There is no statute of limitations for civil tax fraud, so the IRS needs to examine Thomas’ returns and make him pay what he owes including penalties and interest. Maybe he’ll have to sell his vehicle to cover the payment. That will be a sad day for folks looking forward to chatting with him at a Walmart parking lot, but a good day for honest taxpayers.
I suspect the problem with charging Thomas for the tax fraud is the Statute of Limitations. Of course, unlike Hunter, who in his junkie days simply did not file taxes, Thomas EVADED taxes. You can't tell me a legal mind sharp enough to be a Supreme Court justice doesn't know about imputed income.
This is something for the experts, but it looks like the statute of limitation may not be an issue, after all. It only starts from the *last* act of tax fraud. Assuming that Thomas also failed to report his private-jet trips, that would have been very recent. And having multiple undisclosed large gifts will probably also call for a more severe sentence.
I think it's the last act of fraud with respect to specifically identifiable income. Someone who doesn't disclose a variety of taxable income over 50 years I'm pretty sure can't be charged for the earliest ones because of more recent but different ones. But if that 50 year old income required ONGOING misrepresentations until very recently, that could count. But I doubt that's the case.
I wonder when exactly the statute of limitation would start running on something like this. The loan forgiveness note was dated 2009, so one possible point would be October 15, 2010 (the due date of the tax return, with extensions). In that case, you are right - the statute of limitations is only six years. On the other hand, if failure to file an amended tax return is considered its own tax crime, then that's an ongoing matter, and the statute of limitation wouldn't even have started.
Oh but Comer just demanded that President Biden turn over documents about the conditions of the loan he gave his brother, which he has absolutely no right to since Biden was not president or vice president when the loan occurred. It's monumentally frustrating to watch corruption ignored by republicans, while finding absolutely NOTHING on President Biden but continuing to push for his impeachment.
That’s classic Politics 101. Point the finger loudly away from your misdeeds and hope the press follows. If they don’t, claim bias and hope the public lemmings buy it along with a new lumpy pillow.
My question is why Durbin, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee insists on mimicking a potted plant. He's had ample opportunities to use his enormous power to force a dramatic hearing that would lay bare Thomas' corruption. Instead, he writes absurd letters and shifts responsibility to the very institution that has shielded itself from all accountability.
There's s reason why Congress has even lower approval ratings than SCOTUS.
The DNC has to hammer this home all year - the current GOP Congress is the most extreme far right in its history, and their agenda is "no compromise ever." This is not what governing is about. So even in a swing district with a MODERATE Republican, the DNC has to stress that "HE might be an OK guy, but if you vote for this moderate Republican, you are keeping the extremists in power, and he will have no say in the GOP agenda." The DNC has to succeed at appealing to moderate Republicans to either vote Blue or stay out of the election, because their vote for ANY GOP Congressman keeps Matt Gaetz in charge.
Democrats have a solid record of failing to get their message out. “We don’t even need to lift a finger because these guys will hang themselves” is NOT an attitude to encourage.
Supposedly in World War I, there was a British colonel who would not read intercepted enemy communications because “A gentleman does not read another gentleman’s mail.“
I think Democrats tend to suffer from the same stupidity. The ridiculous notion that, when their enemy is coming at them to kill them, they are honor-bound to politely ask them to stop. It’s suicidal.
That, and a desire to not be thought of as the bad guys. The whole “If we call them out on their shit they’ll accuse us of being rude.” attitude.
Dems need to grow a spine and a “So what?” attitude.
There is no other way to say it -- this dude is a pig at the trough, with Ginny no doubt smacking his robust ass to get more and more and more. The mofo did this all in plain sight and it is an insult to every taxpayer that scrapes to get by, or gets by and pays their fair share. Forget the notion that the Supremes should be above reproach -- can we just got for not being criminals. There is a pattern and practice of these hogs living high, accountability needs to come sooner than later.
Even if someone else paid off the loan, that would still be a gift to the Thomases. It would just be coming from a different source (one who should be publicly identified).
