Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

AOC Threatens Justice Clarence Thomas With Impeachment

AOC Threatens Justice Clarence Thomas With Impeachment

“his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is now calling on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign or be impeached.

This stems from the Democrat/media feeding frenzy over Thomas’ wife Ginni and her involvement with pro-Trump activists following the 2020 election.

John Kruzel writes at The Hill:

Ocasio-Cortez to Clarence Thomas: Resign or face impeachment

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday called on Justice Clarence Thomas to resign or face impeachment for what she depicted as a pattern of ethical breaches.

“Clarence Thomas should resign,” she wrote on Twitter. “If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment.”

Ocasio-Cortez is just the latest in a series of Democratic lawmakers and legal experts to intensify ethical scrutiny of Thomas in the wake of explosive reports last week that exposed his wife’s aggressive efforts to help overturn former President Trump’s electoral defeat.

Those revelations raised fresh questions about the justice’s refusal to step aside from related cases before the Supreme Court, including at least 10 rulings concerning the 2020 presidential election, without any indication of him recusing.

See AOC’s tweet below:

Chris Enloe of The Blaze sees three problems with AOC’s argument:

First, Ocasio-Cortez claims Thomas has failed “to disclose income from right-wing organizations.” But there is no substantive evidence showing that Thomas makes money from “right-wing organizations,” let alone evidence that he has failed to disclose such income.

Second, the Supreme Court has not heard a case involving his wife, thus Ocasio-Cortez’s assertion that Thomas has breached judicial ethics by participating in a court case from which he should have been recused is moot. If the Supreme Court had heard a case involving Thomas’ wife, he would have undoubtedly recused himself from the proceedings.

Finally, it is true that Thomas voted to block Trump-era White House documents from being turned over to the House committee investigating Jan. 6. Thomas’ critics point to his vote — and in fact, he was the lone dissenting vote — as evidence that he is compromised.

Stephen Miller makes two excellent points about this:

AOC is one of the reasons Democrats are facing a red wave in November. If they continue down this path, they do so at their own peril.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


More smear tactics claimed knowledge of a crime with no intention of formal charging but tossing no it out for the public and the Democrats Propaganda Ministry to repeat dutifully.
Probably hoping to drive Thomas into fear and so will do what AG Sessions did, very stupidly to add.

Thomas knows who the enemy is. He has known ever since their attempted high-tech lynching of him.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Ironclaw. | March 30, 2022 at 8:29 pm

    I am thinking that AOC should be impeached as soon as we have the numbers.

      Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | March 30, 2022 at 8:42 pm

      There is no such thing as impeaching members of congress.

        Gosport in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2022 at 9:27 pm

        Sure there is. It almost happened once.

        The only thing that prevented Sen William Blount from being tried for impeachment in 1799 is that he skipped town and was then expelled from the Senate before they got around to it so they no longer had jurisdiction to do so..

          Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | March 30, 2022 at 10:22 pm

          No, there is no such thing. Blount’s impeachment was invalid; there is nothing in the constitution giving Congress the authority to impeach its own members, therefore they have no such authority.

          The House justified its action on the theory that it has the authority to do anything not expressly denied it by the constitution; that theory was rejected by the majority of the senate, and has since been thoroughly discredited (except by Democrats in the last century, who would love such a doctrine).

          Gosport in reply to Gosport. | March 31, 2022 at 12:57 am

          Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’

          Blount had sought the aid of a United States government interpreter to seize Spanish Florida and Louisiana with British and Indian help. The House voted to impeach him. Blount was released on bail, ran away to Tennessee, and remained there until he was expelled from office by a vote of the Senate before he ever went on trial for impeachment.

          Had he not been expelled he would have indeed been on trial for impeachment. Yes, he could have argued that as a Senator he was not a “Civil Officer of the United States’ but that obviously never came to pass so it hasn’t been tested.

          The fact remains that the House voted to impeach him and only his expulsion prevented him from facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. Therefore any opinion that he couldn’t have been impeached is just that, an opinion, not a fact.

          Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | March 31, 2022 at 1:13 am

          Throughout the constitution, the term “office under the united states”, or “officer of the united states”, means appointed officers, not elected ones. The president and vice president are not “civil officers of the united states”, which is why they are specified separately. Congressmen are likewise not “civil officers of the united states”, and they are not specified separately. Therefore they cannot be impeached. It doesn’t need to be “tested”. Congress doesn’t have powers the constitution doesn’t give it.

          Gosport in reply to Gosport. | March 31, 2022 at 9:43 am

          The Constitution does NOT articulate who qualifies as a “civil officer of the United States”

          Your opinion is that it doesn’t include members of Congress. The House obviously did not share that opinion as they voted to impeach him.

          Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | March 31, 2022 at 12:42 pm

          The House members who voted to impeach Blount claimed that they didn’t need constitutional authority; that congress can do anything it feels like doing, so long as the constitution doesn’t say it can’t. That is true of state legislatures (unless their state constitution says otherwise); it is not true of the US congress. The theory that congress has unlimited powers (except where expressly limited) was rejected by the senate at the time, and since then by everyone except modern Democrats (i.e. since the New Deal).

        If Pelosi can impeach Trump when he is OUT of office, AOC could be tucked into concrete and thrown in the East River.

      Ironclaw in reply to JohnSmith100. | March 30, 2022 at 10:25 pm

      Unfortunately, you cannot impeach a congresscritter. Only vote them out.

        starride in reply to Ironclaw. | March 30, 2022 at 10:42 pm

        You cant impeach but Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 gives congress the power to expel members.

          Milhouse in reply to starride. | March 31, 2022 at 1:17 am

          Yes, but that is a completely different process. We are discussing impeaching her, and that can’t be done.

          In any case, expelling her would require 2/3 of the House. (The senate doesn’t get a say in the matter.) There is very little prospect that the Republicans will get 290 House seats. So that’s a no-go as well.

          Milhouse in reply to starride. | March 31, 2022 at 1:21 am

          Also, Congress has a very long-standing view (well over a century, at least) that members cannot be expelled except for an offense that occurred since the last election. While the Supreme Court has pointedly declined to endorse this view, it has taken official notice that Congress has taken it, and presumably still has it.

    Sternverbs in reply to Ironclaw. | April 1, 2022 at 9:52 am

    It’s a good, and timely, thing that Biden, et al, is pushing for modern anti-lynching legislation!

Sandy, where the f$ck is my margarita?

MoeHowardwasright | March 30, 2022 at 7:51 pm

She makes my cousin Curly
Look like a MENSA candidate. AOC, GFY!!!

Please. Please, please, please, please, please let the House impeach him. Unfortunately most of them are not that stupid.

Said by the same mouth that refutes Hunters laptop.

George_Kaplan | March 30, 2022 at 8:04 pm

If the House tries to impeach they open the door to impeaching their current nominee for lying under oath.

She is a blatant racist, ready to lynch any Black person who doesn’t stick to the opinions and the statements that are approved for Black people.

That is one of the worst kinds of racism, expecting everyone of a particular group to act the same and hold the same opinions.

Where is Will Smith, when you really need someone slapped?

Hey Sandy, he’s a lifetime appointee. Good luck with trying to scare him.

But she knows that, she is just the designated mouthpiece for the left’s muppet masters. They need to create a distraction from the horrific Biden numbers and try to gin up some interest in the flaccid 6 Jan witch hunt.

    Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | March 30, 2022 at 8:47 pm

    She knows he has a lifetime position. Hence the call to impeach him, since that’s the only way he can be removed. But it’s an utterly stupid thing to suggest, since there is no way the senate would remove him, and most of her Dem colleagues are not so stupid as to try impeaching him.

OwenKellogg-Engineer | March 30, 2022 at 8:31 pm

While I am no moderator here, would you be so kind as to refrain from the use of foul language. I believe your arguments can be made just as emphatically without their use.
Kindest Regards.

Every time I see Thomas’s name under attack (this is like the fifth time in three weeks), my tinfoil hat whispers to me that the game plan is to have BJ confirmed and on deck to replace Thomas, and Breyer will just change his mind and stay on to save Democracy.

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | March 30, 2022 at 8:45 pm

    What would be the point of that? Thomas is not going anywhere, at least if he can help it. But obviously if he were to go the way of all flesh between Jackson’s confirmation and Breyer’s resignation then of course Biden would appoint her to that vacancy and nominate someone else for Breyer’s place.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | March 30, 2022 at 9:18 pm

      Scalia couldn’t help it.
      Thomas recently recovered from a mysterious temporary gastrointestinal disorder.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | March 30, 2022 at 10:26 pm

        Emphasis on recovered. People do occasionally fall ill. It’s not a mystery, it’s just something that happens once in a while.

        And yes, it’s possible that he could die, but nobody can predict that. (Please don’t tell me you buy into the crazy theories that Scalia was bumped off. They have no foundation at all; they’re pure guesswork.)

          The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | March 31, 2022 at 8:57 am

          It wasn’t guesswork at all, Mill. It was a bunch of tinfoil half type of senior conspiracy and absolutely everything. Scalil was a walking heart attack and had been for years.

          As for Thomas, yes people do get ill. Thomas got ill. Thomas recovered.

          The one where I agree with the conspiracy theorists is Epstein. I don’t believe the man killed himself.

