By
Ginni Thomas, the far-right activist who’s married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, publicly acknowledged this week that she attended the rally in support of then-President Donald Trump that preceded the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Thomas told the conservative Washington Free Beacon, in an interview published Monday, that she didn't stay at the rally very long because she was cold. She said she left before Trump gave his speech urging his supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol and "fight like hell."
That day, Thomas cheered on the Jan. 6 rallygoers — some of whom later stormed the Capitol — in multiple Facebook posts. She later edited one of the posts to note the original message was written "before violence" broke out.
Thomas told the Free Beacon that her participation in the "Stop the Steal" rally had no impact on her husband’s work as one of the nation’s most powerful judges.
It’s a wholly unbelievable notion, and one that throws the entire U.S. judicial system into question.
“Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America,” Thomas told the Free Beacon. “But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work.”
But her deep involvement in Republican activism and her role as the head of a conservative lobbying firm have brought her husband's supposed impartiality under intense scrutiny.
The Free Beacon tried to give Thomas some cover by questioning whether the firm is a lobbying firm at all (it is) and printing her claim that she has not been paid to lobby for legislation. The interview was her attempt to counter two explosive articles — one published in The New Yorker and another published in The New York Times Magazine — alleging she was deeply involved in the Jan. 6 rally and played a role in uniting feuding factions of rally organizers.
Thomas denied those claims in her interview with the Free Beacon. But her words will be of little comfort to those justifiably worried that her far-right, antidemocratic ties are influencing her husband’s decisions on the country's highest court.