I can buy your Jan 6th outcome. It seems it may just be confusing record keeping. But your conclusion on Thomas is SUS as heck. I don't believe for a second you would be this understanding if this situation were concerning a democrat. Either way though Thomas has eroded trust in the court.
For an anti-Trumper, this article's author went pretty easy on The Former Guy (and Ginni Thomas). It dismissed the conspiratorial explanations for the gap on Jan. 6th in favor of a fairly banal explanation that leans on normal technical and organizational issues to explain the gap instead of some sinister plot.
Thomas guilty of poor optics at minimum. Optics may not be a legal standard, but it does erodes public trust.
I can buy your Jan 6th outcome. It seems it may just be confusing record keeping. But your conclusion on Thomas is SUS as heck. I don't believe for a second you would be this understanding if this situation were concerning a democrat. Either way though Thomas has eroded trust in the court.
Since you are an anti-Trumper this article has zero credibility. The media's trust level is below congress's and articles like this justifies it.
That would be how everything looks if you must judge all that happens and that is said through the Trump / Anti Trump lens.
For an anti-Trumper, this article's author went pretty easy on The Former Guy (and Ginni Thomas). It dismissed the conspiratorial explanations for the gap on Jan. 6th in favor of a fairly banal explanation that leans on normal technical and organizational issues to explain the gap instead of some sinister plot.
What else are you looking for?