909
Clarence Thomas Is Committing Tax Fraud
(jacobin.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
909 points (98.5% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3317 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So I am not a legal eagle, but it sounds to me like no matter what either one of the following is true:
A) Thomas accepted bribes from conservative malefactors to remain in on the court and rule consistently with their politics, which is corrupt.
B) Thomas accepted the same as "gifts," pretending that they came with no strings attached, and failed to report them on his taxes. Which is illegal.
Ah, you forgot the only option conservatives can entertain as true: everyone does it anyway and liberals are only caring about it now to [favorite culture war paranoid fantasy].
In Clarence Thomas' case, it gives them a convenient excuse to call people on the left racists. Because apparently it's racist when a black person is a Republican and you criticize them fairly.
To be fair, it's racist when anyone is a Republican.
Potentially. The government would have to actually prove the supposed gifts were actually payment in exchange for some sort of consideration or work. Legitimate gifts are subject to exemptions and generally taxed on the gift giver's side as well.
Each individual can give out somewhere around $17k per recipient per year tax free and then beyond that a total of currently around $12M in total gifts over that limit tax free in a lifetime.
I agree it doesn't pass the smell test generally but nowadays you essentially need direct unequivocal proof of it being a bribe.
If only we had some kind of record showing how he ruled when cases they were "interested in" were put before the court...
It's not that easy because you don't bribe a Supreme Court Justice for decades because of the one case that might involve a company you're invested in. They're trying to align his decisions with their political opinions, and keep him from retiring so someone who doesn't share their political opinions doesn't get his spot.
It's funny, because I remember reading this exact same conclusion just days after the first story about him broke last year. And yet nothing has happened. I guess it's good it's in the news again.