So, is Thomas emblematic of conservative fiscal responsibility??
So, is Thomas emblematic of conservative fiscal responsibility??Looks like the origin of Thomas' corruption has been found...
Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign
Interviews and newly unearthed documents reveal that Thomas, facing financial strain, privately pushed for a higher salary and to allow Supreme Court justices to take speaking fees.www.propublica.org
285K not enough for Uncle Thomas. He hooked up with a few rich sugar daddies.Shitlol
The following year, Thomas publicly complained that he sacrificed earning potential to sit on the court. “The job is not worth doing for what they pay,” Thomas said during a speech at the Bar Association in Savannah, Georgia, in 2001. “The job is not worth doing for the grief. But it is worth doing for the principle.” (Today, Supreme Court justice salaries range from $285,400 for associate justices to $298,500 for the chief justice.)“
I am sure justice Thomas would acknowledge we live in a system that is imperfect. The wheels of justice move slowly for some and by leaps and bounds for others. Quite literally.
I thought in general, there is no time limit for fraud, so that could potentially be an angle.Exclusive: Republican hits Clarence Thomas with. lawsuit over his taxes
Republican John Anthony Castro told Newsweek he is filing suit against Thomas alleging that the justice violated Virginia tax law.www.newsweek.com
What doesn't make sense to me is this:
' "Clarence Thomas knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false and fraudulent claim (i.e., his 2005 Virginia State Income Tax Return) to the Virginia Department of Taxation on or about April 15, 2016, that failed to report income from discharge of indebtedness."
Notably, the act states that a civil action cannot be brought "more than six years after the date on which the violation is committed." It goes on to say that civil action can also be brought no more than three years after new facts come to light, however "no more than ten years after the date on which the violation is committed." '
So...isn't it too late at this point?
Did you have a copy/paste error on the last link? Is YouTube screwing with people? Definitely wasn't a link to LWTSince it's all about the money for Clarence, last night on his show, John Oliver offered to pay him One million a year if he agreed to resign from the Supreme Court. According to the best interpretation he could get from his lawyers, Oliver reckons that this is 100% legal. He's even throwing in a high end Motor Coach. ]
And, here's the whole show, complete with Rat Hole!
Perknose rick rolled you.Did you have a copy/paste error on the last link? Is YouTube screwing with people? Definitely wasn't a link to LWT
Due to a new networking agreement they won't upload to YouTube until Thursdays now instead of the usual Monday. Something to do with Max and trying to get more subscribers.Did you have a copy/paste error on the last link? Is YouTube screwing with people? Definitely wasn't a link to LWT
Anyone can refuse a subpoena, you just have to face the legal consequences, and we all know that legal consequences are hard to enforce on billionaires.What happened to hauling Thomas's sugar daddies into Senate hearings. They can't refuse subpoenas.
Can they?
Whitehouse Votes to Authorize Issuing Subpoenas to Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo as Part of Supreme Court Ethics Probe - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Washington, D.C. – Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, today released the following statement after the Judiciary Committee voted to authorize Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) to issue subpoenas to billionaire Harlan Crow and court fixer Leonard...www.whitehouse.senate.gov
Effing YouTube. Apparently the link to the entire program was taken away.Did you have a copy/paste error on the last link? Is YouTube screwing with people? Definitely wasn't a link to LWT
"According to the best interpretation he could get from his lawyers, Oliver reckons that this is 100% legal."Would this be a bribe? He's offering him money but it's not for help in a case, it's more like he's offering him a pension. Plenty of government workers go work in industry for high paying jobs after they retire.
No. SCOTUS has defined bribery so narrowly now that it’s basically impossible for anyone to be convicted of it.Would this be a bribe? He's offering him money but it's not for help in a case, it's more like he's offering him a pension. Plenty of government workers go work in industry for high paying jobs after they retire.