No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t worry guys. I’m sure this is all of the money that Crow gave to Thomas.

And I’m sure Crow is the only billionaire friend Thomas was entertained by.

[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: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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

[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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Quittin'-Time Clarence and Three-Scoops Ginni are on the grift!

[Anonymous]

Lock Him Up!!!!!!!

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

There has been no proof just reporting. From the beginning of this thread you have been saying he broke no law. Multiple posters have said as a federal judge it in against the law to take bribes. You ignore those posters.

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

There has been no proof just reporting. From the beginning of this thread you have been saying he broke no law. Multiple posters have said as a federal judge it in against the law to take bribes. You ignore those posters.

What was the bribe?

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

There has been no proof just reporting. From the beginning of this thread you have been saying he broke no law. Multiple posters have said as a federal judge it in against the law to take bribes. You ignore those posters.

You do realize there are multiple people asking for proof right? For example, you are replying to me here, and the "what was the bribe" is not me. Accusations based on "feelings" is not proof. Do you want people to just tell others you cheat on your spouse, because "you look like the kind of person that would"

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

There has been no proof just reporting. From the beginning of this thread you have been saying he broke no law. Multiple posters have said as a federal judge it in against the law to take bribes. You ignore those posters.

What was the bribe?

Gaslighting at its finest.

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

There has been no proof just reporting. From the beginning of this thread you have been saying he broke no law. Multiple posters have said as a federal judge it in against the law to take bribes. You ignore those posters.

What was the bribe?

Gaslighting at its finest.

A bribe works two ways. What did Crow get?

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

We’re not on a jury here, dear.

[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:

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.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

All I asked for was some proof, same thing I’d want if you were accused of a crime.

Lol sure.

Show me where I said any different. Do you not want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Would you rather me just tell people I heard you touch kids, with no proof?

There has been no proof just reporting. From the beginning of this thread you have been saying he broke no law. Multiple posters have said as a federal judge it in against the law to take bribes. You ignore those posters.

What was the bribe?

Gaslighting at its finest.

A bribe works two ways. What did Crow get?

DP. Oh I assume we will find out when Thomas is indicted.

This is the most shameful thing I’ve learned about a Supreme Court Justice in my life time. The real estate sale is what I am referring to, the trips are very questionable but the “sale” of his mother’s house to this guy is just, wow.

[Anonymous]