Justice Clarence Thomas caught tweeting his genitals to followers

[ck4829]

Now that I have your attention, it's actually about something that is obviously much less important, like how Clarence Thomas is using the court system to make his wife and himself richer, conflicts of interest, and disregarding the Constitution and the rule of law. You know, that sort of thing.

"ProtectOurElections.org, a campaign finance watchdog, has asked the FBI and Department of Justice to investigate Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia (Ginni) Thomas for financial and judicial corruption partly based on the Justice's newest financial disclosures.

First, the organization alleges, Justice Thomas falsified 20 years of judicial financial disclosure forms by denying that his wife had income sources; second, he engaged in judicial corruption by receiving $100,000 in support from Citizens United during his nomination and then ruling in favor of Citizens United in 2010 without disclosing that fact or disqualifying himself; and third, he apparently conspired with his wife in a form of "judicial insider trading" by providing her with information about the result of the Court's decision in Citizens United prior to its issuance, which she then used to launch a new company to take financial advantage of that decision to benefit her and her husband.

On Friday, May 27, 2011, Clarence Thomas' 2010 Financial Disclosure Forms were released showing that he had invested thousands of dollars in Liberty Consulting Inc. a lobbying and consulting firm founded by his wife to cater to the "tea party." The disclosure also revealed that his wife received "salary and benefits" from Liberty Consulting and Liberty Central.

Today, ProtectOurElections.org is calling on the DOJ's Public Integrity Section and the FBI to consider this new information in their investigation of Justice Thomas and his wife."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wwwprotectourelectionsorg-calls-for-investigations-into-justice-thomas-in-light-of-new-financial-disclosures-122936083.html

[MineralMan]

1. You do know how SCOTUS justices are removed, right?

What do you suppose the odds of the current House impeaching Thomas are?

[ck4829]

2. Honestly, he could murder an innocent man in cold blood in the street

And Boehner and the rest of them would still support him 100%.

[MineralMan]

3. Probably. Which is why this is a wild goose chase that is

distracting us from issues where something can be done. By focusing on things we cannot affect, we minimize our actions on things we can affect. It is stupid of us to do that, yet we keep coming up with new Quixotic things to chase. I wish we'd stop, and focus on the only thing that is important in the next year and a half - regaining control of state and federal legislatures. If we fail in that, none of the rest of it will matter one bit.

[sabrina 1]

15. How about we decide what is important.

I don't like crooked people, who lied about their conflicts of interest and their income on tax forms, year after year, sitting on the USSC.

For someone with no tolerance for a sex lie, I'm surprised you do not consider egregious lies about something far more important, at least as intolerable.

This man is going to judge cases involving the HC issue, while he has a huge conflict of interest.

Weiner's sex lie harmed no one but himself, Thomas' decisions harm all of us.

So, thank you for the advice, as a grown-up, I make pretty decent decisions most of the time after considering all of the ramifications.

I will be calling my Reps this week to demand that there be hearings into these allegations. We need honest people on the SC. He can lie about sex for all I care, no one has any right to ask him in the first place, but NOT about profiting from orgs who have a vested interest in how he votes on the SC.

[Wind Dancer]

18. Beautiful!!

:applause: Thank you!

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, well, good luck with that.

Without a majority in the House, it ain't happening. It. Is. That. Simple.

[madinmaryland]

26. Well, I would have to disagree. An investigation takes time, and probably

would not come out for a year or so, at which time the House may just be controlled by democrats.

[sabrina 1]

30. I know that, that doesn't mean it cannot be raised by the minority

When Repubs were in the minority they managed to get an awful lot done. However that is not really the corect avenue for something like this.

The DOJ is probably the most likely entity to deal with crimes of this nature.

The legal organizations and other democratic and civil rights organizations now involved in this issue, will decide and I will support all of them in their efforts.

I am very encouraged with what is happening regarding this issue. We are finding out that probably the worst place to try to get anything is Washington DC. But that doesn't mean things cannot get done by citizens who after all are the owners of this country, despite what DC thinks.

