No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

[Anonymous]

The difference here is that they were elected and re-elected to office after public knowledge of those deals and I’m not aware that they were ever as clearly illegal as this was. Thomas has a lifetime appointment. He sold his mom’s house to a guy for a crapload more than it was worth, and then his mom kept living in it (rent free?) and the guy made improvments on it. I mean. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference here is that they were elected and re-elected to office after public knowledge of those deals and I’m not aware that they were ever as clearly illegal as this was. Thomas has a lifetime appointment. He sold his mom’s house to a guy for a crapload more than it was worth, and then his mom kept living in it (rent free?) and the guy made improvments on it. I mean. Come on.

eTA: For those not following, Thomas did not disclose the deal, that’s the crime. And maybe it was a bribe too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference here is that they were elected and re-elected to office after public knowledge of those deals and I’m not aware that they were ever as clearly illegal as this was. Thomas has a lifetime appointment. He sold his mom’s house to a guy for a crapload more than it was worth, and then his mom kept living in it (rent free?) and the guy made improvments on it. I mean. Come on.

His mom and his dead brother's family were co-owners.

We own a small rental property. Some years we spend more on it than we receive. Improving property is frequently part of owning it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I see we have reached the whatsbout stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And why do we know about these transactions? Oh, that's right, because Biden and Obama DISCLOSED THEM as they were required to do under the law. Which Justice Thomas did NOT do.

Further, regarding the Biden stuff, turns out there's no scandal

They don't even have evidence that Biden "bent" rules! Rather, we learn things like, "The bank did not give him a below-market interest rate, a perk that has caused embarrassment for some other members of Congress. But, Mr. Tennant [his loan officer] said, 'We paid particularly close attention to make sure everything came out right.'" So Biden got a loan at market rate from the bank and the bank made sure they didn't screw-up while dealing with a United States Senator. Elsewhere we find that Biden charges his campaign committee for a couple thousand in landscaping a yar. Why? To beautify the home before campaign events. Or so he says. Meanwhile, the Times manages to quote his landscaper saying "Mr. Biden was 'late paying the bill one time.'" Later in the article, we learn that Biden bought a former DuPont mansion in 1975 for $185,000 after learning it was slated for demolition. He spent the next two decades fixing it up, then sold it to John Cochran III, Vice-Chairman of MBNA. That's a bit odd. Cochran bought the place for $1.2 million, which could potentially demonstrate scandal. Sometimes a wealthy supporter buys a home for above-market value and then sells it, or eats the loss, to help out the politician. But it turns out that $1.2 million was the home's appraisal value, and Cochran is still living in it today.

https://prospect.org/article/scandal-wasn-t./

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference here is that they were elected and re-elected to office after public knowledge of those deals and I’m not aware that they were ever as clearly illegal as this was. Thomas has a lifetime appointment. He sold his mom’s house to a guy for a crapload more than it was worth, and then his mom kept living in it (rent free?) and the guy made improvments on it. I mean. Come on.

His mom and his dead brother's family were co-owners.

We own a small rental property. Some years we spend more on it than we receive. Improving property is frequently part of owning it.

Who among us hasn’t had our home bought for well over market price as we continue to live in it rent free and the new owners make massive improvements. Isn’t this how all real estate transactions go?

You’re really excusing this? You’re a sucker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And why do we know about these transactions? Oh, that's right, because Biden and Obama DISCLOSED THEM as they were required to do under the law. Which Justice Thomas did NOT do.

Further, regarding the Biden stuff, turns out there's no scandal

They don't even have evidence that Biden "bent" rules! Rather, we learn things like, "The bank did not give him a below-market interest rate, a perk that has caused embarrassment for some other members of Congress. But, Mr. Tennant [his loan officer] said, 'We paid particularly close attention to make sure everything came out right.'" So Biden got a loan at market rate from the bank and the bank made sure they didn't screw-up while dealing with a United States Senator. Elsewhere we find that Biden charges his campaign committee for a couple thousand in landscaping a yar. Why? To beautify the home before campaign events. Or so he says. Meanwhile, the Times manages to quote his landscaper saying "Mr. Biden was 'late paying the bill one time.'" Later in the article, we learn that Biden bought a former DuPont mansion in 1975 for $185,000 after learning it was slated for demolition. He spent the next two decades fixing it up, then sold it to John Cochran III, Vice-Chairman of MBNA. That's a bit odd. Cochran bought the place for $1.2 million, which could potentially demonstrate scandal. Sometimes a wealthy supporter buys a home for above-market value and then sells it, or eats the loss, to help out the politician. But it turns out that $1.2 million was the home's appraisal value, and Cochran is still living in it today.

https://prospect.org/article/scandal-wasn-t./

Republicans are such slime that they really expect that everyone else is slime too. They seem constantly surprised when Democrats just work within the confines of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And why do we know about these transactions? Oh, that's right, because Biden and Obama DISCLOSED THEM as they were required to do under the law. Which Justice Thomas did NOT do.

