Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Ana the Ist]

@SimplyMe & Ana the lst....there are other threads addressing classified documents.
Unless USSC Justices are taking home classified documents, I fail to see the relevance in this thread.

It went off the rails a bit when some posters claimed to care about ethics....and have since proven that not to be the case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And, back on topic:

Judicial record undermines Clarence Thomas defence in luxury gifts scandal

Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow was linked to a conservative group that had court business while Thomas was on the bench

www.theguardian.com

But a close look at Thomas’s judicial activities from the time he became friends with Crow, in the mid-1990s, suggests that the statement might fall short of the full picture. It reveals that a conservative organization affiliated with Crow did have business before the supreme court while Thomas was on the bench.​

​

In addition, Crow has been connected to several groups that over the years have lobbied the supreme court through so-called “amicus briefs” that provide legal arguments supporting a plaintiff or defendant.​

Wait....

He's connected to "groups" that make legal arguments that support a position?

These "groups" wouldn't happen to have "lawyers" would they?

 

[DaisyDay]

Cool story.

Chilling, anyhoo.

Clapper: Trump revoking Brennan’s security clearance is an ‘infringement’ on free speech

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Wednesday that President Trump’s decision to revoke ex-CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance is an inf…

thehill.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

Chilling, anyhoo.

Clapper: Trump revoking Brennan’s security clearance is an ‘infringement’ on free speech

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Wednesday that President Trump’s decision to revoke ex-CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance is an inf…

thehill.com

Non-judge gives 1st amendment ruling....


And? What is that supposed to be?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You keep having it explained that it isn't the same, yet completely ignore it. The grounds aren't similar, neither are being prosecuted for having classified documents. Both have had Special Prosecutors appointed to oversee their investigations. The key difference being, one was informed to return documents, when they refused a court order was issued -- and they defied the court order. Yes, there may be charges stemming from failure to return the documents in violation of a court order.

As for the Special Prosecutor investigating Biden -- as I previously explained -- he was a Trump appointee to the DoJ who LEFT WHEN TRUMP LEFT OFFICE (forgive me for the shouting but you either didn't notice or "forgot" when I told you this previously). He was working at a private law firm when AG Garland appointed him to oversee the investigation into the keeping and storage of documents by Pres. Biden.



Again, no. The "details," both text and the picture, were part of a DoJ court filing. The filing was in response to former Pres. Trump's suing to get a Special Master. You can see it here, the photo is Attachment F. It was leaked to the press or the public.



Nov 2 -- The documents are discovered in Biden's office.
Nov 3 -- The documents are removed by NARA in the morning
Nov 4 -- The DoJ is notified of classified documents being found in Biden's office by NARA's Inspector General, after he reviewed the documents NARA had picked up.
Nov 14 -- A Trump appointee, John R. Lausch, is named to investigate the documents and to, “the possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records.”
Jan 5 -- Laush briefs Garland and recommends the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
Jan 9 -- CBS breaks the story (date the public was informed).
Jan 11 -- Classified documents are found at Biden's home (in the garage)
Jan 12 -- Garland announces the appointment of Robert Hur as a Special Prosecutor to investigate Biden and the classified documents. As I've stated above (and previously), Hur is a former DoJ prosecutor that was appointed by Trump and that resigned when Trump left office, he was working in a private practice when appointed by Garland to become a Special Prosecutor.

Did I give you enough dates in the timeline? I think I've shown that plenty occurred, including the documents being immediately being returned.



The decision to close the office was unrelated to the midterms. It was because Pres. Biden, as the President, no longer worked at the University of Pennsylvania -- he had no further need of the office.


I can think of a few ways. My best guess is that, since they were papers from his time as Vice President, he wanted his lawyers to review them to see what should be made public (likely in his Presidential library) and what was solely personal and that he would not shared (such as some of the private arrangements of his son Beau's funeral.

That is mere speculation but is a valid reason why his lawyers would be "moving them" -- in truth reviewing them so they could tell the movers where the papers should be taken. Regardless, that sounds like a great question for the Special Prosecutor to ask, as well as any Congressional Investigations.



No, that is your biased mind refusing to believe there can be any valid reasons.



No, much like the Mueller Investigation, it is ongoing and there have been no public updates. I'm guessing when the Special Prosecutor finishes, we'll be able to see his report.



You have those dates above, hope it is clear for you. While not released to the public, there was in investigation started well before the news became public.


Or maybe, "the Left" sees the difference between turning over documents immediately when found as compared to not turning them over even after there is a court order requiring the return of the documents.



Again, it is Attachment F of the filing, which is linked above.



Nothing -- again, this was when former Pres. Trump sued to get a Special Master appointed to keep the FBI and DoJ from examining the documents.



I think it has been shown that your information is wrong.



Again, if Biden was defying a court order requiring him to return the documents, then it would be the same. Since they were found and turned over immediately, it is not the same.



It is? It would likely be a more honest assessment if you could look neutrally at the evidence, and not through partisan colored glasses.



No, I say that because various Republicans have had "the laptop" (at least the information from the laptop) for 4 years now. Giuliani had it, it's been put into the Congressional Record by Matt Gaetz, etc. And that is beyond Trump's DoJ having it, etc. If there were the "bombshells" that right-wing media keep trying to claim, they'd have been plastered on the news by now. Instead, both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal refused to run the story because they claimed there was no story.

I recall Tucker Carlson having Bobulinsky on and getting all the material, that allegedly proved how involved Biden was. Carlson was very excited by the things Bobulinsky told him and looked forward to seeing the documents. The day after Carlson got the documents, the show when he claimed he would lay all the corruption out for everyone to see, Tucker Carlson instead says that he knows Hunter Biden and that he doesn't want to pile on -- they were once neighbors and Hunter is a nice guy but one that has issues and he doesn't want to pile on. I think that alone shows that the "bombshell" isn't there.



Personally, I'd rather see it all now. If Biden has broken the law, let's get him out of office. I have no issues with holding him accountable if he is guilty.



You don't think Elon Musk would keep the inappropriate content pictures of Hunter Biden off Twitter? I think you also need to review the evidence, as the Trump administration also requesting Twitter to remove stories -- such as the claims of a whistleblower -- off of Twitter. Twitter appears to have been relatively equal in terms of the requests they honored, despite Republican claims to the contrary.




While technically correct, it ignores what the message states. You can make fun of the author for claiming "he wasn't aware" of a role for Joe Biden in the deal, but it does make clear that if he didn't realize Joe was a part of it, then Joe wouldn't be the "Big Guy" he's referring to. Or are you trying to say he got into a deal where a significant money was going to an unnamed "Big Guy"? I think that claim is beyond what any reasonable person would accept being true.



Yes, we responded with aid to Ukraine after they had Russian troops in their country (in the Donbass with rebel insurgents) and had stolen Crimea. Trump also gave aid to Ukraine once he was President -- and when he did he mocked the aid Obama gave. I think it would be very difficult that Obama gave aid to Ukraine because of Hunter.



Yes, build a hotel -- which included negotiations with top Russian officials, with allegedly plans for "giving" Putin an apartment in the top floor.

Look, the claims of the "Big Guy" wouldn't indicate any laws were broken. The two are actually not that different than what you are trying to claim. While both were legal, particularly while running for President, it might indicate how a President might be influenced due to those deals -- and, if Joe is the "Big Guy" -- it would show both lied about it.



Odd, then, that I'm the one that keeps correcting you on the misinformation you have and the things you do not know -- such as the above dates, the fact the "lead" was not a leak but a required court filing, etc.


Again, I'll agree the question should be asked but I gave you at least one possible scenario as to why his lawyers may have been examining the documents. If you want a second, it is because some of Biden's staffers thought it was reckless of Biden to state on 60 Minutes, about the Trump documents, “How anyone could be that irresponsible?” So the staffers wanted Biden's VP documents examined to be sure there were no Classified documents that would embarrass them, so they sent the lawyers. There are plenty of reasons -- just that when you blinded by your partisan politics you can't think of any.



Tell me, have you worked in any type of executive job -- one where you had a secretary and other staff? You do realize that top executives often don't even clean up their own desk, if they get called away or decide to call it a night, the secretary is often the one that puts documents away at night and cleans up the desk. So, if he was looking at a classified document, it may have accidentally gotten stuck behind another, non-classified, document on the desk. The secretary, not noticing, puts both in the file where the top file belongs -- not realizing he/she stuck the classified document in the unclassified file.

The mistake isn't discovered and, when it is time to move out, staffers pull the information from the files into boxes. They don't examine every document, they go through and the files marked "personal" are boxed and sent to the politician's home. Any files categorized as "work" are sent to NARA. It is very easy for files to be in the wrong spot and sent to the wrong location. It is why NARA initially went to Trump's office and told them they were missing Presidential records and if he would please return them. They eventually even got some of the records from Trump; but they found not all of the requested documents were in the shipment and only then did they contact the DoJ for help in retrieving the documents. It is only after the DoJ was stonewalled that they went to the courts and got an order for the documents to be returned, etc.


It's very possible but I doubt we'll know anytime soon. We do know that Pres. Trump allowed a foreign country to kill a US Citizen.


Yes, he ended the war in Afghanistan without including the Afghan government in the negotiations and let 5,000 Taliban fighters out immediately, not waiting until we had pulled out. Sounds like a recipe of disaster for the President who pulls the troops out. But that is off topic (as most of this is) so enough said.

Chilling, anyhoo.

