Red Mosquito

Chris_H_2 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.

What did he do?

Received gifts without disclosing them, which does not seem to violate anything if they are personal gifts from people with no business before the court.

what if he accepts personal gifts from people with no business before the court in order to hang out with people with business before the court?

When's the last time he issued a ruling not completely in lock step with his judicial philosophy? Maybe he's bought, but if so it's indistinguishable from his default instincts.

Hell, I really can't fault him for taking expensive overseas trips. It's about the only way he can get away from protesters trying to hassle or harm him.

We could create new judicial ethics guidelines that are closer to that of the executive (effectively no gifts). Not sure it's necessary, but those are not the current rules and these allegations don't seem to get anywhere close to improper as it stands.

Maybe he’s bought?

Yep, totally normal for one man to pay for another man’s vacations.

simple schoolboy wrote: these allegations don't seem to get anywhere close to improper as it stands.

And we're good with the idea that the gift giver also gave large amounts of money to the PAC that pays Ginny an annual salary?

The man had a painting made of this justice and other influential people sitting around the fire at his Adirondack vacation home to hang in that very Adirondack vacation home. So even when Thomas & his wife weren't there he could point at the wall and say, you know, I've got it on good authority that the thing you want to do in your business/statehouse would be 100% upheld by the Supreme Court of The United States.

And it's been going on for 20+ years...

We’ve known he’s a shitheel for 30 years. Anita Hill told us all about it.

But that's not even up for debate, he and the people around him are fine with that history.

This is possibly unknown to some, but now they have to accept it too. Which most will because his ideology aligns with their own.

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.

What did he do?

Received gifts without disclosing them, which does not seem to violate anything if they are personal gifts from people with no business before the court. He's friends with some oil baron who is constantly taking him on expensive vacations.

He used to report such gifts back in the day but got annoyed with the shit he got over it so stopped. We are in bad look territory as far as the LA Times is concerned.

Imagine being annoyed that you’re expected to disclose gifts worth half a million dollars, when you sit on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, but not an actual violation of anything. This is a, "we need to update judicial ethics rules because Thomas shouldn't have nice things". Pro Publica couldn't even get the LA Times to re-broadcast their breathless tone.

It would be more awkward if he was getting tons of gifts from a wide variety of people he wasn't very close with. His seems to mostly get trips and whatnot from this one friend of his. Don't have high net worth friends if you're a Supreme Court Justice, I guess.

That’s what all this is about? LOL

something about the way he looks

just makes me think he's guilty

96583UP wrote:something about the way he looks

just makes me think he's guilty

Okay there, Khmer Rogue, by all means let's force him to work in the fields and be re-educated because of his bourgeois glasses.

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:Lol. Try the LA Times article instead. Whatever editor they have over there that did not approve breathlessly repeating the Propublica account without context is not long for this world.

What did he do?

Received gifts without disclosing them, which does not seem to violate anything if they are personal gifts from people with no business before the court. He's friends with some oil baron who is constantly taking him on expensive vacations.

He used to report such gifts back in the day but got annoyed with the shit he got over it so stopped. We are in bad look territory as far as the LA Times is concerned.

Imagine being annoyed that you’re expected to disclose gifts worth half a million dollars, when you sit on the Supreme Court.

Yeah, but not an actual violation of anything. This is a, "we need to update judicial ethics rules because Thomas shouldn't have nice things". Pro Publica couldn't even get the LA Times to re-broadcast their breathless tone.

It would be more awkward if he was getting tons of gifts from a wide variety of people he wasn't very close with. His seems to mostly get trips and whatnot from this one friend of his. Don't have high net worth friends if you're a Supreme Court Justice, I guess.

That’s what all this is about? LOL

That, and that friend of his is a R Billionaire donor, and they recently updated the rules so he'll have to declare some of this going forward, as he has agreed to do.

People are so funny to me.

BurtReynolds wrote:People are so funny to me.

People that find Anita Hill credible or am I the rube in your estimation?

simple schoolboy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:People are so funny to me.

People that find Anita Hill credible or am I the rube in your estimation?

The first.

spike wrote:Maybe he’s bought?

Yep, totally normal for one man to pay for another man’s vacations.

why do people keep ignoring this? the excuse that they are friends isn't even an excuse. who the fuck pays for their friends to come on vacation with them? this isn't normal behavior, but everyone defending thomas keeps bringing it up like its a normal thing to do. thomas could probably afford to pay for himself, but his friend is just being a good friend? lol gtfo

how much wealthier can he be then clarence thomas? i can't believe people buy this excuse that it's just some guy being a good friend

As a public servant he should know the ethical problems this raises.

Even myself as a lowly local government employee go through ethics training and have guidelines on gifts that are or are not acceptable. I don’t let vendors take me out for lunches. Anything provided by a vendor as a gift or thanks to the city has to be $50 or below.

He’s at the highest level of government. And a judge. He should know better.

warehouse wrote:how much wealthier can he be then clarence thomas? i can't believe people buy this excuse that it's just some guy being a good friend

Thomas has a net worth of around $10M

Crow manages between $20 to $30 billion in a private asset holding company

Crow has donated ~$14M total to republicans over the last 30 years: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politic ... 3m-to-gop/


Compare this to SBF in 2020 alone: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ftx-sa ... ions-2022/