Supreme Court Corruption (Formerly Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    cuddlemonkey

    Well-known monkey
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    4,036
    Reaction score
    4,725
    Offline
    It seems that a billionaire GOP donor has spent a small fortune on vacations for Ginni and Clarence Thomas.

     
    So the GOP on the SJC refuse to join in the call to investigate and with Feinstein out, the democrats lack a majority to issue subpoenas.

     
    She needs to resign now. She’s way past time to resign. What the hell is wrong with these people?
    Power and Ego. It's the same things that driver cops to violate people's rights. It's very intoxicating. Rather that realizing what stepping down could do for the greater good, she's addicted to the power and her ego won't allow her to resign and retire gracefully at her age. Instead, she has to be shamed, embarrassed and beaten in a primary race. It all takes a steamy, smelly crap on her legacy.
     
    Power and Ego. It's the same things that driver cops to violate people's rights. It's very intoxicating. Rather that realizing what stepping down could do for the greater good, she's addicted to the power and her ego won't allow her to resign and retire gracefully at her age. Instead, she has to be shamed, embarrassed and beaten in a primary race. It all takes a steamy, smelly crap on her legacy.
    She won't have to worry about that because she's announced she's not running for re-election. She's just going to fork the country until then.
     
    ……The justice, who is the longest-serving member of the nation’s highest court and arguably its most staunch conservative, insisted he had taken advice that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends” did not have to be reported under federal ethics laws. He emphasized that the friend in question “did not have business before the court”.

    But a close look at Thomas’s judicial activities from the time he became friends with Crow, in the mid-1990s, suggests that the statement might fall short of the full picture. It reveals that a conservative organization affiliated with Crow did have business before the supreme court while Thomas was on the bench.

    In addition, Crow has been connected to several groups that over the years have lobbied the supreme court through so-called “amicus briefs” that provide legal arguments supporting a plaintiff or defendant.

    In 2003, the anti-tax group the Club for Growth joined other rightwing individuals and organisations, including the Republican senator Mitch McConnell and the National Rifle Association (NRA), in attempting to push back campaign finance restrictions on election spending.

    At the time of the legal challenge, from at least 2001 to 2004, Crow was a member of the Club for Growth’s prestigious “founders committee”. Though little is known about the role of the committee, it clearly commanded some influence over the group’s policymaking……

    This week, the normally media-shy Crow, who has assets valued at $30bn and who has donated at least $13m to Republicans, gave an in-depth interview to the Dallas Morning News. He claimed the furore around his relations with Thomas was a “political hit-job” by the liberal media.

    He insisted he and Thomas were just friends who spent their time talking about their kids and animals. “We talk about dogs a lot,” he said.

    Asked whether he ever considered their friendship as a ticket to quid pro quo, he replied: “Every single relationship – a baby’s relationship to his mom – has some kind of reciprocity.”……..


     
    ……The justice, who is the longest-serving member of the nation’s highest court and arguably its most staunch conservative, insisted he had taken advice that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends” did not have to be reported under federal ethics laws. He emphasized that the friend in question “did not have business before the court”.

    But a close look at Thomas’s judicial activities from the time he became friends with Crow, in the mid-1990s, suggests that the statement might fall short of the full picture. It reveals that a conservative organization affiliated with Crow did have business before the supreme court while Thomas was on the bench.

    In addition, Crow has been connected to several groups that over the years have lobbied the supreme court through so-called “amicus briefs” that provide legal arguments supporting a plaintiff or defendant.

    In 2003, the anti-tax group the Club for Growth joined other rightwing individuals and organisations, including the Republican senator Mitch McConnell and the National Rifle Association (NRA), in attempting to push back campaign finance restrictions on election spending.

    At the time of the legal challenge, from at least 2001 to 2004, Crow was a member of the Club for Growth’s prestigious “founders committee”. Though little is known about the role of the committee, it clearly commanded some influence over the group’s policymaking……

    This week, the normally media-shy Crow, who has assets valued at $30bn and who has donated at least $13m to Republicans, gave an in-depth interview to the Dallas Morning News. He claimed the furore around his relations with Thomas was a “political hit-job” by the liberal media.

    He insisted he and Thomas were just friends who spent their time talking about their kids and animals. “We talk about dogs a lot,” he said.

    Asked whether he ever considered their friendship as a ticket to quid pro quo, he replied: “Every single relationship – a baby’s relationship to his mom – has some kind of reciprocity.”……..



    "Asked whether he ever considered their friendship as a ticket to quid pro quo, he replied: “Every single relationship – a baby’s relationship to his mom – has some kind of reciprocity.”…….."

    I mean... yeah. He's forking admitting it. Thomas gotta forking go.
     
    They won’t do anything about Thomas because they are all guilty of similar appearances of conflicts of interest.

     
    The real kicker is that he didn’t disclose the identity of the purchaser. Because he knew it looked bad.



    The buyer’s law firm has had over 20 cases before the SC since Gorsuch joined the court, and he never felt he had to recuse from any of those cases probably because he didn’t disclose who bought the property.
     
    Last edited:
    The real kicker is that he didn’t disclose the identity of the purchaser. Because he knew it looked bad.