Clapper: Trump revoking Brennan’s security clearance is an ‘infringement’ on free speech

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Wednesday that President Trump’s decision to revoke ex-CIA Director John Brennan’s security clearance is an inf…

thehill.com

So the big story today is that former senior campaign advisor Blinken was behind the letter circulated to mainstream media outlets to squash the laptop story. We know this, because it was revealed by one of the 52 intelligence officials who signed the letter circulated to the media. He admitted as much, his communication with Blinken was verified, and he is likely off the hook for anything serious....because he was a former CIA official at the time, and signing as such just gives the impression that he had some access to Intel or evidence he didn't actually have. He admitted to a motive of signing because he wanted Biden to win. On a fraudulent document about intel that is supposed Russian disinformation efforts to manipulate media in attempt to influence elections....his signing is little more than a minor crime. He has used his former position to lend credibility to the Intel he hasn't been exposed to.

This is a well established law in all levels of law enforcement. Using your position, authority, or title...to give the impression that whatever interaction follows is related to that authority....is illegal. Even stating your former position in law enforcement or intelligence would be illegal if it gave the subject of the interaction the impression of authority. Many of the signers ate currently a part of the federal intel and law enforcement agencies and their signatures would be considered illegal as well. Even if no other signers of that letter admit to it, they are all guilty of collaboration with a presidential election campaign is unquestionable.

The fact that these officials either knowingly or unknowingly violated election laws and basically cannot be trusted nor are likely to face consequences is troubling enough....

The larger problem is of course, that this administration has since attempted to create an entire agency to "prevent" foreign actors from doing exactly what they have done themselves. Russian disinformation amounted to some fake stories on social media that haven't been shown to influence any votes....and a hack of the DNC revealing factual information that Hillary had essentially rigged her own nomination. It's certainly not a good thing...but not disinformation.

The current administration is undoubtedly guilty of exactly what they tried to impeach Trump for.

Never mind all that though....we've got some stories about possible ethics violations that no one seems to believe enough to make any sort of allegation on....and I'll just leave and let you discuss that...

Because you care about ethics.

 

[wing2000]

So the big story today is that former senior campaign advisor Blinken was behind the letter circulated to mainstream media outlets to squash the laptop story. We know this, because it was revealed by one of the 52 intelligence officials who signed the letter circulated to the media. He admitted as much, his communication with Blinken was verified, and he is likely off the hook for anything serious....because he was a former CIA official at the time, and signing as such just gives the impression that he had some access to Intel or evidence he didn't actually have. He admitted to a motive of signing because he wanted Biden to win. On a fraudulent document about intel that is supposed Russian disinformation efforts to manipulate media in attempt to influence elections....his signing is little more than a minor crime. He has used his former position to lend credibility to the Intel he hasn't been exposed to.

This is a well established law in all levels of law enforcement. Using your position, authority, or title...to give the impression that whatever interaction follows is related to that authority....is illegal. Even stating your former position in law enforcement or intelligence would be illegal if it gave the subject of the interaction the impression of authority. Many of the signers ate currently a part of the federal intel and law enforcement agencies and their signatures would be considered illegal as well. Even if no other signers of that letter admit to it, they are all guilty of collaboration with a presidential election campaign is unquestionable.

The fact that these officials either knowingly or unknowingly violated election laws and basically cannot be trusted nor are likely to face consequences is troubling enough....

The larger problem is of course, that this administration has since attempted to create an entire agency to "prevent" foreign actors from doing exactly what they have done themselves. Russian disinformation amounted to some fake stories on social media that haven't been shown to influence any votes....and a hack of the DNC revealing factual information that Hillary had essentially rigged her own nomination. It's certainly not a good thing...but not disinformation.

The current administration is undoubtedly guilty of exactly what they tried to impeach Trump for.

Never mind all that though....we've got some stories about possible ethics violations that no one seems to believe enough to make any sort of allegation on....and I'll just leave and let you discuss that...

Because you care about ethics.

It went off the rails a bit when some posters claimed to care about ethics....and have since proven that not to be the case.

take it to another thread.

 

[SimplyMe]

So the big story today is that former senior campaign advisor Blinken was behind the letter circulated to mainstream media outlets to squash the laptop story. We know this, because it was revealed by one of the 52 intelligence officials who signed the letter circulated to the media. He admitted as much, his communication with Blinken was verified, and he is likely off the hook for anything serious....because he was a former CIA official at the time, and signing as such just gives the impression that he had some access to Intel or evidence he didn't actually have. He admitted to a motive of signing because he wanted Biden to win. On a fraudulent document about intel that is supposed Russian disinformation efforts to manipulate media in attempt to influence elections....his signing is little more than a minor crime. He has used his former position to lend credibility to the Intel he hasn't been exposed to.

This is a well established law in all levels of law enforcement. Using your position, authority, or title...to give the impression that whatever interaction follows is related to that authority....is illegal. Even stating your former position in law enforcement or intelligence would be illegal if it gave the subject of the interaction the impression of authority. Many of the signers ate currently a part of the federal intel and law enforcement agencies and their signatures would be considered illegal as well. Even if no other signers of that letter admit to it, they are all guilty of collaboration with a presidential election campaign is unquestionable.

The fact that these officials either knowingly or unknowingly violated election laws and basically cannot be trusted nor are likely to face consequences is troubling enough....

The larger problem is of course, that this administration has since attempted to create an entire agency to "prevent" foreign actors from doing exactly what they have done themselves. Russian disinformation amounted to some fake stories on social media that haven't been shown to influence any votes....and a hack of the DNC revealing factual information that Hillary had essentially rigged her own nomination. It's certainly not a good thing...but not disinformation.

The current administration is undoubtedly guilty of exactly what they tried to impeach Trump for.

Never mind all that though....we've got some stories about possible ethics violations that no one seems to believe enough to make any sort of allegation on....and I'll just leave and let you discuss that...

Because you care about ethics.

Your claims, which I notice you didn't provide a link for, are claims by Jim Jordan -- who is not exactly known for putting the truth above politics. In fact, Democrats on the committee have come out and stated that Jordan misrepresented the testimony, and included parts of the testimony Jordan excluded that contradict the idea that Blinken was "behind the letter." I find this a lot with the "facts" you claim -- they are typically based on one-sided claims that typically the evidence does not support.

I also question your claims of breaking the law -- under your interpretation, every Police Union (made up of active Police officers) giving the endorsement to a candidate would be breaking the law. In large part, what you are talking about is stripping millions of Americans of their freedom of speech. The letter clearly stated it was their opinion, though based on their experience as intelligence officers, and that none of them currently worked in the field -- regardless of your claims about it. In fact, to quote from the letter, "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case."

You have this issue with wanting to show "whataboutisms" -- with a common fault that your whataboutisms are factually flawed. That I point out the flaws, rather than immediately agree with you, makes you go "a ha, you don't really care about ethics." The other issue, beyond the fact that they are factually flawed, is that they typically are matters that are just flat out illegal, not merely unethical.

What you keep missing on this thread, though, is that there are very clear ethical rules that federal judges are supposed to follow. For some reason, though, Supreme Court justices are not held to those same standards. Justice Thomas has clearly violated those ethical standards for decades, there is no question about that. Granted, he isn't the only one, there are claims of both justices on the Left and the Right violating those rules. -- and I believe the law should be changed to require all Supreme Court justices to follow those ethical rules, along with clear penalties (something also currently missing) for violations of those ethical standards.

Now, I've stated consistently that I want the Bidens investigated. I'd love for there to be standards for the children of high ranking government officials to help prevent them from "cashing in" on their parents jobs -- though that likely would be a difficult thing to create, while at the same time allowing them to live their own lives and pursue employment. Of course, I'd first rather have real ethical standards for the people in office -- in all branches of government -- before we worry quite as much about their children and extended family. So don't try to gaslight people that I don't care about ethics because I am not ready to immediately convict Joe and Hunter Biden before there is any real evidence of crime, or complain that Hunter is doing something completely new by benefiting off of his father's position -- when we can see other politicians' children doing the exact same thing.

And it is most ironic that you are trying to argue this in an attempt to distract and "what-about" the actions of Justice Thomas.

 

[durangodawood]

Supreme Court thinks theyre above it all. We cant be corrupt because we're "supreme".

 

[Pommer]

Supreme Court thinks theyre above it all. We cant be corrupt because we're "supreme".

Yes, the assumption was that grifters and cheats wouldn’t ever be selected to sit on the Court.
And of course power doesn’t automatically “corrupt”.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your claims, which I notice you didn't provide a link for, are claims by Jim Jordan -- who is not exactly known for putting the truth above politics.

For someone who throws around accusations of partisanship...you sure seem partisan.

In fact, Democrats on the committee have come out and stated that Jordan misrepresented the testimony,

Oh? That must be why all the news sources aren't talking about it.

and included parts of the testimony Jordan excluded that contradict the idea that Blinken was "behind the letter."

Oh I see....do you have a link?

I find this a lot with the "facts" you claim -- they are typically based on one-sided claims that typically the evidence does not support.

Well either the testimony contradicts the report....or it doesn't. Let's see what was left out.

I also question your claims of breaking the law -- under your interpretation, every Police Union (made up of active Police officers) giving the endorsement to a candidate would be breaking the law.

Well police unions are essentially advocacy groups. They don't enforce the law.

In large part, what you are talking about is stripping millions of Americans of their freedom of speech.

No...rules are pretty clear on this. Perhaps it's not as big a deal on the state and local levels....but at the federal level, not allowed.

