Clarence Thomas corruption

[Elixir]

There is no one who hates corruption in our government more than I do!

There seem to be quite a few who know what it is better than you do.

 

[RVonse]

If there’s no problem with it why didn’t he disclose it?

Have you heard the phrase “appearance of impropriety”?

Do the groupies disclose what they do? Does everything an individual need to be documented to the public if it does not matter to the public?

 

[RVonse]

But that is what America is supposed to be about! You work hard and you get to play hard, right

Not if you're a judge accepting bribes, no.

That is exactly the point. Ive seen no evidence of a bribe. Once again...if he goes on a vacation with a billionaire that should be no problem. But if the billionaire buys a free trip only for Clarence himself that would be a problem. That's the big difference.

 

[Ford]

So if a billionaire wants to take friends on his vacation what does that billionaire do if those friends simply can't afford to go? I honestly don't see the problem here. If this billionaire had offered Thomas exclusive use of his jet for Thomas pleasure and use I would see that as a big problem. But if that same billionaire simply takes friends on his vacation (for which he is already going on anyway) where is the problem with this? I would think this happens all the time with non politicians such as Bill Gates or Bezos. And I'm sure it happens all the time with rock stars and groupies. Do we want to start telling rock stars they can't take female friends (that don't pay) with them on tour? Yes, I agree when you pay a friends way to go along it can change the power dynamic a little bit, but Thomas has a lifetime job no matter what he does.

The problem begins when the billionaire's friend is a high public official who may have something to do with the billionaire's fortune and influence. That you don't see this when it involves a Republican is unsurprising, but you do seem to get the point when a Democrat is being similarly accused. What you are doing here is ignoring the fact that there are special laws that apply to government employees barring them from receiving such friendly "gifts" and not reporting them. In this case, billionaire Crow seems to have crafted the language of his response to the press in a legalized way. That is, he has pulled out specific wording to try to make it look like a purely innocent exercise (which happened to involve also inviting lobbyists and other high government officials on these little friendly excursions).

I'm reminded once again of my old career. I had friends who worked on the record industry side of things. I knew them before they got hired by the labels, so when we went out to lunch it really was just friends. But of course the Music Director would come along, or the Program Director, or someone else with decision making power at the station. So you'd go across the street to the place with the really good (and expensive) sandwiches, or that New Mexico style place we all liked, or maybe a dinner somewhere after work.

You'd spend the entire time hanging out with your friends and talking about stuff like friends do. Then at the end when they're picking up the check for everyone, they might mention that they're really hoping we'll play this new single from the new artist they're promoting. That's done on their business account, and it's legal because they report everything. That's their job...to convince radio stations to play their label's artists, and that was a business lunch. If they give us concert tickets, we have to report that. A trip to an awards show? There's a lot of legal paperwork involved and a "courtesy of Sony Music Nashville" in the giveaway promo. They give the music director a new Playstation as a gift? You send it back. You can be friends AND help each other's business, so long as you do it legally.

You'd have to be impossibly naive to believe Thomas when he says they were "just friends" and no business was discussed on these jaunts. It would be like you believing Thomas if he said he had no idea that Jinni was into all this loony conspiracy stuff. Thomas is certainly not so naive. He knew exactly what these trips were about. He just didn't think he'd get caught. On that note, this is why we have journalists like the people at Pro Publica.

 

[RVonse]

There is no one who hates corruption in our government more than I do!

There seem to be quite a few who know what it is better than you do.

The congressmen all know better than myself because they make the laws affecting business which are written by them. And that is exactly how Nancy Pelosi's husband got wealthy. When someone else makes a fortune on an inside trade, everyone else including those with 401k stocks pay the price.

 

[southernhybrid]

Poor baby says he didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/07/...xciD2beJf5QmJf0fNUUZqMT8YtoOpw&smid=url-share

Justice Clarence Thomas said on Friday that he had followed the advice of “colleagues and others in the judiciary” when he did not disclose lavish gifts and travel from a wealthy conservative donor.

In a statement released by the Supreme Court, the justice said that he had followed guidance from others at the court and that he believed he was not required to report the trips.

“Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable,” Justice Thomas said. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”

ProPublica revealed on Thursday that the justice had traveled by private jet and yacht at the invitation of Harlan Crow, a real estate billionaire. The vacations, which took place over nearly two decades, included trips to Indonesia and to Bohemian Grove, an exclusive retreat nestled in the redwoods in Northern California.

I'm gifting this one so anyone can read the entire thing, but damn you New York Times. This is my first gift out of 10 for April and you're saying I only have 4 left.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no one who hates corruption in our government more than I do!

There seem to be quite a few who know what it is better than you do.

The congressmen all know better than myself because they make the laws affecting business which are written by them. And that is exactly how Nancy Pelosi's husband got wealthy. When someone else makes a fortune on an inside trade, everyone else including those with 401k stocks pay the price.

Justice Thomas’s accepted of these expensive trips gives the appearance of corruption - it further diminishes the standing of the SCOTUS in the eyes of the public. It plays into the hands of unscrupulous demagogues.

 

[Elixir]

“Nancy Pelosi’s husband”; a magic incantation -a charm that somehow make corrupt Republican judges smearing the SCOTUS okay …

If these RW extremists’ excuse got any lamer….

 

[bilby]

In fact, this whole "no one X more than me" is a rhetorical device that immediately discredits (or at least devalues) the speaker in my estimation.

Nobody likes such rhetorical devices more than me, but they are almost invariably an attempt to mask the truth, and as such are inherently deceitful.

 

[Ford]

“Nancy Pelosi’s husband”; a magic incantation -a charm that somehow make corrupt Republican judges smearing the SCOTUS okay …

If these RW extremists’ excuse got any lamer….

You see...Nancy Pelosi's husband is a huge problem.

Clarence Thomas' wife literally trying to overthrow our democracy? That's not a problem, because that's not Clarence...it's his wife.

See the difference?

It's like Hunter Biden's job at Burisma. He got a cushy job because of his last name, and that's wrong.

Trump giving his daughter a job at the White House which she then uses to secure patents in China? That's just smart business, and she was totally qualified for work in the Executive Branch because of her extensive work experience...in the fashion industry...?

Nothing to see here. Move along...

 

[Copernicus]

If there’s no problem with it why didn’t he disclose it?

Have you heard the phrase “appearance of impropriety”?

Do the groupies disclose what they do? Does everything an individual need to be documented to the public if it does not matter to the public?

Absolutely not, and that is the problem with your myopic replies. There are special laws, requirements, and standards for public officials that do not apply to everybody. The problem with the smell coming from this case is that Thomas is one of the highest, most powerful public officials in the country, not just anyone.

But that is what America is supposed to be about! You work hard and you get to play hard, right

Not if you're a judge accepting bribes, no.

That is exactly the point. Ive seen no evidence of a bribe. Once again...if he goes on a vacation with a billionaire that should be no problem. But if the billionaire buys a free trip only for Clarence himself that would be a problem. That's the big difference.

But it isn't exactly the point of the laws and ethics rules for public officials. Their job is to look out for the interests of their employers, i.e. all the people in the country. Influence peddling isn't just about buying specific votes, rulings, or activities. It is about making the public official feel obligated to look out for the influencer's interests and opinions above those of the general public, because the public official does not want to risk losing the benefactor's gifts and favorable attitude. Crow is a major Republican donor who cultivated these special "friendships" and lavish emoluments on a great many government employees. Donald Trump once explained why he made contributions to politicians and cultivated his "friendships" with them. He knew he was paying for something, and he expected results that benefited him. In 2016, he sold himself to the public by telling us all that he knew exactly how corrupt the system was, that he didn't need anyone else's money, and that he would fix the problem. Well, he did manage to put us all in a fix, didn't he? Thomas is no more naive than Donald Trump. He knows what got him such a rich friend.

 

[Rhea]

There is no one who hates corruption in our government more than I do!

This is such a very deeply interesting thing for someone to say.

Would you mind telling us all how you could possibly know this to be even slightly true?

What makes you think that is a statement that can label itself as either true or accurate? Even remotely?
Seriously - think about this. You make a statement that immediately, IMMEDIATELY exposes you as an untrustworthy source, unable to tell fact from fiction.

There is NO WAY ON THIS EARTH that you can think this statement is anything other than a deceitful attempt to give yourself a credential that you don’t possess. So it demonstrates that perhaps you have not got a good grasp of truth versus empty brag, or perhaps that you think it is honorable to “pad your resume,” or perhaps that you deal in all emotion and no fact and assume everyone else does as well.


It’s true that Trump uses this tool all the time. And what amazes me even more is that his fans hear it and think, “by god, he’s said a true thing, there! He does [a thing] more than any other person! For real!”


So anyway, RVonse - can you explain why you think it’s a true or accurate statement that you, in fact, care about corruption more than anyone else? What evidence convinced you?

 

[Shadowy Man]

If there’s no problem with it why didn’t he disclose it?

Have you heard the phrase “appearance of impropriety”?

Do the groupies disclose what they do? Does everything an individual need to be documented to the public if it does not matter to the public?

Are the groupies governed by the Ethics in Government Act? If you want to keep your private affairs completely private best not to take a job as a civil servant.

 

[bilby]

If there’s no problem with it why didn’t he disclose it?

Have you heard the phrase “appearance of impropriety”?

Do the groupies disclose what they do?

