CLAY: This Ginni Thomas discussion. Have you paid attention to everything surrounding it?

BUCK: Oh, we’re going to dive into this, my friend, for sure. Yes.

CLAY: So Ginni Thomas, married to Clarence Thomas, her actions as a married woman, being affiliated with Clarence Thomas, are a huge story right now. Front-page news, lead stories everywhere. Even though she’s an acknowledging conservative and has big relationships in D.C., nothing that has been attributed to Ginni Thomas… They had a New York Times magazine piece on her.

Nothing that has been attributed to her has surprised me because she’s pretty transparent, straightforward about what she believes, publicly and privately. Yet, we are being told right now, Buck, that everything surrounding Ginni Thomas is a massive news story that needs to be covered, based on her proximity to Clarence Thomas, while simultaneously people are waving their arms and saying, “Nothing matters about Hunter Biden because he’s a private citizen; we shouldn’t be concerned at all, about anything related to him.” So I’m just kind of fascinated by the dynamic in which you can wave off any responsibility or discussion, in any way —

BUCK: Yeah.

CLAY: — surrounding Hunter Biden by saying, “Well, he’s the president’s son. He’s not an elected official. Why does it matter?” Yet for Ginni Thomas everything she does has to be immediately attributed to Clarence Thomas and it’s some existential threat to American democracy.

BUCK: All true. I would also add for me, the bigger concern, Clay, is that this committee that is looking into “the insurrection” is using police state tactics.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: They’re pulling the phone records of private citizens, and then leaking them to the public to humiliate people.

CLAY: I agree. We talked about this a while ago.

BUCK: It’s not the first time they’ve done it, right, but let’s just understand. This is how — and we might return to this. We’ll hold this one for later, but we’re getting into it now. We’ll take some calls. We’ll take some calls in a little bit, folks. They have decided, that they will go scorched earth on this January 6th thing, they’ll say it’s insurrection, and this is how the left plays the game: They will humiliate your wife if they don’t like your politics and you’re a judge, you’re a member of Congress. They don’t care. It doesn’t matter.

This is just about humiliation. Clay, there’s no legal or ethical anything having to do with Ginni Thomas, sending text messages as a private citizen to Mark Meadows saying, “I think the election was stolen.” A lot of people thought that. A lot of people listening to this show still think and thought that, right? There’s no problem. It’s called America. You’re allowed to think what you want about a very contested and shady election, but they just want to humiliate her. That’s the point. It’s about the humiliation, ’cause that’s how they play the game.

CLAY: Here’s what I’ll say, Buck. I don’t think it’s very humiliating. Usually humiliation occurs at least in my experience, when something that is otherwise not public about you, becomes public that you wish was not public. Ginni Thomas’ political views, are not in some way, a secret. The idea that she would believe that there was a rig job going on with the 2020 election? Yeah. I 100% would expect that that is what she would believe, and the texts that she is sending are exactly the texts that I would expect for her to be sending to people at the White House. I don’t understand how this is in any way newsworthy or surprising.

BUCK: There was always a sense of violation when your private texts —

CLAY: Yes. I get that.

BUCK: — to somebody as an individual become a front-page story at the Washington Post because the Democrats want to pretend, “It’s about the sanctity of our election!”

CLAY: But when the story is telling something publicly, than it would be privately, to me, I’m like, “Well, this sucks. It’s a disgrace that private text messages ever get leaked in my opinion.”

BUCK: Yeah. She was keeping it real.

CLAY: But when they just further elucidate what you already believed, it’s like, “Well, that person is an honest, transparent figure. They’re not pretending to be someone they’re not.”

BUCK: Yeah.

CLAY: That’s what immediately comes to mind.