Justice Clarence Thomas covered up over $685,000 that his wife Ginni Thomas received froim Heritage

[Demovictory9]

Link to tweet

[hildegaard28]

1. Sounds like

An impeachable offense.

[underthematrix]

7. What's with impeachment? There's

no DOJ OLC memo advising SCOTUS can't be indicted.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Any reason not to indict and convict? This was not some small oversight; all the marks of WILLFUL.

The laws requiring this have penalties or he would have or he would have not bothered at all filling out the form.

So, he should feel the weight of the penalties. He did not have a simple oversight. This was undoubtedly willful and he should be required to defend his actions in court.

[onenote]

56. Hardly. It was discovered in 2011 that he erroneously answered a question on the form.

This was discovered back in 2011 by reviewing the Heritage Foundation records and noticing that they reported his wife as a paid employee. It was covered by the media at the time and Thomas quickly amended the forms he had filed for the years in question and that was the end of it until it suddenly reappeared in social media a decade later. He has listed the sources of her income on the forms filed starting with the 2010 form.

[TomSlick]

79. Yep. Sounds like enough to me.

Of course, there would not be a conviction in the Senate.

[marble falls]

2. "A hundred thousand here, a hundred thousand there, you lose track sometimes. So sue me."

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. OOPS! Clarence did a BAD!!!

Not reporting spousal income be it from a job, self-owned business, is a Federal violation for Tax Evasion!

The Heritage Foundation surely issued W-2s for any given calendar year for Taxable income reporting. Look there too. For Ginni Thomas did not work for FREE.

[Zeitghost]

10. This is not a tax issue

It's a government employee reporting issue that was handled years ago with amended reports. It also made the rounds here a few weeks back.

[Me.]

38. Could Be

all income/gifts of that magnitude must be reported and if he didn't...it's an issue

[onenote]

57. Amount of spousal income does not have to be reported on the Judicial disclosure form.

Which is all that this non-story that first surfaced in 2011 and then reappeared a month ago is about.

[Zeitghost]

73. That's not what is being discussed

He failed to report her income on a financial disclosure form that judges and some other federal employees fill out, not on their taxes. Those forms were amended to reflect the previously omitted income. This all happened years ago. Despite the Tweet in the OP, this is not a "Breaking" news story, it's been passed around for over a decade.

[Me.]

82. For Heaven's Sake

You think someone isn't going to check and see whether or not taxes were duly paid, and yes his disclosure form is the main topic but I bet dollars to doughnuts other avenues become of interest.

[Zeitghost]

85. They may have

A decade ago...

[Baltimike]

4. and NOTHING will happen to him...at all. nt

[certainot]

41. yeah, but hunter biden......

[Baltimike]

98. but her email....

[NCjack]

5. If true, that should be enough to get C & G prison time.

[ZonkerHarris]

11. nope

[Turbineguy]

6. They are paying her to have influence

on Thomas.

Conservative dogma and conspiracies are plentiful on the internet for free.

[Bluethroughu]

8. It's Koch-head wreckage.

When are these people and foundations going to be raided like the Black panthers or other dirty hippies organizations, they are the subversive and anti-democratic anti-American players and have been for decades.

Clarence's wife being part of it, is no surprise. She helped fund, instigate, and deligate people in the insurrection.

Our country needs arrests of the people at the top, nobody is above the laws of the land.

[DURHAM D]

9. He has done this before.

How did he get on the Court? Who owns him?

We know he is crooked...so what? He belongs to Repugs.

[onenote]

58. This is a regurgitation of the old report. Not a new one

[Progressive dog]

12. He amended his disclosures in 2013

for the years that he reported her income as zero. I guess his punishment was having to redo the form.

[Farmer-Rick]

13. This is from 2003 to 2007

He did it for about 5 years. The LA times reported it in 2011.

Why it's come up again, I don't know. But Clarence has proven himself a criminal yet again.

I use to have to fill those out back in 2000. They use to have the huge fine and possible jail time for failure to report right at the bottom of the front page.

Just another crime committed by our Supreme Court Justices.

More crimes to come, no doubt.

[onenote]

59. Incorrectly filling out a judicial disclosure form isn't covered by the same law

as the one covering the forms you filled out, unless you are a federal judge.

[Farmer-Rick]

64. So,

They serve the same purpose.

It's more elaborate for judges. But they probably know about fines and jail time.

[leftyladyfrommo]

14. Wasn't there some other problem with her income

earlier?

[onenote]

60. No. This is the same story reappearing as "breaking"

[leftyladyfrommo]

83. Ok. I just remembered something a few month ago . nt

[Cha]

15. Big Shocker from that Corrupt

Asshole.