[Cleita]

4. I don't think Congress will ever impeach him no matter

what the mix or they would have done so when they had reason to. The way to remove him would be to dig up something so scandalous on him that even the die hard Repukes couldn't cover it up or ignore it. It would have to be something to force him to resign. Any would be investigative reporters like Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, who want to, could get to work on this and dig up all the dirt I'm sure is there and expose him and his wife for what they are. They could write a book about it like "All the President's Men". Then and only then would you see something happen.

[ck4829]

6. But that's hard work, and look over there! A teacher who is able to afford rent!

Clearly, she is making too much money, we better investigate that instead!

[MineralMan]

7. Frankly, it's putting energy that could be used for attainable things

to work on stuff that won't happen. Waste of time. Removing SCOTUS justices is always an unattainable goal. We need to focus on what can be achieved.

[Fuddnik]

23. We could make his life a living hell.

That would be worth the effort. Just watching him squirm and go ballistic.

[sabrina 1]

35. Yes, espcially since the went after Rep. Wiener because it was

he who wrote the letter asking him to recuse himself because of his conflict of interest. That was in Feb. and it was in Feb that the campaign against Weiner, started as far as I could see from the records at the Smoking Gun.

And just when this lates information came out, they dropped their 'sex lies' distraction against Weiner in the Corporate friendly media and no one is talking about Thomas. I think we owe it to Weiner, who if had kept quiet about Thomas would probably never have been targeted, to keep this story of lies and corruption in the forefront.

[leveymg]

13. Impeachment isn't necessary. Indict Clarence Thomas.

[Snoutport]

5. can they be arrested though?

can they go to jail? maybe not removed from the court but perhaps not able to rule on cases because of jail time? just curious.

[MineralMan]

8. Probably not.

Theoretically, perhaps, but it will not happen. Such a thing would create a constitutional crisis that would throw the entire government into complete chaos.

So, it won't happen. And for the same reason that George W. Bush will never be charged with something like torture. It simply is not going to happen.

Reality is reality.

[leveymg]

14. It's only impossible if people are convinced not to indict Thomas. He's committed federal crimes -

if convicted of five violations of 5 USC App. 104, Thomas can be sentenced to five years and a $250,000 fine. The forms he falsified five or six years running were signed under oath, and cite 5 USC App. 104.

Indict Clarence Thomas.

[leveymg]

16. 5 USC App. 104 - one year imprisonment, $50,000 fine for each violation - 5 or 6 counts

See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/568

[sabrina 1]

22. You can be sure if he was a left-leaning justice, he would

be indicted. But Democrats don't have the guts to do what is right, but they WILL throw Weiner overboard for a sex lie. Shows where their priorities are. I suppose they think the right will pat them on the back for once again abandoning one of their own when Breitbart fingers them.

[leveymg]

28. You can be sure a liberal would have been pressured to resign. Perhaps, Thomas can be convinced.

I think this has to do with Virginia Thomas' resignation last November from the conservative lobbying group she ran: http://bossip.com/308044/bolitics-as-usual-clarence-thomas-wife-resigns-her-position-in-nutzo-tea-party-activist-group-43081/

Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has officially decided to remove herself from the organization which she created. Liberty Central is a conservative group that has aligned itself with the crazy-a** Tea Party, and has come under intense scrutiny over the past months due to conflict of interest as well as questions in regards to generous anonymous contributions.

Funded primarily by two secret donors, whose identities were concealed by new practices set forth in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, Thomas’s group was immediately injected with more than half-a-million dollars, which propelled it to the forefront of conservative activism, but not without significant concern that the anonymous status of Liberty Central’s benefactors could potentially complicate future rulings by Justice Thomas.

I think either Clarence has dug his heals in and refuses to resign, or there's been a deal and Weiner either didn't get the memo or for some reason has gone against the deal. It's the only explanation for why the Dem leadership is being so quite about Clarence's apparent law breaking.

[Citizen Worker]

27. "Impeachment is off the table," regardless of which political party controls the house. That's what

Nancy Pelosi shouted to the world when the democrats took over the House in 2007. The so called rule of law is a hollow platitude unless you happen to be poor, Black or brown.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. Impeachment and criminal indictment are two very different things

which start from two very different places.

If the AG should bring tax fraud and corruption charges against him, THEN the House - even the Republican majority House - would be forced to consider impeachment At least if they don't want to have him making his rulings from Club Fed.

