this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
492 points (98.6% liked)

politics

29859 readers
1920 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For years, Clarence Thomas has been showered with gifts. Flights on a billionaire’s private jet, lavish vacations cruising on his superyacht, summer stays at his Adirondacks compound, tuition for a child Thomas was raising, a quarter-million-dollar motorhome a wealthy friend paid for.

Those gifts were income, and income belongs on a tax return. Thomas treated them as nothing, and no public record shows he ever reported a dollar of it. Under Virginia law, leaving income that size off a return, if it was done to cheat the state, is a felony. The evidence is already public, and he could be charged on Monday.

Virginia law makes it a felony to file a state income tax return with a false statement on it, made with intent to defraud the Commonwealth. The statute is Virginia Code section 58.1-348, it carries up to five years in prison per count, and the clock has not run out on the returns Thomas filed for tax years 2020 through 2024. That is the whole case, and unlike everything else, it is a case a county prosecutor in Virginia has the plain authority to bring.

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 16 minutes ago

I've got to say it. This is a case the Biden DOJ could have brought too. And Obama. The Democrats have got to stop playing games. They should have immediately changed it up when Obama was denied justice picks.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 17 minutes ago

He will not be

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

Time to put him behind bars.

[–] Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip 1 points 31 minutes ago

They should lock him in a cabin.

[–] magi093@l.tta.wtf 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

To be clear (because it isn't totally obvious from the title and text submitted on Lemmy), this article is a call to action, not reporting on a filing that's actually happened or rumored to be in progress or anything like that:

So why Monday? Because there is nothing special about Monday. It is the next day the courthouse opens, the next day a prosecutor could walk this to a grand jury, the same as they could have on any working day for the last several years. For anyone else, this case would already be filed.

[...]

Three officials can move on this, and they can each do something different, so we ask each one for what they actually have the power to do. [...] Here is where to reach them, by phone or by email.

He could be charged Monday. Or Tuesday. Or he could've been charged last Monday. There's three people in Virginia who have the power to make that happen, you should go call and email them.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 15 minutes ago)

this article is a call to action

Action to do what? A People's Arrest?

Let me know when we reconvene the Revolutionary Tribunals. Then write the article

[–] bmebenji@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I’m looking forward to the Supreme Court ruling that a sitting Supreme Court member has “operational immunity” and effectively ruling that anyone on the Supreme Court can break the law as much as they want until their fucking life ~~sentence~~ term is up

[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

And also all supreme court members can't be tax audited. And the creation of a Supreme Slush Fund

[–] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Absolutely nothing will happen.

Best case scenario, the stress pushes a clot into his brain.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, and then the cons put an extremely right wing hack that's also a zygote onto the court.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

And I could be starting pitcher for the Padres, but it ain't likely.

Hey y'all, RTFA. It is not saying what you think it is saying. The last several paragraphs twist things on thier head.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Good, but unseating that lousy POS will take a lot more.

[–] xSikes@feddit.online 28 points 8 hours ago

Throw all the books at him

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 168 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I'll believe it when I see it.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 54 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah that's what I told everyone when Trump was convicted of 34 felony charges :(

If it comes down to it, Trump will just pardon him as "a victim of the radical left".

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 11 minutes ago

A pardon requires an admission of guilt. An admission which would violate the good behavior clause of the Constitution. Meaning he's no longer eligible to be on the court.

[–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 20 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

The good news it's the state of Virginia, not the federal government, that could file these charges, so the president would have no ability to pardon it. The bad news is that it's purely hypothetical. We can all see the crime was committed, but that doesn't mean a Virginia prosecutor will actually go through with pursuing the case on any particular day.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago

Watch thomas sue, let it get all the way to the SCROTUS and Thomas doesn't recuse himself.

[–] kinther@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The filing should be easy. Proving it might be tough. He knows enough to deny, defend, depose.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago

Easy to prove. Super easy.

[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 20 points 8 hours ago

And this is why we are all poor, this is why billionaires keep stealing from us, because of greedy no backbone failures like him.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Aaannnnddd nothing will come of it because he is a boot licker for this administration.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

These are state crimes. The only way Trump can affect this case is if he sends in the National Guard to protect Thomas from being arrested.

[–] auntieclokwise@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

As long as Virginia's governor doesn't betray us, like Polis did here in Colorado.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Don’t threaten me with a good time

🫲🍊🫱

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Please send this slimeball to jail

Memorial Day? Definitely not but maybe Tuesday

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 48 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

The worst part of this is that even if he is convicted and removed from the judiciary, Trump gets to pick his replacement, so it will not only not fix anything but will very likely make it worse.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 22 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I mean the trial will take time and if Democrats get to control Congress after midterms they could just not confirm any of Trump's picks. Who am I joking, the Democrats would never.

[–] auntieclokwise@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It needs to be delayed till January of next year, when the next Congress comes in session. If Thomas has any sense he'd resign if this looks like it's going somewhere so Trump can sneak an appointment in. My best guess for what the Democrats would do, if they were able to block a Supreme Court pick, is come up with some sort of compromise. Maybe appoint somebody who's a moderate, not a Trump acolyte. I doubt they'd want the optics of not confirming a justice for 2 years.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

Are memories really that short? If you keep giving them help while they spit on you every chance they get then you're just helping them. They blocked Obama and then had their candidates straight up lie to congress. There is a very strong case for not giving them the time of day much less a hearing in the Senate.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 31 points 11 hours ago

The least reliable members of the facist block of SCOTUS are those appointed by Mr. Trump.

He's really, really bad at the job.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 6 points 8 hours ago

lol we all know nothing is going to fucking happen

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 16 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Monday is a federal holiday.

[–] portifornia@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

"May Memorial Day fools!" 😅😅😅

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 19 points 11 hours ago

Calling it now, nothing will come of this.

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago
[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Could…? Should

[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 10 points 11 hours ago

That would be lovely. Nothing will come of it, of course, and he'll just scream “racism!!” but it would still be nice.

Wait—Monday's a holiday. Nothing’s going to happen on Monday.

[–] Spesknight@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

Just like Al Capone.

[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago

Leona Helmsley was a prophet: "We don't pay taxes. The little people pay taxes."

[–] AdamBomb@lemmy.world -3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

If that even happens, the Supreme Court can simply issue a ruling in his favor from the shadow docket and I have no reason to believe they won’t

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The SC has no authority over state laws unless they find them unconstitutional or conflict with federal laws. I don't think even the 6 GOP justices would go that far.

[–] AdamBomb@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Useful context, and maybe how it should work normally. I have little faith in this lawless time.