[Sympthsical]

16. Is it breaking if it was 15 years ago?

And that it was in the media back then?

Since we're having a debate about Twitter and its usefulness. *points above* See how dumb this is?

[twodogsbarking]

17. Why are all the wrong black people getting arrested?

[Traildogbob]

19. Wow

That 3/4 of a million must be the going price to kill American democracy. Isn’t that the amount JaVanka made Will working for the White House? Not to mention the 2 billion little gift from Saudis to the Jew the GQP accepts, along with Stevie Miller. They like Jews and Blacks that hate Jews and Blacks. Thomas is a joke. As much as Hershel.

[multigraincracker]

20. Didn't they both claim they don't speak to each other?

Must be true.

[superpatriotman]

21. Will anyone be indicted?

If not...forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

[KS Toronado]

22. This is old news, not breaking

Done a search on "Clarence Thomas $685,000 Ginni Thomas Heritage Foundation." From a January 24, 2011 article...

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed…

In his 2009 disclosure, Justice Thomas also reported spousal income as “none.” Common Cause contends that Liberty Central paid Virginia Thomas an unknown salary that year.

https://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/clarence-thomas-and-his-wifes-680000-of-unreported-income/

[Demovictory9]

27. I symptom of twitter..posting old stories as new

[GreenWave]

33. Unless it is a rip in the space time continuum and we can stop IQ45 from getting elected.

[Magoo48]

23. Republicans reinforce every day that there is no real judicial or law enforcement will to hold them

responsible for their lawlessness.

[Warpy]

24. I wonder if tax fraud will finally get bhis arse off the bench

Something has to, he's one of the worst I've seen.

Now if we can only get rid of Grand Inquisitor Alito, make him go find a church to ruin with his thirteenth century misogyny.

[onenote]

61. This has nothing to do with taxes.

Its a financial disclosure form that doesn't even require the amount of spousal income to be reported. It does require the filer to check a box if his/her spouse had income, and Thomas failed to check the box. He re-filed after it was discovered -- 11 years ago.

[Warpy]

70. Killjoy.

It was a nice thought while it lasted.

[Traildogbob]

25. Republicans really

Are sick of this inflation crap. They use to be able to buy em a Black down at the auction markets much much cheaper than today. It’s becoming more lucrative for blacks to sell themselves to GQP than to play pro sports anymore.

[dchill]

26. Stormy only got $130,000.

[Initech]

28. George Carlin was right - it's a big club and we're not in it.

[bringthePaine]

29. impeach, try, jail - no further questions

[calimary]

30. He's a SCOTUS alright. Supreme CROOK of the United States.

[Gary 50]

31. "This is a country of laws not men.

"Nobody is above the law." Bullshit!

[mn9driver]

32. Old story (2011) resurfacing due to Ginni's upcoming testimony at the Jan 6 hearings.

[ShazzieB]

45. Oh, that explains it.

I wondered why old news was being reported in this tweet like it was BRAND NEW news.

I had already decided to take the tweet with a grain of salt, due to the lack of a link and no mention of a source. Reading the comments about how this was something that happened years ago, I didn't know what to think. It now makes a little more sense as to why this would be reported now..

I've learned to be leery of tweets (and posts in any social media) that breathlessly share sensational "news" like this with no indication of its source. This right here is a good example of why that's a valid stance, imo.

[republianmushroom]

34. Just another CROOK.

And what was his penalty for lying ?

[ffr]

35. Republicans are always hoping the IRS would audit more tax cheats. Well,

IRS, meet Ginni Thomas, tax cheat.

[onenote]

62. What is the evidence of tax cheating?

This is a financial disclosure form that doesn't even require the amount of income she received to be listed.

[ffr]

65. Well, if they filed joint, then the omission would be material.

So would the taxes, interest, and penalties.

[onenote]

68. This is a judicial disclosure form, not a tax form.

And on its face it does not require the amount of a spouse's income to be reported.

[ffr]

69. Still does not change the fact that an IRS auditor might wish to check their 1040

Because, again, if the income is not reported, then the taxes, interest and penalties would be material.

[onenote]

74. 1. The amount of income didn't have to be reported, just the source.

2. The Heritage Foundation reported payments to G. Thomas in 2003-2007.
3. That led to the discovery that C. Thomas had left blank the box disclosing that his wife had income from an outside source.
4. This was in 2011.
5. The IRS would've looked into then if they were going to look at it at all.
6. The statute of limitations has long expired in the unlikely event the income wasn't reported for tax purposes.

