A whole lot of insinuation. Vagueness. Non specifics. Its really been a trend of this particularly virulent strain of liberal conspiracy mongering to just kick up a cloud of suspicion even if the facts dont support any coherent allegation. Same as the Sessions / Kislyak story, or the Trump Jr / Magnitsky Lobbyists story. Whats the specific allegation? Wheres the beef? What case(s) did Thomas oversee that Crow would want to influence? What gain could he possibly achieve. Is he supposed to be bribing Clarence Thomas to side with the conservatives? Thats like bribing water to be wet.

In a sensible world of civil people and political disputes being hashed out in political forums, stories like these would be nipped in the bud long before publication by an editor asking the same question I just asked. Whats the 'there' there? If you cant come up with some specific allegation and instead we're just on some totally demented fishing expedition where WaPo unironically led a full spread on how Thomas made of typo of "Ginger Holdings LLC" instead of "Ginger Holdings Ltd", then this story should make like a balrog in front of gandalf.

I use the Biden / Ukraine example precisely because it shows that contrast, the difference of having a specific verifiable allegation and a coherent motive. Burisma had no legitimate reason to send millions to a crackhead dropout sex fiend who didnt speak their language or know anything about their business. Biden had no legitimate reason to weaponize our foreign aid to get investigators off Burisma's back. A clear quid pro quo. What was Harlan Crow's master plan? Get Thomas to sell him his house at a loss, and for Thomas to lose out on its appreciation as the market skyrocketed, and then for Thomas to cleverly cover up his rental incomes by accurately reporting them each year but swapping a couple letters to... what end?

Wheres the beef?

It's about the image of the court irrespective of whether there's a specific encoded violation that has taken place--which, not to disregard, there is an encoded violation by the lack of reporting of the real estate transaction. I understand that you have strong feelings about the "Ginger Holdings", but I have not brought up nor engaged you on that example because it doesn't matter to me--yet, you keep bringing it up.

It is concerning from the place of image and public trust to see a Supreme Court justice be so financially enmeshed with a billionaire (who has sat on boards for organizations that have brought cases before the court). What is more concerning though is that you don't see any issue with it either, despite the fact that the average federal employee can't accept gifts over $20 in value due to concerns of images of impropriety. Thomas, though, is allowed to be lavished in $500,000+ trips, have his mother live rent-free with $40,000+ renovations AND to have the neighboring properties bought out so things would be quieter for her, to get a $19,0000 bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass, etc. That you find these comparable to "not being allowed to marry" or to "eat meat on Fridays" is bizarre to me. Maybe, just maybe, the prudent thing to do as a Supreme Court justice is to have healthier boundaries and not let a billionaire be the benevolent landlord of your mother.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

Propublica once again tries to go knives out for Thomas

It turns out that justice thomas and his wife have been taking care of their grandnephew out of the goodness of their hearts after his dad was imprisoned for drug crimes. Like the fresh prince of bel air, the kid was taken out of the crime infested public school system and brought to high society where he attended expensive boarding schools and flew around with the thomases on harlan crow's trips. So instead of just winding up as one more statistic, justice thomas helped raise the kid up and sent him to private school when the public schools were too underachieving and dangerous, and harlan crow and another thomas friend helped defray the tuition costs. Thomas reported one of the donations when required, but only allowed them on condition they went directly to the kid's education trust instead of to the thomases, and didn't disclose other payments that weren't required to be disclosed under the reporting requirements (not a direct family member).
Propublica then sent a journalist to interview former schoolmates to dig into the personal life of some underage private kid and created a detailed report of his entire life. So now we know that Mark Martin, age 6 in 1998 when the thomases became his legal guardian, was raised by the thomases until 2011 in virginia, attended randolph-macon academy in 2010, then attended hidden lake academy for his junior year, went on trips to the caribbean, st petersburg and the baltics, got to cruise on a billionaire's yacht and ride jet skis. Instead of slinging crack and getting shot at.


Quid pro quo. Where the fuck is the quid pro quo in these storylines? Joe Biden received millions of dollars in bribes from a Ukrainian oligarch. Joe Biden turned around and withheld US foreign aid to force Ukraine to sack the investigator digging into that oligarch. Clear, direct quid pro quo. We know how the money changed hands, we know it was exorbitant amount of funds pocketed directly. We know it was an overt bribe, we know Joe Biden acted upon it and corrupted our entire foreign policy in a way that wound up leading us into a destructive war and potentially world war 3.
Justice Thomas sheltered a fatherless child. His friends helped pay to send him to boarding school so he could have a good life. Thomas didn't pocket a dime. Nobody had anything to ask of him, nor is there any allegation that anyone did.
So in one case, we see justice thomas having the moral character to look after a young child when his dad is imprisoned.
In the other case, we see a crackhead dropout getting paid millions for a no-show job so his dad can wield the state department to help a kleptocrat get away with his crimes.

And they had to dig into the personal life of a child and post it to everyone in the world, to get their scoop
I'm all for the first amendment but there's a point at which it might be reasonable to pass laws about journalists violating the privacy of children

also doesn't take a chess champion to look 10 moves ahead and realize "what happens if Mark Martin speaks out in defense of Thomas"
he's ~30 years old now, he could call out ProPublica for digging into his teenage life and point out how much good Justice Thomas did for him and where he'd be otherwise
what's their plan, call him an uncle tom too?

came here to see you downplaying the news and Im not dissapointed. "BUT BUT BUT JOE BIDEN GOT MONEY!!!!"

fuck outta here. Thomas is compromised and no amount of gold-medal level mental gymnastics is going to change that

Thomas makes a quarter of a million dollars a YEAR, he can afford private school without the generosity of his "friend" that just so happens to also pay his mother's rent. open your eyes you bozo.
if there was a "progressive" Justice that was receiving tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars of "gifts" from a billionaire , the right would be collectively losing their minds.
whats even worse (!!) is that you propose to punish journalists for investigating these kinds of things???? are you fucking serious dude??

This post was edited by gnarjay on May 4 2023 10:48am

Clarence Thomas didn't pocket a dime. He took in a 6 year old child and raised the kid as if he was his own, with nothing in it for him, sparing him a life in inner city public schools, his father's drug game and poverty, and instead gave him the high society life of a private boarding school and jet skiing on a billionaires yacht. It would have cost Thomas over 25% of all his incoming just to pay for the kid's private school, and instead his billionaire friend stepped in to defray that cost and Thomas only agreed when the money went straight to the kid's education, in a trust set aside whether neither Thomas nor the kid himself could touch it.
There's not even a hint of quid pro quo in this case, yet there's ample proof that Justice Thomas is a deeply moral person who cares for the underprivileged

MEANWHILE

Justice Sotomayor received $3.6 million from Random House. She pocketed that $3.6 million. She then ruled in the Greenspan v Random House case, in which the supreme court denied cert and gave Random House a victory in a case that could have cost them a fortune otherwise. Justice Breyer had recused himself in the same case because he had gotten money from Random House too, but Sotomayor didn't have any problem and declined to recuse herself. There's all the elements of your quid pro quo missing from the Thomas story and a total lack of elements of selflessness. Does that mean Sotomayor is corrupt? Or how about we just stop assuming people are corrupt without evidence of malintent

Watching you pretend you wouldn't care if this was instead Soros-RBG with the EXACT same circumstances has been pretty fun.

but describing someone paying for a child in your care's hundreds of thousands of dollars schooling as "not pocketing a dime" is the cherry on top.

if this was Soros-RGB you might actually have an aneurism.

curious- Did you not read the post?

i'm not speaking about an apples to pears comparison where you can break down context. i'm saying if we had the ability to just take out CT and his buddy, and instantly and seamlessly implant Soros-RGB you'd lose your mind.

same context, buys a house for RGB's mom, pays for schooling and vacations for RGB's nephew, pays for vacations for RGB and her husband. you'd not bother at all to find an actual quid quo pro, you'd not bother to determine if RGB can be swayed. you'd on the face of it lose your mind, and we both know it.

that money was part of a book deal and Penguin House is obligated to remand royalties to her
Amy Barrett got > $400,000 last year alone from a book deal, Gorsuch received >$250,000 in book royalties. book deals are almost the norm for SC justices.

your EXACT words -




the case that youre referring to wasnt even brought before the SC, it was kicked back down to the district court which is exactly what should have happened. had Sotomayor recused herself, the result would have been exactly the same as 4 justices are needed to hear the case and there werent enough cert votes for the case to be heard. it also wouldnt have impacted her financially either way so - wheres the beef?
also, something to be noted, SC justices arent actually required to recuse themselves from any case (which I dont agree with). should she have recused herself? yeah, no doubt. should there be an ethics standard for SC justices? absolutely. you dont get to play this both ways. either Sotomayor AND Clarence are both worth of suspicion, or they both acted in accordance with their position. whats really interesting is how many conservatives are coming out of the woodwork with this information since the Daily wire right-wing propaganda machine decided to make a story out of this decades later in an attempt to distract from Clarence Thomas' misgivings

wheres the consistency, Shill?? rules for thee but not for me?

This post was edited by gnarjay on May 4 2023 11:14am