Another High-Tech Lynching of Clarence Thomas

The worst thing in the world to be is a prominent black conservative. The amount of character assassination, sleights, and insults such a person must endure for daring to have conservative convictions while being black is horrendous.

Since the early nineties, Clarence Thomas has put up with a non-stop, in his words, “high-tech lynching” at the hands of Democrats for being a black conservative and on the United States Supreme Court.

The latest comes by way of a report in the New York Times that Trump’s stupid lawyer John Eastman, claimed insider knowledge of a “heated fight” at the United States Supreme Court over whether to hear the President’s arguments about the stolen election. Eastman had been a law clerk to Clarence Thomas and had exchanges with Ginni Thomas. Because of those facts, the media and Democrats are yet again dragging Clarence Thomas through the mud.

Eastman made the remarks on December 24, 2020. Eastman now claims his remarks were based on press reports. I actually think that Eastman was either lying or exaggerating for one simple reason — there were no cases before the Supreme Court on the matter.

“So the odds are not based on the legal merits but an assessment of the justices’ spines, and I understand that there is a heated fight underway,” Mr. Eastman wrote, according to the people briefed on the contents of the email. Referring to the process by which at least four justices are needed to take up a case, he added, “For those willing to do their duty, we should help them by giving them a Wisconsin cert petition to add into the mix.”

The pro-Trump lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, replied that the “odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way.”

(Source)

We all know how the Island of Misfit Toys works — they claim insider knowledge they do not possess to the group of people they’ve hoodwinked into thinking they have real expertise. But they actually are either exaggerating or making it up. It is why, for years, the misfits around Trump were sidelined or put in the basements of credible conservative organizations. They’re the guys you want licking stamps in the back office, not running the show or being the public face of an organization.

Eastman is most definitely from the Island of Misfit Toys. He ran for Congress in 1990 and lost badly. In 2010, he ran for Attorney General in California and tried to claim he was an Assistant Attorney General because he’d once helped South Dakota on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court he couldn’t identify himself that way on the ballot and he had to settle on “Constitutional Law Attorney.” He didn’t make it out of the primary.

He found notoriety in 2020 prior to the election by being the most prominent Kamala Harris birther in America. Eastman argued that even though Harris was born in the United States, she might not actually be an American citizen. Of course, you know, he was just raising questions. He’s one of those eccentrics of the conservative movement that glommed on to Trump — like Mike Lindell or Sidney Powell.

The odds are, like the rest of them, he was puffing himself up and not quite truthful with how much insider knowledge he possessed.

Again, it is really important to understand that the Supreme Court quite literally had no cases pending on the election at the time Eastman was claiming there was a heated fight underway.

Don’t take my word for it. Take Steve Vladeck’s word. He’s a lawyer and law professor in Texas and contributes to CNN. As Vladeck accurately notes, the Supreme Court had dealt with the Pennsylvania case with no public dissents on December 8, 2020. It dealt with the Texas case on December 11, 2020. The only things left were applications to expedite certiorari petitions and all that stuff was largely concluded by December 24, 2020. There were no hearings or arguments before the Court when Eastment was making his claims.

There would have been no fights. Likewise, given the leaks we are seeing from the Supreme Court, it is hard to believe “Clarence Thomas helped a coup” claims would not have leaked out then.

Eastman is, excuse my language, a bullshitter. He came up with a wild legal theory that he privately acknowledged to Mike Pence’s counsel would get tossed in a 9-0 opinion before the Supreme Court. That admission is also telling because it’s an admission Clarence Thomas would have tossed it too.

Eastman was having his moment advising the President of the United States on the biggest case of his career. He was friends with and talking to a Supreme Court Justice’s wife. It is both easy to extrapolate that he was b.s.’ing and also easy to presume the left would try to use this to drag Clarence Thomas through the mud.

Regardless of what Ginni Thomas did or did not do, it just simply is not probable that Clarence Thomas or anyone else was leaking from the Supreme Court to Eastman about divisions in the Court over election cases if only because there were no cases at the time before the Court and because, given the Dobbs leak, someone at the Court would have undoubtedly leaked to the press what was happening.

It really is that simple.