Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Ana the Ist]

It's pretty pathetic to argue that point really. I mean, the lack of attention to what is being said is over the top.

The left here on CF is CONSISTENTLY saying "Please, charge them and bring it to court. If they've done something wrong, prosecute them. I don't care if I voted for them". The left, at least here on CF, clear DOES care about ethics.

Trump is under investigation for a mishandling classified documents.

Biden was found to have mishandled documents.

There were threads on both of these issues. There's a huge difference between what posters on the left said about one....and excuses made for the other.

But hey....maybe I'm wrong. What's one issue you think the left is consistent on?

In fact, in every single social media platform I frequent at all, and there isn't much but it's pretty hard left, EVERY.SINGLE.POSTER. wants ALL politicians charged with impropriety. I've NEVER heard them, in MY forums, go on the defence when any ethical challenge was raised against a democrat. And I HATE IT SO MUCH when these hard left leaning sites (believe it or not, I don't lean that hard left) are right: "Every accusation is an admission".

And I consistently here conservatives rally around their politicians: "Who cares if jim jordan covered up the abuse of women?" "No no no. What Trump meant was...".

Let's be clear, it's not the left here on Christian forums that protects their politicians like fine porcelein china.

 

[Ana the Ist]

From this correspondence trail, it is clear that her office reached out to clarify rules ahead of time, https://oce.house.gov/sites/congressionalethics.house.gov/files/documents/OCE Report and Findings Exhibits 2.pdf

If she didn't report this or if she owes vendors and service people (costume, hair, makeup), the obviously, she should pay.

Well you can tell from her back and forth with Vogue she's looking for a way around the ethical code....by claiming to be a guest of a vogue employee. Perhaps that's a meaningful distinction...I'm not certain.

Since she is being investigate, perhaps we should see how that pans out?

I'm pretty sure I told you how it would pan out. When it comes to the way things pan out, I've got a rather good track record.

He listed his share of the RENTAL property as being worth $15,000.

Right....but we don't know what share of the total market value that represents.

The property was shared between his late brother's family, himself and his mother. The property supposedly was purchased to memorialize Justice Thomas. His mother still lives there after Crow upgraded it.

I'm aware of all that....it's also possible that despite claiming 15k in equity, he asked for nothing....and simply signed it over.

 

[SimplyMe]

Trump is under investigation for a mishandling classified documents.

Biden was found to have mishandled documents.

There were threads on both of these issues. There's a huge difference between what posters on the left said about one....and excuses made for the other.

But hey....maybe I'm wrong. What's one issue you think the left is consistent on?

And this is false. Trump was investigated for refusing to turn over Presidential Records, as the law requires. "The Left" (which is a bad term to use for left leaning posters on this site, it is actually creating something of a straw man) defended the actions of the DoJ, responding to the request by the National Archives, in attempting to get those documents.

They gave Biden "a pass," if you will, because allegedly (based on the information available) he turned them over to the National Archives when they were found -- he didn't attempt to hold onto them for an additional year and force the FBI to come and "raid" his office to get the documents back.

I will further point out that I saw no complaints by "the Left" about VP Pence also finding Classified documents. Maybe I'm wrong, if I am, I'm sure you can point out those posts that called out Pence while defending Biden. I'll go further and say that some on "the Left" here have agreed with me that we should be holding elected officials to higher standards; the rules and laws need to be changed to keep Classified records secure and accounted for, and not being shipped with the personal papers to the former official's home, after they leave office. While we can complain about both Pence and Biden having the Classified records, unfortunately, based on the laws for our elected officials, neither of them appear to have violated a crime.

Trump also would not have violated a crime except for his own willfulness, trying to claim the records were his when the law clearly states that Presidential Records remain property of the government and are to be turned in when their term expires. As you point out, even if he tried to keep them, if he merely would have returned them when the DoJ got a court order requiring them to be returned, he still would have gotten off -- there is no real penalty for holding on to the documents, the penalty now are largely based on his refusing to follow court orders. Yes, he has been charged with what is essentially "mishandling government records" but that is only because he was ordered to by the court; that is what provides the motive, that is lacking with both Biden and Pence (or even Clinton).

Now, as I've stated previously, both sides like to protect their side. I have to agree with others, though, the left will frequently "eat their own." And my impression isn't anything new, I can recall it when a Republican Senator Vitter was listed in the D.C. Madam's records. Of course, despite being one of those married "pro-family" Christian Republicans. HIs initial comment, when the news came out was to ask forgiveness for his sin and ask forgiveness. He was never pressured to resign, Republicans supported him, and he was re-elected to the Senate by Republicans just two years later. In fact, in 2015, when Vitter was running for Louisiana Governor, a reporter appeared to be fired for asking the Senator about the scandal.

Another example would be Herschel Walker -- again, running on that pro-family, Christian morals campaign where he talks a lot about absentee fathers, only for it to come out that he has fathered children with multiple women and never been involved in their lives. Yet, the Right, rather than try to get him off the ticket and put someone who actually lives a "pro-family lifestyle" circles the wagons and supports him.

Again, I'll agree Democrats aren't perfect, either. My issue is that so often we hear Republican's talk about how a Democratic candidate isn't moral (either real or imagined indiscretions) but they so often give a pass for the same or worse issues for Republicans. This definitely extends to Trump -- which goes back to your gaslighting in an attempt to defend Trump, by pretending Trump didn't do anything worse than Biden, pretending they did not have to get a court order for Trump and that he still didn't return documents,.

 

[SimplyMe]

I hate to sound like a broken record...but these ethics, oversight, and otherwise "rule violation" offices have little to no real power.

Holding AOC accountable is something that the voters can do. As I said though....the left doesn't care about ethics. They learned Biden was guilty of mishandling classified docs and quickly accepted the old "oops I forgot" explanation.

