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

[cuddlemonkey]

It seems that a billionaire GOP donor has spent a small fortune on vacations for Ginni and Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

 

[DaveXA]

Expected but not normalized. It should be shameful behavior.

It shouldn't be normal, but it is quite common.

 

[bird]

It's gross, and essentially the same thing, but again, where's the surprise or crime done there? You'd expect an individual with that world view to applaud those you support or those who protect/support your spouse.

Crime? No, but perhaps investigation might be in order. Beyond that? Unethical. Roberts is so concerned about the reputation of the court…or not.

 

[DaveXA]

Crime? No, but perhaps investigation might be in order.

Investigate what? If there's no crime, waste of time.

Beyond that? Unethical. Roberts is so concerned about the reputation of the court…or not.

I mean, I'm not liable for what my wife says and does. If she does something embarrassing, I suppose it doesn't reflect well on me, but that's about it.

I don't care for what she says and does, but people can say what they want. Now if there's money involved, that's a different thing. But just thanking a group for their nonsense just isn't something to get bent about.

 

[LA - L.A.]

But just thanking a group for their nonsense just isn't something to get bent about.

Clarence Thomas's wife is thanking a group trying to replace our democracy with theocracy and Thomas is trying to help them with their efforts, so yes it is absolutely something to get bent over.

If she was thanking the KKK or Tenant media for their efforts to keep sympathetic justices from being held accountable for helping them with their anti-American agendas, I'm fairly confident you would get bent about it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Just when you think Virginia “Ginni” Thomas can’t do any more to cast disrepute on the institution where her husband has served as a justice for more than three decades, just when you think that perhaps, just perhaps, the justices and their spouses have been chastened by the torrent of bad publicity — there she goes again.


The latest bombshell, from ProPublica and Documented, involves Thomas’s gushing, all-caps thank-you email to the conservative First Liberty Institute.

This is not just any conservative organization — it’s one that litigates extensively before the Supreme Court, on some of its most contested cases involving religious liberty and LGBTQ+ rights…..

“Great to meet through the meetings today,” Thomas wrote. “I cannot adequately express enough appreciation for you guys pulling into reacting to the Biden effort on the Supreme Court,” she added, referring to President Joe Biden’s recently announced proposals on term limits and an enforceable ethics code.


The impropriety here is multilayered — and staggering.


Thomas is a political activist by vocation, and, as I’ve written before, that’s her prerogative. It’s her constitutional right. And justices’ spouses have every right to pursue separate careers, including in politics and advocacy.

“We have our own separate careers and our own ideas and opinions too,” she told the Washington Free Beacon. “Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work.”


That was in 2022, when reports surfaced about Ginni Thomas’s attendance at the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse and her broader involvement in the “Stop the Steal” movement, including pressing state legislators to set aside the election results.

Now Ginni Thomas’s isn’t just lobbying to “Stop the Steal” — she’s trying to Stop the Reform of her husband’s own institution. So much for separate careers.

Ginni Thomas’s own behavior around the 2020 election, and Clarence Thomas’s conduct in accepting, and failing to disclose, thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts from wealthy conservatives helped trigger the push for court reform in the first place.

Now, we know, Ginni Thomas is a behind-the-scenes player seeking to frustrate any changes — and a grateful (“THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH”) beneficiary of First Liberty’s efforts on the Thomases’ behalf.


This would be wildly inappropriate if First Liberty were a run-of-the-mill ideological organization, but the group isn’t only that. It’s a frequent litigant before the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.


Remember the praying football coach? He’s a First Liberty client; Clarence Thomas voted that his constitutional rights had been violated when he lost his job.

The Maine families who said they were entitled to state funding to send their children to religious schools? First Liberty clients, too, and also beneficiaries of Thomas’s vote…….

There isn’t merely an ethics code to which the justices have voluntarily subjected themselves, albeit under duress.

There’s a federal law that requires justices, like all other judges, to recuse themselves in situations in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.


Clarence Thomas, apparently, didn’t think matters rose to that level when it came to election-related cases.

But how can he justify continuing to sit on cases involving First Liberty now that we know Ginni Thomas’s is “SO, SO, SO” beholden to the group?……

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/09/04/ginni-clarence-thomas-ethics-court-jan6/

 

[Optimus Prime]

It's gross, and essentially the same thing, but again, where's the surprise or crime done there? You'd expect an individual with that world view to applaud those you support or those who protect/support your spouse.

At best it’s a very bad look

 

[bird]

Investigate what? If there's no crime, waste of time.

