Justice Thomas responds to report he accepted luxury travel from GOP donor for years

[jaypatriot]

Imagine coming across someone too stupid to google what is a Star Wars reference and responding to what is a theme signature. Now imagine that the person that has come across someone that stupid is me. In such an imaginary situation, how should I respond?



Lol, oh yeah, I brought up that Thomas was black in this conversation. You're trying way too hard to be on my level.

You really are sensitive to the black reference. Sorry I touched a nerve you had to respond to.

 

[jaypatriot]

…it was a right wing fascist who tried to race card this. Go read back.

I don't know any right wing fascists. What do they look like?

 

[Fishking]

Defending corruption says all it needs to about you. Your trolling says all it needs to about you. Your lying says all it needs to about you.

Fascists lie about everything.

Another one that can't stand a Black man in a position of power.

 

[Hatuey]

You really are sensitive to the black reference. Sorry I touched a nerve you had to respond to.

Lol, oooh you touched a nerve! Whatever shall I do? I bet unrequested touching is a big part of your repertoire.

Anyways, Thomas is trash and so are the religious nutbags who support him. What's it to ya?

 

[jaypatriot]

personal hospitality my backside....a 500k gift needs to be reported...especially when the person is heavily involved in politics.

Tell the Congress they need to update their rules of ethics when it applies to appointed judges.
Did Thomas break any laws?

 

[jaypatriot]

Lol, oooh you touched a nerve! Whatever shall I do? I bet unrequested touching is a big part of your repertoire.

Anyways, Thomas is trash and so are the religious nutbags who support him. What's it to ya?

Nothing to me. BUt you and your Trump-hating colleagues seem to be getting off on terrorizing a long-serving SC Justice who had not been accused of committing a crime.

I think I'd better get off this thread before someone reports me for not agreeing with all of the posters who are dead set on convicting a man without any hard evidence.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

common folk

Thomas is not the above. He is a SCJ.

point to any statute Thomas violated

Ethics in Government Act of 1978

 

[Hatuey]

Nothing to me.

Then move along, partner. Your posts are too hokey pokey I love Trump bro, for anyone here to take them seriously.

Judges don't have to break laws in order to be removed from benches or disbarred.

 

[Top Cat]

Now you're trying to make your dog whistle a little bit quieter, eh?

Thomas violated ethics. I already posted a link and text supporting documents. I get that reading isn't your strong suit. By the way, race wasn't mentioned.

 

[Deuce]

Another one that can't stand a Black man in a position of power.

Your concern trolling about racism just reveals your own racism. Goodbye.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Another one that can't stand a Black man in a position of power.

Hanging out with terrorist bombers is an Obama move.

 

[jaypatriot]

Then move along, partner. Your posts are too hokey pokey I love Trump bro, for anyone here to take them seriously.

Judges don't have to break laws in order to be removed from benches or disbarred.

Then build a case, bro, to have him removed, or impeached, or disbarred. You guys on this thread are upset enough over a SC Justice having a billionaire friend.
Have you come up with a crime you think he has committed? Or don't you like fellow posters asking difficult questions when you're ready to condemn someone to the eternal fires of damnation.

 

[Fishking]

Thomas violated ethics. I already posted a link and text supporting documents. I get that reading isn't your strong suit. By the way, race wasn't mentioned.

And the dog whistling starts back up.

 

[nullus]

You suggest it's unethical for a judge to go on a vacation with a billionaire.

I am curious, why the gross misrepresentation? Is it really your belief that such attempts diminish the reality of what really happened?

Was there any quid pro quo uncovered between the two long-term friends?

Is that really the only way you can grasp the situation?

You and your Conservative-hating colleagues are doing an excellent job of leading your own witch hunt.

Ah the old go to buzz word when all else fails. Are you saying that you love whatever you perceive to oppose you?

 

[Hatuey]

Then build a case, bro

That's what people seem to be doing now. What's it to you? You talk too much and say nothing. It's embarrassing.

 

[RealityNow]

Reminds me of Father Mulcahey on MASH, “hospitality!”


“As friends do, we have joined [Crow and his wife] on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them,” Thomas said in a statement. “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

Justice Thomas: Advisers said no need to report travel with GOP donor — The Washington Post

ProPublica reported that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted luxury trips for more than two decades, including travel on a superyacht and private jet, from a prominent Republican donor without disclosing them.

apple.news

So now, he throws the other SCOTUS under the Bus to try and cover himself.. This man is to NEVER be Trusted. The SCOTUS themselves should have him removed from the Supreme Court. His statement Tarnishes the Justices he is referring to.

 

[bave]

50k? It was half a million dollars and that was just ONE vacation....and no billionaires do not give you monetary gifts without something being given in return.

Was there a $500k cashier's check as a pillow warmer on a vacation or was it simply something he allowed the use of?

