quote:

The Honorable Merrick Garland

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Garland:

We write to request that you appoint a Special Counsel to investigate possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas. Over the past year, public reporting and Senate investigations have uncovered evidence of repeated and willful omissions of gifts and income from Justice Thomas’s financial disclosure reports required by the Ethics in Government Act. The Senate is investigating these omissions as it considers improvements to ethics and tax laws.

The scale of the potential ethics violations by Justice Thomas, and the willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws, exceeds the conduct of other government officials investigated by the Department of Justice for similar violations. The breadth of the omissions uncovered to date, and the serious possibility of additional tax fraud and false statement violations by Justice Thomas and his associates, warrant the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate this misconduct. The Senate is not a prosecutorial body, and the Supreme Court has no fact-finding function of its own, making the executive role all the more important if there is ever to be any complete determination of the facts.

I. The Evidence of Misconduct by Justice Thomas Warrants Criminal Investigation

Senate investigations and public reporting have uncovered evidence that Justice Thomas likely violated federal law by accepting lavish gifts from wealthy benefactors and failing to report them. The full scope of Justice Thomas’s non-disclosures is still unknown, but the evidence assembled thus far suggests that, since his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas has secretly accepted gifts and income potentially worth millions of dollars.

This conduct likely violates the Ethics in Government Act, which requires government officials, including Supreme Court justices, to file annual reports disclosing gifts and income accepted from outside sources. It is a crime “to knowingly and willfully . . . fail to file or report” such information. Justice Thomas’s disclosure omissions also implicate federal prohibitions against making false statements to the government, and raise questions about Justice Thomas’s and his benefactors’ compliance with federal tax laws.

Justice Thomas Failed to Report More than $267,000 in Income from Forgiven Debt
Since last year, the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights have been investigating a loan of more than $267,000 connected to Justice Thomas’s purchase of a luxury motor coach. On October 25, 2023, the Senate Finance Committee released a memorandum, a copy of which is appended to this letter, concluding that in November 2008 the provider of the loan, Anthony Welters, ceased collecting principal or interest on $267,230.00 he loaned to Justice Thomas and his wife for the purchase of a 1991 Prevost Marathon motor coach. Documents obtained by the Senate Finance Committee indicate that no principal was ever repaid on the loan and that Justice Thomas only made interest payments on the loan prior to all payments ceasing on the loan. Forgiven or discharged debt is taxable income, and the Ethics in Government Act requires justices to disclose any “income from discharge of indebtedness.” Justice Thomas did not report any such forgiveness as income on his financial disclosure report covering the year 2008, or for any other year.

On December 19, 2023, and again on May 15, 2024, we invited Justice Thomas to address the evidence obtained by the Finance Committee. Those letters offered Justice Thomas an opportunity to state in plain terms how much in principal and interest on the loan he ever repaid to Welters. We also offered Justice Thomas an opportunity to state how the loan was forgiven or discharged. On both occasions, counsel for Justice Thomas provided an uninformative response. Justice Thomas’s counsel stated that Justice Thomas “made payments to Mr. Welters on a regular basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.” As we stressed to Justice Thomas’s counsel, “satisfied” could have any number of meanings in the context of repayment, forgiveness, or discharge of debt. The Finance Committee has still received no satisfactory response.

The Ethics in Government Act requires disclosure of any “income from discharge of indebtedness,” and the Tax Code treats discharge of indebtedness as taxable income; when debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged for less than the amount owed, the borrower must report that difference as income on federal tax returns. Failure to repay any amount of the principal of the loan would almost certainly create commensurate taxable income for Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas failed to clarify whether or why he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in forgiven debt on his federal income tax returns and pay the income taxes owed. We submit that the facts we have developed, combined with strategically evasive answers, creates predication for further investigation by relevant authorities.

Justice Thomas Has Failed to Report Gifts He Accepted from Wealthy Benefactors and Associated Companies
Public investigative reporting and information obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee has revealed that billionaire Harlan Crow has donated to Justice Thomas numerous gifts over the past twenty years, almost none of which were disclosed by Justice Thomas as the Ethics in Government Act requires. These gifts include multiple instances of free private jet travel, yacht travel, and lodging, as well as gifts of tuition for Justice Thomas’s grandnephew, and (through intermediate entities) real estate transactions, home renovations, and free rent for Justice Thomas’s mother, all of which Justice Thomas failed to disclose.

Justice Thomas has accepted a pattern of similar, undisclosed gifts from other wealthy donors as well, including private jet travel from Paul Anthony Novelly; private jet travel and country club membership from the late Wayne Huizenga; and private jet travel, luxury sports tickets, and lodging at a ranch from David Sokol. Our current list of publicly reported but not yet disclosed gifts and income is attached as an appendix to this letter.

The Ethics in Government Act required Justice Thomas to disclose these gifts. The Act requires disclosure of gifts, outside income, real estate transactions above certain monetary thresholds—which all of the gifts, outside income, and transactions detailed above appear to satisfy. None of these gifts seems to fall plausibly within the Act’s disclosure exception for “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality.” As its plain text shows, the “personal hospitality” exception has never permitted nondisclosure of gifts of transportation, like private jet flights. Moreover, the “personal hospitality” exception applies only to hospitality “extended . . . by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that individual or the individual’s family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or the individual’s family,” yet many of the gifts discussed above were provided not by individuals but by corporate entities connected to those individuals. As legal guardian, Justice Thomas was presumably responsible for his grandnephew’s education expenses, making tuition payments gifts to Justice Thomas himself—a commonsense understanding of federal law confirmed by legislative and executive branch guidance.

Justice Thomas has claimed that some omissions were “inadvertent,” and he has amended some past reports accordingly. However, Justice Thomas has not disclosed all of the gifts that have been uncovered, and there may well be more. His long history of omissions indicates a pattern of willfulness meriting investigation under the Ethics in Government Act. In 2011, Justice Thomas admitted to omitting hundreds of thousands of dollars of his spouse’s income from his disclosures, averring a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions” (despite accurately filing disclosure forms regarding his spouse’s employment for as many as ten years beginning in 1987). Similarly, earlier in his tenure on the Court, Justice Thomas properly reported transportation, including complimentary private jet travel and gifts to defray tuition expenses like those he subsequently omitted. Justice Thomas’s own past financial disclosure reports, combined with his later revisions, belie the notion that he was not aware of the simple requirements he was required to meet. We contend that this pattern of filings, misfilings, and corrections provides adequate predication for further investigation by relevant authorities.

We note that a similar referral may come your way through the Judicial Conference, which has an independent obligation to refer to you the question of whether disclosure violations are “willful,” if it finds reasonable cause to believe violations may have been willful, and which appears to be presently investigating Justice Thomas’s disclosures.

Separately, payments reportedly facilitated by Leonard Leo, who has been involved in arranging some of these free gifts for Justice Thomas and others, and is devoted to influencing the Supreme Court through other means, provide further grounds for investigation. Last year, the Washington Post reported that Leo directed payments of at least $25,000 to a consulting firm run by Justice Thomas’s spouse, with Leo specifying that the documents related to the payments should make “[n]o mention” of Mrs. Thomas. The furtive nature of the payments raises further questions about how many such payments were orchestrated, whether legitimate services were actually rendered, and whether such payments required additional reporting by Justice Thomas. We have not yet adequately been able to investigate the extent to which any or all these undisclosed gifts were part of a coordinated gifts program to reward recipient justices.

In addition to possible disclosure violations under the Ethics in Government Act, each of the undisclosed transactions discussed above implicates federal laws against making false statements to the government. Moreover, these gifts raise the possibility of related tax violations by Justice Thomas’s benefactors if they failed to report or pay any required gift tax. Because prosecutions have resulted of officials in other branches of government, relevant authorities should review this conduct in light of that prosecutorial precedent.

Justice Thomas’s Potential Misconduct Exceeds Past Examples of Misconduct by Other Government Officials Investigated by the Department of Justice
Investigation of these matters by the Department of Justice is appropriate and consistent with the severity of the evidence of misconduct presented here. Indeed, the Department of Justice has charged other government officials for less serious violations than the evidence suggests Justice Thomas committed.

For example, in 2016, the Department prosecuted a former Drug Enforcement Agency official for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for failing to disclose gifts of private air travel received from 2010 through 2014. Also in 2016, the Department of Justice charged a Department of Veterans Affairs official under § 1001 for failing to disclose approximately $21,000 in gifts consisting in part of airline tickets and resort services. In 2010, the Department of Justice prosecuted a Department of Housing and Urban Development official under 18 U.S.C. § 1018 for his failure to disclose luxury sports tickets from someone with business before his agency. The officials pleaded guilty and received criminal sentences. The value, scope, and duration of the undisclosed gifts accepted by Justice Thomas dwarf the undisclosed gifts for which the Department of Justice prosecuted these officials, who entered pleas of guilty.

II. Appointment of a Special Counsel to Investigate These Extraordinary Circumstances Would Be in the Public Interest

Appointment of a Special Counsel is justified under Department of Justice regulations. Under those regulations, the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate when “criminal investigation . . . is warranted”; the “investigation or prosecution . . . by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present . . . extraordinary circumstances”; and “under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.” This matter meets those standards.

The evidence documented above suggests the strong possibility of multiple federal ethics, tax, and false statement violations by a Supreme Court justice and associated individuals. When the Department of Justice has conducted criminal investigations of a high-ranking government official, in several cases, the Department appointed Special Counsels.

Since no litigant appears before the Supreme Court more frequently than the United States government, represented by the Department of Justice, the Department may understandably hesitate to offend a member of that Court. Appointment of a special counsel would ensure proper, impartial investigation, separate from the Department’s broader litigating interests.

Appointment of a Special Counsel would serve the public interest. The public must have confidence that the judiciary and the Department of Justice execute their responsibilities fairly, impartially, and without respect to political expedience or partisan interests. Accordingly, any investigation by the Department of a sitting judge—especially a member of the highest court—must be conducted in a manner free of political motive. While we trust that the Department’s public servants would never succumb to such pressure, appointment of a Special Counsel would reinforce confidence in the independence, thoroughness, and reliability of any investigation. These same considerations counsel in favor of appointing a Special Counsel to investigate potential tax law violations without awaiting an IRS referral.

* * *

We do not make this request lightly. The evidence assembled thus far plainly suggests that Justice Thomas has committed numerous willful violations of federal ethics and false-statement laws and raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors have complied with their federal tax obligations. Presented with opportunities to resolve questions about his conduct, Justice Thomas has maintained a suspicious silence.

No government official should be above the law. Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code. We therefore request that you appoint a Special Counsel authorized to investigate potential criminal violations by Justice Thomas under the disclosure, false statement, and tax laws; pursue leads of related criminal violations by donors, lenders, and intermediate corporate entities; and determine whether any such loans and gifts were provided pursuant to a coordinated enterprise or plan.

We thank you for your attention to these matters.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He was the one.
I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts would groe a spine if the issue came before the S.Ct., on Thomas’ head.

More than likely, CJ Roberts would let Justice Thomas adjudicate his own case.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He was the one.
I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts would groe a spine if the issue came before the S.Ct., on Thomas’ head.

More than likely, CJ Roberts would let Justice Thomas adjudicate his own case.

He won’t have to.


When Trump wins bit Thomas and Alito can retire and with a Republican controlled Senate he can simply appoint 2 more strict originalist’a and possibly a 3rd as one of the left wi g Husrices is getting up there in age.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He was the one.
I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts would groe a spine if the issue came before the S.Ct., on Thomas’ head.

More than likely, CJ Roberts would let Justice Thomas adjudicate his own case.

He won’t have to.


When Trump wins bit Thomas and Alito can retire and with a Republican controlled Senate he can simply appoint 2 more strict originalist’a and possibly a 3rd as one of the left wi g Husrices is getting up there in age.

The republicans had control of both house!

They did fuck all about being useful!

The people kicked them out!

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He was the one.
I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts would groe a spine if the issue came before the S.Ct., on Thomas’ head.

More than likely, CJ Roberts would let Justice Thomas adjudicate his own case.

He won’t have to.


When Trump wins bit Thomas and Alito can retire and with a Republican controlled Senate he can simply appoint 2 more strict originalist’a and possibly a 3rd as one of the left wi g Husrices is getting up there in age.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
He was the one.
I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts would groe a spine if the issue came before the S.Ct., on Thomas’ head.

More than likely, CJ Roberts would let Justice Thomas adjudicate his own case.

He won’t have to.


When Trump wins bit Thomas and Alito can retire and with a Republican controlled Senate he can simply appoint 2 more strict originalist’a and possibly a 3rd as one of the left wi g Husrices is getting up there in age.

Well, a) neither is an actual originalist as I have proved with the 2nd Amendment cases, and b) neither is going to retire.

The winning of the election by Trump is open ended at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

Strict originalist, unless the Orange Jesus needs immunity

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

Strict originalist, unless the Orange Jesus needs immunity

That same immunity applies to your heroes Biden and Obama as well.

Nice try at spin though. Thy was a credible effort.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

Strict originalist, unless the Orange Jesus needs immunity

That same immunity applies to your heroes Biden and Obama as well.

Nice try at spin though. Thy was a credible effort.

