Clarence Thomas Is Trying To Get Away With A Felony

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Clarence-Thomas-Is-Trying-by-Roger-Shuler-110209-557.html

Many news outlets that have reported on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to disclose his wife's income are portraying the allegations as, at most, a misdemeanor.

But as we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, and now is being reported by protectourelections.org, Thomas' actions would amount to a felony if proven in a court of law. In fact, Protect Our Elections (POE) cites several cases where individuals have faced prosecution under the felony statute, the same one that Thomas apparently is trying to skirt by amending disclosure forms going back 20 years.

POE also is reporting that Virginia Thomas, the justice's wife, is part of an outfit called Liberty Consulting Inc., which appears to be a front organization for conservative interests who have issues before the Supreme Court.

News reports on the Thomas case generally have referenced 5 U.S. Code app. section 104, which calls for a misdemeanor punishment of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation. Given that Thomas apparently violated the statute for roughly 20 years, he could wind up with a substantial penalty under that law.

More at the link --

[WCGreen]

1. A serial offender....

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Smirk." - Clarence T. (R - Phamily Values Pharisee)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qmMd1XMfXtw/TMWXEwEs_GI/AAAAAAAAHj4/iJNrQWLVQyU/s1600/Thomas+Clarence.jpg

[KansDem]

3. Well, he's just another in a long line of un-indicted felons that include Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,...

...and others from the right-wing halls of power.

Who's going to prosecute?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Who, indeed?

Is anyone untainted?

:shrug:

[damntexdem]

5. Now that's unfair! He's not trying to get away with a felony -- he's getting away with it.

I would be very surprised if he actually got charged with anything.

[spanone]

6. who's jurisdiction is the supreme court under?

seriously

holder?

[TBF]

10. The justices generally serve a lifetime appointment, but they can be impeached

by the House of Representatives, with a trial following in the Senate. Samuel Chase was impeached, but not found guilty by the Senate.

[Ratty]

16. And disbarred

Disbarring wouldn't preclude his position on the bench but it *would* make people sit up and take notice.

[udbcrzy2]

7. The laws are not worth the paper they are written on

If they don't apply them. We should be used to this shit.

[Blue Owl]

8. Supreme Criminal Clarence Thomas

All hail, your law-breaking honor...

[DCKit]

9. Twenty strikes, and he's a Black man.

"If you can't afford an attorney..."

[Curmudgeoness]

11. And really, who is going to prosecute him? Ain't happening.

But of course it was just an "oversight", I am sure. That is the pat answer.

[Fumesucker]

12. Trying?

No, he's getting away with a felony.

No one will even investigate, let alone prosecute.

[wiggs]

13. IMO his fellow justices should be bringing this up to him in private, and

expressing what must be their significant concerns and discomfort. If a justice were to skip on a clear infraction, how many times do you think they'll hear about it when someone is pleading a similar case? This won't go away. This taints the court as a whole.

Of course, best would be prosecution...just like the rest of us would get.

[hootinholler]

14. Worth reading in full. n/t

[butterfly77]

15. Kicked&Recommended...