He had inappropriate sexual entanglements with a number of women and lied about it repeatedly to the American people. Yet nobody — save for one Colorado law school prof — seems to be calling for Justice Clarence Thomas’ resignation for some reason.
That, even though Thomas, unlike Rep. Anthony Weiner, appears to have actually, and flagrantly, and repeatedly, broken the law.
As we reported in January, Thomas appears to have “knowingly and willfully” filed falsified Financial Disclosure Forms which withheld disclosure of nearly $700,000 his wife received from the rightwing Heritage Foundation for the better part of the last 20 years. Only once it was pointed out publicly this year did Thomas bother to file “self-initiated amendments” to the forms he had signed just above the legal warning in bold and all caps which reads: “NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFIES OR FAILS TO FILE THIS REPORT MAY BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS (5 U.S.C. app. § 104)”
While there has been little indication that law enforcement is actually investigating the crimes of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice (which, as we pointed out in January, are punishable by up to $50,000 and/or 1 year in jail for each instance of falsification), last Friday when Thomas’ Financial Disclosure Form for 2010 [PDF] was released, the matter appears to have gotten shadier still, leading at least one government watchdog organization to describe what Thomas and his wife Virginia “Ginni” Thomas may be been doing as “Judicial Insider Trading.”
Connecting the dots, it would seem the couple made huge profits from Thomas’ participation and insider knowledge of last year’s Citizens United ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court, as we’ll show you below.
While Barack Obama’s DoJ seems to be looking the other way, there was one person in Congress trying to bring attention to this issue last week with his ConflictedClarence.com website: Rep. Anthony Weiner…
For some reason or another, Weiner has been distracted of late, so I was happy to pick up the ball today and cover the new Thomas disclosures on our radio show on L.A.’s Pacifica Radio affiliate, KPFK today. The audio from the show is below. But here are a few quick details, as promised.
Before posting the timeline, one very important point that hasn’t received nearly enough attention: during Thomas’ contentious confirmation hearings in 1991, he received a huge boost when an outside organization ran $100,000 worth of television commercials attacking those Senators who were threatening to vote against Thomas’ confirmation. That organization? A newly formed group called Citizens United.
Twenty years later, and without either Thomas disclosing it, or anyone in the media connecting the dots, Thomas decided in favor of the group in the now-infamous Citizens United v. FEC case, which has allowed a tsunami of corporate money into our political and electoral system.
It was that decision that allowed corporations to pour virtually unlimited money into 501(c)(4) non-profits that could, in turn, use the money to affect elections with millions of dollars in campaign ads, etc.
Ginni Thomas created one of those 501(c)(4) organizations just after oral arguments were argued before her husband in the Citizens United case, and somehow managed to raise some $550,000 in about two months’ time before the end of 2009.
Here, courtesy of Velvet Revolution’s ProtectOurElections.org campaign:
Sept 9, 2009: Citizens United argued.
Nov 6, 2009: Virginia Thomas launches her new Liberty Central 501(c)(4) organization, which raises 550K in 2009.
Jan 21, 2010: Citizens United decided.
March 15, 2010: Virginia Thomas announces that Liberty Central would “accept donations from various sources — including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.”
November 14, 2010: Liberty Central announces that Virginia Thomas would be leaving the organization.
November 16, 2010: Liberty Consulting incorporated in the state of Virginia.
February 4, 2011: Politico reports that Virginia Thomas had launched Liberty Consulting.
February 8, 2011: ProtectOurElections.org releases its expose of Liberty Consulting
February 12, 2011: Liberty Consulting website is deleted http://libertyinc.co/
February 23, 2011: ProtectOurElections.org files a formal bar complaint against Clarence Thomas requesting that he be disbarred on various grounds.
Note the date on which Ginni launched her 501(c)(4), Liberty Central, Inc., and note how quickly she was able to raise half a million dollars from it. And that was even before she told the LA Times that the group would “accept donations from various sources — including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.”
Unlike for the past 20 years, Justice Thomas was able to understand the (incredibly simple) Financial Disclosure Form this time around, for 2010, well enough that he was able to list his “Spouse’s Non-Investment Income” including “salary and benefits” from both Liberty Central, Inc., and Liberty Consulting, Inc.
