Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

Hank77 said:

For whatever business HUNTER and JAMES were doing.

Click to expand...

Which is?

SimplyMe said:

Forgive me for responding to the off-topic post but it is highly ironic that you complain about Biden "bullying" the IRS (or at least attempted it) after Trump did it for four years; both preventing the mandatory audit required of the President (he was only audited once during his four years being president) and his attempt to weaponize the IRS against his "enemies."

Click to expand...

I'd love to respond to this...but NYT pay walls everything, and they haven't been worth a dime imo since 2010ish.

Ana the Ist said:

I'd love to respond to this...but NYT pay walls everything, and they haven't been worth a dime imo since 2010ish.

Click to expand...

Odd, if you would really have loved to reply, that you ignored the first link (which was to PBS News Hour). Otherwise, there is always the New York Post article for the second link.

SimplyMe said:

Odd, if you would really have loved to reply, that you ignored the first link (which was to PBS News Hour). Otherwise, there is always the New York Post article for the second link.

Click to expand...

Uh huh...John Kelly is on the board of Caliburn International - Wikipedia

Now, what do they do? A lot of contract for profit work in Washington DC.

Trashing Trump is important for his bottom line right now...if Trump wins the next election, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 180 out of Kelly.

If he did have some sort of "vendetta" investigation into Comey....well that's awful. It's also, pretty insignificant. It's not as if Comey is a reporter telling everyone the dirt on how DC got its claws into Twitter for the purpose of spreading propaganda and silencing critics.

Ana the Ist said:

Which is?

Click to expand...

I don't know, do you?

Hank77 said:

I don't know, do you?

Click to expand...

I doubt Joe or his family knows...they'd have to read a document to find out.

A “Delicate Matter”: Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign​

Interviews and newly unearthed documents reveal that Thomas, facing financial strain, privately pushed for a higher salary and to allow Supreme Court justices to take speaking fees.​

In early January 2000, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was at a five-star beach resort in Sea Island, Georgia, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation, according to friends. He had recently started raising his young grandnephew, and Thomas’ wife was soliciting advice on how to handle the new expenses.

At the resort, Thomas gave a speech at an off-the-record conservative conference. He found himself seated next to a Republican member of Congress [Cliff Stearns of Florida] on the flight home. The two men talked, and the lawmaker left the conversation worried that Thomas might resign.

Congress should give Supreme Court justices a pay raise, Thomas told him. If lawmakers didn’t act, “one or more justices will leave soon” — maybe in the next year.

“His importance as a conservative was paramount,” Stearns said in a recent interview. “We wanted to make sure he felt comfortable in his job and he was being paid properly.”

In other private conversations, Thomas repeatedly talked about removing a ban on justices giving paid speeches.

Thomas’ efforts were described in records from the time obtained by ProPublica, including a confidential memo to Chief Justice William Rehnquist from a top judiciary official seeking guidance on what he termed a “delicate matter.”

The documents, as well as interviews, offer insight into how Thomas was talking about his finances in a crucial period in his tenure, just as he was developing his relationships with a set of wealthy benefactors.

Congress never lifted the ban on speaking fees or gave the justices a major raise. But in the years that followed, as ProPublica has reported, Thomas accepted a stream of gifts from friends and acquaintances that appears to be unparalleled in the modern history of the Supreme Court.

Precisely what led so many people to offer Thomas money and other gifts remains an open question.

wing2000 said:

Today’s Pro Publica report reveals that Justice Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel on private yachts and jets and a litany of other gifts that he failed to disclose. This behavior is simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

ProPublica Wins Pulitzer Prize for Supreme Court Coverage​

The award marks ProPublica’s 7th Pulitzer; Uvalde shooting investigation is named a Pulitzer finalist.​

ProPublica won the prestigious public service Pulitzer Prize for what the judges described as “groundbreaking and ambitious reporting that pierced the thick wall of secrecy surrounding the Supreme Court to reveal how a small group of politically influential billionaires wooed justices with lavish gifts and travel, pushing the Court to adopt its first code of conduct.” The prize is given to the staff of a news organization that performed “meritorious public service.” It is the seventh Pulitzer Prize for ProPublica.

essentialsaltes said:

ProPublica Wins Pulitzer Prize for Supreme Court Coverage​

The award marks ProPublica’s 7th Pulitzer; Uvalde shooting investigation is named a Pulitzer finalist.​

ProPublica won the prestigious public service Pulitzer Prize for what the judges described as “groundbreaking and ambitious reporting that pierced the thick wall of secrecy surrounding the Supreme Court to reveal how a small group of politically influential billionaires wooed justices with lavish gifts and travel, pushing the Court to adopt its first code of conduct.” The prize is given to the staff of a news organization that performed “meritorious public service.” It is the seventh Pulitzer Prize for ProPublica.

Click to expand...

Clarance Thomas and his wife make close to $400,000 a year, but he claims it is not enough so he feels justified in taking payola. Does that make money his God if he is not willing to take a stand for the truth?

essentialsaltes said:

ProPublica Wins Pulitzer Prize for Supreme Court Coverage​

The award marks ProPublica’s 7th Pulitzer; Uvalde shooting investigation is named a Pulitzer finalist.​

ProPublica won the prestigious public service Pulitzer Prize for what the judges described as “groundbreaking and ambitious reporting that pierced the thick wall of secrecy surrounding the Supreme Court to reveal how a small group of politically influential billionaires wooed justices with lavish gifts and travel, pushing the Court to adopt its first code of conduct.” The prize is given to the staff of a news organization that performed “meritorious public service.” It is the seventh Pulitzer Prize for ProPublica.

Click to expand...

Thank goodness for reporting that uncovers this kind of nonsense.

