The cackling covens of The View were attacking podcaster Joe Rogan with accusations of “misinformation,” co-host Sunny Hostin proclaimed they were better than him because they were held to “the ABC News standard.” Well, on Tuesday, Hostin and the panel showed how low that standard was when they spewed debunked lies against Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, suggesting she was “part of the insurrection” on January 6.
“So, New York Times Magazine looks at concerns over the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who’s been a vocal supporter of the 2020 election fraud lie and the January 6 protesters,” Whoopi Goldberg sneered. “I kind of feel like this could be an issue.”
Hostin, a lawyer, whined that “the Supreme Court, they just don’t have that same code of conduct” as lower federal benches, “He has not resigned from these cases in which his wife is involved.”
The claim that Ginni was “very involved in” the January 6 riot has been debunked for a while now. Even PolitiFact found the claims “false.” “There’s no evidence that Thomas was involved in organizing the events that unfolded on Jan. 6,” they wrote. “She has not been subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the attack and rumors that she helped organize busing for Trump supporters that day have not been supported.”
Despite those hard truths, and explaining how a justice would need to recuse themselves if their “spouse is a party to litigation, interested party, the other thing is an officer, director, or trustee of an organization that is a party to the case,” Hostin falsely claimed Ginni “Holds a position of leadership” among the rioters and organizers.
Pretending to read the mind of Justice Thomas, Hostin “guess[ed]” his thought process was “[she’s]Not really a party. She’s not really a director of these organizations.”
Behar announced that he had discovered what he called a double standard. “Can you just imagine what the right-wing would be doing if Sotomayor had a husband who was Part of the Insurrection who was trying to incite an insurrection” she lied.
They wanted Clarence not to be present because Clarence was involved in activist work by his wife, which they accepted despite liberal justices such as the late Ruth Badge Ginsburg acting activist justices on the bench. This is the real double-standard. Co-host Sara Haines made this clear when she complained Ginni’s “An activist, by definition.”
“Sotomayor had a friend who was party to a case and she recused herself,” Hostin bragged as if Clarence was being unethical. Again, as Hostin pointed out, Sotomayor’s friend was a “party to a case,” whereas Ginni is indisputably not a party.
Another example of “amazing” was this. The ViewTargeting black conservative justice. The day after they attacked Rogan, the cast plunged head-first into racism by suggesting Thomas wasn’t a real black man. Hostin suggested he was a race traitor because he wasn’t acting as she wanted him to and Behar used air quotes when calling him a “black man.”
The View’s misinformation campaign against Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Allegra and Progressive. This link contains their contact information.
You can find the transcript below. To read it, please click on “expand”.
ABC’s The Views
February 22nd, 2022
Eastern, 11:15:24WHOOPI GLOBBERG: New York Times magazine looks at concerns over the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who’s been a vocal supporter of the 2020 election fraud lie and the January 6 protesters. Justice Thomas, the only dissenter in the court’s decision to allow you-know-who records from January 6th committee was supported.
It does seem like there could be an issue. Is there anything wrong? Sun, I will start by saying hello.
[Laughter from panel]
SUNNY HOSTIN : It’s not subject to the same federal rules as other federal judges. This is the thing with the Supreme Court. Like, we’re thinking this doesn’t look like, there’s an appearance of impropriety. However, most federal judges have to deal with this kind of impropriety. It doesn’t necessarily have to involve actual conflicts, but it has to appear like one to ensure that the public believes the courts are impartial. Right?
The Supreme Court has a different code of conduct. He has not recused himself from cases in which his wife is involved. However, he has recused himself from other cases like the one involving his son at military academy. He resigned when the military academy was brought before him. He’s recused himself like 30 times over 30 years.
JOY BEHAR – So, why not this moment?
HOSTIN : It’s the question. Why is it not at this moment when his spouse is so involved with politics?
BEHAR: It’s amazing to me.
HOSTIN :
BEHAR: We’ve never witnessed this in our lifetimes.
GOLDBERG: Well, it’s happened only once before.
BEHAR: Where has this happened?
GOLDBERG Someone was watching and his wife was busy doing other things. They asked him to tell them.
HOSTIN : He should be excused.
GOLDBERG : Yes, to withdraw himself from the situation and they sent him away.
HOSTIN – You have to withdraw yourself if you spouse is in litigation or interested parties. And so, it’s slicing it pretty thin when Justice Thomas is saying, “well, my wife” — his thinking, I guess – “not really a party. She’s not really a director of these organizations.”
She holds an executive position
SARA HAINES (Yes, by definition)
HOSTIN: She’s an activist. Sotomayor was a friend of a party in a case, and she resigned.
BEHAR
(…)
About Post Author
