Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Ana the Ist]

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

Do you have a source for this story?

Taaaa-daaaa

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Nobody invited her....she went fishing for tickets. Not to mention her table seat cost about 300k. All told....she exceeded the limit for gifts by about 350k$.

Then blamed it on a fired staffer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

What was his crime?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

You gotta read the report....

She asked for tickets. Didn't pay for em.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The family residence exception is very specific:



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

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

 

[wing2000]

Will the Chief Justice act?

Senator Sheldon news release:
“I call on members from both sides of the aisle to pass my SCERT Act to help restore the American people’s badly shaken trust in the Supreme Court. First, Justice Thomas told us that he didn’t disclose free vacations on a superyacht and private jet because it was personal hospitality from a friend and that’s just what friends do. Well, friends don’t also buy your properties and deck them out for your family members to continue living in. And if all of this was on the up and up, why didn’t Justice Thomas disclose it to the American people as the law clearly requires? The Supreme Court justices are so deeply ensconced in a cocoon of special interest money that they can no longer be trusted to police themselves without proper process,” said Whitehouse. “It would be best for the Chief Justice to commence a proper investigation, but after a week of silence from the Court and the latest disturbing reporting, I’m urging the Judicial Conference to step in and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for investigation.”

The Judicial Conference meets twice a year to examine policy and administration of the federal court system and to recommend new laws to make it function better. It is made up primarily of leading circuit judges and led by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in this case John Roberts.

Whitehouse Urges Judicial Conference to Refer Justice Thomas to Attorney General for Apparent Brazen Disregard for Disclosure Laws - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) today called on the Judicial Conference to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Attorney General for potential violations of the Ethics in Government Act under 5 U.S.C. 13106. Whitehouse also reupped his call for the...

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

April 13, 2023

“Today the Justice Department arrested Jack Douglas Teixeira in connection with an investigation into alleged unauthorized removal, retention, and transmission of classified national defense information.”

open.substack.com

 

[Whyayeman]

It seems a bit suspicious, all in all.

Yes. Judges should be careful to be above suspicion.

 

[DaisyDay]

You gotta read the report....

She asked for tickets. Didn't pay for em.

Okay that’s half the equation; what did she give in return?

She is being investigated for this. Should we wait for results or just hang her now?

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

Why would it all go to his mom? Red herring.

 

[rambot]

Taaaa-daaaa

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Nobody invited her....she went fishing for tickets. Not to mention her table seat cost about 300k. All told....she exceeded the limit for gifts by about 350k$.

Then blamed it on a fired staffer.

Ahhh. Gotcha. I didn't know she begged anyone over that.

I mean, I wouldn't personally consider it rational to compare decades of gifts and selling property to be an equivalent. But it seems like a PERFECT lame duck example of typical "the left does it too". I'm just not sure that she, or her family, continues to benefit feom that ticket. Unless her mom is living in the orchestra pit at the Met now...


But fine. Prosecuted or censur her. And now do it to thomas as well.

Someday I think the right will understand that the left doesn't care if our politicians are charged with crimes. we are fully on board with prosecuting people.

 

[Clare73]

Okay that’s half the equation; what did she give in return?

She is being investigated for this. Should we wait for results or just hang her now?

Why would it all go to his mom? Red herring.

Because he thinks she needed it. . .not uncommon is his particular family situation.

 

[Clare73]

Ahhh. Gotcha. I didn't know she begged anyone over that.

I mean, I wouldn't personally consider it rational to compare decades of gifts and selling property to be an equivalent. But it seems like a PERFECT lame duck example of typical "the left does it too". I'm just not sure that she, or her family, continues to benefit feom that ticket. Unless her mom is living in the orchestra pit at the Met now...


But fine. Prosecuted or censur her. And now do it to thomas as well.

Someday I think the right will understand that the left doesn't care if our politicians are charged with crimes. we are fully on board with prosecuting people.

PERFECT. . .because it's true.

Gotta' love the lame attempt to excuse the malfeasance of their own dog in the fight.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay that’s half the equation; what did she give in return?

You're right...there's no explicit quid pro quo. Soliciting a bribe isn't the correct violation. You know, unless she supported Vogue's lobbyists.

She is being investigated for this. Should we wait for results or just hang her now?

Oh I'm certain it will be squashed. These ethics committees, they've been defanged long ago...they have no real authority or power.

I mean, look at the legal bar she has to leap over to be found in violation. "There's no evidence she intended to avoid paying?"