    The buyer’s law firm has had over 20 cases before the SC since Gorsuch joined the court, and he never felt he had to recuse from any of those cases probably because he didn’t disclose who bought the property.


    Man If Democrats could ever somehow ever pull off the hat trick with a supermajority again. You can fast track 3 impeachments, serve them up like a fast food drive thru.
     
    And, in case there was any question as to why this is so bad…

    In 2004/2005, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case titled: Womack Hampton Architects vs Metric Holdings Limited. The refusal to hear the case benefited Metric Holdings Limited.

    The parent company of Metric Holdings Limited is Trammel Crow Residential. Harlan Crow’s family had an interest in Trammel Crow.

    So, in short..a company owned by a company that this billionaire who gave Clarence Thomas tons of money and gifts DID have business in front of the court, and Thomas did not recuse himself.
     
    And, in case there was any question as to why this is so bad…

    In 2004/2005, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case titled: Womack Hampton Architects vs Metric Holdings Limited. The refusal to hear the case benefited Metric Holdings Limited.

    The parent company of Metric Holdings Limited is Trammel Crow Residential. Harlan Crow’s family had an interest in Trammel Crow.

    So, in short..a company owned by a company that this billionaire who gave Clarence Thomas tons of money and gifts DID have business in front of the court, and Thomas did not recuse himself.
    I mean, if he won’t recuse himself from suits about the Big Lie when his wife was extremely active in furthering the lie why would anyone expect him to recuse himself ever? But this isn’t even the worst, IMO, because the PAC/Think Tank (whatever it is) that Crow is an active participant in paid Ginni hundreds of thousands of dollars directly. And said organization is actively weighing in with amicus briefs.

    Just as Gorsuch never recused himself for any of the 22 cases the law firm of the man who purchased property from him had before the court.

    Just as John Robert’s wife has made millions as a legal recruiter, placing lawyers at law firms, many of which have business before the SC.

    They are incapable of overseeing themselves. There must be some action on this.
     
    Last edited:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is speaking with one voice in response to recent criticism of the justices’ ethical practices: No need to fix what isn’t broken.

    The justices’ response on Tuesday struck some critics and ethics experts as tone deaf at a time of heightened attention on the justices’ travel and private business transactions. That comes against the backdrop of a historic dip in public approval as measured by opinion polls…….

    The statement signed by the justices essentially said that they consult a wide variety of sources to address ethical issues, decide for themselves when a conflict requires that they step away from a case and file the same annual financial disclosure reports as other judges.


    The justices have previously resisted calls to write a formal code of conduct.

    Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said in her view the problem is that the justices “have not been subjected to basic accountability that just about everybody else in the federal government has to comply with.”

    What was striking to her about the statement, she said, was “a failure to grapple with the fundamental problem of lack of accountability.” The justices “seem to be utterly clueless about the problem they have ... They’re in a bubble apparently. They don’t see what a big problem they have with the lack of accountability,” she said…….


     
    A 2018 Senate investigation that found there was “no evidence” to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault against the US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh contained serious omissions, according to new information obtained by the Guardian.

    The 28-page report was released by the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, the then chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. It prominently included an unfounded and unverified claim that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers – a fellow Yale graduate named Deborah Ramirez – was “likely” mistaken when she alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dormitory party because another Yale student was allegedly known for such acts……..

    The revelation raises new questions about apparent efforts to downplay and discredit accusations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh and exclude evidence that supported an alleged victim’s claims.

    A new documentary – an early version of which premiered at Sundance in January, but is being updated before its release – contains a never-before-heard recording of another Yale graduate, Max Stier, describing a separate alleged incident in which he said he witnessed Kavanaugh expose himself at a party at Yale.

    It has previously been reported that Stier wanted to tell the FBI anonymously during the confirmation process that he had allegedly witnessed Kavanaugh’s friends push the future judge’s penis into the hand of a female classmate at a party. While Republicans on the Senate committee were reportedly made aware of his desire to submit information to the FBI, he was not interviewed by the committee’s Republican investigators.

    The committee’s final report claimed there was “no verifiable evidence to support” Ramirez’s claim……

     
    Shocker - I and many others certainly suspected it was a complete sham of an investigation at the time.

    But what I really want investigated are the money issues with Kavanaugh. I suspect somebody owns him. Somebody paid off his credit card debt and his lapsed country club fees just before his nomination and his excuse that he had paid six figures for baseball playoff tickets for friends who finally paid him back just doesn’t cut it. This was well known before his nomination, yet Rs turned a blind eye and confirmed him anyway.
     
    Petition to change the title of this thread to "Supreme Court Corruption"


    Roberts also got squirrely with his disclosure forms:

    John Roberts submitted financial disclosure documents identifying his wife’s income as “salary” rather than commission from top law firms, which Price argued in an affidavit is “misleading”—a supporting memo from Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman added: “Characterizing Mrs. Roberts' commissions as 'salary' is not merely factually incorrect; it is incorrect as a matter of law,” according to Insider.
     
    This doesn’t include Kavanaugh of the disappearing six figure credit card debt and Barrett who belongs to a cult-like religious organization.

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom