In late January, when the cackling coven 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, “and so, he hasn't recused himself with these cases that his wife is sort of very involved in.”
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 leadership position” 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 chimed in to announce that discovered a supposed 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 egging on an insurrection,” she lied.
The real double standard was how they wanted Clarence to recuse himself because of the activist work of his wife when they were fine with liberal justices like the late Ruth Badge Ginsburg being activist justices from the bench. 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.
This was yet another example of The View targeting the 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. Their contact information is linked.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
ABC’s The Views
February 22, 2022
11:15:24 a.m. EasternWHOOPI GOLDBERG: 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. Now, Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter on the court who supported you-know-who's requests to keep his records from the January 6 committee.
I kind of feel like this could be an issue. But what do you think, is there something wrong here? I'll start with you, Sun.
[Laughter from panel]
SUNNY HOSTIN: I think so. The thing about the Supreme Court is that it's just not bound by the same rules that other federal judges are bound by. Like, we're thinking this doesn't look like, there’s an appearance of impropriety. But most federal judges are bound by sort of that impropriety. Doesn't have to be an actual conflict, it just has to look like one because they want the public to believe that the courts are impartial. Right?
But with the Supreme Court, they just don't have that same code of conduct. And so, he hasn't recused himself with these cases that his wife is sort of very involved in. But he's recused himself other times like when his son was in the military academy. The military academy came in front of the court, he recused himself. He’s recused himself like 30 times over 30 years.
JOY BEHAR: So why not this time?
HOSTIN: That's the question. Why not this time when his wife is intimately involved in politics.
BEHAR: I mean, it's unbelievable to me.
HOSTIN: It is.
BEHAR: That this is unprecedented, we've never seen this before.
GOLDBERG: Well, it’s happened only once before.
BEHAR: But where has it happened?
GOLDBERG: Here in the Supreme Court in 1954 I want to say. Somebody was on and his wife was doing things and they asked him to --
HOSTIN: Recuse himself.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, to recuse himself and they took him off.
HOSTIN: Well, you have to recuse yourself if your 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. 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.”
But she holds a leadership position
SARA HAINES: Yeah, and she's an activist by definition.
HOSTIN: She’s an activist. Sotomayor had a friend who was party to a case and she recused herself.
BEHAR: Can you just imagine what the right-wing would be doing if Sotomayor had a husband who was part of the insurrection, who was egging on an insurrection.
(…)