It's just not believable that this is a genuine ethical concern. I agree it should be a concern....but it has to be a consistent concern, right? One isn't really against racism if they're promoting it against certain groups. One isn't really worried about employment if they are willing to let millions of illegals work here. One can't claim to be for women's rights....then not be able to define women. It's gotten to the point where I don't know what the left stands for....only that whatever it claims to stand for almost certainly doesn't apply to themselves.

But, again, that is my point. We need to require our officials to create ethical standards are require them to create an oversight board that can investigate and hand out real punishments.

 

[rambot]

Trump is under investigation for a mishandling classified documents.

Biden was found to have mishandled documents.

There were threads on both of these issues. There's a huge difference between what posters on the left said about one....and excuses made for the other.

But hey....maybe I'm wrong. What's one issue you think the left is consistent on?

Neither Biden nor Trump Will Be Charged with any Unlawful Conduct Resulting from Their Possession of Classified Documents, but for Very Different Reasons

I'd be inclined to say that the biggest problem foe the left, after it all came out in the wash was......

The question then becomes, “Did they willfully retain the documents and fail to deliver them to an officer or employee of the United States?” In Biden’s case, it is unlikely that the Special Counsel will find that he did because the documents were voluntarily turned over to the government as soon as they were discovered. So there is no basis to charge Biden with violating this statute. It is a very different story with Trump. In response to the grand jury subpoena, he failed to produce all of the classified documents he possessed and even denied that anymore existed. He also sought to pressure one of his lawyers to falsely tell the government that no other classified information had been found despite a thorough search. The lawyer refused. In these circumstances, it is very likely that the Special Counsel will recommend to Attorney General Merrick Garland, that he authorize charging Trump with violating this statute.

The court also found that there was probable cause to believe that 18 U.S.C. § 1519 was violated. That statute states:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Here again, the Special Counsel will find no basis to charge President Biden because there is no evidence that he had any intent to impede or obstruct the proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And this is false. Trump was investigated for refusing to turn over Presidential Records, as the law requires. "The Left" (which is a bad term to use for left leaning posters on this site, it is actually creating something of a straw man) defended the actions of the DoJ, responding to the request by the National Archives, in attempting to get those documents.

Uh huh.. I totally understand why you believe that....let's be honest though...

If Biden kept that many boxes of classified documents as VP....do you really think the National Archives created under Obama missed it? Do you have any idea how many documents we're talking about?

It's all well and good when you consider that perhaps he only forgot a few....

But the reality is that 9 boxes of documents were recovered.

Now, if he was innocent and these documents weren't damaging in any way....you would think Biden would allow Congressional Republicans investigating the matter to at least know the content of them until Biden’s DOJ and FBI are done covering for....sorry "investigating" Biden...but they basically stonewalled Congressional Republicans for 7 months.

We still don't know what the full scope of what was recovered is. Because it's Biden’s Department of Justice. Ask yourself if you would have been comfortable with Barr investigating Trump's handling of classified docs?

Probably not....right?

You would at least expect him to share what info he has with Congressional Democrats, right?

Biden didn't turn anything over to the National Archives right away. His lawyers had them in possession since November midterms and turned them over in January.

You understand why they knew to look in his "think tank" office in a University first, right? I'll give you a hint....it's not because Biden forgot they were there. In fact, they figured once Republicans were able to conduct investigations....they'd look wherever they suspected Joe kept anything.

Despite the media narrative of "Old Joe just forgot, but he complied immediately"....there's a lot of problems here....

1. 9 boxes is far more content than initially described. Nor has anyone been able to verify the details Biden has given independent of anyone that works for him.

2. Classified docs weren't turned over to the Archives for at least two months after discovery and over 4 years in Biden’s possession.

3. For some reason, the National Archives didn't realize 9 boxes of Biden’s documents were missing. That's pretty remarkable considering these rules were instituted under Obama.

4. These documents haven't been shared with Republicans, the public, and unlike Trump’s docs....the contents aren't leaked to left wing outlets.


5. Some 1800+ other documents from Biden’s time as Senator were gifted to the University of Delaware....and they refuse to let anyone examine them until 2 years after Biden’s retirement.

6. Even some Democrats are demanding to see the documents or at least be given general information about their contents...because, you know, this is about as corrupt as it gets.

And last but not least....


While a lot of attention has been given to who complied with the National Archives and when... it's not actually important to the issue. Laws already existed making it illegal to knowingly possess or remove classified docs, or share them without authorization. Even if we were extremely generous and assumed that all these docs were given to him by Obama or relevant to his duties as VP....he was legally obligated to return them after his term. He didn't, which makes him guilty of a crime.

Now, I know some people think that because he claims to have forgotten where these docs were....he can't have "knowingly" broken the law. That's not what "knowingly" means in this context. If someone had slipped a thumb drive full of classified info into his jacket pocket without him knowing....he's not going to be charged with a crime. The docs found in the corvette....I'd believe he didn't know about those. Those scream Hunter Biden was riding dirty one day and threw docs in the glove compartment.

They gave Biden "a pass," if you will, because allegedly (based on the information available) he turned them over to the National Archives when they were found -- he didn't attempt to hold onto them for an additional year and force the FBI to come and "raid" his office to get the documents back.

Mhm...well he held onto them for an extra 2 months despite sending his lawyers to the offices right before midterm elections. Nothing jogs the memory like an impending investigation I suppose.

I will further point out that I saw no complaints by "the Left" about VP Pence also finding Classified documents.

Yeah I think he had a couple.

I'm pretty sure that at any given time....every president, vp, and probably 50-100 senior officials of the federal government are holding on to a stash of classified docs. If you wonder who....just pay attention to who keeps their jobs despite a transition of power. Wray for example, was a Trump appointment, and despite having Hunter's laptop in December of 2019....he hasn't quite gotten anywhere on that investigation, has he?

And yes....I mean every president. Obama did stuff. You know that there's laws against executing Americans without a trial....yet when we're talking about Americans out of the US for any reason, and they're on a terrorist target list, they can get zapped without even a warrant. Bush? He did stuff. You know how he stopped doing the torture? That Abu Ghraib thing was just some unruly guards popping off? Nope. Multiple CIA torture sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't remember if he claimed to shut it down or if Obama did because "torture doesn't work"....but guess what? It does work....we just started outsourcing it to various foreign allies.

Maybe I'm wrong, if I am, I'm sure you can point out those posts that called out Pence while defending Biden. I'll go further and say that some on "the Left" here have agreed with me that we should be holding elected officials to higher standards; the rules and laws need to be changed to keep Classified records secure and accounted for, and not being shipped with the personal papers to the former official's home, after they leave office. While we can complain about both Pence and Biden having the Classified records, unfortunately, based on the laws for our elected officials, neither of them appear to have violated a crime.

Actually, if we can be certain any of them committed a crime....but if there's a case to be made for someone being innocent, it's actually Trump.

I know it sounds goofy....but as the head of the executive branch, he can decide to access and share classified info as needed. You know how the claim was that he didn't follow the rules? Obama wrote those rules.....he doesn't actually have to follow them. He can decide which rules to enforce and when to make exceptions. Here's an easy example....Biden ordered ICE to stop raiding workplaces for illegals.....and stop showing up in court to remove them after they lose asylum cases. Those are actual rules....rules Biden can decide to not enforce. Here's another example....canceling student debt. Is that part of the executive branch powers? No. Budgetary discretion is always a Congressional issue. It was a lie told to get votes. See how that works? Obama can write rules for classification....but at least in regards to himself, any following president can just ignore those rules. It's not something with any precedent I'm aware of and even if precedent existed....I don't know if it would conclude differently.

Someone is ultimately in charge of the classification system....and as far as I know, it's always the president. That whole raid on Mar a Largo was a hail Mary hoping to find some sort of illegal intel sharing. The case will probably never close....nor see a trial.

Trump also would not have violated a crime except for his own willfulness, trying to claim the records were his when the law clearly states that Presidential Records remain property of the government and are to be turned in when their term expires.

Are we talking about classified documents in general? Yes. If we're talking about turning things over to the National Archives....I'm pretty sure Obama just put that in by himself.

As you point out, even if he tried to keep them, if he merely would have returned them when the DoJ got a court order requiring them to be returned, he still would have gotten off -- there is no real penalty for holding on to the documents, the penalty now are largely based on his refusing to follow court orders.

It's illegal to knowingly possess or distribute any classified information/docs you do not require access to. The National Archives stuff and reclassification rules? Pretty sure it's just Obama era stuff.

The reason we don't actually go after president's for these things is they literally have seen all the secrets for 4 years. They can, assuming they aren't senile, divulge top secret info every day if they wanted. It's illegal of course...but how would you stop them? We'd have to execute every president after they serve or....just trust them.

Yes, he has been charged with what is essentially "mishandling government records" but that is only because he was ordered to by the court; that is what provides the motive, that is lacking with both Biden and Pence (or even Clinton).

Clinton was on the Lolita Express with Epstein 20+ times. He's great at keeping secrets lol.

Now, as I've stated previously, both sides like to protect their side. I have to agree with others, though, the left will frequently "eat their own." And my impression isn't anything new, I can recall it when a Republican Senator Vitter was listed in the D.C. Madam's records. Of course, despite being one of those married "pro-family" Christian Republicans. HIs initial comment, when the news came out was to ask forgiveness for his sin and ask forgiveness. He was never pressured to resign, Republicans supported him, and he was re-elected to the Senate by Republicans just two years later. In fact, in 2015, when Vitter was running for Louisiana Governor, a reporter appeared to be fired for asking the Senator about the scandal.

Another example would be Herschel Walker -- again, running on that pro-family, Christian morals campaign where he talks a lot about absentee fathers, only for it to come out that he has fathered children with multiple women and never been involved in their lives. Yet, the Right, rather than try to get him off the ticket and put someone who actually lives a "pro-family lifestyle" circles the wagons and supports him.

Again, I'll agree Democrats aren't perfect, either. My issue is that so often we hear Republican's talk about how a Democratic candidate isn't moral (either real or imagined indiscretions) but they so often give a pass for the same or worse issues for Republicans. This definitely extends to Trump -- which goes back to your gaslighting in an attempt to defend Trump, by pretending Trump didn't do anything worse than Biden, pretending they did not have to get a court order for Trump and that he still didn't return documents,.

I think you're confusing my statement about values and principles for personal morals of a candidate. Yes, I agree that both sides of the aisle will, often unfairly, criticize the morals or lack thereof in a candidate.

That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the defining principles of a political group. For example....Republicans in 1980? Abortion is wrong because it's the killing of a child. Democrats in 1980? A mix of opinions, buy generally supported a woman's right to choose because the government has no right to intrude upon bodily autonomy.....

Flash forward to 2020. Republicans? Same position on the exact same issue. Democrats? Uhhh...a birthing person can choose, stuff, and bodily autonomy is not a right if I feel scared about the pandemic. What's a woman? Anything you want it to be....

Or how about....

Republicans 1990....kids should be able to read the Bible in school. Teachers should be able to teach it. Kids should recite the pledge of allegiance. Democrats- sorry but your opinions don't belong in the classroom and we aren't going to force children to adopt ideological viewpoints just because you hold them....we certainly aren't going to force anyone to say something they don't want to.

