Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I also don't believe he's a secret nazi but,  if I was a billionaire like him I doubt very much that I would have a collection of paintings by Adolf Hitler, a signed copy of Mein Kampf, and a set of swastika-emblazoned napkins.

Why not?  I guess it is a matter of taste.  People into history and into collecting have a bit of a different mindset. Having a few items from 'the bad guys' in an extensive collection means nothing.  Now if he were an exclusive collector of Nazi gear, that would be another story. 

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Why not?  I guess it is a matter of taste.  People into history and into collecting have a bit of a different mindset. Having a few items from 'the bad guys' in an extensive collection means nothing.  Now if he were an exclusive collector of Nazi gear, that would be another story. 

Why not you ask me? Then you answer it yourself, yes its a matter of taste..........

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

If the allegations are true and he has violated ethics laws I have no problem with him being forced off the Bench. Let the process take place and the consequences that follow.

But I very much doubt he will be forced of the bench, although of course he should.

You say you have no problem with him being forced of the bench, but should he?

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

If the allegations are true and he has violated ethics laws I have no problem with him being forced off the Bench. Let the process take place and the consequences that follow.

But I very much doubt he will be forced of the bench, although of course he should.

You say you have no problem with him being forced of the bench, but should he?

[Hanaguma]

Just now, stevenl said:

But I very much doubt he will be forced of the bench, although of course he should.

You say you have no problem with him being forced of the bench, but should he?

To be honest, I am not that familiar with the laws and ethics rules that govern his behavior. I have heard everything from "he's a dirty dog criminal" to "hey, just hanging out with his buddy", depending on which political partisan is talking.  Gonna wait a bit and see how things shake out.  

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

To be honest, I am not that familiar with the laws and ethics rules that govern his behavior. I have heard everything from "he's a dirty dog criminal" to "hey, just hanging out with his buddy", depending on which political partisan is talking.  Gonna wait a bit and see how things shake out.  

That was not the intent of my question, but your non answer is an answer in itself.

Thanks.

[Hanaguma]

Just now, stevenl said:

That was not the intent of my question, but your non answer is an answer in itself.

Thanks.

You're welcome! Glad to help.

[GroveHillWanderer]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

And there's this:

 "Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent."

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

 

I'm guessing we can take that as a "no".

I wonder what similar properties in that neighborhood rent for. I bet it comes to a lot more than the $15000 Thomas received from Crow for the sale of the property.

 

From what I can tell on reading the ProPublica article, we don't know that Thomas only got $15,000 from the sale. It says that Thomas had previously declared his stake in the property as $15,000 but that was before it was sold and it seems to be suggested in the article that Crow may have paid well above market value in the deal, for reasons that are unclear.

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

If the allegations are true and he has violated ethics laws I have no problem with him being forced off the Bench. Let the process take place and the consequences that follow.

If by "the allegations" you mean the fact that he received money from a property deal with Harlan Crow and did not declare it, then those are not allegations. They are facts backed up by documents available as matters of public record.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

To be honest, I am not that familiar with the laws and ethics rules that govern his behavior. I have heard everything from "he's a dirty dog criminal" to "hey, just hanging out with his buddy", depending on which political partisan is talking.  Gonna wait a bit and see how things shake out.  

Another instance of willful ignorance. 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

From what I can tell on reading the ProPublica article, we don't know that Thomas only got $15,000 from the sale. It says that Thomas had previously declared his stake in the property as $15,000 but that was before it was sold and it seems to be suggested in the article that Crow may have paid well above market value in the deal, for reasons that are unclear.

Thanks for the correction. And as I pointed out earlier, I'd be interested to know if Thomas was contributing to the support of his mother before the sale. If so, not having to pay rent would clearly have monetary value to Thomas, just as much as a gift of actual cash.

[Hanaguma]

48 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Another instance of willful ignorance. 

Not at all. But a person cant pretend to be concerned about, and knowledgeable about, every issue on the planet.  This one I think isnt worth that much time or energy.  Let the process play out amd see where it goes.  Ignorant would be pontificating about it without knowing anything about the subject. 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not at all. But a person cant pretend to be concerned about, and knowledgeable about, every issue on the planet.  This one I think isnt worth that much time or energy.  Let the process play out amd see where it goes.  Ignorant would be pontificating about it without knowing anything about the subject. 

