No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

Crow is on the board of the American Enterprise Institute which routinely files amicus briefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

Ohhhh, spicy. Thanks. Will dig in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

It doesn't matter. No federal employee should be accepting huge gifts from anybody. They should live off their salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

Ohhhh, spicy. Thanks. Will dig in.

Looks like someone found that "deep state" republicans were always going on about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

Ohhhh, spicy. Thanks. Will dig in.

Looks like someone found that "deep state" republicans were always going on about.

It was always projection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: People - even Supreme Court Justices - are friends with and vacation with people who are like-minded. Some of them are even wealthy!!!
Shocker!!!

Vacationing with people who are likeminded is one thing. Having those friends pay every cent of your luxurious vacation is quite another. I don’t vacation on my friends’ dimes …. Particularly not to the tune of $500,000 a vacation.

Agree 100% I have never had any friend pay or subsidize my vacation expenses to Justice Corrupt's extent. Even when I am invited to a beach house, I make sure to bring an expensive bottle of wine and/or pay for dinner out at the beach. I would not even dream about accepting this sort of vacation. [And I certainly have plenty of friends in the top 1%.] Justice Thomas is simply corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

It is called reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: People - even Supreme Court Justices - are friends with and vacation with people who are like-minded. Some of them are even wealthy!!!
Shocker!!!

Vacationing with people who are likeminded is one thing. Having those friends pay every cent of your luxurious vacation is quite another. I don’t vacation on my friends’ dimes …. Particularly not to the tune of $500,000 a vacation.

Agree 100% I have never had any friend pay or subsidize my vacation expenses to Justice Corrupt's extent. Even when I am invited to a beach house, I make sure to bring an expensive bottle of wine and/or pay for dinner out at the beach. I would not even dream about accepting this sort of vacation. [And I certainly have plenty of friends in the top 1%.] Justice Thomas is simply corrupt.

How do you know he didn't reciprocate with gifts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newsflash: People - even Supreme Court Justices - are friends with and vacation with people who are like-minded. Some of them are even wealthy!!!
Shocker!!!

Vacationing with people who are likeminded is one thing. Having those friends pay every cent of your luxurious vacation is quite another. I don’t vacation on my friends’ dimes …. Particularly not to the tune of $500,000 a vacation.

Agree 100% I have never had any friend pay or subsidize my vacation expenses to Justice Corrupt's extent. Even when I am invited to a beach house, I make sure to bring an expensive bottle of wine and/or pay for dinner out at the beach. I would not even dream about accepting this sort of vacation. [And I certainly have plenty of friends in the top 1%.] Justice Thomas is simply corrupt.

How do you know he didn't reciprocate with gifts?

please be serious.

[Anonymous]

In this case Clarence went too far and the Justice Department will have grounds to at least conduct a thorough investigation. There are two issues - a federal employee accepting gifts that could, in value, exceed $500,000 and a federal employee who does not disclose that on financial disclosure forms. Clarence has had to amend financial disclosure forms in the past - just a pattern of forgetting or not understanding the law I guess.

Also, Clarence's "friend" funded Clarence's wife's anti-democracy non-profit which means he pays her salary.

And the timing when most Americans are financially struggling due to inflation means that this story will have resonance and remain in the public interest for a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

Ohhhh, spicy. Thanks. Will dig in.

This is huge! HUGE!! He has to go. So does Kav who got his bills paid off. And I’m sure Amy has some financial corruption as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Thomas should have just paid his own way. If he cannot afford to do that, he cannot afford to go (just like the vast majority of Americans)

Thanks. So you know about which cases or nah?

It doesn't matter. No federal employee should be accepting huge gifts from anybody. They should live off their salary.

Fully agree. How did the Bidens get so wealthy again?