And 30 years later....

Republicans- we think children should have more options in schooling.... private school or otherwise. Democrats- we want teachers pushing our new racial views and unproven theories about gender and sex on children as young as possible. It's important they adopt our ideological viewpoints for the betterment of society. Also, if you don't use the words some students tell you to? That's violence and you should be fired or punished accordingly.

 

[SimplyMe]

Uh huh.. I totally understand why you believe that....let's be honest though...

If Biden kept that many boxes of classified documents as VP....do you really think the National Archives created under Obama missed it? Do you have any idea how many documents we're talking about?

It's all well and good when you consider that perhaps he only forgot a few....

But the reality is that 9 boxes of documents were recovered.

Now, if he was innocent and these documents weren't damaging in any way....you would think Biden would allow Congressional Republicans investigating the matter to at least know the content of them until Biden’s DOJ and FBI are done covering for....sorry "investigating" Biden...but they basically stonewalled Congressional Republicans for 7 months.

I can't recall Democrats trying to force the DoJ to turn over information during an investigation. After, yes, they did ask and often had trouble getting the information -- but it is a huge difference while an investigation is ongoing and when it was over.

We still don't know what the full scope of what was recovered is. Because it's Biden’s Department of Justice. Ask yourself if you would have been comfortable with Barr investigating Trump's handling of classified docs?

What documents were found in Trump's storage unit found in September, over a month after the Mar-A-Lago raid?

Probably not....right?

You would at least expect him to share what info he has with Congressional Democrats, right?

Biden didn't turn anything over to the National Archives right away. His lawyers had them in possession since November midterms and turned them over in January.

Sorry, not what happened. NARA was informed immediately and, from what I've seen, the documents were turned over immediately.

You understand why they knew to look in his "think tank" office in a University first, right? I'll give you a hint....it's not because Biden forgot they were there. In fact, they figured once Republicans were able to conduct investigations....they'd look wherever they suspected Joe kept anything.

Actually, they were closing down the office. It makes sense why they would have found them at that time.

Despite the media narrative of "Old Joe just forgot, but he complied immediately"....there's a lot of problems here....

1. 9 boxes is far more content than initially described. Nor has anyone been able to verify the details Biden has given independent of anyone that works for him.

I apparently have more faith in Special Prosecutors that you do; particularly a Special Prosecutor that was a Trump Justice Department appointee that left the Justice Department when Trump left office.

2. Classified docs weren't turned over to the Archives for at least two months after discovery and over 4 years in Biden’s possession.

Again, turned back over immediately, just not revealed to the public until two months later.

3. For some reason, the National Archives didn't realize 9 boxes of Biden’s documents were missing. That's pretty remarkable considering these rules were instituted under Obama.

For some reason, they didn't realize Pence's documents were missing either. My suspicion is that it has something to do with being Vice President rather than the President.

4. These documents haven't been shared with Republicans, the public, and unlike Trump’s docs....the contents aren't leaked to left wing outlets.

My recollection is that the Trump documents weren't "leaked," rather that the photo of the documents was from a court filing -- in fact, my recollection is that the photo was filed with the court precisely because of Trump's lawsuit for a Special Master.

5. Some 1800+ other documents from Biden’s time as Senator were gifted to the University of Delaware....and they refuse to let anyone examine them until 2 years after Biden’s retirement.

And this is different than other Senators in what way?

6. Even some Democrats are demanding to see the documents or at least be given general information about their contents...because, you know, this is about as corrupt as it gets.

And last but not least....


While a lot of attention has been given to who complied with the National Archives and when... it's not actually important to the issue. Laws already existed making it illegal to knowingly possess or remove classified docs, or share them without authorization. Even if we were extremely generous and assumed that all these docs were given to him by Obama or relevant to his duties as VP....he was legally obligated to return them after his term. He didn't, which makes him guilty of a crime.

What crime is that? Again, I've complained about this previously -- our elected government officials have a different set of laws when it comes to classified documents. Again, to use your "whataboutism" here, you realize Trump hasn't been charged with violation of classified record handling laws. At least part of the issue is there is no evidence that either Trump nor Biden boxed up the classified records, which is part of why they don't get charged -- their offices are typically packed by staffers who typically don't look at individual documents as they pack. Again, we need better Classified document handling procedures and laws for high government officials.

Now, I know some people think that because he claims to have forgotten where these docs were....he can't have "knowingly" broken the law. That's not what "knowingly" means in this context. If someone had slipped a thumb drive full of classified info into his jacket pocket without him knowing....he's not going to be charged with a crime. The docs found in the corvette....I'd believe he didn't know about those. Those scream Hunter Biden was riding dirty one day and threw docs in the glove compartment.

Again, these were found in boxes. The boxes were packed by staffers when they left the White House, not Trump or Biden personally. The documents were not found "in the Corvette." There were boxes, with classified documents included in the boxes, in the same garage as the Corvette. More to the point, it was found in a personal library/office that Biden has in the building with the garage.

Mhm...well he held onto them for an extra 2 months despite sending his lawyers to the offices right before midterm elections. Nothing jogs the memory like an impending investigation I suppose.

Again, false.

Yeah I think he had a couple.

I'm pretty sure that at any given time....every president, vp, and probably 50-100 senior officials of the federal government are holding on to a stash of classified docs. If you wonder who....just pay attention to who keeps their jobs despite a transition of power. Wray for example, was a Trump appointment, and despite having Hunter's laptop in December of 2019....he hasn't quite gotten anywhere on that investigation, has he?

