Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

I think the more nuanced view is that Justice Corrupt did receive the earlier advice, but no doubt the provider(s) of that advice was not informed of the extent or the value of those personal hospitality gifts. No one aware of the extent and value of these gifts would have advised against disclosing.

Anyone with 1/2 a brain - which I assume a Supreme Court Justices would need to have - should see the relevance of reporting such gifts. It may not have needed to be disclosed but realistically, unless you were hiding something, why wouldn't you disclose it? Oh I forgot, a lifetime appointment clears the way for you to do anything you want in the job!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

There are hundreds of pictures of Harlan Crow online. I don’t think you’ll find one of him with any Black person other than Clarence Thomas.

Too easy...

Two years ago, Kneeland Youngblood, founder of a successful private-equity firm in Dallas, called his longtime friend Harlan Crow and told him that he wanted to integrate Old Parkland.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2018/01/26/pig-room-debate-room-see-what-makes-old-parkland-home-to-dallas-first-hospital-a-unique-redo/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

There are hundreds of pictures of Harlan Crow online. I don’t think you’ll find one of him with any Black person other than Clarence Thomas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

You’re only saying that because Kagan is not doing that.

You would've been right before I learned how close Scalia and RBG the odd couple were. Now it aint' to difficult to envision Elena and George being besties, even if they'd look a little weird together.

If I were Soros, I'd start publicly offering to take Kagan and Sotomayor on very expensive trips.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

I think the more nuanced view is that Justice Corrupt did receive the earlier advice, but no doubt the provider(s) of that advice was not informed of the extent or the value of those personal hospitality gifts. No one aware of the extent and value of these gifts would have advised against disclosing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

You idiot - he is a JUDGE - he is mixing it up with an ultra right wing influencer who has brought him into mingle with others whose mission it is to sway the US judicial system to the Right. This is not an associate, a spouse or even 1000 people who may work in the circle of close proximity to the justices. This is a judge whose vote and sway to the court as a member of that court counts. You think he would report this if it wasn't a big deal??? He's a lot of things but not stupid.

It doesn't matter what cases he had on the docket tied to Crow. It does but morally speaking, it really doesn't. If he met up with him somewhere and is a personal friend, that's one thing. But he's going free of charge as this guy's guest to all these luxurious places - you do the math. Of course he's being brought by Crow. In that context, does it really matter if he's involved in a specific case? I would suggest he's brought and paid for.

The whole lifetime appointment thing is nuts. If that's not a set up for corruption I don't know what it is. So if you knew someone could never kick you off your job, what incentive do you really have to do it well or even give a moral thought to their work? I mean, of course you get a bad egg, they will be one for life. It's a joke to appoint especially someone in our judicial system who has that much power - for a lifetime. Even RBG - she could have helped out by leaving early - but that lifetime appointment - who gives that up??

This country is going under so fast...

Anyone notice Thomas stole the Jack Ryan response in clear and present danger?

TV Reporter : The New York Times is reporting that you and Hardin were good friends. Is that true?
The President : No, not quite.
Jack Ryan : [watching on TV] Shh, shh. Hey, hey, hey.
The President : We weren't good friends, we were lifelong friends.
Jack Ryan : I said that. I said that. I told him to say that.
[seeing Cathy's look]
Jack Ryan : What?
Cathy Ryan : I didn't say anything.
Jack Ryan : Yeah, but you're thinking something

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Gotcha, has anyone identified which cases Thomas should've recused himself from in which Crow had interests?

Another issue I have heard is spouses who work or associate with law firms that have Supreme Court practices that come before the courts. Should those Justices similarly recuse themselves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Let's just assume these guys are soulmates. Thomas would love to just hang out with Crow at Walmarts and barbeques and whatnot but Crow has more exotic tastes. Thomas has no choice but to go along with these lavish accommodations. The alternative would be a painful, unendurable separation from his dear, dear friend. In that situation, Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Crow, the companies from which he benefits, and the causes for which he advocates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

So in your view, there would've been no way for Thomas to form a genuine friendship and personal relationship with someone as rich as Crow?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

You’re only saying that because Kagan is not doing that.

You would've been right before I learned how close Scalia and RBG the odd couple were. Now it aint' to difficult to envision Elena and George being besties, even if they'd look a little weird together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ProPublica is leftist garbage. I read an article by them that strongly implied that landlords should be forced to accept section 8 (aka tenants from hell) because DiScRiMiNaTiOn.

You forgot the /s to denote your sarcasm…

It’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning bastion of investigative journalism. They brought receipts and the billionaire admitted it.

Admitted what? Their relationship and these benefits have already been publicly known of for decades.

“ get over it libs! We’ve always known we are corrupt. It’s no big deal!”

Not really, it's just not some huge scoop or surprise. We've known all of this for a while, save a few details about where CT likes to travel over the last few years.

A Justice routinely accepts reportable gifts without reporting them, but we've known about it, so no big deal

Something tells me that if Elena Kagan was taking multi million dollar vacations with the Soros family it would be a big deal. 🤔

It wouldn't be a good look, just like this relationship isn't a good look.

Whether it's impeachable is a separate question though.

You’re only saying that because Kagan is not doing that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

+1

I think the PP who posted Heather Cox Richardson’s post had a Chris Murphy quote in it that Crow only sought out Thomas after he made it onto the court. Blatant corruption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

He says 25 years. That would mean they weren't friends when he first joined the court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT has spoken. Says he was advised that personal hospitality didn't need to be disclosed, but he will start to comply with the newly revised guidance that closes the personal hospitality loophole next year.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3939159-clarence-thomas-said-he-was-advised-he-didnt-have-to-disclose-trips-paid-for-by-gop-donor/

That’s BS. He WAS disclosing it earlier in his tenure but then he stopped.

I think the more nuanced view is that Justice Corrupt did receive the earlier advice, but no doubt the provider(s) of that advice was not informed of the extent or the value of those personal hospitality gifts. No one aware of the extent and value of these gifts would have advised against disclosing.