By
After ample speculation about whether Ginni Thomas would cooperate with the Jan. 6 investigation, conditions took a more serious turn a couple of weeks ago. Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chair of the Jan. 6 committee, told reporters, “We think it’s time that we, at some point, invite her to come talk to the committee.”
This took on a degree of formality later in the day: Thomas received a written invitation on July 16. The committee indicated that it hoped to hold the Q&A in early July.
There was reason to believe this might actually happen. As we discussed, the far-right activist told a conservative website called The Daily Caller that she’s willing to testify. “I can’t wait to clear up misconceptions,” Thomas said two weeks ago. “I look forward to talking to them.”
A lot can happen in two weeks. The New York Times reported:
A lawyer for Virginia Thomas ... told the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot that he saw no reason for her to testify before the panel. The letter from her lawyer, Mark Paoletta, obtained by The New York Times, came after the committee made a fresh request to secure an appearance from Ms. Thomas, who had exchanged text messages with the White House chief of staff at the time, Mark Meadows, in which she urged on efforts to challenge Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.
Thomas’ lawyer said she’s interested in testifying in the interest of “clearing her name,” but Paoletta does not believe “there is currently a sufficient basis to speak with Mrs. Thomas.”
That’s certainly one way to look at these circumstances. On the other hand, I can think of all kinds of legitimate reasons investigators would want to speak to Thomas. Indeed, the headline on Jamelle Bouie’s recent column continues to ring true: “Ginni Thomas Has a Lot of Explaining to Do.”
As regular readers know, the far-right activist played a role in Donald Trump’s pre-riot Jan. 6 rally, had communications with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urged Republicans to reject legitimate election results, reached out to Jared Kushner about legal options surrounding the larger anti-election offensive, and communicated with Republican state legislators about helping execute a plot to undermine our democracy.
We also recently learned that Thomas was even in communications with Trump lawyer John Eastman as the Republican lawyer tried to advance a coup scheme he knew to be illegal.
Is there “currently a sufficient basis” for investigators to speak with Thomas? Sure there is.
The new question is what the committee intends to do with the lawyer’s letter. The bipartisan panel extended an invitation to Thomas; she expressed a willingness to testify; and now her attorney has reversed course. Is the committee prepared to subpoena the spouse of a sitting Supreme Court justice? Would she honor the legal summons? Would the House hold her in contempt?
There’s no reason to think her lawyer’s letter yesterday represents the final word on the subject.