Clarence Thomas corruption

[Copernicus]

It's not supposed to be equal in that way. When you're bribing someone, the equality comes in the form of the amount of the bribe being equal to the weight of the risk they are taking to give you the corrupt results you want.

But everyone thinks of bribery as a quid pro quo, where some amount of money changes hands in exchange for some specific act of public office. In this case, all of those trips were basically influence peddling--investing in a public official who would then be predisposed to do favors for the investor. Crow was then in a position to bring along others on these trips who would gain exclusive access to a Supreme Court justice through him, thus increasing his (Crow's) own power and influence within Republican circles. Crow was connected and could make good things happen for people with cases before the Supreme Court. This is what the Democratic leaders in Congress want Roberts to investigate, but Republicans don't want that rock overturned to see what kinds of things crawl out from underneath it. Roberts doesn't want to be the one to uncover dirt that went on under his nose for years, so he isn't going to lift a finger to find out. They'll find a way to sweep it all back under the rug--until there is a significant shift in national politics that allows Thomas to be investigated.

Anita Hill tried to warn us.

 

[Patooka]

Look at my history of posts and it will be self evident to you. I have started numerous corruption threads mostly with regards to Pelosi. If something were not important to me I would not bring it up here.

Can't help but notice many of your posts are sensationalist and rarely stand up to the test of time. Like for example many of the 2020 election threads you created.

 

[Ford]

It's not supposed to be equal in that way. When you're bribing someone, the equality comes in the form of the amount of the bribe being equal to the weight of the risk they are taking to give you the corrupt results you want.

But everyone thinks of bribery as a quid pro quo, where some amount of money changes hands in exchange for some specific act of public office. In this case, all of those trips were basically influence peddling--investing in a public official who would then be predisposed to do favors for the investor.

Exactly. One of the most frustrating things in my old job was watching inexperienced sales people screw this part up. They'd take some new client out to lunch, bring them back to the office, and hit them with the presentation with all the cost-per-point and the discounts and they'd sometimes get the sale, but it was hit and miss.

The guys who raked in the big clients and got the annuals? They didn't do that. It was about establishing a relationship. That big client who could drop a hundred grand a year? You started working them in 4th quarter, and then, if you did the dance correctly, then maybe the next year at 4th quarter they'd spend that money for the following year and you'd be able to buy that new Mercedes. The folks who dealt in million-dollar accounts had been working those deals for years.

At this point, Crow doesn't even have to ask Thomas to do him a favor. It's an unspoken agreement built over decades. Clarence knows what the client wants better than anyone, and he rewards his "friend" whenever possible.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If it was just hanging around with friends then can they show an instance of Thomas paying for a trip, or hosting Crow at his place?

What now? The judge doesn't bribe the client, that's backwards.

No, I think the point is that if Clarence let his friend fly on his private jets and stay on his superyachts then it’d be clear it was an equal relationship. One wonders why he didn’t do that??

It's not supposed to be equal in that way. When you're bribing someone, the equality comes in the form of the amount of the bribe being equal to the weight of the risk they are taking to give you the corrupt results you want.

I’m trying to argue the “not corruption” side, in which they were merely friends, letting each other side in their private jets and vacation on each other’s superyachts. That’s what is being suggested in defense of Thomas here.

My snark is apparently too subtle. Sorry.

 

[Politesse]

If it was just hanging around with friends then can they show an instance of Thomas paying for a trip, or hosting Crow at his place?

What now? The judge doesn't bribe the client, that's backwards.

No, I think the point is that if Clarence let his friend fly on his private jets and stay on his superyachts then it’d be clear it was an equal relationship. One wonders why he didn’t do that??

It's not supposed to be equal in that way. When you're bribing someone, the equality comes in the form of the amount of the bribe being equal to the weight of the risk they are taking to give you the corrupt results you want.

I’m trying to argue the “not corruption” side, in which they were merely friends, letting each other side in their private jets and vacation on each other’s superyachts. That’s what is being suggested in defense of Thomas here.

My snark is apparently too subtle. Sorry.

It may be the other way about; the above was my way of agreeing with you.

 

[Copernicus]

Crow became a Supreme Court justice in the early 90s, and the gifts have never stopped flowing since then. What did Thomas do to reciprocate the "friendship"? The only thing he had to offer was the office that he had recently gained. That was likely worth all of the vacations and lavish treatment since then. I suspect Crow is now about to experience diminishing returns, since he will no longer be able to shower Thomas with much of anything in secret. Every vacation Thomas takes will be scrutinized.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not supposed to be equal in that way. When you're bribing someone, the equality comes in the form of the amount of the bribe being equal to the weight of the risk they are taking to give you the corrupt results you want.