It's as if she didn't commit her desire to not pay to writing, she can accept any gifts and claim she lost the bill lol.

Why would it all go to his mom? Red herring.

There's plenty of reasons....perhaps he only kept his name on it because she's very old, somewhat senile, and and he didn't want her to get robbed or swindled. Some states make power of attorney very difficult to obtain.

If you want to assume that he did this for profit....fine....can you show he profited?

 

[DaisyDay]

PERFECT. . .because it's true.

Gotta' love the lame attempt to excuse the malfeasance of their own dog in the fight.

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

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

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

Because he thinks she needed it. . .not uncommon is his particular family situation.

He listed his share of the RENTAL property as being worth $15,000. The property was shared between his late brother's family, himself and his mother. The property supposedly was purchased to memorialize Justice Thomas. His mother still lives there after Crow upgraded it.

 

[DaisyDay]

You're right...there's no explicit quid pro quo. Soliciting a bribe isn't the correct violation. You know, unless she supported Vogue's lobbyists.

She wasn't hosted by Vogue, but by the Met and by Wintour. The Met is a charity which is mentioned in the correspondence.

 

[SimplyMe]

You gotta read the report....

She asked for tickets. Didn't pay for em.

I think you misunderstood me, I didn't say it was unethical, just that since she appeared to merely want the tickets. It doesn't say she'd do anything in return for the tickets. We'll see what the end result will be but, for the moment it appears to be a violation of gift rules, not a bribe. And I have zero issue in her being held accountable.

 

[DaisyDay]

There's plenty of reasons....perhaps he only kept his name on it because she's very old, somewhat senile, and and he didn't want her to get robbed or swindled. Some states make power of attorney very difficult to obtain.

Um, why are you calling his mother senile?

How difficult would it be for a Supreme Court Justice to obtain POA for his own mother? Seriously?

If you want to assume that he did this for profit....fine....can you show he profited?

If you would just read the article, you would know that the property was inherited by Justice Thomas, his mother and his late brother's family. He signed the signed the paperwork for the sale and for that year's state tax. Up until Crow bought it, Clarence and Ginni paid the property taxes You can imagine that he gave his mother his share of the profit, but that assumption is unfounded by anything beyond "Well that's what a lot of people do".

He would have had to give it to her before it was sold to avoid profit. He listed his share of the rental property as $15,000 before and it sold for $136,000, so even though his share was only a third...do the math.

Even if he had given all his share of the proceeds to his mother, he would still have made a profit and then would also have owed a gift tax because the amount would have been more than $10,000 and that would not exempt him from reporting requirements from the sale.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ahhh. Gotcha. I didn't know she begged anyone over that.

Uh huh....wonder why you didn't know that?

I mean, I wouldn't personally consider it rational to compare decades of gifts and selling property to be an equivalent.

Nor would I.

But it seems like a PERFECT lame duck example of typical "the left does it too". I'm just not sure that she, or her family, continues to benefit feom that ticket.

Who cares if they continue to benefit?

Ethics violations are contingent upon some degree of permanence.

It's not as if Thomas continues to benefit from a yacht ride lol....yet that's what people are complaining about in this thread. It's not even clear Thomas ever did anything for his billionaire friend.

Unless her mom is living in the orchestra pit at the Met now...

Again....saying that a gift has to be permanent is silly. Thomas isn't still reaping profits from his connections.

If you want to talk about that, we'll have to start talking about Hunter and the big guy.

But fine. Prosecuted or censur her. And now do it to thomas as well.

It's an ethical violation. She might be able to be fined....maybe Thomas can too....

But Justices are appointed for life. Not elected. He's not going to quit because a bunch of whiny hypocrites are suddenly pretending to care about ethics.

Someday I think the right will understand that the left doesn't care if our politicians are charged with crimes. we are fully on board with prosecuting people.

Ok...well AOC can be voted out at the very least, along with Joe, Schumer, Garland, Wray, many FBI agents, Pelosi....it's a long long list.

But at least the mechanisms are there to remove them, right? Lemme know when you start those....or at least stop attacking Justices you can't remove or ex presidents that might be guilty of the exact same crimes sitting presidents definitely are.

Because in case you missed my point, and everyone else's.....we all know the left doesn't care about ethics or morals.

 

[JSRG]

What was his crime?