Absolutely nobody, including the Supreme Court, has any clue who the immunity applies to, or when. The entire point of the Republican partisans on the Court even considering the case to start with was to give Trump time to try to win the election. They have amply demonstrated that "precedence", a backbone of American jurisprudence for most of our history, the entire concept of stare decisis is disposable if a previous ruling interferes with something Republicans want to do, no matter how much has been based on that ruling or how long it has been "the Law of the Land". Every one of the last 5 Republican nominees seated on the Court sat on National TV, under Oath, and testified to the importance of respect for precedent, especially precedent which has been repeatedly tested and stood, and clearly articulated that overturning Roe was neither contemplated nor in the Country's best interest. All 5 lied, perjury when done under Oath, and voted to overturn one of the most consequential and most re-affirmed precedents there was, at their first opportunity.

Those same partisans would not hesitate to overturn their own immunity ruling in a heartbeat if it was actually going to be used against them, or benefit a Democrat.

Get somebody to read the Appeals Court decision they overturned to you; you will never in this lifetime read a more cogent, better reasoned decision that more closely follows what the text and intent of the Constitution requires, on any legal question ever raised in this Country. Then read the pile of horseshit the Republican majority issued to overturn it.

If your comprehension level rises above fourth grade the harm to our Republic just might make you weep, or want to.

quote:

So you’re a lawyer AND a bully?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

So you’re a lawyer AND a bully?

You complain a lot about being bullied. Did the other students pick on you in high school?

Is that why you're so sensitive to the issue?

Do you feel overmatched in our battles of wits?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I now feel bullied.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

Strict originalist, unless the Orange Jesus needs immunity

That same immunity applies to your heroes Biden and Obama as well.

Nice try at spin though. Thy was a credible effort.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

Strict originalist, unless the Orange Jesus needs immunity

That same immunity applies to your heroes Biden and Obama as well.

Nice try at spin though. Thy was a credible effort.

Do you believe in an originalist interpretation of the constitution or only when the orange turd needs immunity due to his criminal behavior? Presidential immunity is not mentioned in the Constitution, yet the originalists on the court found it.

No deflection, just pointing out the inconsistency in the views of you originalists.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

Strict originalist, unless the Orange Jesus needs immunity

That same immunity applies to your heroes Biden and Obama as well.

Nice try at spin though. Thy was a credible effort.

Absolutely nobody, including the Supreme Court, has any clue who the immunity applies to, or when. The entire point of the Republican partisans on the Court even considering the case to start with was to give Trump time to try to win the election. They have amply demonstrated that "precedence", a backbone of American jurisprudence for most of our history, the entire concept of stare decisis is disposable if a previous ruling interferes with something Republicans want to do, no matter how much has been based on that ruling or how long it has been "the Law of the Land". Every one of the last 5 Republican nominees seated on the Court sat on National TV, under Oath, and testified to the importance of respect for precedent, especially precedent which has been repeatedly tested and stood, and clearly articulated that overturning Roe was neither contemplated nor in the Country's best interest. All 5 lied, perjury when done under Oath, and voted to overturn one of the most consequential and most re-affirmed precedents there was, at their first opportunity.

Those same partisans would not hesitate to overturn their own immunity ruling in a heartbeat if it was actually going to be used against them, or benefit a Democrat.

Get somebody to read the Appeals Court decision they overturned to you; you will never in this lifetime read a more cogent, better reasoned decision that more closely follows what the text and intent of the Constitution requires, on any legal question ever raised in this Country. Then read the pile of horseshit the Republican majority issued to overturn it.

If your comprehension level rises above fourth grade the harm to our Republic just might make you weep, or want to.

So you’re a lawyer AND a bully?


But then I repeat myself.


5 people over that period of time all pursuers themselves? Statistically unlikely.


They all stated IIRC that they had not contemplated it and as I recall there was no case before the court for them to contemplate.


Further I seem to remember both the 5 Justices you mentioned as well as the 3 leftist stooges that continue to sit on the bench as stating “I will not comment on possible upcoming cases that might come before the court”.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Hasher:
2 more strict originalist’.

Strict originalist, unless the Orange Jesus needs immunity

That same immunity applies to your heroes Biden and Obama as well.

Nice try at spin though. Thy was a credible effort.

Do you believe in an originalist interpretation of the constitution or only when the orange turd needs immunity due to his criminal behavior? Presidential immunity is not mentioned in the Constitution, yet the originalists on the court found it.

No deflection, just pointing out the inconsistency in the views of you originalists.

You know when you just have to call someone “the orange turd” I steal if Trump or Former President Trump I really can’t take you seriously.

Alfred talking with Magine I really try not to call Harris names (I do slip sometimes.


I’m sure LHeym500 can give us a better answer to your question than I can as he is a far better Constitutional scholar than I am.


You are better than school yard name calling.


Act like it.