The letter clearly stated it was their opinion, though based on their experience as intelligence officers, and that none of them currently worked in the field -- regardless of your claims about it. In fact, to quote from the letter, "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case."

Right...followed by a list of 50+ intelligence officials and their titles.

Let's pretend for a moment that Blinken wasn't involved at all....

Why would these guys get together, draft a letter suggesting that a story they hadn't seen, nor examined the evidence of, is somehow identifiable as "Russian disinformation" and make this statement not to the public....but to news media outlets?

You were saying that you believed that it was a coincidence that the FBI was going around doing the same thing with social media companies. Now is it suddenly a bigger coincidence that somehow coordinated the efforts of Intel officials?

You have this issue with wanting to show "whataboutisms" -- with a common fault that your whataboutisms are factually flawed.

I am open to any evidence you have....I've changed my position before, I've admitted I'm wrong I'm the past....

Let's see it. It better be better than the "evidence" that Biden didn't leverage a billion dollars to remove a prosecutor going after the guy giving his son a handout.

That I point out the flaws, rather than immediately agree with you, makes you go "a ha, you don't really care about ethics."

Well you've mentioned flaws. I haven't seen whatever you have though.

The other issue, beyond the fact that they are factually flawed, is that they typically are matters that are just flat out illegal, not merely unethical.

Right....that's why overlooking them or chalking them up to "coincidence" makes it appear as if there's no way you care about ethics.

What you keep missing on this thread, though, is that there are very clear ethical rules that federal judges are supposed to follow.

Yeah....no evidence has been produced that Thomas has violated any ethics.

For some reason, though, Supreme Court justices are not held to those same standards.

Who would do that?

Justice Thomas has clearly violated those ethical standards for decades, there is no question about that.

There's plenty of questions about that...I haven't seen a scrap of evidence in the articles posted. Just speculation.

Granted, he isn't the only one, there are claims of both justices on the Left and the Right violating those rules. -- and I believe the law should be changed to require all Supreme Court justices to follow those ethical rules, along with clear penalties (something also currently missing) for violations of those ethical standards.

Who would enforce these measures? Do you understand why we have separation of powers to begin with?

Now, I've stated consistently that I want the Bidens investigated. I'd love for there to be standards for the children of high ranking government officials to help prevent them from "cashing in" on their parents jobs -- though that likely would be a difficult thing to create, while at the same time allowing them to live their own lives and pursue employment. Of course, I'd first rather have real ethical standards for the people in office -- in all branches of government -- before we worry quite as much about their children and extended family.

Well by his own words...Biden used the threat of a billion dollar loss to remove a prosecutor that was investigating his son's "work".

That's not just "my kid cashed in on my name". That's abuse of power.

So don't try to gaslight people that I don't care about ethics because I am not ready to immediately convict Joe and Hunter Biden before there is any real evidence of crime, or complain that Hunter is doing something completely new by benefiting off of his father's position -- when we can see other politicians' children doing the exact same thing.

If there's anything substantial that would be considered evidence of ethical violations....I'm more than willing to hear it. Vacations with a billionaire? Not interested in your personal opinions....show me where it's a definitely going to fall under "gifts" and not hospitality. The sale of his mom's home? Even easier....show me the income he received from the sale. His wife's family's business? The one he listed income from but kept listing the old name instead of the new one?

Despite Democratic Party conspiracy theories regarding Thomas and his wife....he has rather consistently maintained that he and his wife don't discuss politics or law at all. I'm sure you don't believe that...but it would explain why he didn't know her business changed its name. It doesn't really matter either way....because the relevant part is that he reported the income.

Now....unless there's some new allegations, evidence that lays out specifically the difference between a gift and hospitality as it pertains to Thomas, or evidence he profited from the sale of the home and didn't report it....

What ethics violations are we talking about? I understand we aren't discussing crimes here....but that doesn't mean it's reasonable or even ethical to throw out the need for evidence.

And it is most ironic that you are trying to argue this in an attempt to distract and "what-about" the actions of Justice Thomas.

No I'm calling it as I see it....partisan hackery. A hit piece. A distraction from the rather enormous violations of this administration. It's entirely inconsequential....because as you know, there's no real body above the SCOTUS. Even if the Democrats could make a regulatory body (and they can't) to go after Thomas (because he's a black person who thinks for himself...not ethics lol) do you know what would happen?

Thomas would appeal the court as it's unconstitutional and a clear violation of our separation of powers. Even if you could stack all the lower courts with judges who ruled against him....he's just going to keep appealing it until it reaches the SCOTUS.

I don't care if he's the only conservative Justice left by then....I'd bet all my money they won't voluntarily abdicate their power to some arbitrary regulatory body. It won't happen.

Thats why this is just partisan hackery. When RGB died....the same reporters revealed her longstanding friendship with a reporter, a journalist. Everyone already knew....except the public.....because this reporter consistently had inside info on big cases....and she'd been seen hanging out with RGB on more than a few occasions. You know what that is? An ethical violation. It's definitely against the ethical rules to leak any inside information on an upcoming ruling. That's why it was a big deal when some clerk leaked the Roe decision early.....that's an ethical violation. For some reason, nobody told the Marshals that were sent to guard the homes of the Justices that they had the authority to arrest literally anyone who showed up, because it's illegal to protest outside the home of a judge or court official. That's an ethical violation...but we don't know who's fault it is. Garland is ultimately responsible but I doubt he put together the training the Marshals got.

Don't get me started on the journalists and reporters. I could spend the next five pages listing their ethical violations. We aren't going to be setting up a regulatory body for them either. Forget it.

In fact, no one I just Iisted is likely to pay for any ethical violations. The law clerk at the SCOTUS wasn't found, Garland won't punish anyone nor accept responsibility, Thomas won't be facing any penalties for whatever ethical standards you think his toes stepped over. Our government is designed to be difficult to use effectively....and doesn't change easily. That's by design. It may seem stupid now, but the men who set the rules spent their lives under the authority of a king....who could change rules as he pleased....and they were expected to obey. The system they created was built so that would be unlikely to happen again in the near future.


This is just partisan hackery.

 

[SimplyMe]

For someone who throws around accusations of partisanship...you sure seem partisan.





Oh? That must be why all the news sources aren't talking about it.




Oh I see....do you have a link?

How about this, for one? There are others.

Well either the testimony contradicts the report....or it doesn't. Let's see what was left out.

How about Morell's testimony: "“Mr. Morell testified that Mr. Blinken did not hint that the Biden campaign ‘could use some help on this’ or suggest that Mr. Morell should ‘cook up something.’"

If you want the actual text of the testimony, it goes like this:

Q: When he called you, did he direct, suggest, or insinuate in any way that you should write a letter or statement on this topic?
A: My memory is that he did not, right. My memory is that he asked me what I thought.
Q: Okay. It wasn't: The campaign could use some help on this: could you - -
A: He did not say that.
Q: - cook up something that we could use?
A: It's not my memory that he said that.
Q: Okay. Why do you believe he called you then and asked for your opinion on this?
A: You know, Tony and I were fairly close. I mean, I wouldn't say we were close friends, but Tony and I were fairly close. During our time in government when he was the Vice President's National Security Advisor and then when he was President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor. I would be the person that he would reach out to with those kind of questions. When we saw each other post the Obama administration, we would have conversations about what was going on in the world; he would ask me questions. So it was in part natural, you know, for him to do that. But, you know, he asked me a specific question here. You know, he'll have to tell you what his intent was, right, in asking me. You know, my thinking was that, if agreed, right, that the Russians were somehow involved, my guess was that he would want that out, but that is a guess, right. I do not know his intent.

Well police unions are essentially advocacy groups. They don't enforce the law.

And who decides what candidates they support? You are directly talking of those that "enforce the law" who are making the decision about whom to support. I seem to recall that there were law officers on stage, in uniform, not employees of the union who didn't work in law enforcement, with Trump when they announced their endorsement.

No...rules are pretty clear on this. Perhaps it's not as big a deal on the state and local levels....but at the federal level, not allowed.

Again, point me to the specific law. FWIW, this letter was, prior to publication, cleared by the CIA -- as all writings by former intelligence officials must be.

Right...followed by a list of 50+ intelligence officials and their titles.

If you look at the signatures, every one has a "former" in front of their title. Again, the letter clearly states it is their opinion. You've already been shown your claims about their making it sound as if they were talking about intelligence they had was false, and I've told you previously they were all former intelligence. The letter bears this out, as I've previously linked.

Let's pretend for a moment that Blinken wasn't involved at all....

Why would these guys get together, draft a letter suggesting that a story they hadn't seen, nor examined the evidence of, is somehow identifiable as "Russian disinformation" and make this statement not to the public....but to news media outlets?

I would guess they independently decided they were in favor of Biden winning the election and wanted to make their opinions known -- just as your writing here is to express your opinions and to persuade people that Biden is a criminal.

You were saying that you believed that it was a coincidence that the FBI was going around doing the same thing with social media companies. Now is it suddenly a bigger coincidence that somehow coordinated the efforts of Intel officials?

Except it wasn't coordinated. The letter was released something like five days after the story broke, after social media had already made their decisions to block the information.

To remind you of the timeline, the FBI seems to have talked to social media at the end of August. In this article, first published Sept. 1, the Times reports, "Facebook and Twitter, which were slow to react to wide-ranging disinformation campaigns on their services in 2016 and continue to face criticism — even from their own employees — that they are not doing enough to confront the issue, said they were warned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the Russian effort." [empashis mine] You seem to be overstating how coordinated the FBI warning was with the Hunter Biden story breaking.