Congratulations to the hardworking journalists for whom I have so much respect. Having spent my career in communications, dabbling in print journalism here and there I know how hard they work.

public hermit said:

Thank goodness for reporting that uncovers this kind of nonsense.

Click to expand...

This was all old news tmk. It was just conveniently dragged up as a distraction.

Ana the Ist said:

This was all old news tmk. It was just conveniently dragged up as a distraction.

Click to expand...

If the blind eyes of justice giving into greed is just a distraction then we are off the cliff. Did I mention how important it is to put cheese in your grits? You should. Even if injustice is just a distraction, grits with cheese is better than without.

The news was the Pulitzer Prize.
I'm sure NY Post didn't make the cut, but they might qualify for a Golden Raspberry or Rotten Tomato.

public hermit said:

If the blind eyes of justice giving into greed is just a distraction then we are off the cliff.

Click to expand...

There's 2 real problems here....

1. Separation of powers. I don't personally think of this as a problem...but some do. Justices are appointed for life...and there's no action from either branch which can remove them. Apparently, they can take gifts without repercussions. This also makes sense...as we don't expect Justices to live as hermits or shut-ins for the rest of their lives. They can go on vacations, buy cars, etc. Some will view it as a bribe if a wealthy businessman gives a Justice an all expenses paid trip on a private yacht for example.....
However, let's assume that Justice rules against that particular businessman in an upcoming case (and apparently they do). What is the businessman to do in such a situation? He has no legal recourse to threaten the judge with. He can't use congressional officials or the president against them. He can't file a complaint lol. The very nature how justices decide which cases to hear means it's unlikely to even have his case heard....

2. What greed? From what I read of Clarence Thomas, these weren't gigantic gifts of priceless wealth. Even if Thomas ruled in favor of someone who once gave him a gift years ago....it guarantees nothing at all. His voice is but one of many.

public hermit said:

Did I mention how important it is to put cheese in your grits? You should. Even if injustice is just a distraction, grits with cheese is better than without.

Click to expand...

No idea what that means....but consider this....

1. Since no authority exists above them in the judicial branch....the SCOTUS justices are the most difficult to corrupt. They can accept gifts and rule against those who give them....without repercussion. It does no good to buy only 1....you'd need to buy 5...and even then a lower court may have settled the issue long before anyone tries to put it on the desk of the SCOTUS.

2. The president almost has to be given a lifetime of relative income stability. Nobody wants someone with a head full of priceless state secrets roaming around trying to make ends meet because they are "down on their luck". You may as well execute any such former president on trumped up charges.

3. Congressman and Senators are the biggest problem. They need a constant inflow of election campaign funds or they are as good as gone. This means that they have to deliver or they are finished (the bipartisan omnibus bill is a perfect example, just slap the word infrastructure in front and the sheep will imagine it's for their benefit). With the relatively short term cycle and 25% of it spent campaigning or funding campaigns....these are the easiest to corrupt. Even if they enter office with the purest of intentions...they realize within a few years it's a losing fight. Look at AOC...she used to rail against corruption....now she proudly tows the Democratic Party line.

If you want to fight corruption in DC, you start with the legislators, then move to the president, and finally the SCOTUS if you can find any corruption at all. The Justices are the most immune to corruption....the legislators the least....and their wealth reflects that.

Ana the Ist said:

There's 2 real problems here....

1. Separation of powers. I don't personally think of this as a problem...but some do. Justices are appointed for life...and there's no action from either branch which can remove them.

Click to expand...

That's not true. They can be impeached by the House and Senate, same as a president can. Granted, it's a difficult process, but the possibility is there. So far, only one justice (Samuel Chase) was ever impeached, though he was acquitted by the Senate. Abe Fortas might have gotten impeached, but he resigned first.

JSRG said:

That's not true. They can be impeached by the House and Senate, same as a president can. Granted, it's a difficult process, but the possibility is there. So far, only one justice (Samuel Chase) was ever impeached, though he was acquitted by the Senate. Abe Fortas might have gotten impeached, but he resigned first.

Click to expand...

The Constitutional construction “expects” that each branch of the Government to write its own “rules” for the internal-justice of that Branch.
SCOTUS has had no codified set of standards, because being on the High Court means that they’re so pure that even expensive gifts and “loans” are no ethical challenge for these paragons of Virtue!
It probably wouldn’t fly down in the Districts or Circuits though, why’s it ”okay” up top?

Pommer said:

The Constitutional construction “expects” that each branch of the Government to write its own “rules” for the internal-justice of that Branch.
SCOTUS has had no codified set of standards, because being on the High Court means that they’re so pure that even expensive gifts and “loans” are no ethical challenge for these paragons of Virtue!
It probably wouldn’t fly down in the Districts or Circuits though, why’s it ”okay” up top?

Click to expand...

Because the job is no longer seen as a duty but as a opportunity that comes with added perks?

essentialsaltes said:

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called Wednesday on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to tell the committee whether he declared more than a quarter-million dollars of loan forgiveness on his tax filings.

Welters supplied documentation of the loan to the Senate committee, and "now we know that Justice Thomas had up to $267,230 in debt forgiven and never reported it on his ethics forms,” Wyden said in a news release.

Thomas has said he did not think he was required to disclose the gifts from personal friends.

Click to expand...

Two Democratic senators are asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for possible tax law violations.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent the letter to Garland last week asking him to appoint a special counsel “to investigate possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws.” The two lawmakers pointed to public reporting over the last year which found Thomas failed to disclose multiple luxury trips and gifts from billionaire friends.

They referenced an investigation by Wyden’s office last year which found Thomas did not pay the principal of a $267,230 loan he used to purchase a recreational vehicle.