Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[RocksInMyHead]

No.

It sounds silly. Family? Just...wow. Are we talking about a second cousin whom he cosigned a loan for?

The Crow company bought the properties for $133,363 from three co-owners — Thomas, his mother and the family of Thomas’ late brother, according to a state tax document and a deed dated Oct. 15, 2014, filed at the Chatham County courthouse.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm glad to hear it, though I didn't claim you did. I just pointed out there many on the Right, particularly the pro-MAGA bunch, talk about how persecuted Trump is (most persecuted in history) with no sense of irony when they chant "Lock her up!" and ignore the investigations she has been put through by some on the Right.

Well in all fairness, as excessive as those investigations were, they ended once she left office.

I'm pointing out that when a "Right Wing" justice (to mean a justice appointed by a Republican President) votes against the other "Right Wing" justices, it gets pointed out since it (for about 50 years) "flipped" the decision of the court towards the "Liberal" justices. By contrast, when a "Left Wing" justice voted with the "Right Wing" justices, it isn't really noticed as it would typically make the margin 6-3. That is likely the reason you think "Right Wing" justices "break ranks" more often than the "Left Wing" justices.

Oh ok...you understand that wasn’t my personal opinion. It's an objective analysis.

Not sure what you are saying "No" to here.

The idea ethics matters here. I mean...

AOC solicited a bribe. She didn't just accept one....she asked for it. The total value was more than billionaires spend on the houses of SCOTUS Justice parents.

Unlike Thomas...there's a very real possibility of removing her. No sitting justice has ever been successfully removed. AOC can be defunded by her own party....

And her guilt is far more certain than Thomas'

And she's not the only one.

I didn't say that, I said that he (and every other Supreme Court justice) should be held to the same standard as all other federal justices. This includes recusing themselves if they have a conflict, which (in their ethics rules) includes a wife that works for a group that has a case before the court.

Well Thomas has recused himself 17 times over the years....sometimes due to personal relations, sometimes because of family having a relationship to the party....often due to business.

If you have any instance you're thinking of....let's hear it.

I tend not to "watch" news, period. I tend to read news from a variety of sources. And, if the claims made by the right wing are true, that isn't "lobbying." Don't get me wrong, I support a full investigation of the laptop and Hunter and wouldn't mind seeing laws that prevent the deals various government leaders, and their families, do with foreign nations after they leave office.

My point was the fact that we allow our government officials to take bribes -- both from lobbyists and, as you pointed out, from donors (particularly SuperPACS) during elections. Sure, we limit the amounts, in terms of what they can take from lobbyists and direct campaign donations (not to include PACs), but that doesn't change the fact that they are effectively a type of bribery.

It's not just that....it's wayyy worse than you think.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@RocksInMyHead ....why wouldn't that fall under the family residence exception?

 

[Postvieww]

You know this how? In my case, though I'm not a liberal, I've consistently stated that we need to hold Supreme Court Judges to the same ethical standard that other Federal judges are required to follow. I don't care which Supreme Justice we are talking about.

Maybe, but from reading your post I'm not convinced. Can you point me to one post on any thread concerning the current resident where you clamored for ethical standards for the "Big GuY"?

It is? Is it the same spirit as the "get Hillary crowd?" I'll agree, though, that there is too much tribalism on both sides of the political aisle. My issue is that Trump supporters seem to believe it has never happened before, ignoring they've been doing the same thing to Hillary for roughly 30 years.

You really don't believe Hillary has suffered at the hands of conservatives in a way that compares to the constant harassment of Trump by the left. Sure there were cries to "lock her up" but to imply she has been investigated, charged, impeached, hounded by the press for 30 years is a bit overstated don'y you think?

I can't speak for others but for me it is about ethics. Again, if we go by the ethics required of other Federal Jurists, Thomas has failed those guidelines for most of his term due to his wife's lobbying efforts for conservative groups that had business before the court. It is not proof he's been influenced by his wife but it does appear, particularly given the money paid to Mrs. Thomas based on her lobbying, to be a conflict of interest -- and again is prohibited by the ethics rules other federal judges are to follow. If this was a liberal justice, I'd want the same.

Again if Thomas is guilty of all of this where is your outrage for the rest of the corruption in Washington? Point me to any post where your demand ethics and justice for Hillary, Pelosi, Schiff, AOC or any of that side of the isle.

Of course, I'm crazy enough that I'd like to prohibit most of what is paid to our government officials -- trips, meals, etc. that are funded by lobbyists -- just not gifts to the Supreme Court.

I agree, but I will be waiting for your links to posts on other threads demanding equal justice for offenders on the other side.