Unfortunately, the form doesn’t require him to specify how much she received from each, and Liberty Central has extended its deadline for filing its own disclosure forms until August. So, until then, we’re just left to speculate as to how much the Thomases made from those ventures, although the Disclosure Form does reveal that the Thomases invested some of their own money to start up Liberty Consulting, Inc. The form indicates that less than $15,000 was invested.
Setting aside the fact that common sense suggests Thomas should have recused himself from the Citizens United decision (which was decided by a 5 to 4 vote), given the $100,000 in ads from that group that benefited him when he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Ginni’s ability to profit from the decision is raising a lot of questions that should be answered.
Today, VR’s ProtectOurElections.org sent another letter [PDF] to the DoJ, including the newly released Financial Disclosure Form, asking the department to investigate a number of additional questions that have been raised by the new disclosures, including:
- Was Mrs. Thomas tipped off to the Citizens United decision before it was rendered?
- Did Mrs. Thomas launch Liberty Central to take advantage of Citizens United and did she receive any income as a result of Citizens United?
- What happened to the $550,000 raised by Mrs. Thomas for Liberty Central (which is listed on its 2009 IRS 990 form)?
- Did Mrs. Thomas raise funds for Liberty Central after the Citizens United decision and if so how much and what was it used for?
- Is Liberty Consulting engaged in consulting Supreme Court litigants or potential litigants?
- Is Liberty Consulting engaged in lobbying and if so is Mrs. Thomas lobbying for litigants before the Supreme Court?
- Is Liberty Consulting a legitimate company or a conduit to raise funds for the Thomas family?
All of the above was the topic of discussion with VR/ProtectionOurElection.org’s attorney and spokesperson Kevin Zeese this afternoon on my KPFK show, after a few minutes discussing some of the other stories that America hasn’t heard about thanks to the ridiculous Anthony Weiner “scandal.”
Download MP3, or listen online below [appx. 28 mins]…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/BradFriedman_KPFK_ClarenceThomasJudicialInsiderTrading_KevinZeese_060811.mp3]
And here’s a bonus for ya. VR/POE’s short video expose of Ginni Thomas’ Liberty Consulting — in which a visit is made to the organization’s address at “Suite 302” in Burke, Virginia. The organization’s website was removed from the Internet just days after this video was released earlier this year…
The play pretender DOJ is exactly like the King’s Court during the time in England when “the queen has no legs” and “the King can do no wrong”.
These legal fictions are not so fictitious anymore, seeing as how we are flip flopping on reality.
But it is a frame of mind Americans tend not to understand, and tend to be outraged when they find out about it.
um, yeah, but is there a wiener involved ? ? ?
hee hee hee
…not even a pubic hair ? ? ?
ho ho ho
if it pees, it leads…
ha ha ha
ah-h-h-h, ‘our’ korporate infotainment, it’s the best in the world ! ! ! we’re number 1 ! ! !
ak ak ak
parallel on topic: even though i’ve been a few revolutions around ol’ sol, and even though i am tragically aware you just can’t be too cynical these days, i found out a minor, eensy-weensy factoid the other day…
(in fact, it could have been ‘here’, for all i remember…)
did you know -again, bearing in mind i believe what *used to* be illegal, immoral, and unethical, has simply been legalized and normalized for our masters of the universe- that kongresskritters AND THEIR STAFF are NOT liable to the laws, rules, etc which prevent gummint insiders from using their privileged positions and information to buy/sell stocks, etc which are affected by the laws, etc these self-same kongresskritters are passing (or not, depending the wishes of their korporate overlords) ? ? ?
did you know that ? ? ? i didn’t, and i’ve been reading about politics and slime politicians since i was a nerdy rugrat…
the one example i was reading about, was a senate staffer on some financial cmtte, who bought/sold shares based on her insider info that BOA was going to be bailed out…
well, sure, what could go wrong with that idea…
PERFECTLY LEGAL to do such insider trading IF you are a kongresskritter OR their staff…
just when i think i can’t think any less of ‘our’ (sic) gummint and ‘our’ (sic) fearless leaders, i get gobsmacked by another minor factoid like this which goes unreported, unremarked upon, and un-prosecuted…
un un un
un nation, under un, with un-liberty and un-justice for un-all…
interestingly, it appears the senate kongresskritters rate of return was better than hedge funds…
i’m sure it’s all on the up-and-up, The They *are* our moral superiors after all, *that’S* why they rule us, ain’t it…
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Oh, the silence on this one of some of the sanctimonious wing-nuts who’ve spent the past several weeks lampooning Weiner, is deafening!
If it can be shown that Thomas engaged in what this article describes as “judicial insider trading,” that, along with his 20 years of false financial disclosures (not to mention possible perjury during the 1991 confirmation hearings) would constitute an impeachable offense.
No way impeachment would fly in the GOP controlled House, but there is no reason why those committed to the rule of law should not make Thomas’ impeachment an issue for 2012.
I digged this article and it registered as going up another digg. I reddited it, left a comment, and it stayed at 2 reddits. Mine should have made it 3. Don’t know if I’m still doing something wrong. I’m trying.
love,
Dave
I discussed the Thomas situation with one lawyer who asked about the history of Citizens United; it must have gone to an entry level court, then to a court of appeals, etc. Does Thomas or his wife have any history in those lower levels of the case that relate to their actions at the Supreme Court level?
Judicial activism and media spin are only bad when liberals do it. Republicans hold others to a higher standard, but not themselves. The Greedy Oligarchy Party is going to take control through abuse of the judicial system and manipulation of privatized elections.
Re Sheila Bernard @6: Thomas became a Supreme Court Justice in 1991. He would have not had any direct involvement at the trial or intermediate appellate court level in Citizens United vs. FEC.
The conflict here is that Citizens United had actively sponsored right-wing propaganda that targeted the members of the Senate who opposed the Thomas nomination, and, more importantly, that his wife may have relied on inside information of how her husband intended to rule in the landmark case for personal gain.
Why should we be surprised at hypocrisy or double standards? Do you think that somebody in power will simply snap out of their sociopathic coma and go, “Wow, Weiner isn’t nearly as bad as Clarence Thomas!” Let’s impeach him or at the very least request his resignation.
The sad fact is that Weiner was so much more attackable because he is such a “cocky” bastard with a narrow power base.
From Timothy Kuhner, Citizens United as Neoliberal Jurisprudence: The Resurgence of Economic Theory, 18 Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law SSRN, 2011, retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1736522:
The only problem with Kuhner’s critique, of course, is that there is not even a such thing as “corporate speech.” There is only corporate political media spending. A corporation cannot speak; it can only hire people to speak for it. Whoever makes that hiring decision is bound by fiduciary obligation to hire whoever will speak so as to maximize profits. Corporate political advertisements, then, can never *legally* advocate anything other than the maximization of their own profits.
It’s like the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding — ‘give me a word, any word, and I’ll show you that it’s of Greek origin.’ Give me a corporate political advertisement — any advertisement paid for from profit coffers — and I’ll show you that it either advocates in the strategic interests of profits, or it whitewashes some public disaster caused by preoccupation with those profits. What we have heeyah is a failure to communicate for the sake of the public interest. It is a clash of strategic communication in the interest of the market element with political discourse in the interest of the common good. Like Frankenstein’s monster, the corporations we chartered will eat us and our entire political discourse. We won’t have a say; we don’t have a say. (see: 2010) Get ready for a bevy — I mean get ready for a shit storm that makes 2010 look tame, my friends — of misleading ads from the Kochs, and in return just as many defensive neoliberal hit pieces from the “left.”
Scenario: The Kochs run an ad saying that a Democrat, any Democrat, hates Liberty and the right to make money. The ad uses disgusting imagery and misleading information. Then, the Dem, who thanks to Citizens United and Speechnow.org (which cited CU) is now funded by Super PACs just about as big as the Kochs’ own Super PACs (perhaps thanks to some Wall Street money, some Pharma money, and yes, unfortunately, from Labor), runs an *even more disgusting ad* which proves that the Dem does indeed love freedom and that (s)he worships the profit motive. Or the ad doesn’t even have to have anything to do with freedom or the profit-motive; it can just be disgusting, and it *will* be disgusting, because poli sci research proves that the disgusting ads “persuade.”
We’ve gotta vacate Citizens United. It won’t fix everything, by a long shot, but it will help our society imagine what democracy run by an educated populace could be. It might not fix anything at all — but we’re obligated to do it, and then to keep fighting for real political discourse.
Thomas appears to be bought off, and it’s spit in our faces.
Ernie, you completely misread me good sir. If this guy is guilty of the “seems to have” and “appears to have” crimes then he should be tossed out on his ass.
You also are completely lost on my Weiner take (that doesn’t sound right..). I’m not lampooning him. I’m criticizing your “it’s right vs. left” mentality.
The long and short of Clarence Thomas wrt to campaign finance law: He has been arguing for years now on the *extreme right* — too far right for Scalia, even — for the elimination of all campaign finance laws. He did not stray from this stance in Citizens United.
How I should’ve ended that long comment, if I would’ve planned it at all: What reason do we have to believe that Clarence Thomas’s opinion in Citizens United was anything other than a paid corporate political advertisement?
Many thanks and much respect for this work.
Most of us inherently knew, when Kevin Zeese was chosen to guide this Action, our Great Nation was going to see Justice Thomas and “Ginni” sans rose colored glasses.
But, WOW! I could have never imagined Mr. Zeese could accomplish this much this fast.
Please keep this work going strong. America is in desperate need of the awakening. Thanks again.
The solution is a constitutional amendment that denies corporate “personhood” and a second one for public funding of elections. Both would be great but we at least need one. The question is who has the time and money to begin this arduous process?
Dear LMK,
I think the answer is we all jump in as much as we can when we can. Everything helps. I believe there is a momentum growing. This probably will take longer than than the weekend. Keep hydrated.
Well, one GOOD thing about the Citizens United decision seems to be: it really has freaked out the populace. I think it has indeed begun the work of Uniting the Citizens. I just wish folk hadn’t waited quite so long to flip out. The warnings have been around for decades… 🙁 be well…
Good point David. I guess a good intermediate step would be to push for better disclosure laws. Once I know which companies are behind the donations I will do my best to boycott their goods and/or services. Money is one of the few levers we have over these psychopathic vampires.
“February 8, 2011: ProtectOurElections.org releases its expose of Liberty Consulting
February 12, 2011: Liberty Consulting website is deleted libertyinc.co [libertyinc.co]
February 23, 2011: ProtectOurElections.org files a formal bar complaint against Clarence Thomas requesting that he be disbarred on various grounds.”
Thank you to the BRAD BLOG….. sigh
Looks like the proper charge for this would be Conversion of Public Records, 18 USC § 641
Edited on Mon Jun-13-11 06:07 PM by leveymg
This additional side to the case, if fully investigated and presented before a Grand Jury, could result in indictments of Clarence and Virginia Thomas on the additional charge of “Conversion”, in addition to their falsification of records and his exploitation of public trust and position. That would include their repeated criminal violations under 5 USC App. 104 for falsifying Federal Court records that would have revealed the employment of Virginia Thomas by a lobbying organization with matters potentially, and in fact, before the Court, as well as this apparent later effort to convert privileged Court information for private gain.
In my opinion, the proper additional charge would be for Conversion, 18 USC § 641, a federal felony, as follows: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_000006…
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 31 > § 641
§ 641. Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word “value†means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
Clarence and Virginia Thomas are already indictable for multiple counts of violation of 5 USC App 104 – False Statements.
– Mark
Brad, this is great reporting. Shocking and not found elsewhere. Sending you a check.
Daniel Doyle: “The ad uses disgusting imagery and misleading information.”
For which (per Justice Thomas, speaking for the Court in the recent Janus decision) no-one can be held accountable, because the ad was “signed” by some dummy [asset-less] branch of the main corporation.
Smoke ’em outta their holes Brad!