Time to impeach scotus judge Clarence thomas

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

If he didn't disclose them sounds like a policy violation.

That's not what the link had. The link said a law may have been violated. Nice try with the spin move. From the link:

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

What, we have to give you the link and read it for you too?

Is English your second language?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

That's not what the link had. The link said a law may have been violated. Nice try with the spin move. From the link:

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

What, we have to give you the link and read it for you too?

Is English your second language?

Oh they are always some experts and a Law that maybe violated. Who are these experts and what Law did he violate? This all sounds so vague. Don't get fucking cocky with me just because you can't come up with anything other than speculation.

[adav8s28]

[QUOTE=Levianon17;1063534727]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

That's not what the link had. The link said a law may have been violated. Nice try with the spin move. From the link:

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

What, we have to give you the link and read it for you too?

Is English your second language?[/QUOTE]
Oh they are always some experts and a Law that maybe violated. Who are these experts and what Law did he violate? This all sounds so vague. Don't get fucking cocky with me just because you can't come up with anything other than speculation.

If Thomas had disclosed all of those gifts, there would not be an issue. You're the one who is substituting the word policy for law. As if you did not read the link. Big difference between the two. If what Thomas did was was A okay his millionaire buddy would not have made the front page of the Dallas Morning News.

[Levianon17]

[QUOTE=adav8s28;1063534744]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

If Thomas had disclosed all of those gifts, there would not be an issue. You're the one who is substituting the word policy for law. As if you did not read the link. Big difference between the two. If what Thomas did was was A okay his millionaire buddy would not have made the front page of the Dallas Morning News.

I am trying to grasp the Criminal activity. Nothing you have posted sounds criminal, maybe unethical but not criminal. The money came from an individual to a Government appointed official, a Supreme Court Judge. If there is a policy which requires the Judge to disclose the gift and he failed to do so it's a Policy violation or an unethical practice it doesn't make it a Criminal violation unless something else is at hand that hasn't been revealed. So impeachment is a bit premature at this point.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

That's not what the link had. The link said a law may have been violated. Nice try with the spin move. From the link:

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

The trips HAVE been disclosed... The media has disclosed them.

So, case closed ...er ... case DISclosed! ...

### Salty

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

The trips HAVE been disclosed... The media has disclosed them.

So, case closed ...er ... case DISclosed! ...

### Salty

The media disclosed them so Thomas doesn't have to?
OK snick

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

The trips HAVE been disclosed... The media has disclosed them.

So, case closed ...er ... case DISclosed! ...

### Salty

A judge or member of Congress is suppose to disclose the gifts in the year that they are received. Thomas has gifts from twenty years ago that he did not disclose. The case is still open.

[winn dixie]

Report: Harlan Crow Has a Stake in 4 SCOTUS Cases — and Thomas Hasn't Recused
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. One key case that Crow has a stake in is Loper Bright Enterprises v. ...
CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America. ...
Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer. ...
Moore v. U.S.

Harlan Crow used to be ceo of Trammell Crow.
These cases from 2023 Thomas did not recuse himself. Huge conflict of interest with all these gifts.
The ethics violations are becoming more clear.

[winn dixie]

Senate judiciary committee investigating crows and Thomas's
Uhhhhmmmm pro Bono

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...nVucLzmurkNG6u

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Senate judiciary committee investigating crows and Thomas's
Uhhhhmmmm pro Bono

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...nVucLzmurkNG6u

Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas are close personal friends so any gifts from Harlan can be fall under the "Personal Hospitality Clause". In other words its a big Nothing Burger.


What is the “personal hospitality clause”?

The personal hospitality clause is an exception to the gift disclosure rules of the Ethics in Government Act. Sometimes referred to as the “personal hospitality loophole,” it does not require an official, including a federal judge, to disclose gifts of food, lodging, or entertainment “received as personal hospitality of an individual.”

The Judicial Conference outlines specific limits on this exception and mechanisms for punishment if lower court judges stray beyond them. But Supreme Court justices, who are not legally bound by the Judicial Conference’s interpretation, have relied on this clause to justify not disclosing gifts that it appears they would otherwise have to. Justices Alito and Thomas each alluded to this clause in their responses to the ProPublica reports.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Harlan Crow and Clarence Thomas are close personal friends so any gifts from Harlan can be fall under the "Personal Hospitality Clause". In other words its a big Nothing Burger.


What is the “personal hospitality clause”?

The personal hospitality clause is an exception to the gift disclosure rules of the Ethics in Government Act. Sometimes referred to as the “personal hospitality loophole,” it does not require an official, including a federal judge, to disclose gifts of food, lodging, or entertainment “received as personal hospitality of an individual.”

The Judicial Conference outlines specific limits on this exception and mechanisms for punishment if lower court judges stray beyond them. But Supreme Court justices, who are not legally bound by the Judicial Conference’s interpretation, have relied on this clause to justify not disclosing gifts that it appears they would otherwise have to. Justices Alito and Thomas each alluded to this clause in their responses to the ProPublica reports.

What about flights on a private jet? Or Tuition at private school for a relative of Thomas? These gifts were not disclosed either. A full report by the Congressional committee is due by the end of the summer. A Nothing Burger? I don't think so.

[txdot-guy]

I’m not sure that what Justice Thomas did is illegal. However it is certainly unethical. Thomas and Scalia both need to retire in my opinion.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m not sure that what Justice Thomas did is illegal. However it is certainly unethical. Thomas and Scalia both need to retire in my opinion.

Alf Landon too!

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

...Thomas and Scalia both need to retire in my opinion.

Recalling court wrapped up for this year. Maybe they will retire next February and Trump can find suitable replacements for them and Sotamyor.

[Lucas McCain]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Harlan Crow is the guy you're talking about. Hes been providing lavish trips for Thomas for years.
[url]https://www.google.com/url?

Thanks for providing his name, WD. Didn't know the guy was Trammell Crow's son. To make quite the understatement, his dad was so impressive in his career as a real estate developer that even Fred Trump pales in comparison. It's hard not to be impressed with the empire that his father built.

Anyway, enough about that old motherfucker's dad. After a few quick searches, it is funny to me that anyone is foolish enough to argue that man became close friends with Thomas when Crow was 55 fucking years old. Who the fuck becomes close friends with anyone at that age? Hell, I made it a point to stop adding friends at 35 years old because I didn't even have enough time for my friends then.

I'm just a penniless pauper compared to this guy. How many friends do you think that rich guy had 20 years ago? That is a rhetorical question because I guarantee you that none were on the US Supreme Court to buy influence.

Clarnce Thomas is no criminal, but he is quite the unethical fucker. Like I posted initially, I knew that in the 4th grade, and I didn't even know what the fuck sexual harassment even meant. LOL