793 users online (107 members and 686 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,119

    DC - Clarence Thomas and his Ignorance of the Law Excuse

    "The Supreme Court justice broke a federal law by not disclosing his wife's $700,000 think-tank payday. Paul Campos on Thomas' "preposterous" defense and why he likely won't be punished."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/1...YXJlbmNldGhvbQ--
    Here are the facts set forth in this article...

    Ginni Thomas was paid nearly $700,000 by the Heritage Foundation, a "conservative think tank," a.k.a. a right-wing propaganda mill, between 2003 and 2007, as well as an undisclosed amount by another lobbying group in 2009. Justice Thomas' false statements regarding his wife's income certainly constitute a misdemeanor, and quite probably a felony, under federal law. (They would be felonies if he were prosecuted under 18. U.S.C. 1001, which criminalizes knowingly making false statements of material fact to a federal agency. This is the law Martha Stewart was convicted of breaking by lying to investigators.)

    Thomas' defense is that he didn't knowingly violate the law, because he "misunderstood" the filing requirements. This is preposterous on its face. Bill Clinton was impeached—and subsequently disbarred—for defending his false statements about his affair with Monica Lewinsky with an excuse that wasn't as incredible as the one Thomas is now employing.

    People, he is claiming ignorance of the law. A Supreme Court Justice is claiming ignorance of the law-At least we all KNEW Clinton knew what he was risking by defending his false statements. I think the same can be said here. JMO

    ETA: Just to remind you-Clarence Thomas recused himself from participating in the case that overturned Campaign Finance laws because of his wife's employers. Yup, he misunderstood the law. At least someone has made a complaint to the Missouri Bar requesting he be disbarred for this. Doubtful, but heartening that someone has made the effort.
    email me


    Long Lost Love: The Bob Harrod Story Disappeared/ID Network
    Amazon: Purchase Long Lost Love $1.99


    Bob Harrod SAR


    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
    ― Maya Angelou

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Clarence Thomas is a national disgrace and always has been. Somehow, we all were sidetracked by a pubic-hair-on-a-Coke-can remark and neglected to notice his utter lack of qualifications to serve on the Court.

    (ETA: Frankly, in this matter, I don't know whether he is lying--we know he's quite capable of that--or whether he really is that stupid. With Thomas, it's nearly impossible to tell.)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,119
    Nova, that was hilarious.
    email me


    Long Lost Love: The Bob Harrod Story Disappeared/ID Network
    Amazon: Purchase Long Lost Love $1.99


    Bob Harrod SAR


    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
    ― Maya Angelou

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,557
    I read that excellent yet disturbing commentary first thing this morning. I'm always left shaking my head over exactly who decides what becomes a scandal and what does not.

    If this isn't egregious behavior, what is?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,425
    I thought the way Thomas was treated at his confirmation hearing was shameful. That being said, I also thought he was totally unqualified and was being appointed for political reasons. As an Associate Justice he has contributed nothing except to "second" Scolita's votes.

    I hope this scandal dosen't go away.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by believe09 View Post
    Nova, that was hilarious.
    Thanks. I wish I could say I was trying to be amusing.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    I thought the way Thomas was treated at his confirmation hearing was shameful. That being said, I also thought he was totally unqualified and was being appointed for political reasons. As an Associate Justice he has contributed nothing except to "second" Scolita's votes.

    I hope this scandal dosen't go away.
    Since he lied through his teeth not only about his history of sexual harassment, but more importantly, over things such as whether he had formed an opinion on cases such as Roe v. Wade, I can't feel bad for him. But I certainly agree the side show that took place was largely beside the point. (And to be fair, let's remember that Anita Hill testified reluctantly and under subpoena.)

    But mostly I hate the hypocrisy of his disdain for affirmative action when he is by far the country's most prominent and obvious beneficiary of it. (I'm not saying he's not entitled to decide the time has come to end that practice; I just resent his lack of candor on the subject.)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,509
    The article posted by Believe09 says that he won't be prosecuted, but is he going to come clean and pay the fines and interest that you and I would have to pay if we had done something like that?

    Martha Stewart had to go to jail for her bad deeds.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by UdbCrzy2 View Post
    The article posted by Believe09 says that he won't be prosecuted, but is he going to come clean and pay the fines and interest that you and I would have to pay if we had done something like that?

    Martha Stewart had to go to jail for her bad deeds.
    Indeed. Because none of the prosecutors was worried he'd ever have to try a case in front of her, it was safe to make an example of her.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    sitting on a cornflake
    Posts
    2,371
    Frankly I find it hard to argue against his claims of ignorance. I've been saying it for years.


    "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
    -Martin Luther King, Jr.




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,557
    If the man claims ignorance, maybe we should believe him and act upon that confession.

    I, for one, do not wish to have an self-identified ignorant Justice.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Heart of America
    Posts
    1,571
    I'm surprised no one mentioned the wierd phone message Mrs Thomas left on Anita hill's phone a few months ago. The one where she asked her if she didn't think it was time to admst she'd lied? I found that astounding on several levels. A Supreme Court spouse behaving like that and just assuming that because she said what she did twenty years ago that she could be pressured into 'fessing up.' I think both of the Thomases are really strange.

    I remember watching those hearings and thinking he was lying. I did feel sorry for the man; It was no doubt something he wasn't proud of and thought no one would ever know. Apparently Mrs T still thinks it was a liberal frame-up. Well, love can be blind..
    'Never stop fighting..never give up'

    Kevin Kostner as Eliott Ness in 'The Untouchables'

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North of 49th Parallel
    Posts
    3,989
    This may sound like a silly question..but can C Thomas be recalled from SCOTUS due to inability to do his job?...When a Judge on the highest Court of the Land doesnt know the law..or care to find out the laws when declaring with signature such information to IRS??.

    Something very wrong with a system that doesnt allow for peer reviews of fellow Judges??..Surely his fellow Supreme Court Justices get that this man know a lick about LAw and goes with the agenda..and recites other's when renders opinions..Geesh..What a disgrace for such a high esteemed level of a LAW INTERPRETER>>>Sad

    The very least, Judge Clarence Thomas should be investigated ..ya know..blow away the smoke and mirrors and really look at what he has been doing these past decades..Sorry..Im baffled really

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by LyndyLoo View Post
    This may sound like a silly question..but can C Thomas be recalled from SCOTUS due to inability to do his job?...When a Judge on the highest Court of the Land doesnt know the law..or care to find out the laws when declaring with signature such information to IRS??.

    Something very wrong with a system that doesnt allow for peer reviews of fellow Judges??..Surely his fellow Supreme Court Justices get that this man know a lick about LAw and goes with the agenda..and recites other's when renders opinions..Geesh..What a disgrace for such a high esteemed level of a LAW INTERPRETER>>>Sad

    The very least, Judge Clarence Thomas should be investigated ..ya know..blow away the smoke and mirrors and really look at what he has been doing these past decades..Sorry..Im baffled really
    I could be wrong, but I don't think a justice of the Supreme Court can be removed for ordinary incompetence. Like a president, a justice has to be impeached.

    Maybe if he were babbling incoherent from the bench they could take action. I'm not sure, however, even then.

    Are his current offenses impeachable crimes? They might be, but we'll never know for sure.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Snick1946 View Post
    I'm surprised no one mentioned the wierd phone message Mrs Thomas left on Anita hill's phone a few months ago. The one where she asked her if she didn't think it was time to admst she'd lied? I found that astounding on several levels. A Supreme Court spouse behaving like that and just assuming that because she said what she did twenty years ago that she could be pressured into 'fessing up.' I think both of the Thomases are really strange.

    I remember watching those hearings and thinking he was lying. I did feel sorry for the man; It was no doubt something he wasn't proud of and thought no one would ever know. Apparently Mrs T still thinks it was a liberal frame-up. Well, love can be blind..
    I don't think there's any question that Anita Hill told the truth. Let's remember she didn't initiate the subject, nor did she wish to be the focus of those hearings. She wasn't--and as far as I know isn't--a particularly liberal jurist.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-16-2013, 11:40 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-30-2006, 06:07 PM