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]

Seems like the unreported use of a private jet and billionaires home to swear in a 5th Circuit judge [b]would be a pretty clear violation[/b]. [/quote]

A violation of what? Please show me what it violates.  Not what you "feel" it violates, but in writing.  The part you decided to not include in your quote says no violations[/quote]

Personal hospitality is exempt except where it involves official business. So either swearing in a 5th Circuit judge is not official business, and purely personal, and thus the use of the home/jet does not need to be reported, or it is official business and the trip should be reported.

Just because one newspaper did not cite this particular trip as an apparent violation does not mean it isn’t. Newspapers are not the sole barometers to determine ethics violations. Despite what you “feel.” [/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