BUCK: They don’t care if you’re truly a public person. They don’t care if you are supposed to be able to operate with some degree of privacy. The left, the libs, the Democrat apparatus, they want to crush those who stand in their way. They want to settle scores, they want to humiliate people, and that brings me to this January 6th panel that will seek an “interview” with Ginni Thomas.

Now, this is a gentle way of saying they’re gonna call her to testify before the January 6th House committee — and beyond that I’m sure if she decides not to show up, they will have a debate about subpoenaing Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. And there’s a lot to discuss here. But one of them is look at how the left, look at how the libs do this. They have a majority in Congress, and they are just dragging this thing as far as they can, weaponizing their subpoena power for just humiliation purposes.

As if Ginni Thomas, what, she was now the leader of the insurrection or something? Give me a break. And the way that they have putting a private citizen’s text messages, I mean, they’re acting like they’re doing a criminal investigation, but they’re not. It’s a House investigation. But they have similar powers and they’re abusing it for political purposes. But one thing that I think is very noteworthy, Clay, in all of this is they keep talking about Ginni Thomas — and they do this with many people — “urging the overturning of the election,” which is in and of itself…

The same way that using the term “insurrection” is an admission that one should not make because it was not an insurrection, was not a violent attempt to actually overthrow the United States government and sustain something in its place, even if there were some very sad, foolish people who were saying stupid things, as there were on that day. But beyond that the notion that she was pushing to overturn election? Ginni Thomas was of the belief that the election was being stolen. This is what always…

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: She’s talking about legal strategies to use to show the theft in her mind and in many other people’s minds at that time of the election, she was trying to stop the theft. But notice that’s never entered into the conversation. They make the way they frame the issue to overturn the results of the election is her goal. No, she believed that the election results were invalid as a function of law.

Now, people can argue that. They can say that’s whatever they want, but that’s a different thing than, “I don’t like this result. Let’s throw it out.” It’s, “They cheated. Let’s show how they cheated.” But they completely misrepresent this whatever they talk about anybody who even had ideas. He didn’t do anything. She wasn’t in, you know, the Capitol parading around.

CLAY: Also, the only reason she’s a story at all is because of her husband.

BUCK: Yup.

CLAY: So this is not actually intended to be an attack on Ginni Thomas because they don’t really care about what Ginni Thomas’ opinions are as it pertains to the 2020 election. This is a direct attack on Clarence Thomas, using his wife as the method by which to attack him. I read in the Sunday New York Times, Buck, Maureen Dowd’s editorial column, demanded that Clarence Thomas either step down or be removed from office — office being defined as Supreme Court justiceship — from his job because of his wife’s texts in regards to the election.

That’s madness, Buck, to decide that you are going to force someone out of office because of what their wife’s opinions are — which, by the way, it’s not like these were even illegal opinions. There was and remains a very strong argument, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the election, to examine what took place in the election and whether Joe Biden was the legitimately elected president of the United States. Now, there’s been a huge amount of discussion about this, but the idea that Clarence Thomas — which is what they’re trying to get at — should be forced to step down because of his wife’s text messages, is pure madness.

BUCK: And sexist!

CLAY: (laughs) And sexist. Good point.