          Morning Sunshine in reply to Milhouse. | March 31, 2022 at 11:09 am

          how many other “conspiracy theories” have turned out right over the last 2 years. I am starting to think conspiracy theories are not ridiculous bunk, but rather topics worth further discussion and study.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 31, 2022 at 12:53 pm

          “They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” Being laughed at is not an indication that someone is right. Ridiculous bunk remains ridiculous bunk and will always remain ridiculous bunk, and should never be given even a moment’s thought unless it has some foundation. That’s the difference.

          All the theories that turned out to be right had some foundation in fact; they weren’t just insane paranoid imaginations. The idea that Scalia was murdered is like the idea that Sandy Hook or Sep-11-2001 were vast hoaxes staged by actors; it’s completely without any foundation in reality at all. There is simply no reason to suspect foul play. People die; he died.

          You may as well speculate that Biden actually died years ago, and is being played by a senile actor!

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 31, 2022 at 12:58 pm

          I’m neutral about Epstein. I don’t think there’s anything like enough reason to assume he was murdered, but if it does turn out that way it wouldn’t surprise me.

          About Vince Foster, I think he did kill himself, but he didn’t do it in the park. I think he did it in some location that Hillary Clinton didn’t want the police to search, so she had the body moved. To me that is the explanation that best fits the facts with a minimum of suppositions. Occam’s razor. Claiming that he was murdered goes way beyond the facts.

While I always shy away from ad hominem…I couldn’t agree with more.

The Gentle Grizzly | March 30, 2022 at 8:52 pm

This is nothing more than her seeking publicity as we approach the election season. I have a feeling she knows she might be in danger. Even in her district.

Comanche Voter | March 30, 2022 at 9:06 pm

I dunno Sandy. You have a choice–sod off you little swamp slug; or “Bite Me”. I think you have some experience in that r egard.

This stupid wind-bag makes a threat a day. She interjects non-facts as facts more than Fauci or the AOC Stupid Biden.

Antifundamentalist | March 30, 2022 at 9:45 pm

So AOC believes a woman’s husband should dictactate her political activity. Nice to know.

We need many more AOCs! She is the Republicans’ MVP.

She makes $174,000 a year as a political hack with a nice chest. She should quit whining about paying off her $17,000 student.
As a matter of fact, she should recuse herself of any involvement whatsoever about student loans being forgiven.

    broomhandle in reply to 4fun. | March 30, 2022 at 10:27 pm

    She could make $348,000 as a hooker in a district not far from her own, and it would be tax-free.

      3525Tex in reply to broomhandle. | March 31, 2022 at 3:41 pm

      She can get a lot more for a trick these days than she got as a bartender in NYC.

      She’s an inspiration to all hookers. She could teach Stormy Daniels some new moves.

AOC only wants to date him. Gold digger/Home Wrecker.

Consider the J6 committee doesn’t comply with its authorizing resolution, therefore any conclusion, product, referral etc. should be NULL AND VOID

AOC, one of the finest legal minds in the Democrat party, names on video the “three Chambers of Congress: The Senate, the House, and the Presidency.” She sounds like she’s asking someone to step down from the drill team. “Get rid of the black guy“ — The one Joe Biden abused coming into the court. Yeah, let’s threaten the guy, tell him to quit, or will go after him.

Democrats are just trying to get a bass-ackward SCOTUS nominee. Ain’t going to work. Partly because AOC is such a brilliant law mind.🤣😂😆

    healthguyfsu in reply to Sally MJ. | March 31, 2022 at 12:37 pm

    Clarence Thomas is a big problem for them. They need a uniform puppetted homogeneous “role model contingent” from the minorities on the court or their grift and graft games are too easily exposed.

2smartforlibs | March 31, 2022 at 9:43 am

I think failing to rescue yourself from a case you have fingerprints on would be ground for impeachment and that didn’t happen when it was a liberal.

    Liberals never need to recuse themselves. They are always just and fair in all their decisions since they have no biases. The true just outcome is delivered to them from the burning bush they keep in a pot in their office.

“Plus, he tried to date me!”

the very white conquistadora/ Inquisitora AOC sure hates black people.

Hermenegildah | April 1, 2022 at 8:51 am

AOC = Another Obnoxious C**t.

Steven Brizel | April 1, 2022 at 3:25 pm

The WSJ pointed out that if one applies AOC’;s logic, any Justice on SCOTUS with noticeably liberal tendencies should resign or recuse themselves in any case involving an appeal on any hot button issue as well.

Apparently, Sandy (D-Bartender) doesn’t realize that she is a House member and the likelihood of getting 60 Senate votes to impeach Thomas is the same as Kamala winning a Nobel for Economics.
I never thought I’d see someone challenge Aunti Maxine and She Jack as the most ignorant person in Congress.

will Smith this bxtxch and walk away.