Yes, people of all stripes give gifts without expecting something in return. Again, it is sad that your relationships based on this.

Nope, it seems to me, by your posting...that you think that rich friends should only be acquired for what they can give you. I don't expect nor want anything from a friend with more wealth than I have...perhaps that is why I am trusted by such friends.

No, I have specifically and repeatedly stated the precise opposite while you are stating this very sentiment above. You think people are only friends with people who can do something for them, you stated that exact thing above. Or did you forget already?

You don’t see a problem with him collecting Nazi memorabilia? For real?

You’d probably be ok with him collecting hanging ropes too, huh?

I don't have a problem with people collecting anything from a historical perspective. Make up your mind though, is this guy a nazi white supremacist or is he friends with a black justice who happens to collect artifacts fro communists as well? You realize that someone who collects busts of Stalin and Lenin is inherently ideological at odds with someone who is a Nazi right?

More recently, Trump just attacked the judge in his case. The pattern fits. Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault by someone who wanted her story to remain quiet until it was released. She had disclosed her attack years prior. I believe it was foolish for her to be asked to testify, democrats gained little by doing so. Trump could have dropped the nomination and come up with someone else.

In fairness, the judge actually made his political affiliation known, not that I believe that is disqualifying. Kavanaugh was *not* "credibly" accused of something. She had absolutely zero details the witnesses she named all gave a completely opposite story. The fact that someone claims they were raped, sat on the story for thirty years, then brings it up at that precise moment with zero evidence or even basic details is the opposite of credible.

I don't really know why you're doing this act. You're demanding that we be hopelessly stupid and naive. Crow among other things donated $500k to a think tank that then turned around and hired Ginni Thomas. This guy who is on the board of the AEI then hosted Thomas and right wing activist Ginni on trips nearly every year for decades. Crow is a mega GOP donor and powerful figure on the right wing.

Ok, show me how a gift to a non-profit think tank is in any way a gift to Clarence Thomas. He made a political contribution consistent with his donations and ideology. You act as though being friends with Thomas excludes him from any other political activity.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It isn't a "ton" of money when a billionaire spends ~50k on gifts to a friend. A good friend of mine is an extremely wealthy guy. He bought a bunch of his friends Tesla Roadsters on a whim.

Again, you are trying to make the argument that since the SCOTUS involves nationally influencing decisions it means everyone has an interest in the decisions and thus a conflict. That's not true. Harlan Crow is a real estate developer, almost everything he does is going to be at a municipal and state jurisdiction level. He isn't building interstate pipelines, bridges, power plants, or anything else. He is building apartment buildings primarily.

Another example of poor relationships. No one gives you anything for free? You hang out with a bunch of real assholes then. I give a ton of stuff away every year to friends, without ever expecting or accepting anything in return.



It's sad that you can't see a friendship and instead only see a transaction. It really speaks to your relationships, how you view others, and specifically how you look at those close to you. I mean seriously, it's a sad way to live.



First off, employer rules.
Second, you are in a decision making role where you can influence how money changes hands. That's different than a friend with no business giving things to another friend.

Harlan Crow has large holdings in private and hedge funds. To argue that he doesn’t have financial stakes in any SCOTUS decisions is absurd. No one with integrity accepts lucrative “gifts” from anyone that can be impacted by their professional work. The fact that some people can’t understand that says a lot about them.

 

[bave]

Now you're demanding we trust self serving statements by Crow and Thomas that in all this time together they never discussed "business." You would have to be an actual idiot to believe that, and you're no idiot, so why are you demanding the rest of us pretend to be that dumb and naive?

Similar to Kavanaugh, you have to prove someone is guilty before lynching them. Why is that so hard for liberals?

If the point is we cannot "prove" such discussions happened, fine, say that. It doesn't really matter anyway because the SCOTUS isn't bound by anything but their own rules, that they make up on the fly. But to believe that two incredibly powerful men with common interests never discussed "business" while spending months together in intimate settings cannot be believed by anyone who has the faintest idea of how life actually works.

Good lord, you and Clara should hang out with your nefarious views of how people can only get together to conspire to rig judicial outcomes.

And the bigger point is disclosure is the bare minimum the public should expect in these cases.

There are rules for disclosure, which while you may disagree with (and they were recently changed) he followed to the letter.

What's so insulting or should be to the public is the Justices disclose the mundane stuff in detail - travel costs to appear at some conference or university somewhere. But they then interpret the rules to HIDE a mega political donor hosting them on private planes and yachts, the kind of 'travel' that might actually create conflicts and that would interest the public, in real time. It's nothing but the elites giving the middle finger to the people they claim to represent.

Again, the rules were changed (I believe) to encompass this going forward, last month.

