Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas caught lying on financial disclosure forms

[Major Nikon]

Clarence Thomas Should Be Investigated For Nondisclosure, Democratic Lawmakers Say

WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called for a federal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars on annual financial disclosure forms.

Led by House Rules Committee ranking member Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), 20 House Democrats sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States -- the entity that frames guidelines for the administration of federal courts -- requesting that the conference refer the matter of Thomas' non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice.

The letter outlines how, throughout his 20-year tenure on the Supreme Court, Thomas routinely checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income. But in reality, the letter states, she earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007 alone.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/democratic-lawmakers-call-for-investiation-into-clarence-thomas-finances_n_987934.html

[gateley]

1. This isn't new except that the Dems are calling for an investigation.

Wonder how far that'll get. :(

[Major Nikon]

2. The DOJ isn't controlled by the highly corrupt Bush administration anymore

I give it a 50/50 shot at going somewhere. Even if it doesn't result in direct action against him, at least it will provide ammunition to exclude him from a lot of future USSC decisions.

[demosincebirth]

3. Ya think?

[Major Nikon]

5. The GOP impeached Clinton over a blowjob

I don't think it's a stretch to see the same happen to Thomas, especially when it's over an issue that really matters.

[demosincebirth]

15. Clinton had a republican congress. We now have a republican House and

he is one of them. Maybe we get enough shit on him and he resigns.

[gateley]

6. 50/50 actually sounds pretty good to me! I usually assume we've

got 'no chance in hell'. Hope you're right -- on both counts!

[Major Nikon]

7. Here's how I see it going down and the parallels to Clinton's impeachment

If the AJ decides the charges have merit (and I don't see how that CAN'T happen), he then assigns a special prosecutor (like Ken Starr except with integrity). While that investigation is ongoing, the Democrats in congress would have a pretty good case to demand an impeachment vote against Thomas. Kinda hard for the GOPhers to argue against an impeachment vote after voting FOR one over a blowjob. If the GOPhers fail to have a vote, or fail to impeach Thomas, they would face charges of hypocrisy by the Democrats just in time for the election. It could very well be a case of the GOPhers dirty tricks coming back to bite them on the ass.

Call me crazy, but I'm optimistic. Throwing Long Dong Silver out would mean another Obama appointment and the restoration of a reasonable majority to the USSC.

[gateley]

9. I like how you think, but I'm not as optimistic.

They will say they impeached Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. That's what happened and much more severe than a blow job. Yes, WE know why they did it, but the impeachment was for perjury. It's hard to disagree with that.

And, we've got plenty of valid hypocrisy charges we could level at them now. We have, to a certain extent, but nothing seems to stick.

The ONLY reason I see them getting on board is to get THAT black guy out of a position of power, but even they know the power of the Supremes so would be willing to fight, I think.

Our only hope is if HE perjures himself or something equally "gotcha!".

Sigh. Hope I didn't rain on your parade because I sure depressed myself!

[Major Nikon]

12. It's easy to disagree with that

Clinton did not commit perjury or obstruction of justice. Clinton was never so much as indicted for any charges, much less convicted for perjury or obstruction of justice.

Clinton was impeached over a blowjob. That was the most serious charge the GOPhers had on him. They couldn't even charge him with a parking ticket.

[gateley]

13. I thought he lied under oath to the

Grand Jury -- am I wrong?

[demosincebirth]

17. I think you are right.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. That's where "depends on the meaning of the word is" comes in

Clinton went to law school and had some really good lawyers working for him. He knew how to weasel his way out of telling the truth while not technically committing perjury. Was he forthright about his affairs to the grand jury? No, he wasn't. But he worded it in such a manner that it wasn't technically perjury.

[Major Nikon]

21. I think you're confusing his GJ testimony with his deposition in the Jones case

During the GJ testimony, Clinton admitted he had intimate contact with Lewinsky. Starr didn't like Clinton's answers regarding why he gave misleading answers during his deposition, but just because Starr didn't like his reasoning, doesn't mean Clinton committed perjury during his GJ testimony. Starr also said Clinton committed perjury during his deposition which was equally as ridiculous. Clinton did give misleading information(not the same as a lie), but it wasn't his job to make the plantiff's case for them. Furthermore, lying under oath isn't the same thing as perjury. In order to clear the perjury hurdle you have to prove not only a lie under oath, but that the lie would have influenced the outcome of the case.