 

[Whyayeman]

Maybe, but from reading your post I'm not convinced. Can you point me to one post on any thread concerning the current resident where you clamored for ethical standards for the "Big GuY"?

Do tell us of the ethical standards President Biden has failed to live up to, so that we can clamour. Then this what-aboutery can lead somewhere.

 

[wing2000]

Maybe, but from reading your post I'm not convinced. Can you point me to one post on any thread concerning the current resident where you clamored for ethical standards for the "Big GuY"?

Making assumptions and questioning poster's motives is not an effective way to argue.

 

[Whyayeman]

I will be waiting for your links to posts on other threads demanding equal justice for offenders on the other side.

This reveals the partisan nature of one poster's defence of Clarence Thomas - and that poster's view of Thomas as partisan himself.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

@RocksInMyHead ....why wouldn't that fall under the family residence exception?

The family residence exception is very specific:

(5)Transactions.—Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000—
(A)
in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse; or
(B)
in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities.
Reporting is not required under this paragraph of any transaction solely by and between the reporting individual, the individual’s spouse, or dependent children.

Thomas did not live in the house, his mother did. And last I checked, he is not married to his mother. Therefore, this does not meet the requirements for the family residence exception.

 

[Postvieww]

Do tell us of the ethical standards President Biden has failed to live up to, so that we can clamour.

You are kidding here, right!

 

[rambot]

The family residence exception is very specific:



Thomas did not live in the house, his mother did. And last I checked, he is not married to his mother. Therefore, this does not meet the requirements for the family residence exception.

4 lawyers, who know the law, commented directly on this.

 

[Whyayeman]

You are kidding here, right!

Not really. I'm interested. If it is a long list, be selective.

 

[SimplyMe]

Maybe, but from reading your post I'm not convinced. Can you point me to one post on any thread concerning the current resident where you clamored for ethical standards for the "Big GuY"?

I'm not sure what you even mean here by "ethical standards for the "Big GuY." I've consistently stated the laptop should be investigated. I have no issue with better ethical standards for children of government officials -- there seem to have been plenty of politicians over the years who have "helped" family members with government jobs. At the same time, you do have some of the issues with children as you do with spouses; how do you apply ethical standards to children (and spouses) without preventing them from having jobs. You can't outright ban children from working in government or working from companies that receive some type of government funding. Nor can you keep someone from trying to "cash in" on their last name -- whether the name is famous for government, entertainment, or business.

And while I don't have an issue with some type of ethics rules for former top government officials, such as to ban them from accepting jobs/money from foreign sources. Of course, former Presidents tend to do that already, largely since Reagan was so heavily criticized for being paid $1 million for a giving speeches in Japan, but it wouldn't hurt to codify it.

What I haven't seen, and not had anyone tell me, is exactly what on that laptop is conclusive proof of any crime by Joe (or even Hunter) Biden. The closest you have is this reference to "the Big Guy" where you have two people saying contradicting things about who it is. I recall that Hunter has been charged and settled for income tax violations, which appear to have been based on the laptop (or at least the investigation into it). There also appear to be potential charges for not registering as a federal lobbyist (ironically, one of the things Gen. Flynn was charged with that it was claimed was no big deal by many Republicans, which helped get him a pardon) and gun charges.

The issue is, looking at the laptop from a legal perspective, there just isn't much there that you can prosecute for. You can investigate him for drug crimes, for prostitution (though it is very possible that occurred in a country with legalized prostitution), and for the business information on the computer but you can't prosecute based solely on pictures (at least drug and prostitution crimes). While I know many Republicans claim that the FBI isn't investigating the laptop, the point is, you aren't hearing anything from the Congressional investigation, either -- though you hear about the other investigations, such as the "weaponization of government" committee. And again, right wing news sources like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News looked into the laptop and found nothing there, despite their interviews with Bobulinski, which is why the story was broken by the NY Post. And even if Joe is the "Big Guy," it still doesn't show a crime -- at most it showed Joe lied.

What I see about the laptop, to this point, is a lot of innuendo but very few facts but I've always supported a full investigation. But let me know your proposals for ethical standards for the "Big GuY," and all previous Presidents and VPs.

You really don't believe Hillary has suffered at the hands of conservatives in a way that compares to the constant harassment of Trump by the left. Sure there were cries to "lock her up" but to imply she has been investigated, charged, impeached, hounded by the press for 30 years is a bit overstated don'y you think?

I'm going to give two examples here. For all the claims of "Russia, Russia, Russia," I'm not aware of a single Democratic led investigation into Trump and Russia. In fact, I'm not aware of a single investigation that looked into former Pres. Trump and Russia. The investigations I'm aware of were House Investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia, by a Republican controlled House; a Senate Investigation by a Republican led Senate, and the Mueller Investigation overseen by a Trump Appointed assistant AG (and Mueller himself).