[indepat]

38. The odds are no more than one or two pub Congress-critters would ever, in any

circumstances, vote to impeach. EOS :patriot:

[lonestarnot]

9. Disgusting pig having a say in what is and is not just. hmmmf.

What a fucking joke that is.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Start working for a Democratic majority in the House now if you want a chance of impeachment.

[leveymg]

12. NO NEED TO IMPEACH. Clarence is prima facie indictable. Indict Clarence Thomas.

It'll get him off the street for 5-6 years, if he serves the maximum sentence in federal prison for violating 5 USC App. 104, false statements.

[sabrina 1]

17. We heard that before. When was it?

Before the 2006 elections until right before we had practically guaranteed a win for Dems. Then again in 2008, once we have a majority in both houses AND the WH, we can start getting accountability for war crimes etc. etc. To quote a famous US intellectual: 'fool me once, don't ever fool me again, or something like that'. Sorry, those days are gone where holding out carrots like we'll get the criminals AFTER the election, were naively believed. Now, if they want to win, how about going after them, as Rep. Weiner was, BEFORE the election. I would certainly be a lot more enthusiastic about helping them win if they began keeping the promises they made three years ago. Sort of like this time we want the money up front! They've lost the right to credit.

I'm sure you are anxious to see a man who lied about a far more important issue than sex, removed, considering how feel about Rep. Weiner being removed because of a sex lie.

Btw, was it you who dared me to accept a bet that the polls would be getting worse for Weiner, for $50? Lol, if so, I think I won, although I didn't really accept it. Polls now showing Weiner above 60%. The penis pic seems to have made him even more popular.

[ClarkUSA]

21. There was no comparable information on Thomas when Pelosi was Speaker.

I'm not interested in pursuing your red herrings.

[leveymg]

24. There is now. Forget impeachment. Indict Clarence Thomas.

[sabrina 1]

32. Thomas? We weren't talking about Thomas back them.

We were talking about torture and other war crimes that were supposed to be investigated AFTER we helped win majorities in both Houses and the WH. It seemed like an impossible task, but the thought of finally restoring the rule of law in this country was a huge motivator, so we achieved the almost impossible.

While I will Dems this time, I certainly am not motivated to work for them anymore, I devote all that energy now only to real Democrats and to issues like this which independent organizations that can be trusted, are already working on. I will support them with donations, petitions, phone calls etc as no one who has lied like this for over 20 years, belongs on the SC. I wish he had lied about sex, again. I wouldn't waste any time on that. But this is not a sex lie, this involves the future of this country.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. That is (almost) exactly what I told the OFA fund raiser who called

the other day.

Obama has my VOTE, but my MONEY is going to people who know how to use it.

[sabrina 1]

36. Yes, what are they going to promise this time that anyone will

believe. More change we can't believe in? My family doesn't even tell they will vote for them, they simply say that too many promises were broken and they don't have time to volunteer or donate to party pacs but will be donating to people like the Civil Liberties Union who continued to try to protect our rights throughout both administrations as they continued to take them away.

I'm sure they will vote for him, but this time, only because the alternative is so completely unthinkable :-)

[leveymg]

29. I've placed no money on this one. But, I'll wager that we start hearing about Thomas now.

Whatever has happened, Clarence has been outed. If there's some sort of benign deal, it's either gotta be fast-tracked now or Clarence will start hearing public calls for his resignation and Holder will be urged to convene a Grand Jury, if indeed that hasn't already happened and there's a sealed indictment - that's just a possibility that occurs to me.

If it comes out that a GJ has returned an indictment and Thomas has been allowed to continue voting on cases for a while, there's gonna be hell to pay for both parties.

[sabrina 1]

37. Yes, I am hearing from progressive organizations already about

this, asking for support in getting this investigated. I will definitely be supporting any efforts made to keep this in the public eye.

But they flooded the media with distractions the past two weeks, so they did succeed in keeping this out of the news so far. But, I agree, it will definitely be surfacing if people keep the pressure on.

[leveymg]

11. KNR. Indict Clarence Thomas.

[Wind Dancer]

19. K & R!

[madmax]

25. I recommend a name change

Instead of SCOTUS let's change it to SSOTUS. Spreme Scrotum of...

[crazyjoe]

31. deleted