So much corruption... it's like whack-a-mole. Thomas should resign, but I bet his ego wont allow that. We absolutely MUST take back the House and swiftly hold these people to account! Maybe Maga Mike should pray over this situation. 🤦♀️ UGH.
It is unconscionable that someone so corrupt cannot be booted out in some straightforward way, like the rest of us would be if we were pulling those kinds of stunts.
If there was a straightforward way, you could be sure that it would have been abused by the Rs to get rid of RBG a lot earlier than her unfortunate passing.
Swimming in corruption, for sure. I’ll just add drowning in deceit here. I don’t think there are any floaty devices that can keep the [dis]honorable Thomas afloat.
Thomas is a garden variety white collar criminal. He’s accepted multiple bribes and at the very least should be removed from the court. Of course that will never happen, but it should.
Them Senator Biden allowing this criminal to be appointed to the court was one of the biggest mistakes of his political career.
I'm curious to know how Biden "allowed" Thomas to be appointed to the Court. He voted against his appointment. Is there something else he did to allow it I'm not aware of (besides being outmaneuvered during the Hill hearings, but that's not the same to me)? 11 Democratic Senators voted for him, but Biden wasn't the minority leader and wasn't one of those who voted Yes. The minority leader, Tom Daschle, voted No, as did the minority whip, Wendell Ford.
Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time - he was in control of witnesses, questioning, scheduling, and a couple other things I forget right now. Don't know that he could have blocked that nomination, but he could sure have made it far more difficult.
To quote Charles Bastille, just above: "[Biden] voted against his appointment. Is there something else he did to allow it I'm not aware of (besides being outmaneuvered during the Hill hearings, but that's not the same to me)? 11 Democratic Senators voted for him, but Biden wasn't the minority leader and wasn't one of those who voted Yes. The minority leader, Tom Daschle, voted No, as did the minority whip, Wendell Ford."
I must concur, that was one issue that gave me pause to cast my vote for him but he is a great legislator, he acknowledged his error and IMHO he is our best hope during these frightening times.
According to Charles Bastille, above, Biden voted no on Thomas' appointment to the Court The New Yorker allowed me to read this article (I'm not a subscriber), confirming that Biden voted against confirmation but adding that, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he failed to allow sufficient testimony re Anita Hill's accusation. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/biden-and-the-supreme-court
Good morning to all who celebrate 🎉. With faith that the liberal wing of the court has assiduously followed the relevant laws, do we know if the documents from all 9 on the bench are being reviewed? At this point, no jurist should be seated without having had a thorough examination of their financial dealings.
That has been general practice anyway for a long time. The problem is that such a review can't very well go around to all billionaires on the planet and ask them "did you make payments to XYZ?" So it likely wouldn't uncover these kinds of shenanigans.
The only way to uncover it is through years-long dogged research of an investigative journalist.
There is no statute of limitations for civil tax fraud, so the IRS needs to examine Thomas’ returns and make him pay what he owes including penalties and interest. Maybe he’ll have to sell his vehicle to cover the payment. That will be a sad day for folks looking forward to chatting with him at a Walmart parking lot, but a good day for honest taxpayers.
And they (IRS) need to move asap with the threat of “defunding” if Rs take over. Actually if that happens, all ethics go out the window.
It's unfortunate he can skate on criminal charges.
Thomas: "So sue me, already...haw-haw, I'm here for life, suckas!"
Exactly!
Just like it would be for any one of us "regular" people.
NOT "if the Dem. take back the House."
WHEN we take back the HOUSE.
After all, Mike Johnson will need additional topics to pray over, so let's give it to him.
Amen Sister!!
I suspect the problem with charging Thomas for the tax fraud is the Statute of Limitations. Of course, unlike Hunter, who in his junkie days simply did not file taxes, Thomas EVADED taxes. You can't tell me a legal mind sharp enough to be a Supreme Court justice doesn't know about imputed income.
