Had a hard time listening to this -- they start by rubbishing "Propublica people" and alluding to because they are funded by "the left" that somehow their journalism is intrinsically less worthy.
Their primary point is that because journalists couldn't prove influence peddling the question of Justice Thomas behaving inappropriately is "ludicrous".
As someone who has to declare any gift over $50 from a third party and receives annual training on code of ethics and conduct application in a corporate environment, it is flat out insane that Thomas could defensibly claim "oh, I was told it was okay to accept gifts from my friends" and somehow that's okay.
The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978 [1] and it appears Clarence Thomas was aware of implications, including how it had featured in a previous supreme court justice's resignation[2].
> Their primary point is that because journalists couldn't prove influence peddling the question of Justice Thomas behaving inappropriately is "ludicrous".
So, just accept the next installment of the three-decade "high tech lynching" campaign that the propaganda peddlers have waged against an impeccable legal mind?
Propublica are false and despicable on this issue.
And 'flagging' a simple, opposing viewpoint brings no honor to those who did so. How illiberal.
"High tech lynching" sounds a lot like Trump's "witch hunt." It's not hard to find ProPublica investigations of Democrats, they aren't as one-sided as you're claiming.
Ah yes, heaven forfend the Democrats object to putting Nixon’s hatchetman on the supreme court. How dare they corrupt the process by not allowing an unethical criminal with utter disregard for democracy on the court!
Sorry, but what's shameful about prosecuting corruption in the nation's highest officials? I think that when partisans of any stripe circle the wagons and protect the corrupt is something we should be especially critical of. Or are you referring to Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford? I'd prefer that we appoint supreme court justices with the highest moral fiber, not the basest, personally. But if you're looking to skewer Biden, I'd note that he made a back-room deal with Republicans to prevent further witnesses to Thomas's sexual harassment from taking the stand. That is pretty shameful. But then, I don't think many are particularly proud of Biden's legacy, on either side of the aisle.
it is not tyranny that you must disclose flying on private jets and sailing around on yachts in indonesia. he just had to report them and didn't. because he is a public official.
Turley's summary "It suggests that it would cover extensive travel benefits" significantly mischaracterizes the contents of the actual complaint.
> Furthermore, the personal hospitality exception for food, lodging or entertainment
items that Justice Thomas appears to have tried to rely on is clearly limited and can only be
used when the covered items are extended “for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not
a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of or on property or facilities owned
by that individual or his family.”56 Since neither a private aircraft nor yacht would generally
be viewed as “real property,” the personal hospitality exception that covers “food, lodging, or
entertainment” offered at a “personal residence” would not be applicable.57 Additionally,
since “personal hospitality” can only be extended by an “individual” not a corporate entity,
any “food, lodging and entertainment” offered on Mr. Crow’s aircraft or yacht would still
need to be reported unless it could be established that the aircraft and yacht were
“properties or facilities” owned by Mr. Crow personally as an individual rather than through
an LLC or corporate entity, which is how these entities are normally held for liability
purposes.
Further, they question the "personal friendship" claimed by Crow and Thomas,
> Rather, the reporting indicates that Mr. Crow fostered a friendship with Justice
Thomas after he joined the Court and that his gifts bestow a level of luxury on Justice
Thomas and his wife, which they not only cannot afford for themselves or reciprocate on the
Justice’s salary, but which could only be replicated by the very wealthiest members of our
society. The estimated cost of the Indonesia trip alone would exceed $500,000 to replicate.77
When informed about the trips, one retired federal judge noted that “it’s incomprehensible
that someone would do this.”78 The exclusive, luxurious and repeated nature of these
vacations act to subsidize the lifestyle of Justice Thomas and his wife to a degree that is
unimaginable for most federal judges, and thereby causes a reasonable person to believe
that Justice Thomas has violated his ethical obligations by repeatedly accepting expensive
gifts from the same person on so frequent a basis that he is using his public office for private
gain.
Unless you're accusing Turley of rewriting history, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your "Winston Smith" dig.
> Moreover, when Mr.
Crow entertains Justice Thomas, he surrounds him with guests representing a particular
ideological viewpoint and agenda, as evidenced by the Topridge painting, affording them
unique access and opportunities to influence a sitting Member of the Court year after year
in informal settings at Mr. Crow’s Adirondack luxury resort, and on his private aircraft and
far-flung yacht cruises. As an aggravating factor, Mr. Crow and his guests commingle their social and offcial ties to Justice Thomas by inviting him to participate in an official capacity
in events sponsored by their respective conservative organizations.80 Under these
circumstances, the vacation and travel opportunities offered by Mr. Crow do not evidence a
“bona fide,” personal relationship separate and apart from his judicial office, but rather an
ongoing influence campaign targeting Justice Thomas as a Member of the Court in an
apparent effort to promote a particular judicial philosophy that furthers Mr. Crow’s and his
guests' private business interests and ideological agendas.81
CREW is not Comey. The facts in this case are not identical to the facts in the Clinton case. Yes, the Clintons should be held accountable for their misdeeds, Bush and Obama for their war crimes, Trump for his plethora of financial crimes and abuses of power. But Thomas shouldn't get off just because you think somebody else deserves it more.
George and Donald Norcross should be under federal investigation along with mayor David Mayer and his Gloucester township police for espionage and hacking they’ve hired news sites nj.con and courier post to create negative stories and severely harass people of color
This is pretty big. Not only did Crow buy the house & then Thomas failed to disclose the sale (which he is obligated to do)… Crow also made a huge donation to Ginni Thomas’s organization, out of which Ginni received a fat salary.
He also made $36k in improvements for Thomas’ mother who still lives there.
> Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent. Soon after Crow purchased the house, an award-winning local architecture firm received permits to begin $36,000 of improvements.
