No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

It was already addressed. There are levels to this stuff.

President's don't get lightly prosecuted and SCOTUS justices don't get pitchforked. If you do, you're asking for clapbacks and further chaos. It becomes a race to the bottom. Slouching toward Pandemonium. The ripple effects are felt much more the higher up the chain you go, so you must tread more carefully or brace yourself to whither the ensuing maelstrom.

Some no-name judge is here today and gone tomorrow. And he is being used as an instrument to breach one of the unwritten rules above. A double pox on his house.

The falcon cannot hear the falconer.

Democracy needs a defibrillator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

It was already addressed. There are levels to this stuff.

President's don't get lightly prosecuted and SCOTUS justices don't get pitchforked. If you do, you're asking for clapbacks and further chaos. It becomes a race to the bottom. Slouching toward Pandemonium. The ripple effects are felt much more the higher up the chain you go, so you must tread more carefully or brace yourself to whither the ensuing maelstrom.

Some no-name judge is here today and gone tomorrow. And he is being used as an instrument to breach one of the unwritten rules above. A double pox on his house.

The falcon cannot hear the falconer.

Democracy needs a defibrillator.

Criminal excusing word salad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

So I’ll ask again, since we are 24 pages into this with 0 evidence. What laws did he break?

[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:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

So I’ll ask again, since we are 24 pages into this with 0 evidence. What laws did he break?

Bribery. The United States Constitution provided that the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, among other things, bribery. It is listed among treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4.

Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to “directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official,” with the intent to influence any official act, influence any public official to commit or aid in committing or allow fraud, or induce a public official to do or omit any act in violation of their lawful duty.

It is also crime for a public official to directly or indirectly, corruptly demand, seek, receive, accept or agree to accept anything of value personally in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act, to commit or aid in committing or allow any fraud, or be induced to do or omit any act in violation of their official duties. 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses.

[Anonymous]

Oh look, Harlan Crow bought prpoerty from Thomas in an undisclosed deal:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: Billionaire Harlan Crow bought property from Clarence Thomas in undisclosed real estate deal.<br><br>Crow netted two vacant lots and the house where Thomas’ elderly mother was living. It’s unclear if he paid fair market value.<a href="https://t.co/j9byPGpUnI">https://t.co/j9byPGpUnI</a><br><br>w/ <a href="https://twitter.com/js_kaplan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@js_kaplan</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Amierjeski?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Amierjeski</a></p>— Justin Elliott (@JustinElliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1646579185131855872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Anonymous]

Ooops

https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1646579185131855872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1646579185131855872%7Ctwgr%5E247a2cc87d2eaaa16e290c20044434b6f476c95f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dwonkettecomt_i%3D2659851540t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Fwww.wonkette.com2Fglenn-greenwald-discord-leakert_d%3D0A2020202020202020Sounds20Like20Discord20Leaker20Is20Racist2C20Antisemitic20Creep2C20And20Glenn20Greenwald20Is20MAD20At20The20Washington20Post0A20202020t_t%3D0A2020202020202020Sounds20Like20Discord20Leaker20Is20Racist2C20Antisemitic20Creep2C20And20Glenn20Greenwald20Is20MAD20At20The20Washington20Post0A20202020s_o%3Ddefaultversion%3D3e54966d61d1dd2aed1b403e6aa1bc04

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

So I’ll ask again, since we are 24 pages into this with 0 evidence. What laws did he break?

Bribery. The United States Constitution provided that the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, among other things, bribery. It is listed among treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4.

Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to “directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official,” with the intent to influence any official act, influence any public official to commit or aid in committing or allow fraud, or induce a public official to do or omit any act in violation of their lawful duty.

It is also crime for a public official to directly or indirectly, corruptly demand, seek, receive, accept or agree to accept anything of value personally in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act, to commit or aid in committing or allow any fraud, or be induced to do or omit any act in violation of their official duties. 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses.

Again, already debunked on this thread, no proof of any influence. Please try to deal with fact not feelings.

If he truly didn’t do anything wrong not disclosing millions of dollars worth of gifts, then can we stop with all of these ethics trainings for federal employees? Why should I standing there wondering if I can accept breakfast at a meeting when Supreme Court justices can get away with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

It was already addressed. There are levels to this stuff.

President's don't get lightly prosecuted and SCOTUS justices don't get pitchforked. If you do, you're asking for clapbacks and further chaos. It becomes a race to the bottom. Slouching toward Pandemonium. The ripple effects are felt much more the higher up the chain you go, so you must tread more carefully or brace yourself to whither the ensuing maelstrom.

Some no-name judge is here today and gone tomorrow. And he is being used as an instrument to breach one of the unwritten rules above. A double pox on his house.

The falcon cannot hear the falconer.

Democracy needs a defibrillator.

Since when is business and tax fraud "lightly prosecuted"?

And where do you draw the line between an offense that others have been charged with and have served jail time (that you consider lightly) and acrime that *should* be prosecuted?

I mean, are you going to say the election maniupulation attempt in George is light?
Or the rapey civil case?
Or the fraud perpetuated against all of teh "stop the steal donors?

Where is the line where one should not, but then should, be prosecuted?

Party of law and order, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Not sure I agree. And what about Federal gift taxes?

[Anonymous]

In 2014, one of billionaire Harlan Crow's companies bought 3 properties - a house and 2 vacant lots - in Savannah GA. The sellers were Clarence Thomas, his mother and his dead brother's family. Clarence Thomas' mother continued to live in the house which Crow's LLC proceeded to renovate, adding a carport, a new roof and a fence with gates.

Clarence Thomas is required by law to report property sales and provide the buyer's name. He didn't report this sale.

Harlan Crow says he bought the house to preserve it as a museum to Thomas' life - awfully nice of him to fix it up and allow Clarence's mother to still live there.

And he bought the other 2 lots so they could be sold to buyers that would "improve the quality of the neighborhood."

Sure looks like Harlan has bought himself a SC Justice. So corrupt.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus