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 majority alleges that the "Government has muffled the voices that best represent the
most significant segments of the economy." Pages later, it reminds readers that corporations "may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors and fallacies in speech of all sorts, including the speech of candidates and elected officials." Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia pay additional tribute to the value of corporate speech in their concurring opinions. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, states that "to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy." He counsels that we "celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate." Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, gives us a doomsday scenario of the effects of the Government‘s theory of speech rights [dd: that is, the theory challenged by conservative group "Citizens" United, which as a newly formed group two decades earlier had paid for ads defending the reputation of Clarence Thomas during his troubling confirmation hearings of 1991]: "First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy."

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.e...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!