There are 'legitimate questions' over 'unhinged election conspiracy nut' Ginni Thomas influencing her husband: conservative

Reacting to a Washington Post report on texts exchanged between Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, conservative commentator Amanda Carpenter asserted that both the Supreme Court justice and his wife have a lot of questions that need answering -- and she provided a bevy of them for investigators to ask.

Bluntly calling Ginni Thomas an "unhinged 2020 election conspiracy nut," Carpenter, who previously served as an advisor to Sen. Ted Crux (R-TX), claimed that it appears that she unduly influenced her husband to rule against turning over Donald Trump documents to Congress because she would be implicated.

Writing, "Ginni Thomas was lobbying the president’s chief of staff to pursue an extremely dubious specific course of action that almost certainly would have ended up being argued before the Supreme Court," she added, "Does this represent a conflict of interest for Justice Thomas that would have warranted his recusal from any Jan. 6th-related case?"

RELATED: 'Really sick stuff': Morning Joe lays waste to Ginni Thomas-Mark Meadows election plot

Seeking answers, she continued, "Given the revelation of Mrs. Thomas’s direct communications with the White House chief of staff lobbying on specific legal matters relating to Jan. 6th, an explanation seems warranted."

"Why, exactly, did Justice Thomas believe that White House communications related to Jan. 6th deserved to be shielded? Was this a constitutional decision or a personal one? This is a legitimate question," Carpenter wrote before adding, "It is important to note that the only reason these communications were publicly revealed is that they were among the thousands of messages Meadows turned over to the committee. Meaning: They were not in the tranche of documents the National Archives provided the committee."

"But did Justice Thomas know where his wife’s text messages with the White House chief of staff would turn up? Did he know that they would not be part of the National Archives material? This brings us close to the core question: What knowledge did Justice Thomas have about his wife’s activities related to Jan. 6th, particularly related to legal challenges to the election that were extremely likely to come before the Supreme Court?" she asked.

After touching on Meadows' complicity, which also needs to be investigated, the conservative columnist asked, "Should the Department of Justice pursue any kind of criminal charges, one would expect a challenge that could go before the Supreme Court. What then?"

According to Carpenter, no one should expect that Thomas to respond to questions about the reasoning for his vote, writing, "Maybe there are innocent explanations for what went on," but an investigation is needed to remove a new cloud that hangs over the Supreme Court.

"At the end of the day, these questions aren’t just about the Thomases. They’re also about the Supreme Court as an institution—its integrity and the public perception of its integrity. And anyone who cares about protecting the Court’s credibility should be interested in finding out the answers," she concluded.