PDA

View Full Version : Impeachable offense?


bjkeefe
01-23-2011, 04:49 AM
Barack Obama failed to report wife's income, watchdog says

Michelle Obama earned over $680,000 from a liberal think tank over 5 years, a group says. But the President did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

Sounds fishy (http://lat.ms/fOW39W), doesn't it?

(via (http://bit.ly/eZHSyF))

operative
01-23-2011, 09:54 AM
Nope but nice try.

bjkeefe
02-04-2011, 06:46 PM
Barack Obama failed to report wife's income, watchdog says

Michelle Obama earned over $680,000 from a liberal think tank over 5 years, a group says. But the President did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

Sounds fishy (http://lat.ms/fOW39W), doesn't it?

(via (http://bit.ly/eZHSyF))

In the latest developments (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EDCEB005-CDAC-A5BB-73007D76BE8BEEFE) (via (http://wonkette.com/437153/yeah-clarence-thomas-wife-is-a-lobbyist)):

Justice Thomas's wife now lobbyist

She started as a congressional aide in the 1980s, became a midlevel Republican operative, then briefly left politics, reemerging (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39426.html) in 2009 as founder of a tea party group before stepping (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45142.html) down amid continued questions about whether her actions were appropriate for the spouse of a Supreme Court justice.

Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website (http://libertyinc.co/site/about) using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies (http://libertyinc.co/site/services).

Thomas already has met with nearly half of the 99 GOP freshmen in the House and Senate, according to an e-mail she sent last week to congressional chiefs of staff, in which she branded herself “a self-appointed, ambassador to the freshmen class and an ambassador to the tea party movement.”

[...]

But the Thomases came under particular scrutiny after POLITICO revealed (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39426.html) that, while the Supreme Court was deliberating over the Citizens United case, Liberty Central had received (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_liberty_central.html) a $550,000 anonymous contribution.

Common Cause, in a letter to the Justice Department, suggested (http://is.gd/X5Inj5) that Thomas should have recused himself (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47855.html) from the case and charged that “the complete lack of transparency of Liberty Central’s finances makes it difficult to assess the full scope of the ethics issues raised by Ms. Thomas’s role in founding and leading the group.”

In addition, in a letter (http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/LETTER%20ON%20THOMAS%20NON-DISCLOSURE.PDF) to the Judicial Conference, Common Cause pointed out that Justice Thomas had failed to report on his disclosure filings his wife’s income over the past decade, prompting the judge to amend (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48086.html) 13 years of reports to indicate sources (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_clarence.html) — though not amounts — of his wife’s income.

At first, it didn’t seem that the attention affected Thomas’s efforts to build Liberty Central. She assembled (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM136_100701_va_corps_filing.html) an impressive staff and board, while circulating among major conservative establishment donors with whom she and her husband had long, close relationships.

POLITICO has learned, for instance, that the initial $500,000 contribution came from Dallas real estate investor Harlan Crow, a major GOP donor who held an event for Liberty Central at his home a few months after the group launched. He also once gave Justice Thomas a $19,000 “Frederick Douglass Bible” as a gift and donated $150,000 to build a new wing named for Thomas on a Savannah, Ga., library that Clarence Thomas visited frequently in his youth.

[...]

Reached by phone on Wednesday, Thomas said she was having trouble with the signal, telling a POLITICO reporter: “I would be happy to talk with you, but I really can’t understand clearly what you’re asking, so maybe this is not a good time to talk.”

She did not respond to subsequent voice mail or e-mail messages.

In a December interview (http://is.gd/RYNocf) with the conservative Daily Caller, though, Thomas said she planned to spend the bulk of her time working as a consultant for Liberty Central and the Patrick Henry Center, and would “help them in any way I can think of, whether it’s lobbying on the Hill or connecting with the grass roots, or helping speak or write or fundraise.”

But lobbying records show no registrations for Thomas, Liberty Consulting, Liberty Central or the Patrick Henry Center.

When asked whether Thomas was being paid through Liberty Consulting as a consultant, Liberty Central general counsel Sarah Field did not answer directly. [...]

bjkeefe
02-05-2011, 05:21 AM
A good editorial: "Politics and the Court (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opinion/05sat1.html)."

chiwhisoxx
02-05-2011, 12:06 PM
A good editorial: "Politics and the Court (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/opinion/05sat1.html)."

"The framers of our Constitution envisioned law gaining authority apart from politics."

That very well may be right, but I'd just like to note the irony of the NYT attacking Nino Scalia and Clarence Thomas with something resembling original intent.

Ocean
02-05-2011, 12:56 PM
"The framers of our Constitution envisioned law gaining authority apart from politics."

That very well may be right, but I'd just like to note the irony of the NYT attacking Nino Scalia and Clarence Thomas with something resembling original intent.

This is the kind of comment that is difficult to interpret. Are you leaning to agree with the NYT article or not?


There are certain basic principles that were laid out in the constitution and refer to how the different governmental powers are supposed to function. This is structural to the balance of power. If the SC becomes partisan and loses objectivity and neutrality its purpose is corrupted. There is an irony indeed, that two of the Justices who seem to defend "original intent" are behaving in ways that make their adherence this constitutional principle questionable. The irony is in the Justices behavior not in the article.

graz
02-05-2011, 01:34 PM
This is the kind of comment that is difficult to interpret. Are you leaning to agree with the NYT article or not?


Well it seems that he'd like to deflect that question and rather point to the NYT, wag a finger and mock the idea impartiality.
Even though it was an editorial.
When he's not just joking, he's only sayin'.

bjkeefe
02-05-2011, 01:53 PM
Well it seems that he'd like to deflect that question and rather point to the NYT, wag a finger and mock the idea impartiality.
Even though it was an editorial.
When he's not just joking, he's only sayin'.

Yep. Because for our resident junior operative, reading an article he doesn't agree with going in means the only goal is to find one fragment that can be sniped at (context, of course, is optional), because with the crowd he runs with, that counts as a substantive rebuttal. (See also: anthropogenic global warming, waistline, size of, Al Gore's.)

So we will just respond in kind to his comment:

... attacking ...

Wingnut verb alert!

stephanie
02-07-2011, 12:28 PM
"The framers of our Constitution envisioned law gaining authority apart from politics."

That very well may be right, but I'd just like to note the irony of the NYT attacking Nino Scalia and Clarence Thomas with something resembling original intent.

I don't know why this would be ironic. Lots of people criticize Scalia and Thomas on the grounds that their "original intent" has less to do with actual intent of the Founders and more with their own desired conclusions. For a strong version of that not from the left, just see Posner's criticism of Scalia.

Just because someone doesn't accept Scalia's "Original Intent" doesn't mean that one cares nothing about the actual intent behind our law or the Constitution. It means that one disagrees with a relatively new method of interpretation.