And yet here you are allegedly unconcerned about the issue. What is wrong with this picture?

[Bkk Brian]

Thomas’s obligation to report the real estate deal couldn’t be clearer. He had reported the property as an asset. Selling it was a transaction that necessitated disclosure.

The Ethics in Government Act requires judges, like other senior officials, to file annual financial reports, and sets out the consequences for failing to comply.
 It further provides that the relevant party, which in the case of judges is the Judicial Conference, “shall refer to the Attorney General the name of any individual which such official or committee has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file information required to be reported.” A violation can result in a fine under the criminal code.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/13/clarence-thomas-real-estate-deal-ethics-harlan-crow/

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And yet here you are allegedly unconcerned about the issue. What is wrong with this picture?

If you noticed,  I was more concerned with the careless innuendo about Thomas`` friend Crow being some kind of a secret Nazi sympathizer.  As a (very) amateur historian who also dabbles in collecting, it was abhorrent that a man could be smeared like that.   It is sad but all too common for that kind of BS to happen.

 

About Thomas himself, I am agnostic. 

[ozimoron]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

If you noticed,  I was more concerned with the careless innuendo about Thomas`` friend Crow being some kind of a secret Nazi sympathizer.  As a (very) amateur historian who also dabbles in collecting, it was abhorrent that a man could be smeared like that.   It is sad but all too common for that kind of BS to happen.

 

About Thomas himself, I am agnostic. 

It isn't just about collecting. It's the abhorrent nazi aficionado attitude that Thomas associates with.

[Hanaguma]

58 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It isn't just about collecting. It's the abhorrent nazi aficionado attitude that Thomas associates with.

Such as?   I think Crow said that he collects some things to remind himself how abhorrent communism and fascism are.  So amongst the hundreds (if not thousands) of historical documents and artifacts that the man has collected, you think it is important to focus on 3 or 4 of them?  And to assume a person's beliefs based on them?  I think your political obsessions are clouding your intellect. 

[pomchop]

And Clarence apparently thinks that crow just happened to decide that he wanted to be best of buddies with him and hang out together for decades and that it had zero to do with him being a supreme court justice? 

 

I guess Crow just needed more friends and couldn't find any to hang with him on his yachts and private jets and then one day he just happened to meet ole Clarence and thought now there is one charming dude...no idea what he does for a living but lets be buddies.....how fast would those invites disappear if ole Clarence ruled the opposite way that Crow prefers on any number of decisions?

 

If indeed Clarence was that dumb and naïve, not to mention crooked,  he has no business anywhere near the court.

[Jingthing]

Has the SCOTUS ever been in such a low place in American history? Just another corrupt partisan political body now. Maybe it always was that to some degree but American faith in the institution of SCOTUS is in the gutter, and deservedly so. Of course Thomas should not be a judge in any court, but how the heck do we get rid of him? 

 

This isn't trivial. Faith in institutions is what holds nations together and lack of faith tears them apart. When paired with the fascistic election denial of the Trump cult, it becomes difficult to know how the US digs its way out of this morass.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Jingthing

[bendejo]

A similar situation a few decades ago: shortly after his leaving the WH, someone bought former US president Ronald Reagan's Santa Barbara Ranch for a price way above market value, priced in the millions.  Additionally the deal included the rental of another property, in Simi Valley, owned by the same fellow, for a price of $100 per year, for the rest of his, and his wife's, life.  So, to break it down, the ex-president came out of it a millionaire, and was able to live rent/property tax-free for rest of his, and Nancy's, days.  A nicely executed act of money laundering and delayed favors pay-off. 

Note that this was in the 1980s, when million dollar properties were not as common as now.

 

 

[onthedarkside]

UPDATE: Clarence Thomas reported thousands of dollars in income from real estate company that doesn’t exist anymore

 

Over the last two decades, Justice Clarence Thomas reportedly failed to accurately report hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of income from a family holding company and claimed rents from a company that no longer exists, according to The Washington Post, citing state records and federal disclosures.

 

“Any presumption in favor of Thomas’s integrity and commitment to comply with the law is gone. His assurances and promises cannot be trusted. Is there more? What’s the whole story? The nation needs to know,” Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York University, told the Post, arguing the integrity of the Supreme Court is now in “serious jeopardy.”