Actually, you don't know that. Isn't it odd that Congress hasn't gotten anywhere on that investigation, either, despite the numerous hearings that have been held by the "weaponization of government" committee? What people keep realizing is that there is no huge amount of material that can be prosecuted by the "laptop." The "bombshells" were pictures, which you can't prosecute (can't test the drugs in a picture to ensure they are drugs, nor can you prove the women were paid for or who paid for them), and a vague reference to "the Big Guy." While Bobulinski is a witness that claims Joe is the "Big Guy" the author of the email claims it isn't, which makes prosecution difficult. And, even if they knew Biden was the "Big Guy", there is nothing illegal about former VP Biden (at the time of the deal) being involved, particularly as the deal made no money (it fell through). At most, it was a lie by Joe, kind of like the one Trump made where he claimed during his campaign that he wasn't trying to work with Moscow to build a hotel.

And yes....I mean every president. Obama did stuff. You know that there's laws against executing Americans without a trial....yet when we're talking about Americans out of the US for any reason, and they're on a terrorist target list, they can get zapped without even a warrant. Bush? He did stuff. You know how he stopped doing the torture? That Abu Ghraib thing was just some unruly guards popping off? Nope. Multiple CIA torture sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't remember if he claimed to shut it down or if Obama did because "torture doesn't work"....but guess what? It does work....we just started outsourcing it to various foreign allies.


Actually, if we can be certain any of them committed a crime....but if there's a case to be made for someone being innocent, it's actually Trump.

I know it sounds goofy....but as the head of the executive branch, he can decide to access and share classified info as needed. You know how the claim was that he didn't follow the rules? Obama wrote those rules.....he doesn't actually have to follow them. He can decide which rules to enforce and when to make exceptions. Here's an easy example....Biden ordered ICE to stop raiding workplaces for illegals.....and stop showing up in court to remove them after they lose asylum cases. Those are actual rules....rules Biden can decide to not enforce. Here's another example....canceling student debt. Is that part of the executive branch powers? No. Budgetary discretion is always a Congressional issue. It was a lie told to get votes. See how that works? Obama can write rules for classification....but at least in regards to himself, any following president can just ignore those rules. It's not something with any precedent I'm aware of and even if precedent existed....I don't know if it would conclude differently.

Someone is ultimately in charge of the classification system....and as far as I know, it's always the president. That whole raid on Mar a Largo was a hail Mary hoping to find some sort of illegal intel sharing. The case will probably never close....nor see a trial.

That sure is a lot of off-topic whataboutisms. And you claim it is the left that protects their politicians. Not to mention, what makes you believe Trump was any more innocent that Bush or Obama. Though maybe it is true, since Trump let 5,000 Taliban fighters (terrorists?) out of prison -- not sure that is better.

Are we talking about classified documents in general? Yes. If we're talking about turning things over to the National Archives....I'm pretty sure Obama just put that in by himself.



It's illegal to knowingly possess or distribute any classified information/docs you do not require access to. The National Archives stuff and reclassification rules? Pretty sure it's just Obama era stuff.

Nope, the Presidential Records Act is from 1978. In fact, there was a dispute between Clinton and the National Archives about some tapes. In that case, Clinton handled things they way Trump should have, at least if these were actually personal documents, and took it to court. The court ruled that the tapes were in fact personal records and that Clinton was not required to turn them over. Odd that Trump, particularly as "sue happy" as he's been through his life, never went that route -- almost as if he knew they were Presidential Records that he would be required to turn in.

The reason we don't actually go after president's for these things is they literally have seen all the secrets for 4 years. They can, assuming they aren't senile, divulge top secret info every day if they wanted. It's illegal of course...but how would you stop them? We'd have to execute every president after they serve or....just trust them.





Clinton was on the Lolita Express with Epstein 20+ times. He's great at keeping secrets lol.

I see there are more unrelated whataboutisms. I never voted for Bill Clinton (voted for the Bush and Dole, instead), so it isn't a comment that works much for me. It also reminds that Trump was also involved with Epstein. I also found it a bit funny how Trump supporters claim it was the Clinton's that killed Epstein, despite the fact that the prison Epstein died in was directly under the control of Trump's DoJ (a federal prison) -- it seems more likely that it was Trump (or someone in his administration) that was afraid of what Epstein might say.

I think you're confusing my statement about values and principles for personal morals of a candidate. Yes, I agree that both sides of the aisle will, often unfairly, criticize the morals or lack thereof in a candidate.

That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about the defining principles of a political group. For example....Republicans in 1980? Abortion is wrong because it's the killing of a child. Democrats in 1980? A mix of opinions, buy generally supported a woman's right to choose because the government has no right to intrude upon bodily autonomy.....

Flash forward to 2020. Republicans? Same position on the exact same issue. Democrats? Uhhh...a birthing person can choose, stuff, and bodily autonomy is not a right if I feel scared about the pandemic. What's a woman? Anything you want it to be....

Or how about....

Republicans 1990....kids should be able to read the Bible in school. Teachers should be able to teach it. Kids should recite the pledge of allegiance. Democrats- sorry but your opinions don't belong in the classroom and we aren't going to force children to adopt ideological viewpoints just because you hold them....we certainly aren't going to force anyone to say something they don't want to.

And 30 years later....

Republicans- we think children should have more options in schooling.... private school or otherwise. Democrats- we want teachers pushing our new racial views and unproven theories about gender and sex on children as young as possible. It's important they adopt our ideological viewpoints for the betterment of society. Also, if you don't use the words some students tell you to? That's violence and you should be fired or punished accordingly.

More whataboutisms -- and, like most of your post, just misinformation and a mishmash of differing concepts to fake a narrative. It would be about like me saying that, yes, Republicans are consistent -- White Supremacy in the 70s and White Supremacy today. I don't believe that but it's not really any different than what you are (poorly) attempting to do, particularly in trying to straw man arguments. More to the point, it is completely off topic as to ethics of our public officials, as this thread ultimately is about Justice Thomas and his ethical violations.