So, on Sept 1, 2020, The NY Times wrote an article about it. The NY Post article about Hunter's laptop was published two weeks after this, on Oct. 14; Twitter and other social media outlets made their determination roughly the same day. Blinken didn't talk to Morell until Oct. 17 -- three days after the story broke and after many media outlets refused to cover the story. Then the letter itself wasn't published until Oct. 19 -- the timeline doesn't even fit what you (and Jim Jordan) are trying to claim.

I am open to any evidence you have....I've changed my position before, I've admitted I'm wrong I'm the past....

Let's see it. It better be better than the "evidence" that Biden didn't leverage a billion dollars to remove a prosecutor going after the guy giving his son a handout.

No, as has been constantly corrected here, Biden told Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was not investigating "the guy giving his son a handout." Various stories, from the time, confirm that Biden wasn't the one that suggested this strategy; this was the will of the Obama Administration for Biden to do when he visited Ukraine. It was something supported by our European Allies. And, even more interesting, by some of the Republican Senators, including ones that tried to later argue that it looked bad. They stated in the letter to Ukraine, supporting the administration's policy, "We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's Office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step."

It's also worth noting that Sen. Johnson, one of those that signed the letter but then tried to advance the conspiracy theory that Biden was trying to stop the prosecutor from investigating his son, led the Senate Intelligence committee in investigating the Biden in 2020. His report, which came out about a month before the election, found no wrongdoing on the part of Joe Biden in Ukraine.

In fact, in a bit of irony, a State Department official, George Kent is one who repeatedly spoke out about how Hunter working at Burisma, while the State Department wanted the owner of Burisma indicted, appeared to be a huge conflict of interest. Yet, when asked about Joe Biden and his work trying to get the owner of Burisma brought to justice, Kent stated, “Vice President Biden was leading the policy charge, pushing President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to take more decisive anticorruption action.”

Basically, the Senate Homeland Security Committee found that there did appear to be a conflict of interest and that conflict of interest was discussed in the State Department, but they could find no policies that were changed because Hunter Biden worked at Burisma. Basically, all the report found was that it looked bad -- and again, I fully support the idea of preventing family members from these types of jobs.

Well you've mentioned flaws. I haven't seen whatever you have though.



Right....that's why overlooking them or chalking them up to "coincidence" makes it appear as if there's no way you care about ethics.



Yeah....no evidence has been produced that Thomas has violated any ethics.

No, just the fact that he violated reporting requirements. Again, there are no ethical standards in place for Supreme Court Justices, so it would be tough for Thomas to have violated them. OTOH, if you examine the ethics for other Federal Judges, much of his wife's work would have disqualified him in many of the cases that were heard by the court -- as his wife worked for various groups that had business before the court.

Who would do that?

I'd suggest a panel of Judges, likely led by another Supreme Court Justice -- maybe the Chief Justice; you know, kind of like how Congress are supposed to enforce their ethics rules. In this case, if the rules had the force of law, I suspect judges would uphold them.

There's plenty of questions about that...I haven't seen a scrap of evidence in the articles posted. Just speculation.




Who would enforce these measures? Do you understand why we have separation of powers to begin with?

Again, a panel of judges -- kind of like how the claims of not reporting are being forwarded to a panel of judges.

Well by his own words...Biden used the threat of a billion dollar loss to remove a prosecutor that was investigating his son's "work".

That's not just "my kid cashed in on my name". That's abuse of power.

No, again, Republican Senators wrote a letter to Ukraine in support of removing the prosecutor, specifically because he was not investigating. A Senate Committee investigation, done just before the election that looked into found the opposite, that Biden was trying to get corruption investigated in Ukraine. Beyond that, his son was never a target of the investigation -- the investigation was into the owner of the company and events that occurred several years before Hunter joined the Burisma board.

Again, I'll agree that it was a mistake for Hunter to be on the board but, unfortunately, we have no laws preventing it (just as the Trump children were not barred from foreign deals and investments).

If there's anything substantial that would be considered evidence of ethical violations....I'm more than willing to hear it. Vacations with a billionaire? Not interested in your personal opinions....show me where it's a definitely going to fall under "gifts" and not hospitality. The sale of his mom's home? Even easier....show me the income he received from the sale. His wife's family's business? The one he listed income from but kept listing the old name instead of the new one?

Despite Democratic Party conspiracy theories regarding Thomas and his wife....he has rather consistently maintained that he and his wife don't discuss politics or law at all. I'm sure you don't believe that...but it would explain why he didn't know her business changed its name. It doesn't really matter either way....because the relevant part is that he reported the income.

It's odd, one one hand you claim Biden is compromised because of his son's work, even though he maintains that he has never played any role in his son's business. There is no actual evidence that proves that he did have any knowledge but you maintain that not only did he but that he was paid by his son -- despite the complete lack of any type of money trail (at least that anyone has been able to find).

OTOH, you claim we should trust that Thomas and his wife don't ever talk politics. That is quite the double standard you are employing.

For me, it does not matter if he does our doesn't -- the ethics that Federal Judges operate under is that they are to recuse themselves if their wife is involved with any party that comes before the court. I don't think it is too much to apply that to Supreme Court Justices, or even Vice Presidents and their sons. Let's avoid any appearance of a Conflict of Interest, whether there is actually a conflict or not.

Now....unless there's some new allegations, evidence that lays out specifically the difference between a gift and hospitality as it pertains to Thomas, or evidence he profited from the sale of the home and didn't report it....

What ethics violations are we talking about? I understand we aren't discussing crimes here....but that doesn't mean it's reasonable or even ethical to throw out the need for evidence.






No I'm calling it as I see it....partisan hackery. A hit piece. A distraction from the rather enormous violations of this administration. It's entirely inconsequential....because as you know, there's no real body above the SCOTUS. Even if the Democrats could make a regulatory body (and they can't) to go after Thomas (because he's a black person who thinks for himself...not ethics lol) do you know what would happen?

Thomas would appeal the court as it's unconstitutional and a clear violation of our separation of powers. Even if you could stack all the lower courts with judges who ruled against him....he's just going to keep appealing it until it reaches the SCOTUS.

I don't care if he's the only conservative Justice left by then....I'd bet all my money they won't voluntarily abdicate their power to some arbitrary regulatory body. It won't happen.

Thats why this is just partisan hackery. When RGB died....the same reporters revealed her longstanding friendship with a reporter, a journalist. Everyone already knew....except the public.....because this reporter consistently had inside info on big cases....and she'd been seen hanging out with RGB on more than a few occasions. You know what that is? An ethical violation. It's definitely against the ethical rules to leak any inside information on an upcoming ruling.

Is it? Where is that written. You are reaching in the same way that you are accusing other of reaching on Thomas and his wife.

Again, though, I agree that it violates ethics -- just as it does when Alito allegedly does it, as well. The issue is, as you keep trying to defend Thomas with, we have zero actual ethical standards for Supreme Court justices; they are the only ones that decide what ethical rules they will follow.

That's why it was a big deal when some clerk leaked the Roe decision early.....that's an ethical violation. For some reason, nobody told the Marshals that were sent to guard the homes of the Justices that they had the authority to arrest literally anyone who showed up, because it's illegal to protest outside the home of a judge or court official. That's an ethical violation...but we don't know whose fault it is. Garland is ultimately responsible but I doubt he put together the training the Marshals got.

Don't get me started on the journalists and reporters. I could spend the next five pages listing their ethical violations. We aren't going to be setting up a regulatory body for them either. Forget it.

In fact, no one I just Iisted is likely to pay for any ethical violations. The law clerk at the SCOTUS wasn't found, Garland won't punish anyone nor accept responsibility, Thomas won't be facing any penalties for whatever ethical standards you think his toes stepped over. Our government is designed to be difficult to use effectively....and doesn't change easily. That's by design. It may seem stupid now, but the men who set the rules spent their lives under the authority of a king....who could change rules as he pleased....and they were expected to obey. The system they created was built so that would be unlikely to happen again in the near future.


This is just partisan hackery.

And I'm saying that calling this just "partisan hackery" is why none of our public officials ever get in trouble for "ethics." So long as partisanship is more important to people than actually following ethics, we'll keep getting the same type of unethical politician we keep seeing today.

 

[NxNW]

take it to another thread.

So the big story today is that former senior campaign advisor Blinken was behind the letter circulated to mainstream media outlets to squash the laptop story.

What laptop? Do you have a photo of this alleged laptop?

Russian disinformation amounted to some fake stories on social media that haven't been shown to influence any votes....and a hack of the DNC revealing factual information that Hillary had essentially rigged her own nomination. It's certainly not a good thing...but not disinformation.

Plus there was Trump's collusion and obstruction of justice.

The current administration is undoubtedly guilty of exactly what they tried to impeach Trump for.

You've yet to provide any evidence of it.

 

[wing2000]

Chief Justice John Roberts has declined an invitation from Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to testify before the panel, calling such testimony by chief justices "exceedingly rare."

The Senate panel had planned to hold a hearing on May 2 to examine what Durbin called "common sense proposals" to hold Supreme Court justices to the same ethical standards as the rest of the federal judiciary, and Durbin had invited Roberts "or his designate" to take part.

"Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of the separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence," Roberts wrote in his response to the invitation.

