comment: >
  
  January 6th was OUR Beer Hall Putsch
  We're taking an awfully similar path.
context: How is it possible to believe that she sent those emotional, overwrought texts to Mark Meadows, but didn't discuss anything with her own husband?  It's just not plausible. >
  
  She said she felt better after a chat with her husband, and then said in closing that they never talk about her work.
  How did he make her feel better after she just had an emotional outburst like she described?
  What did Clarence Thomas say that assuaged her worries? >
  
  "Who put this pubic hair on my Diet Coke?" >
  
  Don't remind me. 🤢🤮 >
  
  Someone please fill those of us in who don't want to be reminded yet.
  Edit: thx much and happy new year to everyone >
  
  That's how Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill as she stated during his confirmation hearing. >
  
  Not just Hill. He was constantly talking about pornography, sex, and other work inappropriate topics throughout his career. Women of course, to make them uncomfortable and exude "power," but men in his various offices have often admitted that he was a fucking weirdo. The guy would literally roll in on a Monday and over coffee and bagels casually mention, "I saw this movie where a woman was fucked by a dog over the weekend. Wild, right?"  
  If his career had begun in the modern day any half-competent HR department would have had him drummed out within six months. >
  
  The bestiality angle always amazes me.
  You are a Judge, whose judgement is so shit you think its perfectly acceptable and totally normal to discuss hardcore beastiality, in the workplace.
  A Supreme Court Judge y'all. >
  
  This was fine with the 90s GOP.
  Their degeneracy in the service of their ideology is nothing new. >
  
  Ah, the era of Newt Gingrich >
  
  Clarence Thomas has already demonstrated that he has no problem whatsoever lying under oath >
  
  Because it's too late for that. >
  
  He can be subpoenaed. Not by J6Comm but he’s not immune. >
  
  Who is going to issue a subpoena? The DOJ? >
  
  That’s what the article says. The DOJ have a grand jury seated to get after the J6 shenanigans. Any subpoena would come from them. >
  
  Even if this were to happen Thomas would ignore the subpoena. >
  
  Yeah, I’m not the most intimately familiar person with how subpoenas work, but previously I had thought they were relatively serious legal inquiries. Now I know they can be safely ignored, from politicians to the rich. Dan Snyder stayed on his boat in France so they couldn’t subpoena him and literally just ignored Congress… cuz he’s rich enough to just say “nah I’m good” to the legal system I guess. >
  
  When you’re young the adults teach you about right and wrong, about laws etc. What they don’t teach you is that the rich and powerful are usually immune to laws and that this is they way it’s always been and always will be because corruption is innate in the human condition. >
  
  Subpoenas don't apply to Republicans. They're only for Democrats and ordinary people. >
  
  AFAIK no Republican has refused a DOJ subpoena so far. >
  
  DoJ doesn't issue subpoenas. Grand juries do. And several republicans have defied  Georgia grand jury subpoenas and republican federal judges have ruled they could. >
  
  Send them straight to jail >
  
  the problem is they want to be martyred. they will use it as a rallying cry about how the evil liberal democrats jailed them for not answering an unlawful subpoena about their witch hunt election fraud.
  they're obsessed with being the victim. /r/Persecutionfetish >
  
  In this Post-Trump presidency era, all a Republican has to do to escape accountability is merely say that a subpoena is unlawful and/or any allegations against them are just a political witch hunt.
  Unfortunately very effective in the court of public opinion.  The few smaller people who end up facing any consequences seem to only get a slap on the wrist that usually just strengthens the narrative that they’re being persecuted.
  Jan 6 showed everybody how important and dangerous the court of public opinion is.  The only way to fight back at it is full accountability to everyone who participated in criminality.  I’m tired of hearing pundits and politicians talk about indictments having political implications.  Doing nothing and letting shit slide also has political implications - far more damaging ones at that.