Do the groupies decide what rules and regulations apply to the band, such that the band could benefit directly and materially from decisions made by the groupies?

Does everything an individual need to be documented to the public if it does not matter to the public?

Anything that affects, or might reasonably be expected to affect, the decisions made by a Supreme Court judge, matters to the public.

That's the nature of powerful public positions, and the reason why people in such positions are expected to declare any gifts given to them by anyone, and to decline any gifts offered by people whose businesses or personal wealth could be directly affected by their offices.

If you want to take gifts from rich mates without declaring them publicly, then you need to not take on a career that involves regulating those mates; If you want to take on a career in government, then you need to not take undeclared gifts from rich mates, lest you be accused of corruption.

This is fundamental, and well understood by everyone in government employment.

I am employed by a government body - A city council - and it is stressed both at interview, at induction, and at regular training courses, that we must not accept any kind of gift or reward from anyone, on pain of instant dismissal and possible legal consequences. And I am not making big decisions here; My ability to influence the wealth, prosperity and happiness of my clients is limited to letting them travel on a bus without paying the fare.

If I don't like the fact that people aren't allowed to give me anything that could possibly be construed as a bribe, then I, like any Supreme Court justice, am free to quit my job and become a groupie for a rock and roll ensemble.

 

[Rhea]

Are we really expected to believe that this billionaire would be Clarence Thomas’ “friend” if he were not a Supreme Court justice?

 

[Copernicus]

The judicial branch actually has looser standards for gifts and emoluments than the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court recently updated theirs to require reporting on more expensive "gifts" from non-relatives. (Apparently, relatives are exempt, so they can act as go-betweens for bribers and influencers.) It used to be possible for travel to be excluded from reporting, but that has now been ruled out in the latest update. Apparently, those in charge of judging others seem to think that they shouldn't be as strictly judged as those others. They are having a tough time coming to grips with the possibility that those others may feel that they should be as strictly judged as they judge others.

 

[Jarhyn]

The judicial branch actually has looser standards for gifts and emoluments than the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court recently updated theirs to require reporting on more expensive "gifts" from non-relatives. (Apparently, relatives are exempt, so they can act as go-betweens for bribers and influencers.) It used to be possible for travel to be excluded from reporting, but that has now been ruled out in the latest update. Apparently, those in charge of judging others seem to think that they shouldn't be as strictly judged as those others. They are having a tough time coming to grips with the possibility that those others may feel that they should be as strictly judged as they judge others.

More strictly.

I think that anyone in government or civil service needs to have something like a UCMJ: an additional layer of laws on top of the public laws specifically directed at public servants and holding them to higher standards, with an entirely additional layer of legal scrutiny.

 

[blastula]

Clarence Thomas Broke the Law and It Isn’t Even Close

This image should be enough to shock anyone into taking action against the spigot of dark money that flows directly from billionaire donors into the court.

slate.com

And nothing will be done about it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Clarence Thomas Broke the Law and It Isn’t Even Close

This image should be enough to shock anyone into taking action against the spigot of dark money that flows directly from billionaire donors into the court.

slate.com

And nothing will be done about it.

You don’t think the law and order party will hold him accountable?

 

[Patooka]

So if a billionaire wants to take friends on his vacation what does that billionaire do if those friends simply can't afford to go? I honestly don't see the problem here. If this billionaire had offered Thomas exclusive use of his jet for Thomas pleasure and use I would see that as a big problem. But if that same billionaire simply takes friends on his vacation (for which he is already going on anyway) where is the problem with this? I would think this happens all the time with non politicians such as Bill Gates or Bezos. And I'm sure it happens all the time with rock stars and groupies. Do we want to start telling rock stars they can't take female friends (that don't pay) with them on tour? Yes, I agree when you pay a friends way to go along it can change the power dynamic a little bit, but Thomas has a lifetime job no matter what he does.

There is no one who hates corruption in our government more than I do! Our government being extremely corrupt is a huge problem! But I just don't see the problem in this case. The real problem (if there is even a problem) is that some one is so filthy rich he can do just about anything he wants, including taking his free loading friends for his own pleasure and company. But that is what America is supposed to be about! You work hard and you get to play hard, right? Thomas going on those vacations did not affect my taxes or way of life in any way I am aware of. We obviously don't know all the detail but it seems more than plausible they could have just been friends with no tit for tat motives.

Contrast this to the Pelosi insider stock trading and there is no comparison IMO. That would be the kind of corruption that directly affects my 401k, my taxes and quality of life. That is the kind of corruption the Democrats should be looking at! Contrast this to the non elected run away agencies of the government who file charges for political purposes, and there simply is no comparison there either.

There's a whole bunch of responses to this but I'm just going to point out how obligated RVonse feels to excuse billionaires. Whilst claiming to be a knight in shining armour for the middle class.

Makes you think.