I am agreeing with you, for what it's worth.
Ewsieg is arguing the technicality which, OK, is correct. The evidence, compelling as it is, is still circumstantial.
But that isn't gonna stop people from looking at the situation and assessing the improbability that Clarence Thomas has zero knowledge of the sorts of political activities that his wife engaged in. To say that would be hard to believe would be an understatement.
Nothing will come of this, of course... Thomas isn't resigning nor will he recuse himself of any case that involves elections on account of this. But in my view, having a member ruling on cases of that nature given his proximity to someone who worked so hard to overturn the results of the last election, it hits at the credibility of the court and makes a mockery of it, frankly.