Clarence Thomas should be INDICTED

[jaysunb]

cross posting from DK by by AlaskaDave

Clarence Thomas, for the past 20 years has checked "None" under "Spouse's Non-Investment Income" on his financial disclosure forms. That, we now know, was untrue. The law that is the basis for the disclosure form, includes reference to possible criminal penalties under 18 U.S. Code.

full diary here:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/27/939173/-Clarence-Thomas-should-be-INDICTED

Dave is an Attorney

[csziggy]

1. And IMPEACHED. n/t

[movonne]

3. Not in this country....laws don't seem to be for everyone...if you

are a repug you can get away with murder, rape, hit and run and getting caught for your maid buying you drugs..

[LawnKorn]

6. +1 for impeached

After impeachment, there should be a fair trial, conviction, and time in Leavenworth.

[Recursion]

10. As I understand it he technically can't be indicted while still in office

So, impeach him first.

[lonestarnot]

11. kick

:kick:

[jaysunb]

13. Can you elaborate on this.

I'm not aware of any person that's unindictable. :shrug:

[Recursion]

14. It came up with both Nixon and Clinton that a sitting President can't be

the idea being that it's meaningless to indict the head of all US law enforcement, I guess (that could be a holdover from the commonlaw "divine right" idea, or it could be a holdover from Roman law where the Tribune was immune from all prosecution in office). I think the same thing would apply to a Supreme Court justice. Though now I'm not sure. I know lower court judges can be indicted and arrested, but if they're arrested they have to take off their robe (which I guess speaks to the idea that the person but not the position is under arrest). But now that I've said that I'm no longer sure it's true for anybody except the President.

[jaysunb]

24. No one is above the law

period....

[Rex]

2. It would go a tremendous ways to fixing the wrongs in America.

Impeach quite a few of the bozos; they should be happy they are not up on charges for the 2000 coup imo.

[JudyM]

4. Continuous, flagrant conflicts of interest, Scalia & Thomas should be dumped. nt

[Rex]

25. Agreed. First and foremost.

[The Second Stone]

5. Republicans are above the law. He will get no Charlie Rangle

treatment. Only the little people need follow the law. He will not even be questioned about this, much less indicted or impeached.

[indepat]

8. Comforting to know that in this vast land are others seemingly as cynical as I

:hi:

[RedCloud]

7. GITMO and waterboard him too!

[lonestarnot]

9. Now why change a perfectly corrupt system.

[Imagevision]

12. This goes to prove the system is corrupt - how pathetic!

[sabrina 1]

15. He absolutely should be impeached for lying.

[mstinamotorcity]

16. Clarence Thomas has

been lying since before he took office. We all know he lied about Ms. Hill. There were several women he had made advances toward and they were shut down from disclosing the facts. He was a turncoat from the word GO! What ever befalls Justice Thomas will be his own doing. The fact remains when it comes down to him or Scalia, who do you think will go first and be made the example???

[dmr]

17. One would think this is an issue the tea party would sink their teeth into ...

One would think ...

[LeftishBrit]

18. The very best interpretation is that he didn't know the law...

in which case he needs to be fired for total incompetence for his position.

Otherwise, he's a crook.

[Octafish]

19. Impeach the crooked turd.

Can the decisions he voted on be voided?

[BOG PERSON]

20. I BELIEVE ANITA HILL

n/t

[Blue Owl]

21. Full fucking disclosure

Or is he another "above-the-law" fuckwad who's directly responsible for the downfall of this nation, but won't be punished?

[Major Hogwash]

22. At least!!! He lied under oath, too!!! We know that now.

And then he should be impeached and removed from the SC!!

[jaysunb]

23. I think most people knew he was lying then

but 51 Senators chose to ignore it. :evilfrown: