Even more US corruption…

@techsouth said
What is your assessment?

Clarence Thomas apparently went on vacation with long time friends to a place owned by that friend.

Is that a crime? Why does that not seem like a crime to me?

Let's strip out the trigger words. "luxury trips" and "billionaire Republican donor" that have no affect on how this would be judged under the law. What remains is that Thomas wen ...[text shortened]... them that they're being tricked into being angry because a person went on a vacation with a friend?

A sitting SCOTUS judge accepting such gifts is unethical but the fact that he failed to report them on financial disclosure forms is possibly breaking the law:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/6/us-justice-clarence-thomas-possibly-broke-law-report

ProPublica says the US Supreme Court justice did not report travel offered by a donor, in possible violation of law.

The omissions appear to violate a financial disclosure law that requires justices — as well as federal judges, members of Congress and other officials — to disclose most gifts, the nonprofit news organisation said on Thursday.

The law says that “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality need not be reported”. But ProPublica noted that Crow’s resort is owned through a company, meaning Thomas could have still been required to document his stays there.

Thomas has many years of unreported gifts, which makes this more than only a matter of ethics....even though ethical concerns alone would still make it a serious issue.

@techsouth said
What is your assessment?

Clarence Thomas apparently went on vacation with long time friends to a place owned by that friend.

Is that a crime? Why does that not seem like a crime to me?

Let's strip out the trigger words. "luxury trips" and "billionaire Republican donor" that have no affect on how this would be judged under the law. What remains is that Thomas wen ...[text shortened]... them that they're being tricked into being angry because a person went on a vacation with a friend?

It seems to be pretty easy to make "friends" with folks who own 162 foot superyachts once you're on the SCOTUS and making rulings they like.

Which is not to say anyone has to bribe Thomas to make insane, legally retrograde decisions but regular lawyers are routinely punished for actions that create an "appearance of impropriety". I don't suppose you'd concede that these trips and the failure to report them meets that broad standard?

@no1marauder said
It seems to be pretty easy to make "friends" with folks who own 162 foot superyachts once you're on the SCOTUS and making rulings they like.

Which is not to say anyone has to bribe Thomas to make insane, legally retrograde decisions but regular lawyers are routinely punished for actions that create an "appearance of impropriety". I don't suppose you'd concede that these trips and the failure to report them meets that broad standard?

I wonder how many other Yale law school graduates have friends with yachts. It's helpful to be good at comparing things. Obviously you have assessed the situation and concluded that aside from being a SC justice, it is highly unlikely that Thomas would have a friend with a boat. I mean, look at me. Of all my friends, the largest boat any of them own is maybe 20 feet long. That is the norm and anything larger than that starts to sound like corruption.

Obviously you're upset about the latest report on Thomas, as was the intent of whoever dug this little nugget up. Clearly it is easy to assign anger to someone incapable of comparing things. But help me understand your anger.

Are you mad that Thomas went on vacation with a friend? Is it your contention that as a SC justice, Thomas should not be able to visit a friend's house if that house is "luxurious" or ride on a friend's boat if that boat is longer than 20'?

Or, are you mad that he did not "report" it?

Of all the congressmen who become millionaires on $174,000 per year, the one thing that we all need to be angry about right now is a SC justice that went on an otherwise legal boat ride, but did not fill out the proper paperwork?

Which of these two is keeping you up at night with anger right now?

To answer your question, if it is a well understood expectation that Thomas report these trips, then he should do so. I kind of suspect if we looked around DC we'd find 1000s of individuals who fall short of that standard if that is actually the standard. But Thomas, having started the SC in the 90s when things were a lot less contentious, I can understand how he'd conclude he did not need to report a visit to a friend who happens to be wealthy.

One thing I would NOT agree with is that as a SC justice, Thomas has to renounce friendships with anyone who happens to be "wealthy", especially when such people have no pending cases in front of the SC.

@techsouth said
Of all the congressmen who become millionaires on $174,000 per year, the one thing that we all need to be angry about right now is a SC justice that went on an otherwise legal boat ride, but did not fill out the proper paperwork?

You know why that paperwork is needed? To make sure Thomas isn't being bribed. Can you see why it's necessary to make sure people in government aren't being bribed?

@vivify said
You know why that paperwork is needed? To make sure Thomas isn't being bribed. Can you see why it's necessary to make sure people in government aren't being bribed?

Whoa!!!

Thanks for you intellectually deep insight. That was the key point that helped me understand what was at stake. Without your insight, I'd not be able to follow the alleged reason for a concern.

Good thing we have paper work and everyone carefully takes care of it (except Thomas). We can be certain there is little to no bribery in DC because everyone is doing such a great job filling out forms that few of us will ever.

So if Thomas has a friend who owns a BMW and that friend gives Thomas a ride to lunch, that counts as a $600 gift that he must report (I just looked up a 1 day rental of a BMW. And I am not even counting the cost of a professional driver). And if he overlooks that by some flawed understand on his part, it needs to be national news and his lifetime appointment to the SC should end. Yet we can be confident that Thomas is unusually bad because neither MSNBC nor CNN is reporting any other politicians visiting friends in nice houses. Our working assumption is that all other mansion visits among our 500+ congressmen have been reported and all "t"s have been crossed and all "i"s have been dotted. Is that how you see things right now?

@vivify said
A sitting SCOTUS judge accepting such gifts is unethical but the fact that he failed to report them on financial disclosure forms is possibly breaking the law:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/6/us-justice-clarence-thomas-possibly-broke-law-report

[quote]ProPublica says the US Supreme Court justice did not report travel offered by a donor, in possible violation of l ...[text shortened]... n only a matter of ethics....even though ethical concerns alone would still make it a serious issue.

The law says that “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality need not be reported”. But ProPublica noted that Crow’s resort is owned through a company, meaning Thomas could have still been required to document his stays there.

Whoa!!!!

Now I see why people are so angry. At first I suspected that this was a political attack and that people were in a rage because of not liking Thomas. But my apologies. I did not read everything carefully and I spoke too soon.

I missed this part "Crow’s resort is owned through a company, meaning Thomas could have still been required to document his stays there." That totally changes everything. I mean, I thought that perhaps Thomas had just been confused. But REALLY!!! This resort is owned through a COMPANY!!!! It couldn't be more obvious now. I think we can safely rule out any innocent possibility. It is no longer even possible to believe that Thomas was uncertain about the rules.

I had thought this was politically motivated anger, but clearly even if Sotomayer had done the same thing, the exact same set of people angry now would be just as angry at her.

Again, no need to explain anything else. I now see clearly why everyone is mad at Thomas.

@techsouth said
So if Thomas has a friend who owns a BMW and that friend gives Thomas a ride to lunch, that counts as a $600 gift that he must report (I just looked up a 1 day rental of a BMW. And I am not even counting the cost of a professional driver). And if he overlooks that by some flawed understand on his part, it needs to be national news and his lifetime appointment to the SC should end.

Nice job downplaying gifts that cause tens of thousands of dollars by comparing them to renting a car.

If a Supreme court Justice has "flawed understanding" of laws required by his own position, he is clearly not fit to be judging the most important legal issues facing this country.

@techsouth said
This resort is owned through a COMPANY!!!! It couldn't be more obvious now. I think we can safely rule out any innocent possibility. It is no longer even possible to believe that Thomas was uncertain about the rules.

That would qualify as a gift from a business. Or in this case a business trying to buy a Justice.

@techsouth said
I wonder how many other Yale law school graduates have friends with yachts. It's helpful to be good at comparing things. Obviously you have assessed the situation and concluded that aside from being a SC justice, it is highly unlikely that Thomas would have a friend with a boat. I mean, look at me. Of all my friends, the largest boat any of them own is maybe 20 feet lo ...[text shortened]... e who happens to be "wealthy", especially when such people have no pending cases in front of the SC.

I'm not sure where you came up with this "angry" thingy which your whole post is based on.

A mirror, maybe?

@vivify said
Nice job downplaying gifts that cause tens of thousands of dollars by comparing them to renting a car.

If a Supreme court Justice has "flawed understanding" of laws required by his own position, he is clearly not fit to be judging the most important legal issues facing this country.

Apparently you missed my most recent post.

I am agreeing with you now. I had been thinking that this was just another case of knee jerk reaction where people just get angry because someone assigned them an opinion.

But I overlooked the fact that this property was owned through a COMPANY.

The article said that personal hospitality was okay, but Thomas' friend owned the property through a COMPANY. If that's not crystal clear, I don't know what is.

Clearly anyone that mistakes reporting requirements of hospitality in a personally owned property with reporting requirements of hospitality in property owned by the same person through a company cannot be relied upon to make judgements on the most important legal issues facing the country.

My apologies for not instantly seeing that distinction like the other 80 million Americans that saw that same distinction.

And the monetary amount is important too. When I visit my friends at their beach house, that same house would cost me $400 per night to rent on the free market, so we make sure we spent a few thousand dollars on them each Christmas just to kind of balance things out. After all, that's just how normal friends see money.

@vivify said
That would qualify as a gift from a business. Or in this case a business trying to buy a Justice.

If only Thomas' friend had left the house in his own name instead.

Everyone would be happy.

@techsouth said
If only Thomas' friend had left the house in his own name instead.

Everyone would be happy.

It was a resort, not a house. It was a business.

@techsouth said
I wonder how many other Yale law school graduates have friends with yachts. It's helpful to be good at comparing things. Obviously you have assessed the situation and concluded that aside from being a SC justice, it is highly unlikely that Thomas would have a friend with a boat. I mean, look at me. Of all my friends, the largest boat any of them own is maybe 20 feet lo ...[text shortened]... e who happens to be "wealthy", especially when such people have no pending cases in front of the SC.

Funny, I've went on vacations with "friends" and for some reason those cheapskates didn't pay for everything. And my family income isn't quite at the almost $1 million a year mark that Clarence Thomas' is.

@no1marauder said
Funny, I've went on vacations with "friends" and for some reason those cheapskates didn't pay for everything. And my family income isn't quite at the almost $1 million a year mark that Clarence Thomas' is.

That sets the standard then.

Some Americans stay with friends and they don't pay for dinner, therefore we can say Thomas is engaged in corruption of the highest order.

I would suggest impeachment hearings, but the actual hearings seem unnecessary. Congress members already know enough to vote for impeachment with no further questions because I'm sure all of them have stayed with friends at least once who didn't provide dinner.

@techsouth said
That sets the standard then.

Some Americans stay with friends and they don't pay for dinner, therefore we can say Thomas is engaged in corruption of the highest order.

I would suggest impeachment hearings, but the actual hearings seem unnecessary. Congress members already know enough to vote for impeachment with no further questions because I'm sure all of them have stayed with friends at least once who didn't provide dinner.

Clarence Thomas could rape a four year old on the steps of the SCOTUS building and there wouldn't be 16 Republican Senators who would vote for impeachment.

I find the story more bemusing than anything else; that he is totally corrupt and feels no need to abide by the ethical rules a kid just out of law schools is expected to is no surprise.