> In the late 1980s, when Thomas was an official in the George H.W. Bush administration, he listed the addresses of the three properties in a disclosure filing. He reported that he had a one-third interest in them.
Unless you're saying that he perjured himself in the 80s, it's hard to see how he'd end up with a $1 stake without triggering a necessary disclosure.
Well, we already know of one case in which he failed to disclose a “necessary disclosure” - I agree he probably maintained his one third share until selling it to Crow, but given his behavior it’s not exactly unreasonable to question whether there’s more to the story.
§13104(a)(5) Transactions.—Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000—
..(A) in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse; or
..(B) in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities.
He reported a 1/3 interest in the property from the 80s through 2015, contrary to the original claim that "nobody knows" what his stake in the property is. That he reported any interest in 2015 is peculiar, because the sale occurred in 2014.
Thomas sure claims ignorance of the law a lot more than I'd expect of a Supreme Court Justice. You'd think he would have picked up a thing or two over the decades.
What he picked up was that he didn't even have to hide his contempt for the law any more. He can't just flaunt it, yet, but he doesn't have to bother working hard to hide it, either. Laws are for little people and Democrats. That's what he picked up.
What's the bar they need to reach here to accomplish something? My limited understanding here is that Congress can impeach but it has to pass both houses.
Is there a scenario where an actual crime had been committed and the traditional legal process can remove a Supreme Court judge?
Can't the local jurisdiction indict him here? Irrespective of whether or not it ends up back in the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be instructive to bring him up on bribery charges?
49 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadUh, thanks for posting? I guess?
Their primary point is that because journalists couldn't prove influence peddling the question of Justice Thomas behaving inappropriately is "ludicrous".
As someone who has to declare any gift over $50 from a third party and receives annual training on code of ethics and conduct application in a corporate environment, it is flat out insane that Thomas could defensibly claim "oh, I was told it was okay to accept gifts from my friends" and somehow that's okay.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/14/clarence-...
So, just accept the next installment of the three-decade "high tech lynching" campaign that the propaganda peddlers have waged against an impeccable legal mind?
Propublica are false and despicable on this issue.
And 'flagging' a simple, opposing viewpoint brings no honor to those who did so. How illiberal.
https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democrati...
https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democrati...
It's sad to see everyone going all Winston Smith here, but these are our degenerate times.
> Furthermore, the personal hospitality exception for food, lodging or entertainment items that Justice Thomas appears to have tried to rely on is clearly limited and can only be used when the covered items are extended “for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of or on property or facilities owned by that individual or his family.”56 Since neither a private aircraft nor yacht would generally be viewed as “real property,” the personal hospitality exception that covers “food, lodging, or entertainment” offered at a “personal residence” would not be applicable.57 Additionally, since “personal hospitality” can only be extended by an “individual” not a corporate entity, any “food, lodging and entertainment” offered on Mr. Crow’s aircraft or yacht would still need to be reported unless it could be established that the aircraft and yacht were “properties or facilities” owned by Mr. Crow personally as an individual rather than through an LLC or corporate entity, which is how these entities are normally held for liability purposes.
Further, they question the "personal friendship" claimed by Crow and Thomas,
> Rather, the reporting indicates that Mr. Crow fostered a friendship with Justice Thomas after he joined the Court and that his gifts bestow a level of luxury on Justice Thomas and his wife, which they not only cannot afford for themselves or reciprocate on the Justice’s salary, but which could only be replicated by the very wealthiest members of our society. The estimated cost of the Indonesia trip alone would exceed $500,000 to replicate.77 When informed about the trips, one retired federal judge noted that “it’s incomprehensible that someone would do this.”78 The exclusive, luxurious and repeated nature of these vacations act to subsidize the lifestyle of Justice Thomas and his wife to a degree that is unimaginable for most federal judges, and thereby causes a reasonable person to believe that Justice Thomas has violated his ethical obligations by repeatedly accepting expensive gifts from the same person on so frequent a basis that he is using his public office for private gain.
Unless you're accusing Turley of rewriting history, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your "Winston Smith" dig.
> Moreover, when Mr. Crow entertains Justice Thomas, he surrounds him with guests representing a particular ideological viewpoint and agenda, as evidenced by the Topridge painting, affording them unique access and opportunities to influence a sitting Member of the Court year after year in informal settings at Mr. Crow’s Adirondack luxury resort, and on his private aircraft and far-flung yacht cruises. As an aggravating factor, Mr. Crow and his guests commingle their social and offcial ties to Justice Thomas by inviting him to participate in an official capacity in events sponsored by their respective conservative organizations.80 Under these circumstances, the vacation and travel opportunities offered by Mr. Crow do not evidence a “bona fide,” personal relationship separate and apart from his judicial office, but rather an ongoing influence campaign targeting Justice Thomas as a Member of the Court in an apparent effort to promote a particular judicial philosophy that furthers Mr. Crow’s and his guests' private business interests and ideological agendas.81
Doubtless you think Alvin Bragg other than a tawdry political hack, too.
> Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent. Soon after Crow purchased the house, an award-winning local architecture firm received permits to begin $36,000 of improvements.
"Here's $1, Mom"
Chathum County property deed https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774272-warranty-de...
> In the late 1980s, when Thomas was an official in the George H.W. Bush administration, he listed the addresses of the three properties in a disclosure filing. He reported that he had a one-third interest in them.
Unless you're saying that he perjured himself in the 80s, it's hard to see how he'd end up with a $1 stake without triggering a necessary disclosure.
§13104(a)(5) Transactions.—Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000—
..(A) in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse; or
..(B) in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04...
Is there a scenario where an actual crime had been committed and the traditional legal process can remove a Supreme Court judge?