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172083875/chief-justice-roberts-declines-to-testify-before-senate-panel

 

[DaisyDay]

Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm suing a company that was part of the Crow family real estate portfolio in 2004.

www.forbes.com

• In 2004, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm that claimed a company that was part of Crow’s real estate portfolio allowed other architects to use its copyrighted drawings, according to Bloomberg.
• The architecture firm, Womack+Hampton Architects LLC, was seeking damages of $25 million from Trammell Crow Residential Co., a company named after Harlan Crow’s father that was part-owned by Crow Holdings at the time.
• Harlan Crow was Crow Holdings’ chief executive officer and chair of its board in 2004, though he stepped down as CEO in 2017.
• Thomas previously claimed that he did not have to disclose a series of flights on Harlan Crow’s private jet, travel on his super-yacht or stays at his properties, among other gifts, in part, because Crow and his wife are “close personal friends, who did not have business before the court.”

​

 

[DaisyDay]

Wyden letter seeks full story on Thomas gifts

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Monday asked Texas billionaire Harlan Crow to voluntarily provide a detailed accounting of the gifts he has provided to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as well as information about Georgia properties that the prominent Republican...

www.arkansasonline.com

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Monday asked Texas billionaire Harlan Crow to voluntarily provide a detailed accounting of the gifts he has provided to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as well as information about Georgia properties that the prominent Republican donor purchased from Thomas and his relatives.

In a letter to Crow, Wyden asked him to respond to a detailed list of questions by May 8, saying the American public deserves a "full accounting" of his largesse and that the "unprecedented arrangement between a wealthy benefactor and a Supreme Court justice raises serious concerns related to federal tax and ethics laws."

"The secrecy surrounding your dealings with Justice Thomas is simply unacceptable," Wyden said in the letter.​

 

[Ana the Ist]

How about this, for one? There are others.

Didn't read the oversight committee statement huh? Obviously WaPo is running defense for them....they're named as part of it.

How about Morell's testimony: "“Mr. Morell testified that Mr. Blinken did not hint that the Biden campaign ‘could use some help on this’ or suggest that Mr. Morell should ‘cook up something.’"

If you want the actual text of the testimony, it goes like this:

I like the part at the end where he claims that he "guessed" Blinken wanted him to write a letter....but didn't know.

And who decides what candidates they support? You are directly talking of those that "enforce the law" who are making the decision about whom to support. I seem to recall that there were law officers on stage, in uniform, not employees of the union who didn't work in law enforcement, with Trump when they announced their endorsement.

I would imagine the candidate would determine that.

Again, point me to the specific law. FWIW, this letter was, prior to publication, cleared by the CIA -- as all writings by former intelligence officials must be.

That means it contained no classified info....not that it's contents were true.

If you look at the signatures, every one has a "former" in front of their title. Again, the letter clearly states it is their opinion.

Wonderful....those are all former titles. Do any of them currently work for or with this administration?

You've already been shown your claims about their making it sound as if they were talking about intelligence they had was false, and I've told you previously they were all former intelligence. The letter bears this out, as I've previously linked.

Ok....great....so if this is all just opinion....and they're making it clear they don't have any evidence.....

Why would all these media sites squash the story? Are they all completely incompetent? Why would they receive these letters from former intel officials to begin with?

I would guess they independently decided they were in favor of Biden winning the election and wanted to make their opinions known -- just as your writing here is to express your opinions and to persuade people that Biden is a criminal.

Is that included in any of the publications that squashed the story? That it's just the opinions of former intel officials with no evidence that want to help Biden?

Except it wasn't coordinated. The letter was released something like five days after the story broke, after social media had already made their decisions to block the information.

We aren't talking about social media now. We're talking about news media. Social media was shut down by the FBI.

To remind you of the timeline, the FBI seems to have talked to social media at the end of August. In this article, first published Sept. 1, the Times reports, "Facebook and Twitter, which were slow to react to wide-ranging disinformation campaigns on their services in 2016 and continue to face criticism — even from their own employees — that they are not doing enough to confront the issue, said they were warned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the Russian effort." [empashis mine] You seem to be overstating how coordinated the FBI warning was with the Hunter Biden story breaking.

So, on Sept 1, 2020, The NY Times wrote an article about it. The NY Post article about Hunter's laptop was published two weeks after this, on Oct. 14; Twitter and other social media outlets made their determination roughly the same day. Blinken didn't talk to Morell until Oct. 17 -- three days after the story broke and after many media outlets refused to cover the story. Then the letter itself wasn't published until Oct. 19 -- the timeline doesn't even fit what you (and Jim Jordan) are trying to claim.

Every single part of this timeline confirms my accusations lol.

No, as has been constantly corrected here, Biden told Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was not investigating "the guy giving his son a handout." Various stories, from the time, confirm that Biden wasn't the one that suggested this strategy; this was the will of the Obama Administration for Biden to do when he visited Ukraine. It was something supported by our European Allies. And, even more interesting, by some of the Republican Senators, including ones that tried to later argue that it looked bad. They stated in the letter to Ukraine, supporting the administration's policy, "We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's Office and judiciary. The unanimous adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Basic Principles and Action Plan is a good step."

It's also worth noting that Sen. Johnson, one of those that signed the letter but then tried to advance the conspiracy theory that Biden was trying to stop the prosecutor from investigating his son, led the Senate Intelligence committee in investigating the Biden in 2020. His report, which came out about a month before the election, found no wrongdoing on the part of Joe Biden in Ukraine.

In fact, in a bit of irony, a State Department official, George Kent is one who repeatedly spoke out about how Hunter working at Burisma, while the State Department wanted the owner of Burisma indicted, appeared to be a huge conflict of interest. Yet, when asked about Joe Biden and his work trying to get the owner of Burisma brought to justice, Kent stated, “Vice President Biden was leading the policy charge, pushing President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to take more decisive anticorruption action.”

Basically, the Senate Homeland Security Committee found that there did appear to be a conflict of interest and that conflict of interest was discussed in the State Department, but they could find no policies that were changed because Hunter Biden worked at Burisma. Basically, all the report found was that it looked bad -- and again, I fully support the idea of preventing family members from these types of jobs.

You seem a little confused about what happened. Here's a short clip explaining the timeline.

No, just the fact that he violated reporting requirements. Again, there are no ethical standards in place for Supreme Court Justices, so it would be tough for Thomas to have violated them. OTOH, if you examine the ethics for other Federal Judges, much of his wife's work would have disqualified him in many of the cases that were heard by the court -- as his wife worked for various groups that had business before the court.

Again, he's recused himself many times over the years, so you'll need to be more specific.

I'd suggest a panel of Judges,

Appointed by whom?

likely led by another Supreme Court Justice -- maybe the Chief Justice; you know, kind of like how Congress are supposed to enforce their ethics rules. In this case, if the rules had the force of law, I suspect judges would uphold them.

They police themselves now....I fail to see how this changes anything.


.

Again, a panel of judges -- kind of like how the claims of not reporting are being forwarded to a panel of judges.

No, again, Republican Senators wrote a letter to Ukraine in support of removing the prosecutor, specifically because he was not investigating. A Senate Committee investigation, done just before the election that looked into found the opposite, that Biden was trying to get corruption investigated in Ukraine. Beyond that, his son was never a target of the investigation -- the investigation was into the owner of the company and events that occurred several years before Hunter joined the Burisma board.

Again, I'll agree that it was a mistake for Hunter to be on the board but, unfortunately, we have no laws preventing it (just as the Trump children were not barred from foreign deals and investments).


It's odd, one one hand you claim Biden is compromised because of his son's work, even though he maintains that he has never played any role in his son's business. There is no actual evidence that proves that he did have any knowledge but you maintain that not only did he but that he was paid by his son -- despite the complete lack of any type of money trail (at least that anyone has been able to find).

OTOH, you claim we should trust that Thomas and his wife don't ever talk politics. That is quite the double standard you are employing.

For me, it does not matter if he does our doesn't -- the ethics that Federal Judges operate under is that they are to recuse themselves if their wife is involved with any party that comes before the court. I don't think it is too much to apply that to Supreme Court Justices, or even Vice Presidents and their sons. Let's avoid any appearance of a Conflict of Interest, whether there is actually a conflict or not.

Again....you've failed to explain how Biden insisting upon the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor is "fighting corruption".

Is it? Where is that written. You are reaching in the same way that you are accusing other of reaching on Thomas and his wife.

Where is what written? The code of ethics for SCOTUS clerks?

Again, though, I agree that it violates ethics -- just as it does when Alito allegedly does it, as well. The issue is, as you keep trying to defend Thomas with, we have zero actual ethical standards for Supreme Court justices; they are the only ones that decide what ethical rules they will follow.

Right.

And I'm saying that calling this just "partisan hackery" is why none of our public officials ever get in trouble for "ethics." So long as partisanship is more important to people than actually following ethics, we'll keep getting the same type of unethical politician we keep seeing today.

Let's imagine you held some principle....

Imagine you were firmly against "electoral disinformation" because you felt it was important that we have good information about candidates for elections.

Then it totally makes sense to investigate Trump and possible Russia connections. He had some staff that met with Russians. Russians definitely spread bogus stories on Facebook. They also hacked the DNC and revealed some shenanigans....but that's just information, not disinformation.

On the other hand....


The FBI is going around social media companies squashing 100% legitimate stories. Former intelligence officials are signing letters calling this same story "Russian disinformation" and coordinating with the Biden campaign on who to send the letters to. Yes, he literally asked which WaPo reporter they wanted him to send it to....