 

[Light of the East]

It's time for Congress to hold the USSC accountable for its apparent inability to hold justices accountable for their unethical behavior.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.


For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

It appears Sen Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may call for hearings based:


“The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards. 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.

“Today’s report demonstrates, yet again, that Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct, just like every other federal judge. The Pro Publica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.”

Durbin Statement on Reports of Justice Clarence Thomas’ Acceptance of Undisclosed Luxury Gifts from Republican Megadonor | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

CHICAGO – U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee,...

www.judiciary.senate.gov

Just remember, when you get jealous of these billionaires and their millionaire buddies: JUDGEMENT DAY!!

When you see what is in store for them for ignoring the poor, starving the hungry, leaving the naked unclothed, and ignoring the suffering of the world -- well, you gonna feel real sorry for them because they are going to wish they had heeded our Lord's warnings about how we treat our money and the poor who need us.

 

[Say it aint so]

Trump is under investigation for a mishandling classified documents.

Biden was found to have mishandled documents.

There were threads on both of these issues. There's a huge difference between what posters on the left said about one....and excuses made for the other.

But hey....maybe I'm wrong. What's one issue you think the left is consistent on?

Given how each has handled it, including Pence, of course there is a huge difference in how people responded. It goes something like this. Biden Pence, the right way. Trump, well he handled it how Trump is expected to handle it...badly wrong.

 

[Whyayeman]

Meanwhile on the topic:

Can anybody give a good reason why Clarence Thomas declined to declare all those favours from a prominent billionaire Republican partisan? We have had the facile ones about not having to because - well just because.

Who still believes in Thomas's integrity?

 

[rambot]

And this is false. Trump was investigated for refusing to turn over Presidential Records, as the law requires. "The Left" (which is a bad term to use for left leaning posters on this site, it is actually creating something of a straw man) defended the actions of the DoJ, responding to the request by the National Archives, in attempting to get those documents.

They gave Biden "a pass," if you will, because allegedly (based on the information available) he turned them over to the National Archives when they were found -- he didn't attempt to hold onto them for an additional year and force the FBI to come and "raid" his office to get the documents back.

I will further point out that I saw no complaints by "the Left" about VP Pence also finding Classified documents. Maybe I'm wrong, if I am, I'm sure you can point out those posts that called out Pence while defending Biden. I'll go further and say that some on "the Left" here have agreed with me that we should be holding elected officials to higher standards; the rules and laws need to be changed to keep Classified records secure and accounted for, and not being shipped with the personal papers to the former official's home, after they leave office. While we can complain about both Pence and Biden having the Classified records, unfortunately, based on the laws for our elected officials, neither of them appear to have violated a crime.

Trump also would not have violated a crime except for his own willfulness, trying to claim the records were his when the law clearly states that Presidential Records remain property of the government and are to be turned in when their term expires. As you point out, even if he tried to keep them, if he merely would have returned them when the DoJ got a court order requiring them to be returned, he still would have gotten off -- there is no real penalty for holding on to the documents, the penalty now are largely based on his refusing to follow court orders. Yes, he has been charged with what is essentially "mishandling government records" but that is only because he was ordered to by the court; that is what provides the motive, that is lacking with both Biden and Pence (or even Clinton).

Now, as I've stated previously, both sides like to protect their side. I have to agree with others, though, the left will frequently "eat their own." And my impression isn't anything new, I can recall it when a Republican Senator Vitter was listed in the D.C. Madam's records. Of course, despite being one of those married "pro-family" Christian Republicans. HIs initial comment, when the news came out was to ask forgiveness for his sin and ask forgiveness. He was never pressured to resign, Republicans supported him, and he was re-elected to the Senate by Republicans just two years later. In fact, in 2015, when Vitter was running for Louisiana Governor, a reporter appeared to be fired for asking the Senator about the scandal.

Another example would be Herschel Walker -- again, running on that pro-family, Christian morals campaign where he talks a lot about absentee fathers, only for it to come out that he has fathered children with multiple women and never been involved in their lives. Yet, the Right, rather than try to get him off the ticket and put someone who actually lives a "pro-family lifestyle" circles the wagons and supports him.

Again, I'll agree Democrats aren't perfect, either. My issue is that so often we hear Republican's talk about how a Democratic candidate isn't moral (either real or imagined indiscretions) but they so often give a pass for the same or worse issues for Republicans. This definitely extends to Trump -- which goes back to your gaslighting in an attempt to defend Trump, by pretending Trump didn't do anything worse than Biden, pretending they did not have to get a court order for Trump and that he still didn't return documents,.

Compare that to what happened to AL Franken.

 

[rambot]

Meanwhile on the topic:

Can anybody give a good reason why Clarence Thomas declined to declare all those favours from a prominent billionaire Republican partisan? We have had the facile ones about not having to because - well just because.

Who still believes in Thomas's integrity?

Maybe thr members of this real estate firm, defunct since 2006, from which Thomas has been annually receiving between 50-100Gs...maybe someone there still thinks Thomas is on the up and up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve.../clarence-thomas-ginger-financial-disclosure/

 

[SimplyMe]

Compare that to what happened to AL Franken.

Yes, I actually considered including him. From what I can see, if he was a Republican, it would have been "written off" as a joke and he'd still serve today.

 

[Whyayeman]

Maybe thr members of this real estate firm, defunct since 2006, from which Thomas has been annually receiving between 50-100Gs...maybe someone there still thinks Thomas is on the up and up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve.../clarence-thomas-ginger-financial-disclosure/

How can this be honest? Is he just a crook?

 

[rambot]

Yes, I actually considered including him. From what I can see, if he was a Republican, it would have been "written off" as a joke and he'd still serve today.

A few years ago, I did a couple of threads comparing what happenned to Republican and Democrat elected officials who were guilty of impropriety. While DEFINITELY not a rule, there was a STRONGER trend toward minimal punishment amongst the right and a "tougher" punishment for Democrats (but I use that term loosely).

 

[RocksInMyHead]

How can this be honest? Is he just a crook?

There's a solid chance that he's just been copying and pasting the business info for decades and either didn't know or forgot that the original company was dissolved and it was re-incorporated under the new name. He's still disclosing the income, so I'm not sure what he could be trying to hide by using the old business name. I'm inclined to give him somewhat of a pass on that particular one - rather than it being crooked, I'd say it demonstrates that he's not taking the financial disclosure forms seriously or putting any real effort into them.

 

[rambot]

There's a solid chance that he's just been copying and pasting the business info for decades and either didn't know or forgot that the original company was dissolved and it was re-incorporated under the new name. He's still disclosing the income, so I'm not sure what he could be trying to hide by using the old business name. I'm inclined to give him somewhat of a pass on that particular one - rather than it being crooked, I'd say it demonstrates that he's not taking the financial disclosure forms seriously or putting any real effort into them.

I can be inclined to agree with train of thought but in the context of recent news, it really doesn't look good.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I can be inclined to agree with train of thought but in the context of recent news, it really doesn't look good.

Oh, it definitely doesn't look good. I was just pointing out that it's the only one of his issues that actually has a plausible innocent explanation.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Did he receive any money from the deal? Or did it all go to his mom?

He had a 1/3 share of the property. By law, he would have received 1/3 of the purchase price unless he transferred his share of the property to his mother before the sale. There is no record of such a transaction, and his signature is on the closing documents, so I have no reason to believe that this was the case. And even if he immediately transferred his share of the money to his mother (which there is also no record of), he would still be required to report the deal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can't recall Democrats trying to force the DoJ to turn over information during an investigation. After, yes, they did ask and often had trouble getting the information -- but it is a huge difference while an investigation is ongoing and when it was over.

It was rather recent. It doesn't require disclosure to the public. It doesn't even require full disclosure to members of Congress....information can be redacted or withheld if important to the investigation.

The problem is though, that this is essentially, the Biden Administration investigating itself without any disclosure. I read the 12 page summary of the Afghanistan exit. I don't have any confidence in the DOJ or FBI to investigate their boss. I have even less confidence when we know....

1. They're trying to prosecute a former president on similar grounds.
2. Plenty of information about #1 was leaked to left wing media outlets.

What documents were found in Trump's storage unit found in September, over a month after the Mar-A-Lago raid?

Several details about the general content of several classified docs was leaked to the public.

Sorry, not what happened. NARA was informed immediately and, from what I've seen, the documents were turned over immediately.

Ok....easy way to settle this....just give me 3 dates. 1. The date Biden’s lawyers found classified docs in an office in whatever the initial university was. 2. The date those docs were turned over to NARA. 3. The date the public was informed.

Actually, they were closing down the office. It makes sense why they would have found them at that time.

Oh I'm sure they were. Once classified docs were found....and the public informed....no point in keeping it open anymore. I can understand why you might be willing to stretch the limits of reason to believe that the decision to close the office was completely unrelated to the almost certainly of being investigated after the midterms....

But I can't possibly imagine how you explain the fact that Biden sent his lawyers to pack up his stuff....but didn't know he had any illegal docs in the office. That's like telling your heart surgeon to act as your chauffeur.

The obvious answer is that he was fully aware of the classified documents and his attorneys provide the excuse of "attorney-client" privilege that would prevent them from disclosing anything "found".

I apparently have more faith in Special Prosecutors that you do; particularly a Special Prosecutor that was a Trump Justice Department appointee that left the Justice Department when Trump left office.

Cool cool....how's that going? Any progress? Any updates?

Again, turned back over immediately, just not revealed to the public until two months later.

Ok....well those 3 dates ought to clear that up. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

For some reason, they didn't realize Pence's documents were missing either. My suspicion is that it has something to do with being Vice President rather than the President.

Probably because they didn't care....and preventing Pence from running for office isn't a priority. Again, these aren't even new issues.

My recollection is that the Trump documents weren't "leaked," rather that the photo of the documents was from a court filing

I don't recall photos including details of content.

-- in fact, my recollection is that the photo was filed with the court precisely because of Trump's lawsuit for a Special Master.

What exactly is he charged with in the court filing anyway?

And this is different than other Senators in what way?

Well let's assume for a moment not only do you care about ethics as you've said....but you can also imagine a totally valid reason to pay some very expensive lawyers to act as movers.....and subsequently believe they just happened upon classified docs, then again, then the feds found some, and so on....

If you genuinely believe this guy is that bad at remembering where he put stuff, that 1800+ pages and 400 gigs of data may contain half the nation's secrets. Better check and make sure.

What crime is that? Again, I've complained about this previously -- our elected government officials have a different set of laws when it comes to classified documents. Again, to use your "whataboutism" here, you realize Trump hasn't been charged with violation of classified record handling laws.

Right...he wasn't in violation as president. Bringing charges for anything after he was president seems pretty risky considering it's basically the same crime Biden is guilty of.

At least part of the issue is there is no evidence that either Trump nor Biden boxed up the classified records, which is part of why they don't get charged -- their offices are typically packed by staffers who typically don't look at individual documents as they pack. Again, we need better Classified document handling procedures and laws for high government officials.

What? Boxed up? You think that's the issue?