Further, regarding the Biden stuff, turns out there's no scandal

They don't even have evidence that Biden "bent" rules! Rather, we learn things like, "The bank did not give him a below-market interest rate, a perk that has caused embarrassment for some other members of Congress. But, Mr. Tennant [his loan officer] said, 'We paid particularly close attention to make sure everything came out right.'" So Biden got a loan at market rate from the bank and the bank made sure they didn't screw-up while dealing with a United States Senator. Elsewhere we find that Biden charges his campaign committee for a couple thousand in landscaping a yar. Why? To beautify the home before campaign events. Or so he says. Meanwhile, the Times manages to quote his landscaper saying "Mr. Biden was 'late paying the bill one time.'" Later in the article, we learn that Biden bought a former DuPont mansion in 1975 for $185,000 after learning it was slated for demolition. He spent the next two decades fixing it up, then sold it to John Cochran III, Vice-Chairman of MBNA. That's a bit odd. Cochran bought the place for $1.2 million, which could potentially demonstrate scandal. Sometimes a wealthy supporter buys a home for above-market value and then sells it, or eats the loss, to help out the politician. But it turns out that $1.2 million was the home's appraisal value, and Cochran is still living in it today.

https://prospect.org/article/scandal-wasn-t./

What the PP has missed is that apparently a Justice is not expected to meet tougher ethical standards than an elected politician. Typically, in the private sector, lawyers are supposed to have a higher ethical standard than their clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference here is that they were elected and re-elected to office after public knowledge of those deals and I’m not aware that they were ever as clearly illegal as this was. Thomas has a lifetime appointment. He sold his mom’s house to a guy for a crapload more than it was worth, and then his mom kept living in it (rent free?) and the guy made improvments on it. I mean. Come on.

His mom and his dead brother's family were co-owners.

We own a small rental property. Some years we spend more on it than we receive. Improving property is frequently part of owning it.

That’s not what happened here.

Did you pay triple market value to buy the place from your tenants, and then make improvements to the property at your own expense while they stayed in place? That makes zero sense. Zero.

If the tenants paid for the improvements with the cash from the sale, it might make more sense, but even then it’s a deal that needed to be disclosed and was essentially an interest free loan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference here is that they were elected and re-elected to office after public knowledge of those deals and I’m not aware that they were ever as clearly illegal as this was. Thomas has a lifetime appointment. He sold his mom’s house to a guy for a crapload more than it was worth, and then his mom kept living in it (rent free?) and the guy made improvments on it. I mean. Come on.

His mom and his dead brother's family were co-owners.

We own a small rental property. Some years we spend more on it than we receive. Improving property is frequently part of owning it.

That’s not what happened here.

Did you pay triple market value to buy the place from your tenants, and then make improvements to the property at your own expense while they stayed in place? That makes zero sense. Zero.

If the tenants paid for the improvements with the cash from the sale, it might make more sense, but even then it’s a deal that needed to be disclosed and was essentially an interest free loan!

At best it was an interest free loan. At worst an outright and illegally accepted gift.

[Anonymous]

Crow had total control over Thomas. At anytime he could have released this information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crow had total control over Thomas. At anytime he could have released this information.

That is certainly true. And why this stuff is supposed to be disclosed from the start. And it appears it wasn’t disclosed not just for “appearance” reasons but for a variety of possible legal reasons (bribery, tax fraud, etc). Horrible stuff.

I am curious why it’s all coming out now. Did I miss something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crow had total control over Thomas. At anytime he could have released this information.

That is certainly true. And why this stuff is supposed to be disclosed from the start. And it appears it wasn’t disclosed not just for “appearance” reasons but for a variety of possible legal reasons (bribery, tax fraud, etc). Horrible stuff.

I am curious why it’s all coming out now. Did I miss something?

Probpublica did extensive investigative reporting. This is on the heels of the insane vacations/private jet flights. I do wonder if they have more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And why do we know about these transactions? Oh, that's right, because Biden and Obama DISCLOSED THEM as they were required to do under the law. Which Justice Thomas did NOT do.

Further, regarding the Biden stuff, turns out there's no scandal

They don't even have evidence that Biden "bent" rules! Rather, we learn things like, "The bank did not give him a below-market interest rate, a perk that has caused embarrassment for some other members of Congress. But, Mr. Tennant [his loan officer] said, 'We paid particularly close attention to make sure everything came out right.'" So Biden got a loan at market rate from the bank and the bank made sure they didn't screw-up while dealing with a United States Senator. Elsewhere we find that Biden charges his campaign committee for a couple thousand in landscaping a yar. Why? To beautify the home before campaign events. Or so he says. Meanwhile, the Times manages to quote his landscaper saying "Mr. Biden was 'late paying the bill one time.'" Later in the article, we learn that Biden bought a former DuPont mansion in 1975 for $185,000 after learning it was slated for demolition. He spent the next two decades fixing it up, then sold it to John Cochran III, Vice-Chairman of MBNA. That's a bit odd. Cochran bought the place for $1.2 million, which could potentially demonstrate scandal. Sometimes a wealthy supporter buys a home for above-market value and then sells it, or eats the loss, to help out the politician. But it turns out that $1.2 million was the home's appraisal value, and Cochran is still living in it today.

https://prospect.org/article/scandal-wasn-t./

Again proving that Republicans have less brainpower than fleas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crow had total control over Thomas. At anytime he could have released this information.

That is certainly true. And why this stuff is supposed to be disclosed from the start. And it appears it wasn’t disclosed not just for “appearance” reasons but for a variety of possible legal reasons (bribery, tax fraud, etc). Horrible stuff.

I am curious why it’s all coming out now. Did I miss something?

Probpublica did extensive investigative reporting. This is on the heels of the insane vacations/private jet flights. I do wonder if they have more.

How much more do we need?! His wife helped plan an insurrection and now we find out they were both on the take.