• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justice Thomas accepted millions in gifts from right wing mega donor

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Looks like those high and mighty conservative Justices self-policing themselves is a joke and those luxurious perks they get from their "friends" is too much of a benefit to give up on.

And then there's all of the shenanigans that has to be going on behind closed doors with their corporate masters yanking on those choke chains of their bought and paid for *heh* "Justices"..
 
jacobin.com

Clarence Thomas Is Committing Tax Fraud

For years, conservative billionaires have treated Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas to opulent vacations and trips on their private jets. If these were anything other than disinterested gifts, then they’re taxable — and Thomas owes the IRS a huge bill.
jacobin.com jacobin.com

good ol' Clarence is gonna have a some explaining to do
 
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.)“
 
iRONic said:
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.)“
Click to expand...
285K not enough for Uncle Thomas. He hooked up with a few rich sugar daddies.
 
uncletomcabincomic.jpg

I know people might be offended but this highlights the struggles of African Americans .
Uncle Thomas hasn't struggled at all but it seems he wants to be the victim .
 
Last edited:
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.
 
www.newsweek.com

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 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?
 
Pohemi said:
www.newsweek.com

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 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?
Click to expand...
I thought in general, there is no time limit for fraud, so that could potentially be an angle.
 
Perknose said:
Since 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! 😀
Click to expand...
Did you have a copy/paste error on the last link? Is YouTube screwing with people? Definitely wasn't a link to LWT
 
Fenixgoon said:
Did you have a copy/paste error on the last link? Is YouTube screwing with people? Definitely wasn't a link to LWT
Click to expand...
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.

variety.com

HBO Delays Posting ‘Last Week Tonight With John Oliver’ Clips to YouTube in Hopes of Signing Up More Max Subscribers

HBO is no longer giving away free next-day looks to 'Last Week Tonight With John Oliver' on YouTube.
variety.com variety.com
 
What happened to hauling Thomas's sugar daddies into Senate hearings. They can't refuse subpoenas.

Can they?

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

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 www.whitehouse.senate.gov
 
HomerJS said:
What happened to hauling Thomas's sugar daddies into Senate hearings. They can't refuse subpoenas.

Can they?

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

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 www.whitehouse.senate.gov
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
JTsyo said:
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.
Click to expand...
"According to the best interpretation he could get from his lawyers, Oliver reckons that this is 100% legal."

Seems it's a legal offer.
 
JTsyo said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. SCOTUS has defined bribery so narrowly now that it’s basically impossible for anyone to be convicted of it.

Bribery would require money for Thomas to rule a specific way on a case, not offering to pay him if he quits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top