comment: >
  
  Not sure. Doesn’t matter. She’s not an elected official and her actions have been proven over and over to be hers and hers alone. It’s been stated under oath. There has been zero evidence produced that her husband was ever made aware at any point about her emails. She’s not charged with anything anyways. This is dumb and a complete waste of time and money. Moving on.
context: Does the report say anything about the secret service texts ? That’s what I am most curious about. >
  
  I don’t know what your talking about, but since I see no reply’s it only further peaks my curiosity >
  
  the texts from secret service agents that went "missing" after a "routine" device purge happened during the presidential change over.
  i don't know if it was in the report, but that was a pretty "convenient" breach of governmental records keeping. >
  
  To be fair… I’d comfortably say 4/5 government employees have no idea how to comply with records mandates.
  (Source: work for government… issue phones… no idea) >
  
  the guy decommissioning old phones, though? >
  
  It’s not like there is even a message backup in most cases. You wipe the phone and send it back to your managing authority to turn in to GSA or some equivalent. Honestly, this is really a government wide problem as far as national archives go.
  Edit: factory reset, not wipe… but, tomato/tomatoe >
  
  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. >
  
  Don't forget Charlie Kirk at Turning Points USA sent 80 buses full of people to the Jan 6 insurrection. Sure, not everyone participated in the riot, but thousands did. >
  
  The mr macky lookin guy with the giant forehead and tiny mouth? >
  
  Didn't he claim his rejection from West Point was based on Affirmative Action and not on the fact that he's an incompetent, pathetic fuck? >
  
  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. >
  
  Due to Congress's lack of specific legislation regarding enforcement per 14a-5, this is the avenue we need to take. I don't like it but it's what we're working with. Even if such legislation were passed now, I can't think this SCOTUS would let it stay. >
  
  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 >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  I read somewhere
  
  Seems legit. >
  
  Interesting to see the contrast between the unnamed sources and those willing to make attributed statements. >
  
  lmao. I liker how facts don't matter to you. You ask a snarky question. get a direct answer and make a snarky reply as if nothing has changed. Lmao. what an obvious attempt. lmao >
  
  What are you even talking about?  I questioned "I read somewhere".  The above user was kind enough to post an article.  I read it.  It states that some anonymous staffers are apparently frustrated that the report focuses on Trump and they blame Cheney.
  In the article, Cheney's spokesman goes on record saying that they're way off base.  The committee's spokesman goes on record calling them "disgruntled staff who are uninformed".  Pelosi's spokesman goes on record thanking Cheney and calling the committee "successful".   No one, at least I can find, willing to be attributed on record has suggested that Cheney did anything untoward.  So I made a comment to that effect.
  Now let me ask you:  what "facts" don't matter to me?  What do you think I'm ignoring? >
  
  It was me both times and you've been snarky AF all three times. Just believe what you want to believe. Stop trying to fix facts to what you already decided. It's clear you did not care about the source, you just wanted to deny it. lmao >
  
  Alright, sorry I'm not paying close enough attention to who you are. 
  I still don't know what the heck you're complaining about though. There's no "believe" involved, I'm not trying to fix anything, and I haven't denied anything.    I'm literally just describing what it says in the article.   I don't know why you feel that's snarky or why you're being so defensive about it. >
  
  IDGAF to tell you the truth. you're clearly acting in bad faith.  Good luck with your dishonest takes and bullshit pointless "just asking questions" It's actually a joke to me how transparent you are. >
  
  I'm not even asking questions.  All I did was note the difference between what the anonymous sources said and what the attributed sources said.   I'm not sure how you could have possibly read the same thing and not noticed or why it's got you so upset.  Everything I mentioned is in the article.
  Any way,  merry Christmas. >
  
  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. >
  
  I read somewhere of staffers being upset at Liz Cheney's handling of the report, saying they thought it focused too much on Trump and not enough on those who helped him. >
  
  Anyone who's followed this knows Liz Cheney has repeatedly intervened to keep the Republican party, aside from Trump and his inner circle, from being implicated. It's not a conspiracy. >
  
  Hopefully they're saving her and her scumbag treasonous husband for a special circle in hell. >
  