But everyone thinks of bribery as a quid pro quo, where some amount of money changes hands in exchange for some specific act of public office. In this case, all of those trips were basically influence peddling--investing in a public official who would then be predisposed to do favors for the investor. Crow was then in a position to bring along others on these trips who would gain exclusive access to a Supreme Court justice through him, thus increasing his (Crow's) own power and influence within Republican circles. Crow was connected and could make good things happen for people with cases before the Supreme Court. This is what the Democratic leaders in Congress want Roberts to investigate, but Republicans don't want that rock overturned to see what kinds of things crawl out from underneath it. Roberts doesn't want to be the one to uncover dirt that went on under his nose for years, so he isn't going to lift a finger to find out. They'll find a way to sweep it all back under the rug--until there is a significant shift in national politics that allows Thomas to be investigated.

Anita Hill tried to warn us.

I am sure Justice Roberts does not want to be the one to uncover this dirt. But Justice Roberts has already stated his concern about the public's view of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's judgments. This revelation about the appearance of corruption with Justice Thomas only further diminishes the public's trust. One would hope Justice Roberts takes this seriously and acts to investigate. If he does not, I would hope the media and the public pillory him as a hypocrite.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If it was just hanging around with friends then can they show an instance of Thomas paying for a trip, or hosting Crow at his place?

What now? The judge doesn't bribe the client, that's backwards.

No, I think the point is that if Clarence let his friend fly on his private jets and stay on his superyachts then it’d be clear it was an equal relationship. One wonders why he didn’t do that??

It's not supposed to be equal in that way. When you're bribing someone, the equality comes in the form of the amount of the bribe being equal to the weight of the risk they are taking to give you the corrupt results you want.

I’m trying to argue the “not corruption” side, in which they were merely friends, letting each other side in their private jets and vacation on each other’s superyachts. That’s what is being suggested in defense of Thomas here.

My snark is apparently too subtle. Sorry.

It may be the other way about; the above was my way of agreeing with you.

Oh no!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But Justice Roberts has already stated his concern about the public's view of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's judgments. This revelation about the appearance of corruption with Justice Thomas only further diminishes the public's trust. One would hope Justice Roberts takes this seriously and acts to investigate. If he does not, I would hope the media and the public pillory him as a hypocrite.

He'd rather retire in comfort. He's not going to do anything. Dream on, MacDuff.

 

[Jarhyn]

But Justice Roberts has already stated his concern about the public's view of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's judgments. This revelation about the appearance of corruption with Justice Thomas only further diminishes the public's trust. One would hope Justice Roberts takes this seriously and acts to investigate. If he does not, I would hope the media and the public pillory him as a hypocrite.

He'd rather retire in comfort. He's not going to do anything. Dream on, MacDuff.

Maybe he chooses now to retire.

Then Roberts gets named chief justice, and what, is he going to move to impeach himself? That's how the SC does it right? The other justices decide?

Or is it still house/senate?

 

[Politesse]

But Justice Roberts has already stated his concern about the public's view of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's judgments.

Oh, that bird has flown. That bird has flown to, like, Antarctica. We were already in a very cynical and anti-authoritarian mood these past several decades of American society-building. But recent events have destroyed whatever credibility the Court had left, and this bribery case is honestly small potatoes next to the larger problem. Between the rapist judge and the Roe decision, I frankly doubt that the American public will ever see the Supreme Court as a legitimate agent of justice. At least not with anything equating its current composition. Especially Americans of the non-Republican persuasion, which should alarm everybody. You can't have only half of the country regarding Court decisions as valid law, that is not a stable situation for anybody. But that's what we have.

From the linked article:

Over half (53%) have little or no trust in the Supreme Court to operate in the best interests of the American people, up 22 percentage points since 2019 ...
When the public is asked whether Supreme Court justices are more likely to set aside their personal and political beliefs to make rulings based on the Constitution, the law, and the facts, just 40% say they are likely to do so.

Public approval of the Court isn't just falling, it's plummeting. And though Thomas and Roberts perhaps more than any of the others have giving lip service to the concept of legitimacy, with their actions they have been throwing logs on the fire. Bad luck for them that the average American gets their information from watching the television or the streaming equivalent, not from reading judicial opinions.

 

[laughing dog]

But Justice Roberts has already stated his concern about the public's view of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's judgments.

Oh, that bird has flown. That bird has flown to, like, Antarctica. We were already in a very cynical and anti-authoritarian mood these past several decades of American society-building. But recent events have destroyed whatever credibility the Court had left, and this bribery case is honestly small potatoes next to the larger problem. Between the rapist judge and the Roe decision, I frankly doubt that the American public will ever see the Supreme Court as a legitimate agent of justice. At least not with anything equating its current composition. Especially Americans of the non-Republican persuasion, which should alarm everybody. You can't have only half of the country regarding Court decisions as valid law, that is not a stable situation for anybody. But that's what we have.

From the linked article:

Over half (53%) have little or no trust in the Supreme Court to operate in the best interests of the American people, up 22 percentage points since 2019 ...
When the public is asked whether Supreme Court justices are more likely to set aside their personal and political beliefs to make rulings based on the Constitution, the law, and the facts, just 40% say they are likely to do so.

Public approval of the Court isn't just falling, it's plummeting. And though Thomas and Roberts perhaps more than any of the others have giving lip service to the concept of legitimacy, with their actions they have been throwing logs on the fire. Bad luck for them that the average American gets their information from watching the television or the streaming equivalent, not from reading judicial opinions.

If Roberts is serious about improving the Supreme Court’s credibility, he will start an investigation which would increase the public confide jn the SCOTUS in my humble opinion. If he fails to act, he is a hypocrite and the Supreme Court’s credibility falls further.

I’d like maintain my current view of Justice Roberts as an honourable person with whom I often disagree. But I am willing to change what is left of my mind on this matter.

 

[Politesse]

I’d like maintain my current view of Justice Roberts as an honourable person with whom I often disagree. But I am willing to change what is left of my mind on this matter.

I felt the same way... before his tenure as chief justice. But in that role, he has been failing to live up to the most basic responsibilities of his office. History will not remember him kindly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More gas for the fire:

Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Benefactor Collects Hitler Artifacts - Washingtonian

Harlan Crow also has a garden full of dictator statues.

www.washingtonian.com

The URL says it all.

 

[Elixir]

It’s a crying shame, what they’ve done to this country.
We used to strive for liberty and justice for all. Perhaps we never got close, but now as a collective we don't even strive any more, because about a third of us don’t want liberty and justice for all.

I always liked the Aesop fable about the Frogs that wanted a King.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More gas for the fire:

Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Benefactor Collects Hitler Artifacts - Washingtonian

Harlan Crow also has a garden full of dictator statues.

www.washingtonian.com

The URL says it all.

The guy ruled to not decriminalize gay sex (Lawrence v Texas). The guy is a monster. So I'm less thinking he is less whoring for benefits than enjoying the benefits that come from alt-right judicial whoring.

 

[laughing dog]

I’d like maintain my current view of Justice Roberts as an honourable person with whom I often disagree. But I am willing to change what is left of my mind on this matter.

I felt the same way... before his tenure as chief justice. But in that role, he has been failing to live up to the most basic responsibilities of his office. History will not remember him kindly.

I've been told I am a slow learner.

 

[Jarhyn]

I’d like maintain my current view of Justice Roberts as an honourable person with whom I often disagree. But I am willing to change what is left of my mind on this matter.

I felt the same way... before his tenure as chief justice. But in that role, he has been failing to live up to the most basic responsibilities of his office. History will not remember him kindly.

I've been told I am a slow learner.

Slow and steady learning is way more reliable anyway.

 

[Politesse]

I’d like maintain my current view of Justice Roberts as an honourable person with whom I often disagree. But I am willing to change what is left of my mind on this matter.

I felt the same way... before his tenure as chief justice. But in that role, he has been failing to live up to the most basic responsibilities of his office. History will not remember him kindly.

I've been told I am a slow learner.

Slow and steady learning is way more reliable anyway.

True.

 

[lpetrich]

 Francis Bacon (England, 1561 - 1626)

Four hundred years ago, he a judge, and in 1621, he was found guilty of taking bribes. His defense was "With respect to this charge of bribery I am as innocent as any man born on St. Innocents Day. I never had a bribe or reward in my eye or thought when pronouncing judgment or order." In effect, "Sure I took those bribes, but I didn't let them influence me."

Seems like Clarence Thomas and his defenders are using the Francis Bacon defense, as I like to call it.