff has been, to avoid it being written off as conspiracy theorizing, even if everything in it is true. It’s all optics do this hits harder. >

I think the focus on Trump was very strategic. They want a former US President charged with federal crimes. There's really no precedent for that currently. They sort of had to create the precedent, and to some degree, pressure.
The DOJ is going to investigate and charge whoever they want anyway. It's not like the Jan 6 Committee are in any way limiting their ability to do that. >

Indeed. If they can take down the President for this, literally no position of direct or inferred privilege/authority will keep you safe. >

So far everyone appears safe despite the obvious 14a-3 disqualification. >

Her participation on the committee didn’t change my opinion of her in the slightest. >

I read somewhere that Cheney pushed to restrict the focus of the report to just the Trump administration and not the broader group of insurrectionists. We "the people," as they say, should acknowledge that conservatives are above the law and the rest of us are beneath it. Ginni Thomas is royalty and there is nothing within the current framework that the serfs can do about it. The norms and laws don't apply. Something else will have to. >

Yep, everyone who praised her as some heroic defender of democracy got played. Her job to was to go after Trump on behalf of the “establishment”/neocon wing of the party and limit the hangout to only Trump and his direct cronies. >

Right, she was their puppet. That's why they condemned her, sanctioned her, and essentially ousted her from the party.
Does that make sense to you? Her career is in shambles because of her involvement in the Jan 6 Committee. What is she getting out of this?
You honestly believe that people have no agency and are just puppets doing what they're commanded? >

She’ll do just fine.  She’ll be making money hand over fist on the news and talk show circuit for months, if not years.  She’ll probably write a book at some point too.  Someone had to take the bullet, and it ended up being her and Kinzinger.  Kinzinger was finished anyway since his district got remapped, which I’m sure you know being from IL >

Look - you got played by a right wing grifter. It’s ok, it happens, and it came from a good place. But you should just admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it. >

I think you're leaning in too heavily into the conspiracy aspect here when common sense is far more likely to be what was presented; Kinzinger and Cheney despise Trump and associate him with what's wrong with the GOP. The committee was neutered the minute McCarthy pulled any GOP support. Nearly every member of Congress will get a book deal and talk show pay regardless of their political party, Cheney didn't need to be sacrificed for that to happen and Kinzinger was solidly anti trump before Jan 6. I understand it's easier to imagine a conspiracy, where there isn't, but doing so only fans the flames that the report is false. Are you insinuating the report is false because of a conspiracy, without evidence. >

Kinzinger* >

My thanks. >

Does the report say anything about the secret service texts ? That’s what I am most curious about. >

If you were perplexed by the omission of Ginny Thomas' name, as well as the fact that law enforcement, FBI, Secret Service, etc. were essentially given a pass for their negligence and ignoring all tips regarding the potential for violence on 1/6 in the days and weeks prior to that fateful day, look no further than Liz Cheney.  She wants 100% of this pinned on Donald Trump, and while he's obviously the main reason for the insurrection, you're a damn fool to solely look in his direction. >

Ginni reached out to the Chief of Staff for the President of the United States, Mark Meadows, and possibly others several times.  And therefore she was part of the Stop the Steal team.  Even if Clarence Thomas was not aware of this at the time, he is now, and should absolutely have recused himself from any supreme court cases involving the election and Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn it. 
In the end, we have a sitting supreme court justice, who is unethical, and a Supreme Court Justice spouse, who implored the chief of staff to overturn a US election. >

If there truly is a God I'm sure there is a special place in hell reserved for Ginni and Clarence. >

In some ways, many conservatives are living in a kind of hell already.  Imagine the energy it takes for leaders to constantly lie.  The stress of trying to stay ahead of law enforcement and out of the courtroom.  Imagine the toll it takes on the body and mind to be constantly angry and afraid of everything.  Living in such a dreadful world must be miserable. >

I dunno, good points, but they are immune to the empathy and ethics we non-sociopaths feel.  Chronic lying is a pleasant obsession with them.  Believing lies and spreading them is a huge part of their being. When those can be used to create suffering or chaos in the world, they call it a good day. >

Compromised Supreme Court is above the law! The hypocrisy!! >

Hopefully they're saving her and her scumbag treasonous husband for a special circle in hell. >

That’s disappointing. >

The most dangerous thing when dealing with your enemy is when they are alerted to any action that potentially threatens them or could potentially hold them accountable.
It's the rational behind protective orders made without notice and no knock warrants and search warrant executions ; If you aren't in a position to hold someone accountable and seize evidence immediately, then you don't come out the shadows.
Jan 6th committee letting the special counsel doing the digging and lets them build a picture around trump , Ginni and Clarence .
If your going to go after a supreme court justices wife and /or an associate justice , you better have you I's dotted and your T's crossed. >

Totally disappointing. >

Of course not. She’s a traitor to the country that literally has one of the highest judges in the land as a husband who can shield her from the government she wants to over throw. Good times. Of course categorically, this makes Judge Thomas a traiotor to the country. What wonderful times we live in. In Germany, they kick them out of the government. In Merica, they can do whatever they want without impunity. But only because there are too many traitors in power. >

Seems fishy to me. >

Didn’t the committee interview her? If so, a transcript would exist. And if it’s not in this report, then perhaps it was turned over to the DOJ for them to decide to act or not. >

I have never wanted to read testimony more. So who is working on that FOIA request >

She was there in spirit, I’m sure >

Come on Jack Smith! >

I have to say, all this, and impeachment failed twice. This could have been prevented, and wasn’t. >

I guess being a justice or related to one means you are royalty and insulated from actual consequences >

Ginni Thomas could pass for Mark Meadows in drag. >

Have we ever seen them both in the same room?!?! /s 😆 >

But, yes, I'm sure that there will be consequences aNy DaY nOw >

Not a good sign for the seriousness of the report. >

She's going to be shielded, just like when she failed to declare her income. >

Well she DOES control SCOTGOP >

Why? Do they believe her to be innocent? >

They expect you to move on.  And you probably will.  What else you gonna do about it? >

This is what really ticks me off. Why do certain people get a pass? She was involved and so was her husband justice Clarence Thomas. He was the lone vote in the Supreme Court ruling that favored Trump, and gave no explanation why. We need to stop, pretending that we are as pure as the driven snow. It’s this hypocrisy that is destroying the fabric of democracy. >

That's because she committed treason with a calm sweet attitude! >

Seems like this could end up in front of the supreme court. Obviously Clarence has shown no regard for impartiality in regards to cases involving his wife. Including her would only motivate him to protect her. Lose lose. >

wouldn't including her force him to recuse? >

As I understand it, there is no mechanism to force his recusal for any reason. >

What the traitorous fuck? >

The belief that someone influential will go to prison for this comes from the media’s constant pushing of the false narrative that the good guys are on the case.
From Mueller to now the whole purpose of these investigations are to keep the population docile as the government descends into fascism.
No one will go to prison and democracy ended some time around the citizens United decision in 2008. >

I guess this just means some people are above the law, that America doesn't actually stand for justice for all and trump isn't going to jail
What a fn joke >

Lol so what we've learned is that the comittee was a huge waste of time and effort. We already knew Trump was guilty. this report hardly mentions security failures, hardly mentions the hundreds of people that helped plan it and doesnt do a damn thing for anyone.   What a joke.