(04-05-2022 04:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 03:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 03:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2022 02:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just because I find something reasonable, doesn't mean I believe it to be true. The inability of you of Ham to understand that is just astounding.

That clearly isn't an example of me advocating that Thomas' dissenting vote was evidence that he was trying to hide Ginni's texts. I don't think that position is unreasonable, but I also don't agree with that position - I think it's MORE reasonable that Thomas voted that way for other reasons.

On what basis do you think I cannot understand that?

I agree that it is more reasonable to think that Thomas voted that way for other reasons, because it is entirely unreasonable to think he did it to shield Ginni, since it clearly had zero effect along those lines.

This interpretation is totally unreasonable, and I cannot see how you think it is in any way reasonable. Maybe if you explained the logic behind that position...but on the face of it, it is unreasonable to think that was the point of his vote because, because not only was it useless, he had to have known it would be useless. When yu say the people advancing this theory are reasonable, you give credence to it. Kind of like saying the Trump-Russia witch hunt was reasonable.

I guess in the history of man, there has never been examples of reasonable yet futile attempts…

It’s reasonable that Thomas was influenced by him knowing Ginni’s communications with Meadows would be part of the investigation (he and his wife are public about being very close). Having evidence that supports the logic that Thomas was not influenced doesn’t render that reasonableness moot - despite the attempts to say otherwise.

There’s nothing impeachable here - saying it is impeachable is unreasonable. There’s nothing career ending here - saying this is career ending is unreasonable. There’s simply a reasonable potential COI that exists (exemplified by this specific case), and that should be pretty obvious to anyone with some semblance of balance to their perspective.

If I were naive enough to believe that the members of congress making something out of this were genuinely concerned about justice and not politically-motivated, and if I thought Clarence Thomas was an idiot, and if I pretended I didn't know enough about the definition of COI to know that this situation is a not COI - then I could agree with you that the the theory and its advocates are reasonable.

Well, it's not reasonable.

There's clearly politics at play here for some - I've seen talk of some Dems advocating for impeachment, which is clearly bogus.

But this situation is a potential COI, and I guess we won't see eye to eye on that.

Someone texting their political outlook to another is a "COI'. Got it.

Did you even read her texts?

As I noted, they are 'rah rah'. I guess 'rah rah' combined with 'spouse' == potential COI? Fairly laughable in all honesty.

The entire predicate is idiotic from what we know of the texts. That is something that doesnt seem to wash.

Please tell us, which portion of judicial canon does Ginni's texts implicate? How do they implicate a consideration of a COI?

Being related to someone who has a political point of view, even a vocal one, is not a basis, mind you. So, instead of the proverbial 'smoke' that seems to come to the forefront, please be specific in the basis.