Time to impeach scotus judge Clarence thomas

Prince Andrew yes, Trump…sorry no. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

If you say so. Trump and Epstein were definitely friends.

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/trump-and-epstein

From it's contents anyone with a clue wouldn't conclude Clarence Thomas did anything criminal. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Not if you read the statute on disclosures. It clearly states that a trip on a private jet that was a gift should be disclosed.

Not if you read the statute on disclosures. It clearly states that a trip on a private jet that was a gift should be disclosed. Originally Posted by adav8s28

What's the statute number?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7353



I would never address him as such because he has no honor. I'd just call him judge and the ladies their honor if I were before the court.

What's the statute number? Originally Posted by Levianon17

This is the statute number 5 U.S.C. § 13101(14). The link is in post #52 of this thread. You should be able to see it on page 28 of the document. You're welcome.

This is the statute number 5 U.S.C. § 13101(14). The link is in post #52 of this thread. You should be able to see it on page 28 of the document. You're welcome. Originally Posted by adav8s28

He knows how to use google. It takes 15 seconds to find that statute. Levi is just sticking to his strawman argument bullshit and playing silly games as usual at this point. It is up to you to decide when you want to stop playing them with him.

I don't play back and forth silly games in this forum for a reason. Well, I would to be honest, but I don't think many of these blouses are worth getting banned over when I know that using objectivity and logic is a complete waste of time with many in here. LOL

He knows how to use google. It takes 15 seconds to find that statute. Levi is just sticking to his strawman argument bullshit and playing silly games as usual at this point. It is up to you to decide when you want to stop playing them with him.

I don't play back and forth silly games in this forum for a reason. Well, I would to be honest, but I don't think many of these blouses are worth getting banned over when I know that using objectivity and logic is a complete waste of time with many in here. LOL Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

You're right. Once in a while it's okay to go the extra mile to make a point.

This is the statute number 5 U.S.C. § 13101(14). The link is in post #52 of this thread. You should be able to see it on page 28 of the document. You're welcome. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Ok, so that might be the only gift he was required to disclose and he failed to do so. The reason Federal Judges are required to disclose substantial gifts is to ensure that they aren't influenced by external sources. So to impeach any Federal Judge there would have to be something to indicate his decisions were based on personal gain rather than Law and facts. So failure to disclose a gift in and of itself may not be enough to impeach him.

It's clear Thomas is on the take.
Huge amounts of gifts from folks that Thomas will have an impact on thru their scotus cases. He will not recuse himself. Other big questions on ethic violations are being looked at. As his his failure to report and disclose all of his perks. Aka bribes

It's clear Thomas is on the take.
Huge amounts of gifts from folks that Thomas will have an impact on thru their scotus cases. He will not recuse himself. Other big questions on ethic violations are being looked at. As his his failure to report and disclose all of his perks. Aka bribes Originally Posted by winn dixie

Yeah, I bet you think he's the only one.

Yeah, I bet you think he's the only one. Originally Posted by Levianon17

I don't remember now which of the 3 liberal justices has some issues with a book she wrote. I think Sotomeir, but i could be wrong.

I don't remember now which of the 3 liberal justices has some issues with a book she wrote. I think Sotomeir, but i could be wrong. Originally Posted by farmstud60

I think this is what you are talking about.


https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...29762cb8338c02

I think this is what you are talking about.


https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...29762cb8338c02 Originally Posted by Levianon17

That was it.

Yeah, I bet you think he's the only one. Originally Posted by Levianon17

As far as being the most corrupt.
Biggly and hoogely not even close
He should be impeached immediately.

As far as being the most corrupt.
Biggly and hoogely not even close
He should be impeached immediately. Originally Posted by winn dixie

Well he probably won't. So don't lose any sleep over it.