In a new letter, Democratic senators press the associate justice on whether he’s paid off the loan for that famous R.V.—and whether he may have ducked federal tax obligations.
That’s the part I’m interested in, I’df there’s really a tax issue. Maybe he really didn’t understand justices had to have ethics and morals, avoid corruption and conflicts of interest, and were just there to solicit gifts from plaintiffs, but how can he explain away if he didn’t pay taxes?
That’s the part I’m interested in, I’df there’s really a tax issue. Maybe he really didn’t understand justices had to have ethics and morals, avoid corruption and conflicts of interest, and were just there to solicit gifts from plaintiffs, but how can he explain away if he didn’t pay taxes?