From Wikipedia (obviously Wikipedia has its faults, but it's still good at getting a general handle on something):

Fortas remained an associate justice, but in 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a US$20,000 (equivalent to $148,000 in 2021[40]) retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client, in January 1966. In return for unspecified advice, it was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for the rest of Fortas's life (and then pay his widow for the rest of her life).[41] However, in order to avoid apparent impropriety, Fortas returned the money the same year and received no further payments.[42] Fortas was not unique in receiving this type of funding and other Justices had similar arrangements. William O. Douglas, Fortas's mentor, likewise received funding from casino magnate Albert Parvin through his own foundation.[43] The American Bar Association revamped its rules as a result of the Wolfson affair, revising circumstances under which judges should not accept outside income.[3][page needed]

Wolfson was under investigation for securities violations at the time, and it was alleged that he expected that his arrangement with Fortas would help him stave off criminal charges or help him secure a presidential pardon. He asked Fortas to help him secure a pardon from Johnson, which Fortas claimed that he did not do. Fortas recused himself from Wolfson's case when it came before the Court.[3][page needed]

In May 1969, Life magazine chronicled Fortas's tangled relations with Wolfson. The revelation engendered calls for Fortas to be impeached, and motivated Richard Nixon, who knew that Fortas's resignation would enable the appointment of a more conservative Justice, ordered the Justice Department to investigate Fortas. Nixon was unsure if an investigation or prosecution was legal, but was convinced by then-Assistant Attorney General and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist that it would be.[24][44] Chief Justice Earl Warren (who, like the other Justices, was unaware of Nixon's actions) urged Fortas to resign to protect the reputation of the Court and avoid impeachment proceedings, as did Justice Hugo Black. However, when Fortas said it would "kill" his wife, Black changed his mind, realized that Nixon wanted Fortas off the Court for political reasons, and urged Fortas not to resign.[41][24][44] Nonetheless, Fortas ultimately decided resignation would be best for him and for his wife's legal career after Attorney General John N. Mitchell threatened to prosecute him, and potentially investigate his wife for tax evasion.[24][44] On the subject of his resignation, William J. Brennan later said, "We were just stunned." Fortas later said he "resigned to save Douglas," another justice who was being investigated for a similar scandal at the same time.[3][page needed] Fortas resigned from the Court on May 14, 1969.[1] When the Justice Department heard the news, the Attorney General's office celebrated, and Nixon called to congratulate them.[24][44]

In 1970, Louis Wolfson surreptitiously taped a private telephone call with Fortas. The transcript of this call was disclosed by Wolfson's lawyer, Bernard Fensterwald, to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in 1977. The Washington Post subsequently published several excerpts from the transcript, including language suggesting that Fortas might indeed have spoken with President Johnson about a pardon for Wolfson, but there is no evidence that it was a quid pro quo rather than a voluntary intervention for a friend. Wolfson was convicted of violating federal securities laws later that year and spent time in prison.

I believe he was criticized for apparently being too close to president Johnson while he was a justice and being biased for that reason, though it seems to be the above that was what started to really set the gears in motion.

 

[rambot]

Because in case you missed my point, and everyone else's.....we all know the left doesn't care about ethics or morals.

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

The left here on CF is CONSISTENTLY saying "Please, charge them and bring it to court. If they've done something wrong, prosecute them. I don't care if I voted for them". The left, at least here on CF, clear DOES care about ethics. In fact, in every single social media platform I frequent at all, and there isn't much but it's pretty hard left, EVERY.SINGLE.POSTER. wants ALL politicians charged with impropriety. I've NEVER heard them, in MY forums, go on the defence when any ethical challenge was raised against a democrat. And I HATE IT SO MUCH when these hard left leaning sites (believe it or not, I don't lean that hard left) are right: "Every accusation is an admission".

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

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

 

[wing2000]

I mean, I wouldn't personally consider it rational to compare decades of gifts and selling property to be an equivalent. But it seems like a PERFECT lame duck example of typical "the left does it too". I'm just not sure that she, or her family, continues to benefit feom that ticket. Unless her mom is living in the orchestra pit at the Met now..

This take the lamest "whataboutism" of the week.....
I mean, if you want to compare at least cite a case of another Federal Judge....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you misunderstood me, I didn't say it was unethical, just that since she appeared to merely want the tickets. It doesn't say she'd do anything in return for the tickets. We'll see what the end result will be but, for the moment it appears to be a violation of gift rules, not a bribe. And I have zero issue in her being held accountable.

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

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

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