Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

Well the other PP showed that you’re full of poo on this point.

You should read this:


https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/new-gift-disclosure-rules-extend-to-us-supreme-court-justices

Read it.

So why did Clarence used to disclose, then stopped?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

Yep.
The left desperately wants Thomas out so that Biden has another opening. Thus, the calls for "IMPEACH!"
It ain't happening.
The left has made impeachment the new weapon in their arsenal when they don't agree with the views of an individual. They have been whining about Thomas for years - they hate the fact that a black man can have independent thought and conservative views.

Well yes, we definitely don't agree with Thomas's view that he should be able to violate the law with impunity. Republicans apparently do agree with that view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMPEACH.

TO WHAT END

Seriously, there’s not an elected Republican who would vote to convict. Not even if Clarence Thomas proudly admitted he were working for a secret cabal of international baby eaters and was stealing money from churches to fund their kidnapping ring. He is a reliable fascist vote on the bench and he isn’t going anywhere till he dies of natural causes.

We all understand the republicans will protect their own no matter how corrupt they are. Nothing will change in the immediate term. But there's a lot of value in pointing out their corruption to voters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

Yep.
The left desperately wants Thomas out so that Biden has another opening. Thus, the calls for "IMPEACH!"
It ain't happening.
The left has made impeachment the new weapon in their arsenal when they don't agree with the views of an individual. They have been whining about Thomas for years - they hate the fact that a black man can have independent thought and conservative views.

Yes, it’s definitely because he’s black. Not because his views are terrible and cruel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

Yep.
The left desperately wants Thomas out so that Biden has another opening. Thus, the calls for "IMPEACH!"
It ain't happening.
The left has made impeachment the new weapon in their arsenal when they don't agree with the views of an individual. They have been whining about Thomas for years - they hate the fact that a black man can have independent thought and conservative views.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

Well the other PP showed that you’re full of poo on this point.

You should read this:


https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/new-gift-disclosure-rules-extend-to-us-supreme-court-justices

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

Well the other PP showed that you’re full of poo on this point.

Anonymous wrote:IMPEACH.

TO WHAT END

Seriously, there’s not an elected Republican who would vote to convict. Not even if Clarence Thomas proudly admitted he were working for a secret cabal of international baby eaters and was stealing money from churches to fund their kidnapping ring. He is a reliable fascist vote on the bench and he isn’t going anywhere till he dies of natural causes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

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, Thomas just decided to stop reporting them in clear violation of the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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.

Anonymous wrote: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?

March 2023, yep, so he went somewhere last month?

IMPEACH.

Anonymous wrote: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?

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

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?

Clarence is corrupt and shameless. The evidence has been posted above.