You also appear to believe these news sources decided to squash the story based on nothing more than the opinions of former officials who aren't just biased....but wildly irresponsible.

So who exactly is the group you consider guilty of spreading disinformation? The intel community? The Biden campaign? Most of left wing media?

Because they clearly got it wrong. Someone here is guilty of spreading disinformation....and that is how I know anyone claiming to be against disinformation but chalking everything the media, big tech, Biden campaign, and intel community + FBI did as "coincidence" doesn't really care about disinformation....do they?

To have a view on ethics...you'd need to have some value or principles that you don't immediately abandon whenever politically convenient.

 

[SimplyMe]

Didn't read the oversight committee statement huh? Obviously WaPo is running defense for them....they're named as part of it.

What oversight committee statement, the one put out by the Republicans over the objection of Democrats. Yes, it is rather one sided and not supported by the testimony, isn't it.

I like the part at the end where he claims that he "guessed" Blinken wanted him to write a letter....but didn't know.

Why do you "like it?" The fact remains, at least per the testimony (since I'm guessing you'll say he was lying), that there was never any request for a letter.

I would imagine the candidate would determine that.

And, yet, per your earlier claim, this breaks the law.

That means it contained no classified info....not that it's contents were true.

True, but also reinforces the idea that the statement was not "illegal." If it was, the CIA would have stopped the letter.

Wonderful....those are all former titles. Do any of them currently work for or with this administration?

You tell me. And, to get to what you are implying, who did they talk to that offered them a job?

Ok....great....so if this is all just opinion....and they're making it clear they don't have any evidence.....

So here is Politico reporting the letter -- which is similar to how other news outlets reported it, "While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work."

Notice they even say the letter states there is "no new evidence" but it is purely their past experience that makes them suspicious.

Why would all these media sites squash the story? Are they all completely incompetent? Why would they receive these letters from former intel officials to begin with?

You'd have to talk to the various media sites. Why did Fox News and the Wall Street Journal refuse to run the story -- they had the information before the NY Post did, before any letter was written?

As for why they'd get the letter from these former intelligence officials, I would assume that these former officials wanted their opinion made public, otherwise why would they bother to create the letter?

This idea that the media didn't write stories about the laptop was due to a letter written five days after the story broke is a rather crazy conspiracy theory.

Is that included in any of the publications that squashed the story? That it's just the opinions of former intel officials with no evidence that want to help Biden?

Again, publications had already decided if they were running the story or not -- the letter didn't get released until five days later. And, from what I read, yes, it was clearly stated, when the letter was reported on, that it was the opinions of former intelligence officers.

We aren't talking about social media now. We're talking about news media. Social media was shut down by the FBI.

No, it wasn't. Again, in August the FBI went and warned of Russian propaganda, just like occurred in 2016. A few weeks later, the laptop story came out -- the FBI said nothing to social media, one way or the other, to "shut down" social media. They each made their own decisions, which may or may not have been influenced by the FBI warning.

Though if they were so easily influenced by government, why did they not start reporting the story when it was clearly stated by the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Ratcliffe, that the letter was wrong and there was no evidence that it was Russian Propaganda within hours of the letter being released?

But let's get to what is actually known. First, even Taibbi, who "broke" the Twitter Files, stated, "22. Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem..."


So the writer of the original story said the FBI did not "shut down" the story. You then have the Twitter executives that testified before Congress, who stated that while they at Twitter made mistakes, neither the FBI, or anyone else in government, had anything to do with them stopping the story.

And, to go back to your talking of the news media -- they had decided days before. In the case of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, they'd decided before the NY Post ever ran the story. And the letter was quickly counter acted by Daniel Radcliffe -- the "government" clearly stated there was no evidence it was Russian propaganda.

Every single part of this timeline confirms my accusations lol.

No, it really doesn't. Nothing supports your accusations -- not the author of the Twitter Files, not testimony before Congress, not the timing of when the letter was sent to the media, etc.

You seem a little confused about what happened. Here's a short clip explaining the timeline.

I'm sorry, I can't find any record -- outside of claims by members of Congress (which your video is) -- that show an arrest warrant was issued for Zlochevsky in February 2016. I can see where Shokin's predecessor, Vitaliy Yarema, put him on the wanted list in January of 2015 and where a Kiev court took him off the wanted list in 2016. I can't find where Shokin did anything -- other than this one claim by Republican's in Congress. Maybe you can point me to an actual source?

Regardless, there are plenty of articles about how both our European allies and numerous persons, including three key Republican Senators, wanted Shokin removed for not investigating (slow walking the investigation). Yes, Shokin has been making the media rounds, since the Trump phone call and Giuliani in Ukraine investigating the Biden, trying to make claims that he actually was investigating and how he was wronged -- but that is the sole source for most of these recent claims of what Shokin allegedly had done.

It is amazing to me, since you claim Shokin was doing such a good job and that he had issued an arrest warrant, that our European allies and our State Department, as well as the Ukrainian people, had been wanting Shokin removed for months. Obviously these articles from the time must be wrong and only you (and the Republican spin now in Congress) have it right, only Biden wanted Shokin removed because of Hunter.

Again, he's recused himself many times over the years, so you'll need to be more specific.




Appointed by whom?





They police themselves now....I fail to see how this changes anything.

So you have your answer, about how to create the panel. As for why, to provide a clear and consistent standard, as well as penalties for violating that standard. Otherwise, either side can claim that any "punishment" is merely political, since, as you point out, Thomas didn't break any laws or code of ethics -- since they don't exist.

.


Again....you've failed to explain how Biden insisting upon the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor is "fighting corruption".

I did above. Again, it wasn't Biden. It was the entire Obama administration, and it was the administration that tasked Biden with doing it. I've given a couple of links that showed Europeans wanted Shokin fired for not prosecuting corruption. And even the Ukrainian people wanted Shokin fired. Not sure what makes it unclear.

Where is what written? The code of ethics for SCOTUS clerks?

The Code of Conduct for Federal Judges.

Right.




Let's imagine you held some principle....

Imagine you were firmly against "electoral disinformation" because you felt it was important that we have good information about candidates for elections.

Then it totally makes sense to investigate Trump and possible Russia connections. He had some staff that met with Russians. Russians definitely spread bogus stories on Facebook. They also hacked the DNC and revealed some shenanigans....but that's just information, not disinformation.

On the other hand....


The FBI is going around social media companies squashing 100% legitimate stories. Former intelligence officials are signing letters calling this same story "Russian disinformation" and coordinating with the Biden campaign on who to send the letters to. Yes, he literally asked which WaPo reporter they wanted him to send it to....


You also appear to believe these news sources decided to squash the story based on nothing more than the opinions of former officials who aren't just biased....but wildly irresponsible.

No, I'm saying the squashing of the story was based on the groups themselves. Again, the letter came roughly 5 days after the story broke -- these entities (both social media and the news) didn't wait five days before deciding to squash the stories. No, they made the decisions in a matter of hours. In the case of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, they decided not to publish about a week before the NY Post broke the story.

The story was 'squashed' because it literally was coming from people working for Pres. Trump -- Rudi Giuliani (Pres. Trump's personal lawyer) and Steve Bannon. Giuliani wasn't giving the hard drive he had, only select PDF copies of the emails which did not contain any header information, or any other information that could be used to validate the emails. And even then, it was pointing to crimes by Joe Biden's son, with only a tenuous tie to Joe Biden by claims in one email Joe was "the Big Guy."

It becomes easy to see why even right wing press, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, passed on the story; and why other groups decided not to report on this. Even now, I've not seen anything that the laptop "proves." At most, it appears it has merely led law enforcement to other crimes -- though it appears those are tax crimes and falsifying a form to buy a gun. We will see if more comes out of it, particularly what Congress can find.

So who exactly is the group you consider guilty of spreading disinformation? The intel community? The Biden campaign? Most of left wing media?

Because they clearly got it wrong. Someone here is guilty of spreading disinformation....and that is how I know anyone claiming to be against disinformation but chalking everything the media, big tech, Biden campaign, and intel community + FBI did as "coincidence" doesn't really care about disinformation....do they?

Again, I'm following the facts. There are no claims the FBI shut down the story -- not even the author of the Twitter Files supports that claim. There just is zero evidence to support it, despite the claims that keep being passed around right wing media. A Congressional Investigation turned up no evidence of that happening. Your best argument remains "it is too much of a coincidence." Kind of like Democrats with Trump asking the Russians to hack Hillary, and next thing you know the DNC and other accounts are being hacked -- "too much of a coincidence." I'm pretty consistent in wanting actual evidence.

But it is good to know that you apparently consider yourself as not caring about "disinformation," in a thread where you consistently have spread disinformation.

To have a view on ethics...you'd need to have some value or principles that you don't immediately abandon whenever politically convenient.

Sorry, my wanting evidence of accusations, and not immediately joining a "witch hunt" based on the claims (many not supported by evidence) going around conservative media does not mean I've abandoned anything. Only one of us is being inconsistent, and that is the person here defending the person named in the OP, making every excuse for him, but demanding immediate "justice" based on innuendo and coincidence for those they disagree with politically.

Yes, I think Justice Thomas has crossed ethical lines but, as you keep pointing out, there are no "ethical standards" for Supreme Court justices. My stating that I believe there should be ethical standards is not to "convict" Thomas but rather to make all Supreme Court justices follow the same ethical guidelines -- as it would appear Thomas is not the only justice who has been known for not following ethical standards.

Perhaps we can stay on topic now, the ethics of Supreme Court Justices and specifically Justice Thomas?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What oversight committee statement, the one put out by the Republicans over the objection of Democrats. Yes, it is rather one sided and not supported by the testimony, isn't it.



Why do you "like it?" The fact remains, at least per the testimony (since I'm guessing you'll say he was lying), that there was never any request for a letter.



And, yet, per your earlier claim, this breaks the law.



True, but also reinforces the idea that the statement was not "illegal." If it was, the CIA would have stopped the letter.



You tell me. And, to get to what you are implying, who did they talk to that offered them a job?



So here is Politico reporting the letter -- which is similar to how other news outlets reported it, "While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work."

Notice they even say the letter states there is "no new evidence" but it is purely their past experience that makes them suspicious.


You'd have to talk to the various media sites. Why did Fox News and the Wall Street Journal refuse to run the story -- they had the information before the NY Post did, before any letter was written?

As for why they'd get the letter from these former intelligence officials, I would assume that these former officials wanted their opinion made public, otherwise why would they bother to create the letter?

This idea that the media didn't write stories about the laptop was due to a letter written five days after the story broke is a rather crazy conspiracy theory.


Again, publications had already decided if they were running the story or not -- the letter didn't get released until five days later. And, from what I read, yes, it was clearly stated, when the letter was reported on, that it was the opinions of former intelligence officers.



No, it wasn't. Again, in August the FBI went and warned of Russian propaganda, just like occurred in 2016. A few weeks later, the laptop story came out -- the FBI said nothing to social media, one way or the other, to "shut down" social media. They each made their own decisions, which may or may not have been influenced by the FBI warning.

Though if they were so easily influenced by government, why did they not start reporting the story when it was clearly stated by the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Ratcliffe, that the letter was wrong and there was no evidence that it was Russian Propaganda within hours of the letter being released?

But let's get to what is actually known. First, even Taibbi, who "broke" the Twitter Files, stated, "22. Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem..."


So the writer of the original story said the FBI did not "shut down" the story. You then have the Twitter executives that testified before Congress, who stated that while they at Twitter made mistakes, neither the FBI, or anyone else in government, had anything to do with them stopping the story.

And, to go back to your talking of the news media -- they had decided days before. In the case of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, they'd decided before the NY Post ever ran the story. And the letter was quickly counter acted by Daniel Radcliffe -- the "government" clearly stated there was no evidence it was Russian propaganda.


No, it really doesn't. Nothing supports your accusations -- not the author of the Twitter Files, not testimony before Congress, not the timing of when the letter was sent to the media, etc.



I'm sorry, I can't find any record -- outside of claims by members of Congress (which your video is) -- that show an arrest warrant was issued for Zlochevsky in February 2016. I can see where Shokin's predecessor, Vitaliy Yarema, put him on the wanted list in January of 2015 and where a Kiev court took him off the wanted list in 2016. I can't find where Shokin did anything -- other than this one claim by Republican's in Congress. Maybe you can point me to an actual source?

Regardless, there are plenty of articles about how both our European allies and numerous persons, including three key Republican Senators, wanted Shokin removed for not investigating (slow walking the investigation). Yes, Shokin has been making the media rounds, since the Trump phone call and Giuliani in Ukraine investigating the Biden, trying to make claims that he actually was investigating and how he was wronged -- but that is the sole source for most of these recent claims of what Shokin allegedly had done.

It is amazing to me, since you claim Shokin was doing such a good job and that he had issued an arrest warrant, that our European allies and our State Department, as well as the Ukrainian people, had been wanting Shokin removed for months. Obviously these articles from the time must be wrong and only you (and the Republican spin now in Congress) have it right, only Biden wanted Shokin removed because of Hunter.



So you have your answer, about how to create the panel. As for why, to provide a clear and consistent standard, as well as penalties for violating that standard. Otherwise, either side can claim that any "punishment" is merely political, since, as you point out, Thomas didn't break any laws or code of ethics -- since they don't exist.


I did above. Again, it wasn't Biden. It was the entire Obama administration, and it was the administration that tasked Biden with doing it. I've given a couple of links that showed Europeans wanted Shokin fired for not prosecuting corruption. And even the Ukrainian people wanted Shokin fired. Not sure what makes it unclear.



The Code of Conduct for Federal Judges.

Here you go....

A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education

No, I'm saying the squashing of the story was based on the groups themselves. Again, the letter came roughly 5 days after the story broke -- these entities (both social media and the news) didn't wait five days before deciding to squash the stories. No, they made the decisions in a matter of hours. In the case of the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, they decided not to publish about a week before the NY Post broke the story.

The story was 'squashed' because it literally was coming from people working for Pres. Trump -- Rudi Giuliani (Pres. Trump's personal lawyer) and Steve Bannon. Giuliani wasn't giving the hard drive he had, only select PDF copies of the emails which did not contain any header information, or any other information that could be used to validate the emails. And even then, it was pointing to crimes by Joe Biden's son, with only a tenuous tie to Joe Biden by claims in one email Joe was "the Big Guy."

It becomes easy to see why even right wing press, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, passed on the story; and why other groups decided not to report on this. Even now, I've not seen anything that the laptop "proves." At most, it appears it has merely led law enforcement to other crimes -- though it appears those are tax crimes and falsifying a form to buy a gun. We will see if more comes out of it, particularly what Congress can find.

I'm just gonna cut to the chase and tell you what you don't know....

Redirect Notice

What did Morell do in his retirement? Well he wrote articles against Trump for WaPo. Multiple articles. He interviewed Blinken for his podcast. Many if those names on that list? Employees of his consulting firm.

You done been had. I think we can prove some collusion there between the former intelligence community and the left wing propaganda media. Read the article with these two words in mind....

Partisan hackery.

I can't imagine why you and so many others care about the dominion lawsuit....they knew they were lying? Gosh. So did every single news outlet that used this letter as a pretext to kill a story about a dirty president.

That's enough to at least prove collusion....as if they didn't stupidly admit to it a couple of months later...

How do you think WaPo missed that? Do you think they, the NYT, CBS and multiple other outlets didn't notice Morell's name on that top of that letter? He could have signed his name as Mickey Mouse.

I mean....good grief....you're linking WaPo as some sort of "proof" this story is nothing. Here's the story they aren't telling you while you're worrying about Clarence Thomas....

Your media lied to you...right to your face.

Your president lied to you. This administration lied to you.

Big tech lied to you....they were in on it.

It's an insane level of corruption. Remember that you wanted Trump impeached for working with Russia to spread disinformation? Well this is far more evidence, far worse collusion, and a far greater deception.

Wait...lemme guess....you think the fact that Morell wrote heavily biased articles against Trump for WaPo and not one of these "credible" media sources...not even WaPo remembered that? Maybe you think the fact that he's clearly friends with Blinken and wrote for WaPo is just a coincidence?? What do you think was the number 1 source cited for squashing the story was? That's right...

The letter.

Do you know what that is called? Disinformation. It's bad enough when it's on some Facebook conspiracy theory group but it's about 100 times worse when it's mainstream publications that about 50% of the public are somehow, unbelievably, blind enough to trust.

Again, I'm following the facts. There are no claims the FBI shut down the story -- not even the author of the Twitter Files supports that claim.

Zuckerberg said it.

There just is zero evidence to support it, despite the claims that keep being passed around right wing media.

Twitter execs had FBI working at Twitter. What in the world are you talking about?

A Congressional Investigation turned up no evidence of that happening.

You think? We'll see what Blinken hands over....or maybe what Morrell will. If Biden doesn't win the election I got a hunch we might see some arrests.

Your best argument remains "it is too much of a coincidence."

It's not "kind of"....I'd literally have to remove my brain to imagine it's a coincidence.

Even if you somehow imagine Biden's campaign wasn't involved (despite the email chain including Biden’s rapid response advisor, which Morrell forgot to mention) surely you don't think it's a coincidence that Morell just happened to write multiple articles attacking Trump for WaPo....the last one mere days before he wrote the letter.

At the very least you'd have to conclude that the intelligence community is no longer credible....and neither are probably any news sources you read. Any of them could have identified Morrell as a biased hack stumping for the Biden campaign.....because he wrote a bunch of articles for WaPo.

Kind of like Democrats with Trump asking the Russians to hack Hillary,

Any evidence of that?

and next thing you know the DNC and other accounts are being hacked -- "too much of a coincidence." I'm pretty consistent in wanting actual evidence.

Wait wait wait....those were facts. They released facts. It's your media that lied to you. The same media you've cited as evidence this story is bogus lol.

But it is good to know that you apparently consider yourself as not caring about "disinformation," in a thread where you consistently have spread disinformation.

I don't pretend to care about ethics.

The only reason why you are currently reading about Thomas is to talk about anything other than the vast collusion between Biden's administration and the media.

Sorry, my wanting evidence of accusations, and not immediately joining a "witch hunt" based on the claims (many not supported by evidence) going around conservative media does not mean I've abandoned anything.

You keep saying "conservative media" like you have no idea you were lied to

Only one of us is being inconsistent, and that is the person here defending the person named in the OP, making every excuse for him, but demanding immediate "justice" based on innuendo and coincidence for those they disagree with politically.

Yes, I think Justice Thomas has crossed ethical lines but, as you keep pointing out, there are no "ethical standards" for Supreme Court justices. My stating that I believe there should be ethical standards is not to "convict" Thomas but rather to make all Supreme Court justices follow the same ethical guidelines -- as it would appear Thomas is not the only justice who has been known for not following ethical standards.

