Umm...should we all call Eric Holder's Office right fucking now

[LaydeeBug]

and ask when will Clarence Thomas be indicted. Easy activist alert.

Office of the Attorney General
[phone]

[brooklynite]

1. If it will make you feel better...

...since it won't accomplish anything.

While legally the AG could bring an indictment, realistically, it's not going to happen and you know it. You'd have to have a major consensus that this was worth pursuing, and I haven't heard a single voice calling for this -- including former liberal icon Anthony Weiner.

[LaydeeBug]

2. making false statements to the IRS is a crime, and you know it.

rule of law! rule of law!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Did he go after Timothy Geithner or Tom Daschle?

[Kingofalldems]

11. Fail

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Holder failed to go after Geithner and Daschle?

:shrug:

[Kingofalldems]

15. No, you failed by comparing Daschle and Geithner to

Thomas. But I bet you knew that. :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. No, I was comparing Mr. Holder's actions in the different cases

Please read my words more carefully.

Thank you.

[hootinholler]

9. He did not falsify IRS forms!

This was something different, a financial disclosure form sent to (I think) the Justice Dept.

See this post by leveymg, who is on top of it. Note this is not the only indictable offense by CT, there are more serious charges that I think could be brought, but this one is cut and dry.

-Hoot

[SDuderstadt]

13. When did Thomas make a false statement to...

the IRS?

[former9thward]

25. Thomas is not accused of violating any IRS laws.

He is accused of not accurately filling out judiciary disclosure forms. That has nothing to do with the IRS.

[Octafish]

6. Saying it won't do anything is the same position held by Clarence and Ginni Thomas...

...and their rich and powerful chums. Unfortunately, I see it too -- members of the BFEE have a kind of diplomatic immunity when it comes to prosecution.

Remember all those nice millionaires with illegal Swiss bank accounts? The guy who blew the whistle on them is the one in jail.

Perhaps we should take LaydeeBug's view that we can do something. We may yet be surprised at what happens.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Why don't you come up with a specific plan...

dude.

I'd love to hear it.

[Octafish]

17. Still think there's nothing wrong with Clarence Thomas, sduderstadt?

Until I pointed it out to you, you couldn't come up with a single post -- not even a single reply to a post -- in which you criticized, let alone posted anything about the guy. Then the post you put up was something along the lines of: "I call for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas." That says a lot. Dude.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

21. Is that like a 'real world' plan to indict George W Bush, sduderstadt?

Until I pointed it out, you hadn't posted anything negative about that little warmonger, either.

It's clear where I stand. You've fact checked me to make sure of that. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Wrong, dude...

I have posted (to your embarrassment) my call for Bush to be indicted, prosecuted and convicted well before you asked me about it (remember my post entitled, " be careful what you wish for"?

I'm not interested in playing that game anymore and you might want to avoid further embarrassment.

[Octafish]

23. Say what you want. It won't change the fact you are wrong, sduderstadt.

I remember the conversation well: To support your contention, you provided a bunch of links to nowhere.

That's why I want you to start a journal. It'd be easier to see how you really feel about questions concerning Clarence Thomas, George W Bush or even Poppy Bush, who I seem to remember you didn't think was as bad as his son. That post, BTW, seems to have been deleted.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

29. I remember that, it was pretty unreal to see on this board airc.

[sabrina 1]

27. Didn't answer the question, yet again.

Should Clarence Thomas be allowed to remain on the SC in your opinion? And, please, don't bother with the diversions, just a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Either is fine, if 'no' then probably this thread is not for you.

We ARE doing something about it. Don't worry about it.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

31. So, what have you done about this problem judge on the SC

that you say you agree should not be there? I'd love to hear your solution!

You're good at attempting to put down the efforts of other DUErs to try to make their country a better place. But not once have I seen YOU do anything BUT denigrate the efforts of other. Do you think YOUR efforts to put down those who ARE trying to do something, will be more successful?

So let's hear it. Your condescension towards your fellow DUers would lead us to believe that you are so much smarter than everyone else here, tell us, we're listening, since he should be removed in your opinion, how do you propose this ought to be done?

Or, wait, do you think that spending your time attacking the efforts of others is the way to remove him??

[SDuderstadt]

33. Glad you asked...

Sabrina.

All federal judges are bound by federal judiciary ethics rules. That is, except the USSC. The justices claim that they already voluntarily abide by them, but, as is shown by the Thomas case, that obviously is not true, nor do we currently have a way of enforcing it with them.

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has introduced legislation to do just that. I personally work with a group called the Alliance for Justice, which is working in a parallel manner and in March of this year sent a letter to Congress signed by 107 law professors urging them to adopt said legislation. By the way, my colleagues asked me to let you know that we specifically do not want help from Code Pink in this effort, as we're actually serious and determined to get the legislation through.

But, you just go ahead and gather those petition signatures for impeachment. Let us know how that goes.

[sabrina 1]

34. I am well aware of that bill, and have already posted it

here more than once. In fact I just posted it again earlier today and have gathered support for it from probably way more people than you can imagine.

Funny you never supported it when I posted it in the past. I know you think you are superior to everyone here, and if it makes you feel better, feel free.

