Reply to No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "No surprise - Clarence Thomas is completely corrupt"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can someone point to the law where this stuff needed to be disclosed? Everything I’ve read said it did not need to be until changed in the last month or so. Is this 16 pages of nothing?[/quote]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23740274-financial_disclosure_filing_instructions#document/p28[/quote]

Please note:  This document is the new requirement.  Dated: March 2023

The trips were not required to be disclosed prior to this and Thomas has said he will abide by the new rules.  It did not need to be disclosed prior to this.[/quote]

Yes, they did need to be disclosed.  That particular form is new, but the requirement is not.  It's been in the law since the 1970s.

How do we know this?  Well Thomas himself was disclosing the trips Crow was giving him until 2004.  What happened in 2004?  The LA Times noticed his disclosures and did a story on it.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-04-06/the-times-reported-about-justice-thomas-gifts-20-years-ago-after-he-just-stopped-disclosing-them

So instead of stopping the embarrassing trips, [b]Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.[/b][/quote]

Did you read the article you linked? Did you miss this part? Even your article says he did nothing wrong much less a "clear violation" like you suggest

[quote]It remains unclear whether Thomas has violated any law or regulation by accepting such gifts and not disclosing them.

Since 1978, the Ethics in Government Act has required judges and justices to report travel costs and other expenses that are provided to them by groups, universities and other such entities. However, it includes an exception for the “personal hospitality of any individual,” so long as the travel does not involve official business.[/quote][/quote]

I've made this point over and over in this thread, but they just will not listen. Would rather froth at the mouth.

This is not to say that it doesn't look questionable or isn't bad optics or isn't ethically dubious or murky, but they keep bleating on about a ViOlAtIoN oF tHe LaW.[/quote]

No respectable ethics lawyer would say that it was okay to accept from a non-family friend gifts at this level over many decades without disclosing them.  Sorry.  Simply BS.  It looks bad, because it is corrupt.  Between money being funneled to Gini through pseudo nonprofits and these gifts, the Thomases have been living a lifestyle to which they otherwise could not afford on his salary alone.   The family has been profiting from his judicial role, while in office.

[/quote]

What. Law. Did. He. Violate?

If you want to talk about norms or mores, say so.  You know what, I'll be charitable with you and say the spirit of the law was a little roughed up lol. Happy Belated Easter![/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics