Anonymous wrote:In 2014, one of billionaire Harlan Crow's companies bought 3 properties - a house and 2 vacant lots - in Savannah GA. The sellers were Clarence Thomas, his mother and his dead brother's family. Clarence Thomas' mother continued to live in the house which Crow's LLC proceeded to renovate, adding a carport, a new roof and a fence with gates.

Clarence Thomas is required by law to report property sales and provide the buyer's name. He didn't report this sale.

Harlan Crow says he bought the house to preserve it as a museum to Thomas' life - awfully nice of him to fix it up and allow Clarence's mother to still live there.

And he bought the other 2 lots so they could be sold to buyers that would "improve the quality of the neighborhood."

Sure looks like Harlan has bought himself a SC Justice. So corrupt.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

So I’ll ask again, since we are 24 pages into this with 0 evidence. What laws did he break?

The one the specifically calls for real estate transaction disclosures.

But really, are you good with Justice Brown receiving millions of dollars from Pro-Choice billionaires? Or Justice Sotomayor receiving millions of dollars and a beach house from Pro- Union bosses?

Because that is what you are basically saying.

As a conservatives I believe in the free market.

Anonymous wrote:Clarence Thomas failed to disclose 2014 real estate deal with GOP megadonor

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-deal/index.html

“The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice,” ProPublica said in its report.

Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it plans to hold a hearing “on the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards,” and at least one watchdog group has urged lawmakers to call Thomas as a witness in the upcoming hearing.


Chief Justice John Roberts sure does run a tight ship! So much integrity!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

So I’ll ask again, since we are 24 pages into this with 0 evidence. What laws did he break?

The one the specifically calls for real estate transaction disclosures.

But really, are you good with Justice Brown receiving millions of dollars from Pro-Choice billionaires? Or Justice Sotomayor receiving millions of dollars and a beach house from Pro- Union bosses?

Because that is what you are basically saying.

As a conservatives I believe in the free market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

+1000

Most of the rest of us understood he broke the law the minute the story started breaking. For the Clarence Thomas supporters it took going through 25 pages to work through the 7 stages of denial. And sadly some of you are still stuck in those 7 stages of denial after hundreds and hundreds of pages discussing what Trump did wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

It took you 25 pages

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

I say, ok. Looks like he broke the law. Only took 25 pages to get there. I hope it’s investigated, as it should be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

What say you now? Real estate sales explicitly need to be disclosed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

So I’ll ask again, since we are 24 pages into this with 0 evidence. What laws did he break?

The one the specifically calls for real estate transaction disclosures.

But really, are you good with Justice Brown receiving millions of dollars from Pro-Choice billionaires? Or Justice Sotomayor receiving millions of dollars and a beach house from Pro- Union bosses?

Because that is what you are basically saying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.

Hate to be the one to break this to you, but reporters and pundits don’t ever determine whether someone broke laws. They do present evidence.

So I’ll ask again, since we are 24 pages into this with 0 evidence. What laws did he break?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: in any advanced democracy Clarence Thomas would have already been forced to resign.

You’re right. Although we are an advanced democracy, we are facing internal threats from traitors within that have prevented us from working effectively.

And for the person who insists on having the specific name of a case that was affected: you don’t get it. That’s the whole point of having ethics; literally every decision Thomas has made is now tainted. Every decision. Because he’s shown himself to be an unprincipled jurist.

What a cop out...

Just say you don't have one and keep it moving.

Oh my god. It’s not a cop out. You guys wig out if the relative of a judge votes Democratic and here Clarence Thomas has been groomed by a billionaire and his seditionist wife has been too and we’re just supposed to pretend everything is copacetic. No. That’s why ethics guidance exists, fool; so that people are beyond reproach.

Clarence Thomas and his idiot supporters? Beyond help.

+1 You guys can’t wail and rend your garments about a $35 donation from the judge in the Trump case in Manhattan while you wave away decades of Clarence Thomas ish. It’s ridiculous.

Exactly. The GOP is a fox news generated outrage machine at this point, and they don't care.

That $35 donation freak out must have been the truth point for the right wingers on this thread. They pretty much abandoned the thread at that point.

Nah, we are just 24 pages in and still wondering what proof you have he violated anything? We can only say it so many times.

The financial disclosure law that covers justices and other federal officials: 5a U.S. Code § 104 - Failure to file or filing false reports states that “knowingly and willfully” failing to make required disclosures can result in fines. If someone intentionally falsifies their disclosure reports, they can face criminal penalties — a warning printed below the signature line of the reports themselves.

And as pointed out many times, none of this needed to be disclosed, so there are no "falsified reports". Every published report says he’s done nothing illegal. Please find one report that shows what laws he broke. Not ones you "feel" he broke, but something they can pin on him. So far no one else can find anything solid.