But you would be surprised at what other DUers are involved with, who they know, etc but who, rather than taunt other DUers, which is such an immature way to behave and achieves absolutely nothing, they prefer to use their contacts etc. to join with others here in their efforts to make this country a better place. You seem to be always at odds with people here, if you do not like the people here, why do you bother? If I despised an entire forum as it appears from your own posts regarding DUers, you do I would simply not go there.

Murphy Unveils Legislation to Increase Transparency and Accountability at Supreme Court

Murphy was joined by Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY-9), Common Cause Program Vice President Arn Pearson and the Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron.

Weiner was targeted by the right specifically because of this bill AND his other major efforts to bring attention to the corruption on the SC as a result of Clarence Thomas presence there.

Which is why Murphy did NOT want Weiner to quit.

I am very glad that he is still pushing it and all of the groups I am involved with will be doing so also.

It was Weiner who got so much attention for that bill.

You badly need to stop sneering at other DUers and show some respect for them. You have no idea about their lives but are constantly denigrating good people here. It would be far more pleasant for you if you abided by the civility rules here and for everyone else.


I will most definitely ask Code Pink and anyone else I

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Pay close attention and you'll see that...

my "denigration" is limited to positions people take and the tactics they employ, not the people themselves, Sabrina. I'm sorry you don't like criticism of Code Pink, but they're not above scrutiny.

[leveymg]

40. Even if submission of the form is voluntary, falsification is still a crime. 5 USC App. 104.

Dude, you're wrong about that. A charge of Perjury, Fraud, or False Statement stands independently of whether there is a statutory requirement for filing of the falsified form. Dude, look it up, if you know how.

I hope you don't represent anyone, including the Alliance For Justice, or do any substantive legal research, in any matter before the courts. You're obviously not competent in this subject area and have not done your homework.

Fail, Dude.

Also, Dude, I think the Alliance for Justice is supporting Christopher Shay's Bill that would apply the Judicial Code of Conduct that requires Judges to recuse themselves in cases where there is a conflict of interest and extend that to USSC Justices. http://www.afj.org/press/06202011.html The Ethics in Government Act, which requires financial disclosure, applies to Justices and is unaffected by this: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h862/show

3/1/2011--Introduced.Supreme Court Transparency and Disclosure Act of 2011 - Applies to Supreme Court justices the same code of conduct that applies to U.S. circuit and district judges. Directs the U.S. Judicial Conference to establish procedures under which complaints alleging that a justice violated such code of conduct may be filed with and investigated by the Conference. Requires a justice to publicly disclose the reasons for:
(1) disqualifying himself or herself, under specified provisions of the federal judicial code, from any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned; or
(2) denying a party's motion for such disqualification. Directs the Conference to establish a process in which other justices or federal judges decide whether a justice should be disqualified when a party who is denied such a motion seeks further review.

You're confusing the Judicial Code of Conduct with the Ethics in Government Act, Dude.

Besides, he made a False Statement, which stands on its own as a federal crime, regardless.

[Raksha]

38. sduderstadt...oh, THAT "Ignored." Thanks for letting me know.

[SDuderstadt]

39. It's an honor to be...

"ignored" by Raksha.

[Scuba]

3. When I saw your post, I thought....

....12,000 DU'er could call him about 12,000 different issues. Wonder which this time?



I don't believe Eric has jurisdiction over the Supreme Court, members of which are not required to comply with the Federal Code of Judicial Ethics which all others must follow.


That said, Thomas is a criminal.

[LaydeeBug]

4. so members of the USSC are above the law? nt

[tularetom]

8. It's not a matter of judicial ethics

Thomas has committed crimes and Holder of course has the authority to prosecute him.

A seat on the Supreme Court does not come with a get out of jail free card.

[EFerrari]

20. Proving false information to the federal government is a felony.

[leveymg]

41. False Statement, 5 USC App. 104, carries one year in federal prison and a $50K fine, per count.

A serious federal offense, but not a felony which is a crime that potentially carries "more than one year imprisonment" per violation.

Clarence clearly committed 5 counts of False Statement = 5 yrs in prison plus a $250,000 fine. He may also be charged under the general purpose federal fraud and false statements statute, 18 USC 1001, which carries 5 years imprisonment for each count.

[RandiFan1290]

5. Gotta keep the powder dry

Probably for the best to do nothing...as usual

[sinkingfeeling]

10. There are several petitions for his impeachment out there. Here's one and a letter written to

Eric Holder on the subject by Protect Our Elections.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/petitions/pnum1067.php

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_DOJ_Letter.pdf

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. Why.... So he can tap my phone?

Put me on a list? ....... Raid my pot clinic?
examine my junk?





He's a stooge.

[JackRiddler]

30. Nonsense.

He's definitely already tapping your phone (internetsearchescreditpolicebusinessbankrecordsetcetc), and most everyone else's, in the continuation of the Bush surveillance and datamining programs.

So we might as well make those lists burgeon.

[sabrina 1]

26. Yes, but I think it might need to be organized, although

people calling on their own too is fine.

There are several petitions going around, some with nearly a quarter of a million signatures on them also. And Rep. Weiner had one started that already had over 50,000 signatures.

Thanks for the number. I will call on Monday.

[sabrina 1]

32. Yes!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.