It is perhaps because your view or definition of corruption is very narrow or entirely wrong.
Why do you believe people like Crow donate to conservative causes, in this case? I assure you it is not altruism, they do it because it benefits them. As such any and all positive or favorable outcomes will be sought out and influence is an important part of that.

Do all people donate to any cause because it serves them? No. They often do it because they believe in the ideals, on both sides of the aisle. Moreover, Thomas heard no cases where Crow was an involved party.

 

[Nickyjo]

Was there a $500k cashier's check as a pillow warmer on a vacation or was it simply something he allowed the use of?

Yes, people of all stripes give gifts without expecting something in return. Again, it is sad that your relationships based on this.



No, I have specifically and repeatedly stated the precise opposite while you are stating this very sentiment above. You think people are only friends with people who can do something for them, you stated that exact thing above. Or did you forget already?



I don't have a problem with people collecting anything from a historical perspective. Make up your mind though, is this guy a nazi white supremacist or is he friends with a black justice who happens to collect artifacts fro communists as well? You realize that someone who collects busts of Stalin and Lenin is inherently ideological at odds with someone who is a Nazi right?



In fairness, the judge actually made his political affiliation known, not that I believe that is disqualifying. Kavanaugh was *not* "credibly" accused of something. She had absolutely zero details the witnesses she named all gave a completely opposite story. The fact that someone claims they were raped, sat on the story for thirty years, then brings it up at that precise moment with zero evidence or even basic details is the opposite of credible.




Ok, show me how a gift to a non-profit think tank is in any way a gift to Clarence Thomas. He made a political contribution consistent with his donations and ideology. You act as though being friends with Thomas excludes him from any other political activity.

Minor correction on the Kavanaugh issue. His accuser did not sit on the story. She apparently disclosed to others when it happened.

 

[Top Cat]

And the dog whistling starts back up.

See my signature.

 

[Fishking]

See my signature.

Such a great line. It's the best thing you've ever published.

 

[bave]

The problem with your analogy is how would we know if Crow views Justice Thomas as a friend, or "trusted hired help?" In other words, would a guy like Crow be BFFs with Thomas, the EEOC lawyer, or Thomas, the private practice lawyer, versus Thomas, SCOTUS justice? How would we or you know?

This is where we go back to innocent until proven guilty, something you folks struggle with when it comes to the SCOTUS justices. You can't tar and feather for someone because of something you find distasteful but well within the rules.

[Emphasis mine] Those two things don't go together.

Why? Because I spent 10 minutes to read about something before jumping to conclusions? You should try it... sometime. It is painful watching one ignorant person after another embarass themselves by knowing so little about a topic on which they strongly opine.

Supreme court justices are/should be held to higher standards. Can you imagine why?

To which they are, and Justice Thomas followed the rules to the letter.

Ya think? Now, you're getting it.

Woops, here's that jumping to conclusions thing again you struggle with. If you follow that comment chain for ~10 seconds, you would realize I was talking about an entirely other person and situation. Again, please do try and focus and understand something before you embarass yourself continuously.

There are clear rules.Heres one that he clearly violated numerous times.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.

www.uscourts.gov

Again, you fail to note the exception related to "individual hospitality".

Harlan Crow has large holdings in private and hedge funds. To argue that he doesn’t have financial stakes in any SCOTUS decisions is absurd. No one with integrity accepts lucrative “gifts” from anyone that can be impacted by their professional work. The fact that some people can’t understand that says a lot about them.

Again, this is the peak of idiotic arguments.

So any citizen, impacted in any way, to any minor degree, possibly even is therefor an involved party? Give me a flippin' break. You have effectively included the entire US population (at a minimum) with that standard.

It is my understanding that the Crow's family holdings are predominantly in real estate, not PE or HF. Moreover, unless you can show me where Harlan Crow, his family, or his holdings were influenced by a specific decision (which he lobbied for) or any of these entities was a named party in a litigation effort, it is moot.

You guys are running down a conspiracy theory road like crazy on this.

 

[vegas giants]

Harlan Crow has large holdings in private and hedge funds. To argue that he doesn’t have financial stakes in any SCOTUS decisions is absurd. No one with integrity accepts lucrative “gifts” from anyone that can be impacted by their professional work. The fact that some people can’t understand that says a lot about them.

Rgb did it

 

[bave]

Minor correction on the Kavanaugh issue. His accuser did not sit on the story. She apparently disclosed to others when it happened.

I don't recall the details at this point, but let's pretend that is true. Multiple people claim to have been made aware of accusations, none of whom knew any details, but every party they named as involved or as witnesses knew nothing about anything they said. Oh, it was 30+ years after the fact.

Again, that is not the definition of credible. If you walk into a police station to report a crime and you don't know where it happened, when it happened, a long time after the fact and name a host of witnesses who not only fail to corroborate your story but directly refute it then that is what is called "incredible".