Perhaps we can stay on topic now, the ethics of Supreme Court Justices and specifically Justice Thomas?

Sure....but let's not pretend it has anything to do with ethics. It's a distraction from much larger more significant matters.

 

[SimplyMe]

Here you go....

A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education

That is an ethics rule -- not a code. Not quite sure what that is in response to, particularly when I linked the code that other Federal Judges are to follow.

I'm just gonna cut to the chase and tell you what you don't know....

Redirect Notice

What did Morell do in his retirement? Well he wrote articles against Trump for WaPo. Multiple articles. He interviewed Blinken for his podcast. Many if those names on that list? Employees of his consulting firm.

Ok. So? Didn't you tell me previously it was illegal for former intelligence authors to be writing? Yet somehow he was a columnist for The Washington Post and no one cared, even though he likely routinely commented on things pertaining to intelligence (the entire reason a media company would want a former intelligence officer working for them) -- assuming that they were run through the CIA for clearance before being published. Though it is also worth noting it was a side job for him, I believe his daily job was working for one of those Washington-based think tanks.

You done been had. I think we can prove some collusion there between the former intelligence community and the left wing propaganda media. Read the article with these two words in mind....

I'm sorry, "former intelligence community?" Do they have a membership and have meetings? You do realize there are also many right wing individuals that are former intelligence officers? It is things like this, trying to turn a group of people -- likely people who knew each other from working together and have similar political beliefs -- into some type of nefarious organization, that makes your claims from something legitimate into a conspiracy theory.

Partisan hackery.

Great, what is new or unusual about that in American Politics. There has been plenty of that in every administration, including Trumps.

I can't imagine why you and so many others care about the dominion lawsuit....they knew they were lying? Gosh. So did every single news outlet that used this letter as a pretext to kill a story about a dirty president.

Except, as I keep stating, this letter came out days (an eternity in the news media) after they already made the decision to not air the story. What is more, the Director of National Intelligence came out the same day and stated that there was no evidence that the laptop had anything to do with the Russians. So you have a letter based on conjecture -- which I've shown you it clearly stated it was -- and an actual statement based on actual intelligence; I'm not sure how the media used the letter as "pretext" with those facts.

As for Dominion, I think most of it is because Trump and many of his allies are still trying to make those same claims. Trump came out after Fox settled and called them Cowards and they would have won -- despite the clear evidence that Fox knew it was wrong and kept pushing the story. Why aren't you criticizing Trump for pushing his election lies -- that have been investigated and proven false?

That's enough to at least prove collusion....as if they didn't stupidly admit to it a couple of months later...

Tell me, where is "collusion" listed as a crime in the US?

How do you think WaPo missed that? Do you think they, the NYT, CBS and multiple other outlets didn't notice Morell's name on that top of that letter? He could have signed his name as Mickey Mouse.

I mean....good grief....you're linking WaPo as some sort of "proof" this story is nothing. Here's the story they aren't telling you while you're worrying about Clarence Thomas....

Your media lied to you...right to your face.

Your president lied to you. This administration lied to you.

And "your" President keeps lying to you with all the "election interference" crap. I'd love it if we could get the lying out of politics but, particularly with the First Amendment, that is unlikely to happen.

Big tech lied to you....they were in on it.

It's an insane level of corruption. Remember that you wanted Trump impeached for working with Russia to spread disinformation? Well this is far more evidence, far worse collusion, and a far greater deception.

What is the corruption here, exactly? That Hunter Biden, a private citizen that isn't running for public office, was having personal documents spread across the media -- including "porn" pictures of him? I've seen no evidence that the laptop has any direct evidence that Joe Biden broke any laws -- if it does, exactly what laws and what is the direct evidence?

Yes, there is a person that claims that Joe Biden is "the Big Guy" listed in one of the emails on the laptop. Yet this is so groundbreaking that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, after talking to him and seeing all his papers about the deal, refused to run the story rather than get a huge scoop on Biden?

Wait...lemme guess....you think the fact that Morell wrote heavily biased articles against Trump for WaPo and not one of these "credible" media sources...not even WaPo remembered that? Maybe you think the fact that he's clearly friends with Blinken and wrote for WaPo is just a coincidence?? What do you think was the number 1 source cited for squashing the story was? That's right...

The letter.

Do you know what that is called? Disinformation. It's bad enough when it's on some Facebook conspiracy theory group but it's about 100 times worse when it's mainstream publications that about 50% of the public are somehow, unbelievably, blind enough to trust.

Tell me, what did The Washington Post report about the letter? Find me the article and let me know exactly what they said. For example, it seems like they typically -- when it involves an employee of the company -- note that the person has written for them previously. Did they do that, as they normally would? Did they report Ratcliffe's statement in the same article? I want to see what this "disinformation" is that we are talking about?

Zuckerberg said it.

Great, and Twitter claims the FBI has paid them for providing information -- to defray the costs of finding various users and turning over their information to the FBI. Yes, that concerns me but not in this context -- more about the privacy violations of US Citizens. That is also a topic I've talked about, we clearly need far better privacy laws.

In terms of Facebook, my recollection is that the claims are the same, Facebook was frequently paid because the FBI was always looking for who wrote certain posts, and paid to get the data.

Twitter execs had FBI working at Twitter. What in the world are you talking about?

They did? Or do you mean former FBI officers and are going to try to claim that despite being "former" they were still working for the FBI?

You think? We'll see what Blinken hands over....or maybe what Morrell will. If Biden doesn't win the election I got a hunch we might see some arrests.

Arrests for what? For expressing a political opinion? Even if the Biden campaign "colluded" with these former Intelligence agents, what specific law do you believe was broken?

It's not "kind of"....I'd literally have to remove my brain to imagine it's a coincidence.

Even if you somehow imagine Biden's campaign wasn't involved (despite the email chain including Biden’s rapid response advisor, which Morrell forgot to mention) surely you don't think it's a coincidence that Morell just happened to write multiple articles attacking Trump for WaPo....the last one mere days before he wrote the letter.

What a shock, a person who supports Biden writing opinion pieces for him. Should I look for a conspiracy with Kayleigh McEnany, when she worked at CNN just prior to working for the Trump campaign -- and how she made such passioned defenses of Trump every time she was on the air at CNN while working there? What a shock that people that work in the media expressing opinions, that their opinions match their political viewpoints!

At the very least you'd have to conclude that the intelligence community is no longer credible....and neither are probably any news sources you read. Any of them could have identified Morrell as a biased hack stumping for the Biden campaign.....because he wrote a bunch of articles for WaPo.

Why, because some former (not all, only about 50 of them) looked at the Hunter Biden laptop story and thought it looked fishy, and were willing to agree that it looked bad? I mean, someone who worked for Trump released "emails," which at the time couldn't be verified (was lacking the headers), that was allegedly from a laptop that Hunter Biden dropped off at a repair center in Maryland (when Hunter lived in California) and never picked up?

Tell me, if you reverse the names -- if this had been Blinken shopping emails purportedly from Donald Trump, Jr.'s laptop, would you have accepted this story to be true; or would you think it looks like some type of propaganda? Again, this story was so shaky that two right wing news outlets refused to run the story -- they couldn't verify the validity so refused to run it. Not to mention, one of the authors refused to put his name on the article because he also questioned the validity.

Any evidence of that?

Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said in a July 27, 2016, news conference.

www.pbs.org

Yes, Trump claims it was a joke -- but the fact remains he asked for it and the hacking appears to have occurred just after. By your logic, I take it we can't believe it was a coincidence?

Wait wait wait....those were facts. They released facts. It's your media that lied to you. The same media you've cited as evidence this story is bogus lol.

My media? The "media," to include all media, lies to us all the time; particularly when you venture into the opinion pages. I'm rather frustrated with "the media" because they try to slip too much spin on what should be pure news articles. I don't trust any single outlet but rather read multiple articles on a subject to try and separate facts from spin.

I don't pretend to care about ethics.

The only reason why you are currently reading about Thomas is to talk about anything other than the vast collusion between Biden's administration and the media.

This argument bothers me. The reason Thomas is in the news is because he failed to disclose the trips he took, claiming that some unnamed person(s) told him he didn't have to (maybe true, he could be trying to protect another justice, but looks made up). Thomas is responsible for this being in the news and, if roles were reversed, Republicans would be doing the exact same thing Democrats are doing.

While I agree that most Americans don't have a great attention span for political news, they can follow more than one story at a time.

You keep saying "conservative media" like you have no idea you were lied to

You keep saying "conservative media" as if they don't do the exact same things -- ironic you brought up Dominion just a little before. A conservative news outlet caught knowing lying to help a sitting Republican President because they felt it helped them get better support/access from the government/President and his followers (giving them better ratings). Ironic.

But ethics at lower levels will never get better while people at the top are seen flouting what are seen as ethical boundaries -- particularly when they aren't being held to the ethical rules the rest of us are "forced" to follow. Seriously, look up the limitations on gifts to people in other areas of government, even when it comes from 'close friends.'

Sure....but let's not pretend it has anything to do with ethics. It's a distraction from much larger more significant matters.

Again, it is this exact type of attitude that makes things worse. I believe in ethical codes for reporters as well -- something that they also seemed to have lost. Ethics used to be a big deal in this country, at least bigger than they are now (you always had individuals who would push the boundaries).

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.

Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising “as a son.” “This is way outside the norm,” said a former White House ethics lawyer.

www.propublica.org

Just keeps getting better and better.