Thomas also had checked a box marking 'No Spousal Income'
There was some News -- that has been 'Bigfooted' by Breitbart -- this week.
News you could use. SOOO, I decided to recap that "don't-look-over-here" story ...
First, the background story ...
Clarence Thomas revises disclosure forms by Jennifer Epstein, politico.com -- 1/24/11
Like all federal judges, Thomas must file annual disclosure reports on his personal finances, but he had omitted details of his wife’s earnings in what he wrote was a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” He also had checked a box marking no spousal income. [...]
Last week [Jan 2011], watchdog group Common Cause reported that none of the nearly $690,000 the Heritage Foundation said it had paid Ginni Thomas between 2003 and 2007 had been reported on Justice Thomas’s annual financial disclosure forms.
In a statement Monday, the group said did not believe Thomas’s explanation. [...]
Until 1996, Thomas included his wife’s income on his disclosure forms.
Ooops. Guess he understood what "Spousal Income" meant, back then.
Before he was so burdened by the "duties and responsibilities" of a Supreme Court Justice.
Nothing to see here, people ... get back to those Twitter feeds ... and keep those cell-phone cameras under lock and key, too. The Breitbart-backers have spoken ...
Now for the News 'kicked' right off the front page headlines -- by well-paid Front Group instigators, most likely (if history is indeed, any prologue .. ie. any kind of predictor of future actions).
The Shiny Object is NOT Over here folks ... that's just more legalese gobbledygook
Boorring!
www.ProtectOurElections.org Calls for Investigations Into Justice Thomas in Light of New Financial Disclosures ProtectOurElections.org, PRNewswire-USNewswire -- June 1, 2011
WASHINGTON, 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 [ding,ding,ding], Clarence Thomas' [corrected] 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 [June 1, 2011], 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.
So What Exactly -- did Supreme Court Justice Thomas DO Wrong?
What's a little pillow talk between Justices and Lobbyists-want-a-bees?
Why is there this talk about Impeachment? It's not like he 'dropped his drawers', or something important like that ... WHERE are the pictures?
Geesh! We don't have time-for Reading!
Impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas www.change.org
-- Justice Thomas knowingly and willingly falsified information on a federal form
-- This matter happened consistently over the course of five years
-- Failed to recuse himself when the supreme court oversaw cases he and his wife had clear conflict of interests
-- Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that a Supreme Court Justice that “lacks good behavior” can be impeached [...]
-- perjury
[...]
-- Federal ethics rules are very specific regarding conflicts of interest and potentials for influence
SIGN THIS PETITION The time period for signing this petition has ended.
The DOJ needs to step up their Accountability act a notch, too. The selling of influence -- is NO Petty charge. Shiny Objects, notwithstanding.
Hmmm I thought the IRS was quite skilled in getting "disclosures" -- even if the "slim majority" in that ultimate country club, believes in keeping political activities, behind the scenes, and on the sly. Unless of course you're just a normal contributor.
Who needs to check those income disclosure boxes anyways?
-- Not the Supremes, and certainly NOT when they are deciding weighty matters like 'Citizen United'. Corporations, need their day in court too, you know. No need for astroturf 'Political Lobbying' to be brought into it.
Hey Media-barkers why don't you point your Magnifying Glasses somewhere else, OKAY?
Somewhere a bit more 'titillating' ... got it? Remember the New Media's new mission ...
Stir up outrage, trade barbs, placate, then medicate ... and Finally MOVE ON.
"Oh, for doing it – I know. Well, I mean, as his director of public affairs, I sat in his staff meetings while he made jokes about pickaninny dolls, and he did it for the entertainment of white people. And he teased some other white staffer who was having some trouble getting a loan or something, saying, you’re just not black enough. You need to get black. Wear a Dashiki and pump your fist and then you can get all the money you want. So it was that kind of thing. He always took a special effort to denigrate anything about black people, about civil rights, affirmative – and that to me is self-loathing. [Remember, this is the head of the freaking EEOC under Reagan and Bush I we're talking about here. Talk about regulatory capture! Jesus H Tapdancing Christ... - ed.]"
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