[ffr]

88. Did you look that up on IRS.GOV, because this is what they say about civil tax fraud

Civil penalties are assessed and collected administratively as a part of the tax. The civil fraud penalty is recommended by the examiner in the audit report and may be applied with or without pursuit of criminal prosecution. A tax fraud offense may result in both civil and criminal penalties. The normal 3-year statute of limitations does not apply if civil fraud can be sustained. If fraud is established, there is no statute of limitation for civil assessments, IRC § 6501(c)(1) and (2). - IRS.GOV

Good news, eh? I won't repeat what I said earlier, because it still applies.

[onenote]

93. and what I wrote still applies as well

Despite what the tweet in the OP states, Thomas wasn't required to write in the amount of his spouse's income, nor did he write in "none". What he did was check the box that says "none" when he should have not checked that box and instead listed the source of his wife's income -- again, just the source.

When this came to light -- in 2011 -- he amended those forms.

Now, assuming that he also didn't report that income on his tax return, do you think he would not have amended his tax returns at the same time? That the IRS wouldn't have noticed that there were W-2s for his wife but no income reported? The IRS almost automatically sends out dunning letters when their "matching" programs discover that a company has filed a W-2 with the iRS but the taxpayer hasn't reported that W-2 with their return.

So whatever issue with his taxes might have occurred -- and there is zero evidence that there was any issue with his taxes -- the only reason it wouldn't have been addressed back in 2011 is that the IRS (remember, this is during the Obama administration) looked the other way. Is that what you think happened?

I"ve said it before and said it again. There's a reason this non-story from a decade ago has been brought up a couple of times in the past month, usually with inaccuracies like those in the tweet in the OP -- and that reason is to distract from the real, serious issues that should be discussed about Thomas.

[jpak]

36. Throw him the fuck out

lying sack o' shite

yup

[HighFired49]

37. Old news

Reported back in September: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217200266

[DENVERPOPS]

39. The best U.S. Government

that money can buy, folks......NOT LOL

The Republicans are a few days away from making it a permanent for-ever-more.........

[Martin68]

40. Remove this unethical judge from the bench.

[leftieNanner]

46. That's the Problem

There are no ethics rules for SCOTUS. All other Federal judges have those rules.

Clarence should have recused, should have disclosed, should have resigned in disgrace. But he didn't, he won't, and nobody will force him to do the right thing.

Wish the Congress could pass a law that puts the same rules on SCOTUS!

[orangecrush]

42. KICK...

For visibility

[Stuart G]

43. Lying on your taxes, is..."Against the Law" ain't it? Kick again for viability.

Another one who is/was "Sure he is going to get away with it."
Lying on your taxes is ..."Against the Law"
The feds got "Al Capone" Didn't they?
Clarence has just joined a class he didn't want to join..........

and it serves him right...

[leftieNanner]

47. This isn't a tax issue

He probably did put the income on his taxes. This is about a Federal Employee Financial Disclosure form.

This happened several years ago (not sure why it's LBN) and he has "corrected" the form. Oops! Just a mistake!

[msfiddlestix]

44. I feel like I read this some time ago unless this is a different occasion

Either way, it must be perfectly legal, perfectly ethical and even if it is nieither of the two, because it's SCOTUS, there's eff all any of us can do about it

[grantcart]

49. Old news

[msfiddlestix]

96. ✔️ Ty n/t

[harumph]

48. It's almost like printing money.

Get yourself in the right position and you no longer have to work folks. You just peddle
influence. US 2022. Corruption more than anything else will kill this country.

[Trueblue1968]

50. throw clarence in the slammer

[Blue Owl]

51. Hold Long Dong Silver accountable!!!

For fuck's sake.....

[Oppaloopa]

52. Does that mean he cheated on his taxes?

[onenote]

63. No.

[Montauk6]

53. Hey, wasn't it the IRS (or its equivalent) that ultimately took Capone down...?

By any means necessary...

[onenote]

78. Yes. But this doesn't involve the IRS.

[Montauk6]

95. I guess my point is

if he goes down due to some bean-counting shenanigans, that's still one less corrupt judge compromising the system.

[lindysalsagal]

54. Bust him. Right effing NOW!

[onenote]

55. How is this "Breaking" when it was extensively discussed a month ago?

And first became public a decade ago?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217200266

Moreover, the "EricaReport" is spreading misinformation when it says that Thomas was supposed to write in his spouse's income on the form. In fact, the form plainly and clearly states that the filer is not required to report the amount of income.

See Section III.B of the disclosure form (Page 2): https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Thomas-C-J3.-SC_SR_21.pdf

[Hope22]

100. That is what I don't get!

When will this issue get off dead center? I know a guy who went to prison for hiding a lot less than that. When will the judge have to answer? Our crazy world just gets crazier!

[onenote]

101. He filed amended forms a decade ago. Nothing more is going to come of it.

Despite the hyperbole here, no one goes to jail for errors on a judicial disclosure form.

IMO, this is being dredged up a decade after the fact as a distraction from the real issues presented by Thomas and his wife and his participation in J6 related cases.

[Kid Berwyn]

66. What a wonderful story.

Corrupt fascist gets exposed.

[Evolve Dammit]

67. sounds like tax fraud. IRS? DOJ? Indict their sorry asses please.

[onenote]

77. It sounds nothing like tax fraud.

It's a judicial disclosure form that doesn't require the amount of income received by a spouse to be reported. Her income was reported to the IRS by her employer and if it hadn't been reported on Thomas's tax return, it would have been flagged.

[Evolve Dammit]

81. you're working really hard to defend him (them). Are you a tax expert?

[onenote]

86. No. I'm just a lawyer with 40+ years experience who can read a federal disclosure form

Last edited Tue Nov 1, 2022, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)

and knows enough about tax enforcement to recognize that if there was a tax evasion issue here, it would have come out when the employer's filing didn't match up on the employees.

Put it this way: have you ever gotten a W-2 form or a Form 1099? If you got one and then didn't report that information on your return, do you think it would go unnoticed?

[Evolve Dammit]

103. Thank you. DU police (well sorta, I got a plastic badge somewhere, like Walker...). I worry

that rich, connected folks are held to different standards than the "rest of us."

[onenote]

104. Well, it would have been the IRS during Obama's administration

and I doubt they would've looked away. On the other hand, they would have been content, as the IRS typically is, with the filing of an amended return and the payment of additional taxes plus the appropriate penalty.

[hardluck]

71. Not this shit again.

[kimbutgar]

72. Too bad the IRS won't investigate it.

[Zeitghost]

75. Why would they?

This has nothing to do with taxes and was settled over a decade ago when he submitted amended disclosure forms.

[onenote]

76. How do you know they didn't? It was 11 years ago.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

80. Boot him now!

He has no business still being on the SCOTUS. He swore an oath on the Bible and broke it repeatedly.

[sl8]

84. BREAKING: Cardinals win World Series!

Friday, October 28, 2011: The 107th edition of the World Series, it was a best-of-seven playoff played between the American League (AL) champion Texas Rangers and the National League (NL) champion St. Louis Cardinals; the Cardinals defeated the Rangers in seven games to win their 11th World Series championship and their first since 2006.

[UTUSN]

87. K&R, & then "crickets"?!

[cstanleytech]

89. If that was an official government document isnt that fraud at the very least?

[onenote]

90. Clearly the Obama administration conspired to let Thomas get away with tax fraud.

Or at least that what is implicit in a lot of the posts here that assume that because Thomas didn't report that his wife received income from the Heritage Foundation on a Judicial disclosure form, which doesn't require the amount of income to be reported, just the source, he must have omitted the income from his tax return and when this was discovered in 2011, the Obama IRS looked the other way.


Or maybe, just maybe, Thomas didn't omit it from his tax return, which seems pretty plausible. For those that assume otherwise, here's a challenge for you. Next year, don't report income for which you get a W-2 or 1099 and see whether the IRS catches it and questions your return. Based on personal experience -- my late brother failed to include a relatively small amount of dividend income for which he received a 1099 and the IRS sent him a letter about it -- it's really hard not to report income that your employer reports to the IRS. And the only reason the omission on Thomas's judicial report came to light was that it was noticed that the Heritage Foundation had reported to the IRS that Ginni Thomas was an income-receiving employee.

This is a decade old story that is not a story despite folks getting excited about it. There are a lot more serious things that Thomas has done and is doing that this nothing burger. But its a good distraction from what we really should be concerned about. So congratulations for falling for it.

[pansypoo53219]

91. he's a repeated tax cheat. more reason to remove him.

[onenote]

92. Link to his being a tax cheat?

[pansypoo53219]

94. no link, just remember it was a similar undisclosed income he didn't declare a while ago.

[onenote]

99. Link to that?

This "breaking" news is the same 'breaking" news that was discussed here a month ago and that was first reported and discussed in the press 11 years ago. If there is another "undisclosed income" incident with Thomas, it obviously went nowhere as an issue, but I'd be curious to see what was involved, if there was such an event.

[BradBo]

97. He's at as smart as Walker.

[Stuart G]

102. K & R ....so everyone can view it