This is something for the experts, but it looks like the statute of limitation may not be an issue, after all. It only starts from the *last* act of tax fraud. Assuming that Thomas also failed to report his private-jet trips, that would have been very recent. And having multiple undisclosed large gifts will probably also call for a more severe sentence.
I think it's the last act of fraud with respect to specifically identifiable income. Someone who doesn't disclose a variety of taxable income over 50 years I'm pretty sure can't be charged for the earliest ones because of more recent but different ones. But if that 50 year old income required ONGOING misrepresentations until very recently, that could count. But I doubt that's the case.
So new fraud eliminates any statute of limitations over the old frauds? Good to know.
I wonder when exactly the statute of limitation would start running on something like this. The loan forgiveness note was dated 2009, so one possible point would be October 15, 2010 (the due date of the tax return, with extensions). In that case, you are right - the statute of limitations is only six years. On the other hand, if failure to file an amended tax return is considered its own tax crime, then that's an ongoing matter, and the statute of limitation wouldn't even have started.
Oh but Comer just demanded that President Biden turn over documents about the conditions of the loan he gave his brother, which he has absolutely no right to since Biden was not president or vice president when the loan occurred. It's monumentally frustrating to watch corruption ignored by republicans, while finding absolutely NOTHING on President Biden but continuing to push for his impeachment.
Wow. I hadn't heard that. It's not a magic trick, it's deception. "Don't look over here, look over there." It's infuriating that people believe them.
That’s classic Politics 101. Point the finger loudly away from your misdeeds and hope the press follows. If they don’t, claim bias and hope the public lemmings buy it along with a new lumpy pillow.
Liars suck. I hate liars because they're a bunch of cowards.
My question is why Durbin, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee insists on mimicking a potted plant. He's had ample opportunities to use his enormous power to force a dramatic hearing that would lay bare Thomas' corruption. Instead, he writes absurd letters and shifts responsibility to the very institution that has shielded itself from all accountability.
There's s reason why Congress has even lower approval ratings than SCOTUS.
As for regaining the House -
The DNC has to hammer this home all year - the current GOP Congress is the most extreme far right in its history, and their agenda is "no compromise ever." This is not what governing is about. So even in a swing district with a MODERATE Republican, the DNC has to stress that "HE might be an OK guy, but if you vote for this moderate Republican, you are keeping the extremists in power, and he will have no say in the GOP agenda." The DNC has to succeed at appealing to moderate Republicans to either vote Blue or stay out of the election, because their vote for ANY GOP Congressman keeps Matt Gaetz in charge.
Thankfully, Mike Jordan is going to do a lot of heavy lifting on that topic. Democrats may not need to lift a finger to hammer this home.
Democrats have a solid record of failing to get their message out. “We don’t even need to lift a finger because these guys will hang themselves” is NOT an attitude to encourage.
You are correct on that point for sure. But, why is messaging so hard for the Dems?
Supposedly in World War I, there was a British colonel who would not read intercepted enemy communications because “A gentleman does not read another gentleman’s mail.“
I think Democrats tend to suffer from the same stupidity. The ridiculous notion that, when their enemy is coming at them to kill them, they are honor-bound to politely ask them to stop. It’s suicidal.
That, and a desire to not be thought of as the bad guys. The whole “If we call them out on their shit they’ll accuse us of being rude.” attitude.
Dems need to grow a spine and a “So what?” attitude.
I believe you meant to type Mike JOHNSON.
There is no other way to say it -- this dude is a pig at the trough, with Ginny no doubt smacking his robust ass to get more and more and more. The mofo did this all in plain sight and it is an insult to every taxpayer that scrapes to get by, or gets by and pays their fair share. Forget the notion that the Supremes should be above reproach -- can we just got for not being criminals. There is a pattern and practice of these hogs living high, accountability needs to come sooner than later.
You can’t expect every Supreme Court justice to be an expert on laws. 😉
Haha! Hilarious! That just made me laugh out loud. Thank you for that!