Again, these were found in boxes. The boxes were packed by staffers when they left the White House, not Trump or Biden personally. The documents were not found "in the Corvette." There were boxes, with classified documents included in the boxes, in the same garage as the Corvette. More to the point, it was found in a personal library/office that Biden has in the building with the garage.

Wow....ok. I think I'm starting to get the picture.

Again, false.

Actually, you don't know that.

No but it's a pretty good guess.

Isn't it odd that Congress hasn't gotten anywhere on that investigation, either, despite the numerous hearings that have been held by the "weaponization of government" committee?

No. It's not. Pence is a career politician. He understands how this works.

What people keep realizing is that there is no huge amount of material that can be prosecuted by the "laptop."

Lol you say that with the confidence of someone who has the laptop.

Let's just start with the obvious, anything they can get Hunter on...he can be pardoned for. It's a waste of time. He might actually be dumb enough to implicate his father....but most likely, he'll plead the 5th, go to jail, receive pardon....and go home.

Anything worth pursuing would have to be worth impeachment. I don't know if you've noticed, but even when you're able to convince 50% of the nation....it's not a sure thing. Impeachment is difficult.

I would suggest you wait until election year 2024. Everything they know, and can prove, will be thrown at Biden and the left in general. I don't think that Elon Musk is willing to play defense for the Dems the way the old Twitter execs did. If they manage to get a Republican in....Biden and his son may be in serious trouble.

The "bombshells" were pictures, which you can't prosecute (can't test the drugs in a picture to ensure they are drugs, nor can you prove the women were paid for or who paid for them), and a vague reference to "the Big Guy." While Bobulinski is a witness that claims Joe is the "Big Guy" the author of the email claims it isn't, which makes prosecution difficult.

Another poster said something similar but the author of that email didn't say he wasn't talking about Biden.

And, even if they knew Biden was the "Big Guy", there is nothing illegal about former VP Biden (at the time of the deal) being involved, particularly as the deal made no money (it fell through).

We gave a billion dollars to the Ukraine under Obama.

At most, it was a lie by Joe, kind of like the one Trump made where he claimed during his campaign that he wasn't trying to work with Moscow to build a hotel.

Build a hotel?

That sure is a lot of off-topic whataboutisms. And you claim it is the left that protects their politicians.

I honestly didn't realize how uninformed you are.

Apparently, you think that it's normal to send your lawyers to pack up an office like a moving company...and how much per hour do you think those lawyers make? Hundreds? Thousands?

It's a story so obviously false I'd feel insulted if i voted for him and they didn't even have the courtesy to come up with a good lie. The only lie that's worse, is the one about the "staffers" throwing classified docs into boxes excuse I hadn't heard until you started talking about it. I had to look it up. It's like he's some 22yo getting kicked out of his college dorm unexpectedly lol.

Here's a hint....

Biden knew allllll the way back in 2012 he was leaving in 2016. The idea that classified docs are just getting chucked into boxes is pure lies. It's nonsense. That's not how they go out the door....that's not why they go out the door. Again, it's a lie so obvious it's insulting.

Not to mention, what makes you believe Trump was any more innocent that Bush or Obama.

Did Trump kill any US citizens without a trial? I'm certain Trump is guilty of something....possibly election tampering. I know he went forward on a couple of raids that went sideways.

Obama killed US citizens without any due process. Am I upset about it? No. Do I think he should be in jail? Nope. I don't have these naive ideas about how our government works. I understand he probably had good evidence and frankly, they were a problem. Trials were a waste of time.

Though maybe it is true, since Trump let 5,000 Taliban fighters (terrorists?) out of prison -- not sure that is better.

Well he did end the war in Afghanistan. I don't know who you think was going to keep them in prison once we left.

Nope, the Presidential Records Act is from 1978.

True.

In fact, there was a dispute between Clinton and the National Archives about some tapes.

Uh huh.

In that case, Clinton handled things they way Trump should have, at least if these were actually personal documents, and took it to court.

Who did they go to court against lol?

The court ruled that the tapes were in fact personal records and that Clinton was not required to turn them over.

Tapes of what?

Odd that Trump, particularly as "sue happy" as he's been through his life, never went that route -- almost as if he knew they were Presidential Records that he would be required to turn in.

The Presidential Records Act gives presidents discretion over which materials they want to turn in.

I see there are more unrelated whataboutisms. I never voted for Bill Clinton (voted for the Bush and Dole, instead), so it isn't a comment that works much for me.

Ok.

It also reminds that Trump was also involved with EpsteOK.

Indeed.

I also found it a bit funny how Trump supporters claim it was the Clinton's that killed Epstein, despite the fact that the prison Epstein died in was directly under the control of Trump's DoJ (a federal prison) -- it seems more likely that it was Trump (or someone in his administration) that was afraid of what Epstein might say.

Well I'm certain of one thing....

That would be dynamite evidence to use against Trump to throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Instead, this administration seems more interested in pursuing statements that probably won't even come close to criminality.....and the ability to convince a jury that despite politicians doing so in the past (and the courts deciding that paying off a mistress isn't a campaign donation) Trump is somehow guilty of filing the wrong forms.

More whataboutisms -- and, like most of your post, just misinformation and a mishmash of differing concepts to fake a narrative. It would be about like me saying that, yes, Republicans are consistent -- White Supremacy in the 70s and White Supremacy today.

You'd have to be able to explain what white supremacy is....on a thread about a black conservative Justice lol.

I don't believe that but it's not really any different than what you are (poorly) attempting to do, particularly in trying to straw man arguments.

My point was that you don't really care about ethics.

More to the point, it is completely off topic as to ethics of our public officials, as this thread ultimately is about Justice Thomas and his ethical violations.

You mean the speculation of his ethical violations. I'm not aware of any evidence provided that he either profited from the sale of property or that his yacht ride must be accounted for.