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-disclosure-b2320790.html

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

As usual it looks like another storm in a teacup and major distraction from the numerous politically inconvenient disasters and calamities currently in play. Can any of the forum's left contingent explain which Supreme court decisions and rulings this billionaire bought by being pals with Thomas - and hence the uproar? I am thinking the billionaire is not the smartest guy around, if he was corrupting a regular judge that presides over criminal cases he could possible have bought some unfair advantage, but the Supreme court? 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by SunnyinBangrak

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

As usual it looks like another storm in a teacup and major distraction from the numerous politically inconvenient disasters and calamities currently in play. Can any of the forum's left contingent explain which Supreme court decisions and rulings this billionaire bought by being pals with Thomas - and hence the uproar? I am thinking the billionaire is not the smartest guy around, if he was corrupting a regular judge that presides over criminal cases he could possible have bought some unfair advantage, but the Supreme court? 

 

Perhaps you should have a think about what it is the SCOTUS does.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[bamnutsak]

Another shoe drops with the revelation of his wife's real estate trust, and undeclared income.

 

I think it's fair to say that more shoes - think Imelda Marcos - will drop as Justice Thomas seems to have been emboldened to ignore reporting requirements, and he knows that he is untouchable.

 

Watch this space, as they say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[onthedarkside]

off topic troll post with unsubstantiated claims removed along with replies

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

As usual it looks like another storm in a teacup and major distraction from the numerous politically inconvenient disasters and calamities currently in play. Can any of the forum's left contingent explain which Supreme court decisions and rulings this billionaire bought by being pals with Thomas - and hence the uproar? I am thinking the billionaire is not the smartest guy around, if he was corrupting a regular judge that presides over criminal cases he could possible have bought some unfair advantage, but the Supreme court? 

 

Translation:  You are ok with a Supreme Court Justice who is dishonest and commits major lies by omission on financial disclosure forms.

[xylophone]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps you should have a think about what it is the SCOTUS does.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that the trump supporters et al. don't have the capacity to think outside of the Maga influence, so what is a very clear case of dishonesty/corruption just doesn't register with them; pitiful.

[GroveHillWanderer]

8 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

As usual it looks like another storm in a teacup and major distraction from the numerous politically inconvenient disasters and calamities currently in play. Can any of the forum's left contingent explain which Supreme court decisions and rulings this billionaire bought by being pals with Thomas - and hence the uproar? I am thinking the billionaire is not the smartest guy around, if he was corrupting a regular judge that presides over criminal cases he could possible have bought some unfair advantage, but the Supreme court? 

@ozimoron posted a link earlier that pointed out Harlan Crow sits on the boards two organisations (CCI and AEI) that have filed at least 11 briefs before the Supreme Court, with Thomas involved. In every one of those cases, Thomas ruled in their favour.

 

Which at a minimum, means that Thomas was being a tad disingenuous when he stated that Crow had never had any business before the court.

Edited April 17, 2023 by GroveHillWanderer

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

As usual it looks like another storm in a teacup and major distraction from the numerous politically inconvenient disasters and calamities currently in play. Can any of the forum's left contingent explain which Supreme court decisions and rulings this billionaire bought by being pals with Thomas - and hence the uproar? I am thinking the billionaire is not the smartest guy around, if he was corrupting a regular judge that presides over criminal cases he could possible have bought some unfair advantage, but the Supreme court? 

 

You can try to deflect attention to that billionaire all you like. It's clear that Clarence Thomas violated the law. There's nothing equivocal about that. The only time he wouldn't be required to report the sale is if that home was his primary residence. A clear violation. He's a Supreme Court Justice. He's supposed to set an example. Clearly he's not a real honest guy. I love that moment in the documentary when he claims to prefer spending his vacation time in a Walmart parking lot with RV owners. He's not an honest person.

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

You can try to deflect attention to that billionaire all you like. It's clear that Clarence Thomas violated the law. There's nothing equivocal about that. The only time he wouldn't be required to report the sale is if that home was his primary residence. A clear violation. He's a Supreme Court Justice. He's supposed to set an example. Clearly he's not a real honest guy. I love that moment in the documentary when he claims to prefer spending his vacation time in a Walmart parking lot with RV owners. He's not an honest person.

You expect lawyers & politicians to be honest ????

 

When you find 1, let us know.