Even if someone else paid off the loan, that would still be a gift to the Thomases. It would just be coming from a different source (one who should be publicly identified).
So much corruption... it's like whack-a-mole. Thomas should resign, but I bet his ego wont allow that. We absolutely MUST take back the House and swiftly hold these people to account! Maybe Maga Mike should pray over this situation. 🤦♀️ UGH.
It is his position on the court that makes all his grifting possible. He won't give it up voluntarily.
It is unconscionable that someone so corrupt cannot be booted out in some straightforward way, like the rest of us would be if we were pulling those kinds of stunts.
If there was a straightforward way, you could be sure that it would have been abused by the Rs to get rid of RBG a lot earlier than her unfortunate passing.
"Justice Thomas paid a cool $276K and change for it. Hard to do on a judge’s salary."
"Hard to do"?!?! In 1999, Thomas's salary would have been $167,900 (see https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-compensation).
I mean, if he made it his second home and made monthly installment payments on it, he could manage. But it would have been tight!
But did Ginni bring in some Big Bucks what with all her “contacts”?
Especially if all his other living expenses are covered.
Wow that headline is a deep dive into my Gen X past
And I can’t stop singing that damned RC jingle in my head now. Thanks, Jay!
Swimming in corruption, for sure. I’ll just add drowning in deceit here. I don’t think there are any floaty devices that can keep the [dis]honorable Thomas afloat.
One hopes
Thomas is a garden variety white collar criminal. He’s accepted multiple bribes and at the very least should be removed from the court. Of course that will never happen, but it should.
Them Senator Biden allowing this criminal to be appointed to the court was one of the biggest mistakes of his political career.
I'm curious to know how Biden "allowed" Thomas to be appointed to the Court. He voted against his appointment. Is there something else he did to allow it I'm not aware of (besides being outmaneuvered during the Hill hearings, but that's not the same to me)? 11 Democratic Senators voted for him, but Biden wasn't the minority leader and wasn't one of those who voted Yes. The minority leader, Tom Daschle, voted No, as did the minority whip, Wendell Ford.
I stand corrected. Regardless, Thomas, like Bork never should have made it out of committee hearings for a full vote. Garbage in, garbage out.
Well, we are all in this together. :-)
So let's all find a way to take out the garbage by voting out the people who stand in the way of impeachment.
Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time - he was in control of witnesses, questioning, scheduling, and a couple other things I forget right now. Don't know that he could have blocked that nomination, but he could sure have made it far more difficult.
Yes it was and I thought so at the time. That is the one thing that gave me pause on Biden.
To quote Charles Bastille, just above: "[Biden] voted against his appointment. Is there something else he did to allow it I'm not aware of (besides being outmaneuvered during the Hill hearings, but that's not the same to me)? 11 Democratic Senators voted for him, but Biden wasn't the minority leader and wasn't one of those who voted Yes. The minority leader, Tom Daschle, voted No, as did the minority whip, Wendell Ford."
This New Yorker article is helpful to understand Biden's role as chair of the Judiciary Committee. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/biden-and-the-supreme-court
I must concur, that was one issue that gave me pause to cast my vote for him but he is a great legislator, he acknowledged his error and IMHO he is our best hope during these frightening times.
According to Charles Bastille, above, Biden voted no on Thomas' appointment to the Court The New Yorker allowed me to read this article (I'm not a subscriber), confirming that Biden voted against confirmation but adding that, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he failed to allow sufficient testimony re Anita Hill's accusation. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/biden-and-the-supreme-court
Good morning to all who celebrate 🎉. With faith that the liberal wing of the court has assiduously followed the relevant laws, do we know if the documents from all 9 on the bench are being reviewed? At this point, no jurist should be seated without having had a thorough examination of their financial dealings.
That has been general practice anyway for a long time. The problem is that such a review can't very well go around to all billionaires on the planet and ask them "did you make payments to XYZ?" So it likely wouldn't uncover these kinds of shenanigans.
The only way to uncover it is through years-long dogged research of an investigative journalist.