looking forward to more conservative dodging on corruption from their own team!

Well more to the point, Justice Thomas lost money on his property sale at the time and then got btfo when values skyrocketed over the next decade.
In the old days of news stories, it was the responsibility of editors to rein in journalists who wanted to dig into political enemies by getting to the fundamental question of whether there's any "there" there. Where's the beef? If a journalist wanted to dig into Thomas hobnobbing with Crow, the property sales, his disclosure forms, an editor would step in and ask whether there's any evidence of corrupt intent or political favors, if he has some interest in a case before the court, if Crow is doing this for personal gain instead of personal friendship.

The idea that WaPo could run an entire feature column and then I could turn on NPR twice today and hear an hour-long coverage at different times of the day on the startling revelation that Thomas wrote down "ginger holdings llc" instead of "ginger holdings ltd" on his disclosure forms is absolutely mind boggling. And I mean that even by contemporary standards where journalism is already a joke and they unironically run with stuff like "Trump overfed Koi fish" or "Could a micro black hole have swallowed flight 370?". I mean, this is a story that doesn't even hold up on its own face value and doesn't purport to show anything. Clarence Thomas was disclosing his earnings from rental properties and just made a typo for an obvious reason after their holding company very slightly changed its name.



There's a whole oceans worth of irony that the Biden administration sent storm troopers to break into the home of Project Veritas when they chose not to report on the leaked diaries of Ashley Biden because they found that even if they could prove it was legitimate, it didn't hold appropriate newsworthiness or expose significant wrongdoing to justify invading someone's privacy. And they got their first amendment rights as journalists trampled over in dramatic fashion, the government seizing records of their secret sources by force- and here we are with WaPo running a column about Clarence Thomas oopsing an "LLC" for an "LTD". At the same time they're running hit pieces on the ukraine report leaker

I'm personally less concerned about the Ginger Holdings piece, but have my worries about the "okayness" of having a billionaire in essence be the benevolent landlord of the mother of a Supreme Court justice--especially when that same billionaire has been on boards of organizations that have perfect records with Thomas.

I mean any pretense of a personal gain angle falls apart when you consider that only a handful of technical cases ever reach the supreme court with no direct bearing on someone like Crow, and I can tell you exactly how Thomas will rule on all of them before he ever does. That's the thing about being an ideologue.

I never had any problem with Nixon accepting a dog named Checkers for his kids, I have a problem with Nixon spying on his political rivals. Are the democrats so bloodthirsty to go after a 94 year old granny living in a truly modest house? While Joe & Hunter got paid millions in a no-show-job from corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs that Joe then turned around and protected with the full force of a state department intervention, building up to a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people and could lead to WW3?
Democrats are reaching so far that we'll know tomorrow whether Clarence Thomas has any polyps, but god forbid anyone pay any attention to actual corruption with real consequences to our nation.

I don't know that we can ever make any kind of progress if every conversation leads to the "whataboutism" that is Hillary, Biden, your uncle Bob, or anyone else. I can only assume that since the thread is about the happenings of Thomas, that it may be beneficial to stay within that scope less we fall into infinite regression.

When that limited scope is "Thomas wrote 'ginger holdings llc' instead of 'ginger holdings ltd'", there's not much to be said. But that doesn't stop the MSM

As I've said, I think the real estate transaction with Crow, to include Thomas' mother not paying rent, Crow buying out neighboring properties due Thomas' mother having issues with noise complaints, and then Crow also subsequently doing $40,000 in renovations--all caveated under the pretense of friendship and a desire to turn the home into a museum, to be the most concerning of anything that has been reported.

Genuine question: If the above description were the same, but it were a more liberal justice and Soros as the players, do you think that you would view that as equally of no concern?

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Apr 17 2023 03:04pm

Weren't we just trying to get away from whataboutisms and redirecting it to be about Hillary, Biden or my Uncle Bob? We've already had such examples pop up, if you want to find the threads on them.
You might not think that Thomas 'writing ginger holdings llc instead of ginger holdings ltd' is a big deal, but that's the current news cycle. WaPo had a full spread on it, NPR spent the whole day talking about it, bringing in a half dozen different democratic pundits and politicians to all fellate the writer on the byline for this incredible expose on Thomas not crossing his t's or dotting his i's.

But I'm talking about the initial ProPublica report that initiated all of this. I think a hypothetical is different than the whataboutism, as you either have 1 of 2 options that I can conceive:

1. You would find objection in the hypothetical, and thus engage in hypocrisy.

or

2. You would not find objection the hypothetical, which couples with your lack of objection in the initial ProPublica report about Thomas, and thus would be consistent. Consistent in that there is seemingly no concern about impropriety so long as no explicit conversation about cases before the court were to occur. That's a very interesting position, one of which we would disagree on.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Apr 17 2023 03:43pm

Now where is that damn link about Hillary and the Uranium One deal. WHAT ABOUT that?