"Perjury is a tough rap to prove." --Richard M. Nixon.

[gateley]

23. But my original opinion is the same - regardless of whether

or not he was technically guilty, that's what they charged him with (and got the impeachment on) and that's what they would cite if we tried to use it as fodder in a Clarence Thomas argument. I just got kind of sidetracked.

[Major Nikon]

24. That's exactly my point

The GOP impeached Clinton over charges that had no merit, but even if you assume they did, the worst Clinton was guilty of was giving misleading answers during a deposition in a civil trial. Thomas outright lied on a financial disclosure form no less than 13 times, which is a far more serious offense.

[gateley]

29. And I don't disagree with that at all - but THEY will say he

committed perjury. No one is going to "see the light" that what Thomas has been doing is truly illegal because the Republican Noise Machine will do their job. I'm talking about the masses -- not necessarily the DOJ. But the way it's been going lately, I don't have much hope of "what's right" being the winner.

And believe me, I hope I'm wrong, wrong, wrong. I'd love to see him destroyed.

[SpiralHawk]

36. 13 times !! OMG...

That's one of them there Republicon Occult freaky fear numbers, or whatever, ain't it? I have heard RepubliFundies wArN about how eeeeeeevul that number is.

Whatever in Blue Blazes could all of this Long Dong Republicon Occultist Lying-Cheating-Wanking mean?

[Major Nikon]

19. Yes, you are wrong

Ken Starr accused Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice, but Starr was a partisan hack who lacked any credibility. His accusations were ridiculous and would have never went anywhere. That's why there was never so much as an indictment issued against Clinton. Even 10 Republicans agreed that Clinton never committed perjury.

[gateley]

20. Starr was a nightmare - truly evil, IMO. But the bottom line is

the Republicans would use the perjury and obstruction of justice charge, because that's what they used which got him impeached.

[Major Nikon]

22. So where's the charge?

Clinton was never charged with anything. Not even a parking ticket.

[SnakeEyes]

27. Um, he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice

The Senate acquitted him of both charges.

A 2nd perjury charge and one for abuse of power failed in the House so he was never charged with those.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gateley]

28. Look, you obviously know far more about this than I do and

I'm not interested in finding out more to prove anything. I don't know where the charge is.

Tell me, HOW did they impeach him? Can they do that without a charge?

[Major Nikon]

32. Excellent question

You'll have to ask the GOP that one. I don't have an answer.

[SnakeEyes]

38. Don't worry about it.

The problem here is Major doesn't understand that impeachment IS the creation of charges against a president for suspected crimes while in office, in lieu the courts. The very fact that Clinton was impeached means he was charged. The House passed 2 charges and failed to pass 2 others.

Impeachment in congress = indictment in courts

[PRETZEL]

40. I may disagree a bit on that,

there were no charges filed against President Clinton in the courts because the Jones case was discharged without merit by Judge Susan Weber Wright. The Jones case was a sexual discrimination case and Judge Wright found no merit in her charges. That's the criminal aspect.

The political aspect is the impeachment process. Starr was never under mandate to seek any criminal charges because he couldn't. He used the deposition in the Jones case as his basis for his impeachment articles. Impeachment always was and always will be a political process.

In this case, I disagree that impeachment in Congress = indictment in courts.

[Major Nikon]

42. Impeachment in congress =/ indictiment in courts

You honestly think I'm the one confused?

[newspeak]

47. didn't starr have a woman imprisoned without due process

because she refused to recant her story? She was being threatened and coerced to play along with starr. They spent millions of our money to investigate the infamous BJ and imprison a woman wrongfully to get their result.

[drm604]

44. Hasn't he already perjured himself?

Didn't he perjure himself every time he checked that "none" box (when it wasn't true) and signed that form?

[QED]

8. Unfortunately, the individual justice decides whether to recuse him/herself

from a case. If he decides not to, who ya gonna call? The Supremes are supreme and no one can tell them to recuse themselves. But... Abe Fortas resigned under pressure from Chief Justice Warren for his financial improprieties, maybe to avoid impeachment. So maybe Roberts could persuade old Clarence to resign. And maybe I'll win the lottery one day (even though I never buy a ticket). About the same chance, I think.

[Major Nikon]

10. I understand that, but Thomas can only tell people to go fuck themselves so many times

And he knows it. He can be impeached and he can be removed. Certainly that is an outside chance, but the more he defies valid conflict of interest charges, the closer to reality that becomes, especially if he's facing a DOJ investigation. It could also cause more moderate justices like Kennedy to distance themselves from him and reduce his effectiveness with the court. At the very least it's going to be a major thorn in his ass.

[sad sally]

11. As complicit as the Administration's DOJ has been investigating torture

cases, I doubt anything will happen.

June 14, 2010

Not only were terrorism suspects tortured under the Bush administration, it now appears that they were used as human guinea pigs as well.

On June 7, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) released a report containing evidence that CIA doctors and other medical personnel engaged in illegal experimentation on prisoners regarding "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e., torture).
---
And will the Obama administration have the guts to do anything about it, as PHR is calling for? (Sadly, I suspect that this will remain merely a rhetorical question.)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Did-CIA-Doctors-Commit-War-by-Mary-Shaw-100614-224.html?du

[Enthusiast]

39. LOL

[trueblue2007]

14. THOMAS IS A CROOK ...

[FSogol]

4. To save time, why not just tell us when Clarence Thomas tells the truth?

:shrug:

[Hoosier Daddy]

16. Awwwwwwwwww!

So very sad! :cry:

K&R!

[classysassy]

25. The Republican House members

will never allow Uncle Clarence to be indicted,they are afraid President Obama would nominate a black liberal and they can not live knowing an honest person of color will restore a bit of honesty to the court.

[Blue Owl]

26. Hey Long Dong

Take your gavel and shove it where the light of truth don't shine.

[Major Hogwash]

30. Wasn't this what Wiener was working on before he had to resign?

I don't think it is appropriate to build threads on the backs of porn stars, by the way.
It's been a long time since Long Dong Silver was a common household name.

[Samantha]

31. The Republicans will frame the debate as an overt act to reduce

the Supreme Court number of judges that lean to the right by 1 before the health care law case is heard. Obviously political. On the other hand, they would have to crank that farce up fast since I believe there is a push on for an early decision. This issue will probably heat up fast and furiously. What a joy it will be to watch it unfold.

Thomas should have NEVER been appointed to the Court in the first place. First of all, he does not possess the intellectual acuity to be a Supreme Court judge. Second, it is my personal belief he has ALWAYS been corrupt. And the Republicans knew that but did not care. It is okay to be corrupt as long as one plays ball on the right-wing turf.

Sam

[SpiralHawk]

34. Clarence = Republicon Family Wanker

The so-called 'values' of the Republic party are right out of the bottom of the moral cesspool.

[kentuck]

35. In all his years on the Court, has he written one opinion?

Or has he ever spoken up on any case before the Court. In my opinion, he should have been impeached a long time ago.

[Major Nikon]

43. No question that he's the most lackadaisical justice ever

He just sits back and watches the money roll in from his books (no doubt written by someone else) and sells his influence through his teabagger wife. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. WHAT...

you dare to question the Long Dong Of The Law?

The poor old guy prolly just needs the money...to buy more porn.

[hifiguy]

41. Thomas should be impeached

and then he and his wife should both be jailed for running what amounts to a judicial influence-peddling scheme. And that's too good for them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Heritage Foundation

....employed Mrs. Thomas at the time they were picking the Bush cabinet and Thomas was picking the President.

[Major Nikon]

46. I'm not sure that in and of itself would be improper

However, it does raise the question as to why a THINK tank would be employing Thomas' wife. The woman is an idiot.

[newspeak]

48. that's right!!!

I believe both thomas and scalia had skin in the game when it came to deciding to stop the florida count. Wasn't scalia's son part of little boot's legal team? Both, should have recused themselves, but seeing how they are both men who apparently lack morals or honor, they're decision changed the course of history.