Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for a formal photo op at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday, October 7, 2022.
Eric Lee | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Two Democratic Senate Committee Leaders Ministry of Justice inquiry Senators said Tuesday they would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated federal tax and ethics laws.
“We do not make this request lightly,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who leads the federal courts subcommittee.in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland last week.
“The evidence gathered to date clearly demonstrates that Justice Thomas repeatedly and knowingly violated federal ethics and misrepresentation laws,” the senators claimed in their letter.
It also “raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy donors are complying with their federal tax obligations,” Wyden and Whitehouse wrote.
The evidence, they wrote, suggests Thomas “may have violated federal law by accepting lavish gifts from wealthy donors and failing to report them” in violation of the Government Ethics Act.
They cited public reporting by ProPublica and other sources, as well as their own Senate investigation, alleging that Thomas “secretly accepted gifts and income potentially worth millions of dollars” since joining the high court in 1991.
The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the letter, which was dated July 3.
Two days before this article was written, Thomas challenged the Justice Department’s authority to appoint a special prosecutor in a key court ruling.
Thomas’ suspicions came in a statement agreeing with the majority’s ruling that the former president enjoys absolute immunity for some core actions while in office and “at least presumptive immunity” for all other official acts. .
The 6-3 ruling was touted as a victory by former President Donald Trump, who argued he was immune from prosecution in a federal election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
“If there is no law defining the role of the special counsel, then he cannot conduct this prosecution. Private citizens cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former president,” Thomas wrote in the consent form.
The court’s ruling was strongly opposed by the court’s three liberal justices, and Thomas’ concurrence could delay or weaken Smith’s two ongoing criminal cases against Trump.
About The Author