Yes, there were numerous investigations into Trump and things he had done. From what I am aware, though, the investigations happened once (maybe separate investigations by the House and Senate) and then they ended -- you didn't have constant re-investigations into former Pres. Trump.

To give just one counter example of Hillary, there were eight separate Congressional investigations into Benghazi, and Hillary's roll. In one of them, Hillary was interviewed for 11 hours. You even had Kevin McCarthy suggest the last hearing was largely only to hurt her election chances -- they knew from the other investigations what they'd find. He commented after the hearing, "But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."

And don't forget that Whitewater was more about Hillary than Bill, with it delving into her legal career and the law firm she'd been part of and her investments (particularly her investing in cattle futures). Can you think of any other First Lady investigated in that way? And that is before you get into the various rumors over the years, most still repeated frequently: Uranium One, the "murders," the email server, Benghazi, and on and on and on.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of Hillary. If it weren't for Trump, I'd never have voted for any Clinton, ever. And I've voted in every Presidential election, mostly for the Republican, going back to Ford, with only 2000 as an exception (I would have voted Bush but couldn't get to the polls and, since I knew he'd win my state, I didn't worry about it).

Again if Thomas is guilty of all of this where is your outrage for the rest of the corruption in Washington? Point me to any post where your demand ethics and justice for Hillary, Pelosi, Schiff, AOC or any of that side of the isle.

I agree, but I will be waiting for your links to posts on other threads demanding equal justice for offenders on the other side.

I've mentioned about ethics multiple times, though it has tended to be more on the Supreme Court requiring ethical standards similar to other courts. I'm not sure what you want as "justice" for Hillary -- as even Trump couldn't get his DoJ to prosecute her as they felt there was nothing to charge her with. If you are going to tell me she should be jailed for her classified record handling, the we should also jail Trump, Biden, Pence, etc. I've spoken out against the fact that politicians are held to a different standard to those of us who had Top Secret clearances in the military. If I'd done what any of them had done, I'd have gone (and might still be) in Leavenworth.

As for Pelosi, I'm not sure what you want me to be outraged about, I assume you are taking about "insider trading." Yes, it would be great if we had better rules for Congresspersons (and their families) on "insider trading." Unfortunately, we don't, and I don't see much difference between what Pelosi and Schiff did to any other member of Congress, from what I know of it, compared to someone like Purdue, Hoeven, Loeffler (though this is likely another reason she lost her reelection bid), etc. Much like Thomas, though, none of it appears to be illegal -- even while we can agree it is unethical. Unfortunately, there are no rules in Congress to even try to stop it. In this case, while I'd love to see the rules changed, I don't see what ethics rules she can be charged with not following.

And I will say, some of the claims do seem a bit overwrought. For example, Pelosi and Tesla -- is there anyone who followed politics that didn't see that the Infrastructure bill was going to pass and that it was likely to benefit Tesla? Many of these things, any astute stock trader would be able to do -- the times when it clearly seems less ethical are the times when it involves closed hearings, such as with some of the Congressional COVID briefings (where member in the next 24 hours bought stock in medical and pharmaceutical companies) or secret defense hearings discussing contracts. But my recollection is that I've stated that members of Congress, and their immediate family, should be barred from trading single company stocks -- that, as an alternative, they should be limited to investing in publicly available investment funds for their stock trading.

I won't touch Schiff, for the moment. I'll merely state that I'm sure the Republican controlled House would love nothing more than to hit Schiff with an ethics violation.

I'll also admit I haven't followed the whole AOC Met Gala thing. I'm only vaguely aware of the Met Gala in general, knowing it was a fund raiser for the Met where rich and famous people go to be seen and to show off, what is often, some risqué fashion. So, yet, looking into it she got a $30,000 ticket for free. Again, I'm sure a Republican led House would love to punish AOC if she broke the rules -- but this actually falls into the whole lobbying thing I've been talking about.

This article goes back over a decade, it's harder to find newer ones since travel was limited over the last several years due to COVID, but it talks about how in the previous 5 and a half years that lobbyists spent $50 million dollars on trips for Congresspersons. Typically these are "conferences" at resort locations (typically the Caribbean) were travel, hotel, and food are fully covered by whatever group is sponsoring the "conference." And often these "conferences" are an hour or two of seminars per day, over a weekend, during winter in Washington -- so that it basically becomes a free weekend getaway (which is why I used quotes for conference). You don't think Congresspeople ask to be included in those "conferences?" As such, I find it hard to get any more outraged over AOC getting a free $30,000 ticket to a charity event than I do any Congressperson (Republican or Democrat) from getting a free Caribbean trip in the middle of the DC winter. And, again, I don't feel it worth my time to get outraged over because Republicans would love nothing more than to punish AOC for ethics violations (short of maybe doing it to Pelosi or impeaching Biden), so I have no question it will be fully investigated.

To bring this back on the OP topic, I don't like the ethical standards of Congress or the fact the Supreme Court has almost nothing in the way of ethical standards. But the one they do have, requiring the reporting of gifts, Thomas didn't list these gifts -- and as a Supreme Court Justice, his claim that "I was told I didn't need to" when he is supposed to be a legal scholar (as a Justice) rings rather hollow. But, at the same time, as I keep stating, I think all Supreme Court justices should be under the same rules as all other Federal Judges, so the various free trips that were taken by Ginsberg, Scalia, etc. become a thing of the past.

 

[wing2000]

Not really. I'm interested. If it is a long list, be selective.

...and entirely off topic for the thread.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well in all fairness, as excessive as those investigations were, they ended once she left office.



Oh ok...you understand that wasn’t my personal opinion. It's an objective analysis.



The idea ethics matters here. I mean...

AOC solicited a bribe. She didn't just accept one....she asked for it. The total value was more than billionaires spend on the houses of SCOTUS Justice parents.

Unlike Thomas...there's a very real possibility of removing her. No sitting justice has ever been successfully removed. AOC can be defunded by her own party....

And her guilt is far more certain than Thomas'

And she's not the only one.



Well Thomas has recused himself 17 times over the years....sometimes due to personal relations, sometimes because of family having a relationship to the party....often due to business.

If you have any instance you're thinking of....let's hear it.



It's not just that....it's wayyy worse than you think.

I think I basically gave my response to this post in my response to Postvieww. Mostly what I'm getting is that what Thomas did isn't that bad because "whataboutism."

 

[DaisyDay]

Well in all fairness, as excessive as those investigations were, they ended once she left office.

She left office in February 2013, but the investigations continued. Even you must be aware that she was investigated twice by Comey's FBI for the email server; he announced very publicly two weeks before Election Day that he was reopening the investigation and only cleared her a mere 2 days before Nov 8, 2016.

You really don't believe Hillary has suffered at the hands of conservatives in a way that compares to the constant harassment of Trump by the left. Sure there were cries to "lock her up" but to imply she has been investigated, charged, impeached, hounded by the press for 30 years is a bit overstated don'y you think?

Was Donald baselessly accused of drinking the blood of children and wearing their faces as masks? Remember the "kill list"? The open-ended Starr investigation began in 1994 and didn't finish until four years later. While she was not criminally charged that may very well have been for lack of a case rather than from prosecutorial forbearance.

 

[rambot]

AOC solicited a bribe. She didn't just accept one....she asked for it. The total value was more than billionaires spend on the houses of SCOTUS Justice parents.

In an effort to bust out of my algorithms I did a search for "AOC solicits bribe" on duckduckgo (as opposed to my standard google search) and nothing even came close to that.

Do you have a source for this story?

 

[USincognito]

If there is no cry to hold the current resident accountable...

For what?

 

[SimplyMe]

In an effort to bust out of my algorithms I did a search for "AOC solicits bribe" on duckduckgo (as opposed to my standard google search) and nothing even came close to that.

Do you have a source for this story?

Here you go. Though I will agree that "bribe" is the wrong word to use.

 

[DaisyDay]

Ruth Marcus from WaPo:

There is no doubt that the sale of personal real estate to Crow should have been reported on the justice’s financial disclosure form for 2014, and there is no excuse for failing to do so. The most logical explanation is that Thomas, whose relationship with Crow had already been the subject of unflattering news reports, wanted to keep it from public view.​

​

According to the ProPublica report, a company controlled by Crow bought the properties in Savannah, Ga., for $133,363 from Thomas, the family of his late brother, and his mother Leola Williams, who continued to live there.​

​

...Crow told the publication that the transaction was “at market rate.” The year before, he bought two other properties — a vacant lot and a house on the same block for $40,000. Thomas, in earlier financial disclosure forms, listed his one-third interest in “rental property” in Savannah at $15,000 or less.​

It seems a bit suspicious, all in all.

 

[JSRG]

Unlike Thomas...there's a very real possibility of removing her. No sitting justice has ever been successfully removed. AOC can be defunded by her own party....

While this is true (that no justice has ever been successfully removed), I should note this statement deserves an asterisk. Abe Fortas might have been impeached and removed had he stayed on the court, but he resigned in order to avoid the possibility.