  Neither is Louis DeJoy.  
  What I found interesting was that a whole chapter of this investigation, testimony and subsequent report is missing:  
  It occurred to me today, after reviewing an old thread, that Louis DeJoy is still the Post Master General.  Not only did he corruptly buy his way into that position and it was set up to be near impossible to fire him once in it, but there was talk and evident reason to fire him - not just because of business conflicts of interest alone (Chief Exec of XPO Logistics Shipping and other companies with interests in the USPS), but also because of his electoral [fraud] role in the election run-up where he crippled the post office intentionally (and rather suddenly and timely) to hamper the casting of mail-in ballots.  
  I'm certain Trump - being the catalyst to getting him that role - demanded something from him in return, and DeJoy obliged, attempting to make it appear legal and unrelated, like with all parts of the coup ("a coup in search of a legal theory"), and like the Muslim ban Trump pitched to Giuiani ("how can we make it legal", he asked Giuliani).  It's incredible that he's still in this role and has not been terminated yet, and that he was never mentioned as part of this investigation. >
  
  Liz Cheney scrubbed the greater Republican apparatus right out of this. >
  
  Ginni is just a recreational Treasonist. It's a weekend hobby for her. >
  
  They’re still protecting their own. It’s a complete shit show. >
  
  It’s extremely important that America demonstrates without question that the country is hopelessly entrenched in corruption. >
  
  They always protect themselves.  No different than the congressional co-conspirators getting an "ethics complaint" and no criminal referrals. >
  
  When your man is on the Supreme Court. >
  
  ...almost like it's on purpose or something 🤔 >
  
  Compromised Supreme Court is above the law! The hypocrisy!! >
  
  I have to say, all this, and impeachment failed twice. This could have been prevented, and wasn’t. >
  
  That’s disappointing. >
  
  Liz Cheney allegedly protected Ginni Thomas. >
  
  But, yes, I'm sure that there will be consequences aNy DaY nOw >
  
  Totally disappointing. >
  
  She's going to be shielded, just like when she failed to declare her income. >
  
  Protecting their own >
  
  “Shocking!” said no one ever. The pomp and circumstance for absofuckinglutely nothing, is as old as the country is young. A waste of time and money just to obfuscate the fact that doing anything, anything at all that might help the country is dead in the water. But let’s def continue to feed this nonsense fire more coals. While this committee was dicking around, claiming to do “important work,” inflation hit a 40 yr high, abortion rights were repealed, trump remained free, but right, right… important work that has no legal implications whatsoever. Cool. Thanks for that. >
  
  That seems...incorrect. >
  
  *shakes head. >
  
  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. >
  
  She said she'd testify willingly. They backed down and didn't call her in. >
  
  And that folks, is Liz Cheney’s doing. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 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 😆 >
  
  Courtesy of her good friend Liz Cheney. >
  
  Not a good sign for the seriousness of the report. >
  
  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? >
  
  So you're saying a committee of republicans did nothing to endanger the validity of a conservative justice?
  I am shocked. Shocked I say. >
  
  That's because she committed treason with a calm sweet attitude! >
  
  Hah! The magic golden broom again sweeping shit under the rug >
  
  Shouldn’t they look closely at her husband also? I don’t trust the dude, he sounds corrupt. >
  
  Thank you, Liz Cheney.
  Never trust her again. >
  
  Possibly because they know you can’t fight every battle…. >
  
  I guess it's ok to be a domestic terrorist if you hang out with the fascist court. >
  
  Ginni: "Trump won, the election was stolen."
  J6com: " " >
  
  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. >
  
  You're out of your tree if you think Clarence Thomas would ever side against Republicans on anything Jan 6-adjacent. All this does is send a message that elites have impunity, unless you're personally directing the coup a la Trump. >
  
  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. >
  
  The fix is in.  If this is the level of prudence we can expect, we should also expect this committee to not recommend consequences for any of their “friends” >
  
  Because Liz Cheney doesn’t want to lose a conservative SCOTUS. 
  She’s a scum bag. >
  
  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. >
  
  Because she's from old money and she's white. >
  
  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. >
  
  What the traitorous fuck? >
  
  At this point, if it results in Trump and at least Meadows and a few others getting convicted, I’ll take it.  If the price of some justice was getting just some justice, it’s better than getting no justice. 
  If some burn, then next time the new fools may think twice before doing business with the ones that don’t burn. Because it proves someone’s going to take the fall. 
  What is terrible is when nobody takes the fall. Then nobody is worried and everybody joins in. >
  
  Trump is the scapegoat guys. That's it. This whole thing was theater. >
  
  Well he hasn’t been bagged yet so right now nobody is the scapegoat. Before I get upset they only got Trump, I need them to first only get Trump. >
  
  That's fair. I don't even think they'll get Trump. >
  
  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 >
  
  That makes sense. She’s a free citizen just like everyone else. This obsession with Ginni is the equivalent to the republicans obsession with Joe Bidens son. For some reason people want to hold politicians responsible for their relatives actions. It’s one of the dumbest things Americans do. Glad to see the committee didn’t even bother with this BS. Moving on. >
  
  Do you think that only elected officials are mentioned in the report?