To my slight surprise, the Ginni Thomas story — the texts about her involvement in the January 6th conspiracy — appears to be escalating rapidly. Politico’s Playbook is in such a case a good barometer. A couple days ago I felt I was pushing the envelope by saying Justice Thomas should recuse himself from any Jan. 6th or Trump election (past or future elections) related cases. Over the last 36 hours, though, calls for this are not only coming from standby legal ethics experts but from a number of conservative legal types who have in the past been either indifferent to or protective of Ginni Thomas’s fairly open involvement in GOP partisan politics. (Justice Thomas was already the sole dissent in a case that could quite likely have involved — though in the event it apparently did not — communications from his wife to other participants in the Jan. 6th conspiracy.) Now the Jan. 6th committee seems prepped to ask her to testify and, if she doesn’t agree, subpoena her, though here there appears to be a division centering around Liz Cheney.

From TPM Reader PC …

The remarkable thing about the change in Russian messaging about their objectives is the threat it poses to Putin’s regime survival.

Even before the military changed their public tune, on March 16 Lavrov described ceasefire negotiations as being “close to agreement” on terms that were basically: give up Donbass and Crimea (no clarity on borders, or the potential land bridge between them) and give up NATO membership (no clarity on EU membership, just “neutrality”).

From what I can tell, the more serious-minded military analysts and Ukraine experts are this afternoon trying to make sense of just what this afternoon’s Russian military briefing means. Is this just chatter along the lines of claims of a soon to be announced ceasefire or is this really the signal that the Russian leadership is looking for an offramp from this strategic catastrophe entirely of its own making? I don’t think anyone quite knows what to make of it yet. The claims of ‘this is what we meant to do all along’ are absurd on their face. And yet, they’re the most plausible and possibly even the most predictable path to a face-saving exit. In fact, we shouldn’t have to wait long to find out. If this signals a true pivot in Russian policy and war aims we should see movements on the ground in fairly short order.

But one really has to question whether this pivot is even possible. And by possible I mean is it in any way a plausible path to the end of the conflict on any terms?

TPM Reader PT tries to puzzle out what the people in charge of the Russian military are thinking …

After reading your posts on the latest proclamations from Russia’s General Staff, I find myself scratching my head (figuratively) and muttering, “I don’t get it” (also figuratively).

Specifically, I don’t see how these comments set the conditions for an end to the war on terms other than an abject Russian retreat.

Sen. Ron Wyden says that Clarence Thomas’ conduct on the court “looks increasingly corrupt” and that at a minimum he should recuse himself from any cases tied to the January 6th conspiracy or the 2024 election if ex-President Trump chooses to run again for election. I was gratified to see this because I had suggested the same and it seems really the minimum that should be required of him. (He’s already sat in review of other January 6th cases and ruled adverse to the investigation.)

We have a bit more detail now on that Russian General Staff update in which they seem to argue that most of their military operation in Ukraine is now done and they’re going to focus just on “liberating” Donbas, the region in the east of the country, part of which had been under de facto Russian occupation back to 2014. Christopher Miller of Buzzfeed gives us a bit more of the nuance and detail.

The Russian Ministry of Defense just announced that, in Reuters’ wording, the “first phase of its military operation in Ukraine was mostly complete and that it would focus” on “liberating” (Russia’s word) the Donbas region in Ukraine’s east. It’s hard to know precisely what this means. It could mean close to nothing and in fact things continue as they have for weeks with no clear change. But it could also mean admitting that most of the military operation in Ukraine has failed or met much more resistance than was anticipated and they are now focusing on cleaving off a large chunk of territory in the east.

I want to thank all the members (new and old) who’ve written in in response to my request for answers to “Why TPM?” I’m going to re-ask the question below. So if you didn’t get a chance to send in a note you still can and I’d appreciate it if you could. I’ve been a bit more hesitant than I’d anticipated in publishing too many of them because they tend to be pretty praiseful and it seems like we’re bragging. But a key reason we’re doing this is audience research. We’re in the midst of TPM. We have things we’re trying to do. But in a way it’s hard for us to know what’s getting through. I’m also very interested in news as service — a particular news organization helps you navigate the news, keep you up to date on the news in a certain way.

So with all that I wanted to mention a few things that came up repeatedly in your emails.

There seems to be some confusion on TPM Reader JO’s part about Prime AF. You don’t have to convince anyone that Prime AF stands for Prime As F*ck. That’s actually always what it stood for. Seriously, the double meaning in the usage was chosen intentionally for that from the start.

Supreme Court Justices with some frequency recuse themselves from cases to which they have relatively limited connection. How is it that Justice Thomas can possibly review any case tied to January 6th or the larger conspiracy surrounding it when his wife was party to that conspiracy?