I mean, I'm not liable for what my wife says and does. If she does something embarrassing, I suppose it doesn't reflect well on me, but that's about it.

I don't care for what she says and does, but people can say what they want. Now if there's money involved, that's a different thing. But just thanking a group for their nonsense just isn't something to get bent about.

Since we know there was something less than above board with her regarding Jan. 6 I would be more than a little suspicious about her actions. Sure, taking thanking a group for something in an isolated setting is one thing. Unfortunately, she hasn’t acted in an isolated setting in the past.

As for being liable for what a spouse does that is true up to a point. If you benefit from something that your spouse does you may not be liable but you are very likely to get scrutinized. And since we know Thomas has been less that pure as the driven snow with the Harlan Crow bullschlitz to me it is understandable that I would look at anything done by him or his wife with a ton of salt.

 

[DaveXA]

At best it’s a very bad look

No question it's a bad look.

 

[DaveXA]

Since we know there was something less than above board with her regarding Jan. 6 I would be more than a little suspicious about her actions. Sure, taking thanking a group for something in an isolated setting is one thing. Unfortunately, she hasn’t acted in an isolated setting in the past.

As for being liable for what a spouse does that is true up to a point. If you benefit from something that your spouse does you may not be liable but you are very likely to get scrutinized. And since we know Thomas has been less that pure as the driven snow with the Harlan Crow bullschlitz to me it is understandable that I would look at anything done by him or his wife with a ton of salt.

Sure, it deserves scrutiny. I'm more thinking in terms of there not being anything that can be done about it. We're a free country and that includes associating with not so savory people. Just speaking positively or passionately about a given group isn't enough. If she's giving money to them and quid pro quo then that becomes something actionable.

 

[bird]

Sure, it deserves scrutiny. I'm more thinking in terms of there not being anything that can be done about it. We're a free country and that includes associating with not so savory people. Just speaking positively or passionately about a given group isn't enough. If she's giving money to them and quid pro quo then that becomes something actionable.

Yeah, maybe there is nothing that can be done about it.

That being said, your example of quid pro quo unfortunately wouldn’t get past Chief Justice Roberts. It has intrigued me that Roberts would even entertain the notion that large scale cash donations by individuals are for any purpose but quid pro quo. Sure, sometimes it is not for a direct return but inevitably it is for favorable legislative/regulatory capture. I was annoyed that Dems would trot out the Clinton foundation saying look at all the good they do when they were getting large donations from various places. Yeah, there could be an element of charity but, imo, it is about potential influence and access. People are people and people with or near power are always going to see others who want favors.

 

[coldseat]

At best it’s a very bad look

No question it's a bad look.

It's more than just a bad look. It's a sustained pattern of behavior by the Thomas' that bring into question nefarious dealings and influence that undermine the legitimacy of the court. It's a serious problem that shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, maybe there is nothing that can be done about it.

That being said, your example of quid pro quo unfortunately wouldn’t get past Chief Justice Roberts. It has intrigued me that Roberts would even entertain the notion that large scale cash donations by individuals are for any purpose but quid pro quo. Sure, sometimes it is not for a direct return but inevitably it is for favorable legislative/regulatory capture. I was annoyed that Dems would trot out the Clinton foundation saying look at all the good they do when they were getting large donations from various places. Yeah, there could be an element of charity but, imo, it is about potential influence and access. People are people and people with or near power are always going to see others who want favors.

I can agree with that. Well said.

 

[DaveXA]

It's more than just a bad look. It's a sustained pattern of behavior by the Thomas' that bring into question nefarious dealings and influence that undermine the legitimacy of the court. It's a serious problem that shouldn't be allowed to happen.

I mean, you'll have to prove that though. There's no clear and direct line that I'm seeing that is actionable. Until there is, I'm not sure anything can or will be done. All we can do is either hope the Court has a change of heart on oversight or Thomas retires.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I mean, you'll have to prove that though. There's no clear and direct line that I'm seeing that is actionable. Until there is, I'm not sure anything can or will be done. All we can do is either hope the Court has a change of heart on oversight or Thomas retires.

There's also the option to investigate by both the DOJ and the Senate. You have to investigate to discover crimes. People committing crimes have a tendency to try to keep their crimes a secret. Supreme Court justices are not above the law and there's plenty of suspicious activity to warrant an investigation.

 

[DaveXA]

There's also the option to investigate by both the DOJ and the Senate. You have to investigate to discover crimes. People committing crimes have a tendency to try to keep their crimes a secret. Supreme Court justices are not above the law and there's plenty of suspicious activity to warrant an investigation.

Sure, I'm fine with them investigating. I'd be really surprised they'd find anything beyond circumstantial evidence. Good luck with that.

 

[Optimus Prime]

German aristocrat who hosted Samuel Alito at her castle in 2023 has revealed new details about her friendship with the rightwing supreme court justice, including that they share a mutual friend who played a key role in JD Vance’s conversion to Catholicism.

Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, a onetime party girl turned traditionalist Catholic activist who has faced criticism for her defense of far-right politicians in Germany, told the Guardian that she first met Alito in Rome – she could not remember what year – and that both were friends of Dominic Legge, a priest and Yale Law graduate in Washington who Vance, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, has often cited in discussions about his adult conversion to Catholicism.

The relationship between the 64-year-old noblewoman and Alito sparked media interest after the supreme court justice revealed last week in a financial disclosure form that he had accepted concert tickets worth $900 from the billionaire, who refers to herself as a princess even though Germany’s aristocracy was officially disbanded after the first world war.

She later told the German press that Alito had overestimated the cost of the tickets, but did not elaborate…….

Alito’s disclosure about the free tickets are significant for another reason: they reveal new insights into Alito and his wife Martha-Ann’s apparent personal ties to a European aristocrat who is deeply entrenched in an international rightwing movement that is seeking to advance conservative Catholic policies.

Allies in her fight include the rightwing nationalist Steve Bannon and the ultra conservative German cardinal Gerhard Müller, who she once called the “Donald Trump of the Catholic Church”. Her circle is known to be fiercely critical of Pope Francis – who is seen as too liberal by orthodox and traditionalist sects of the Catholic church.

Legge, who leads the Thomistic Institute in Washington, is a prominent member of an elite circle of traditionalist Catholics in the US capital, and sits on the board of an organization – the Napa Legal Institute – alongside Leonard Leo, the powerbroker who is widely seen as having used his influence to install Republicans’ conservative supermajority on the supreme court and reportedly recently called for conservative activists to “crush liberal dominance at the choke points of influence and power in our society”.……

The princess and the judge: Samuel Alito’s ties to a German aristocrat who defends the far right

The US supreme court justice accepted $900 concert tickets from billionaire Gloria von Thurn und Taxis. Who is the socialite linked to rightwing networks?

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

This could have gone on miscellaneous Trump thread too
=========

The Trump White House put restraints on the FBI’s investigation into claims of sexual assault against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaughduring his 2018 confirmation process, according to a report from the office of a Democratic senator.

Then-President Donald Trump said the FBI would have “free rein” to investigate the allegations and that the agency was “talking to everybody.”

“I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion,” he wrote on social media at the time.

But a report from the office of Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, which was shared with The Washington Post, has revealed that Trump’s claims didn’t fit with the agency’s interpretation of events.

The report, which includes messages between the White House and the FBI, states that agency officials were ordered to do a limited investigation into the claims over the course of a week.

They asked for further “guidance” from the White House following the public comments by Trump and other officials.

However, the Trump administration chose not to give the agency the authority to independently investigate the claims, which Kavanagh consistently rejected.

The report outlines how the White House strictly controlled the FBI report even as Trump made his comments about the agency having “free rein” to do as they pleased.

FBI tip line messages were sent on to the White House without further investigation, the report states. The agency was reportedly instructed to speak to 10 possible witnesses and it was not given the authority to investigate any corroborating evidence……….

Trump White House ‘helped steer investigation’ into Brett Kavanaugh allegations

‘There is no book and there are no procedures’ for supplemental background investigations, senator says. ‘You simply do what the White House tells you’

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

Maybe it was always obvious that the whole thing was a sham.

Back in 2018, when Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and others accused then supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, the powerful testimony of Blasey Ford before the Senate judiciary committee briefly seemed like it might derail the nomination.

This was the height of #MeToo, remember: at the time, many women were coming forward with their own stories of sexual violence, and the accounts were numerous enough and had sufficient moral authority that powerful people felt it necessary to pretend that they cared.

Republican senators wanted to confirm Kavanaugh quickly: the judge, who was then seated on the DC circuit, would provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe v Wade, as well as supporting efforts to enshrine various other Republican policy agendas into law.

Women, however, were causing a scene: two cornered then Arizona senator Jeff Flake in an elevator and screamed at him that he should be ashamed of himself.

On a live stream of the altercation that went viral on social media, it looked like he was. All this made things somewhat awkward for the Republicans: they wanted to vote for Kavanaugh, but they wanted political cover to do so.

This is where the FBI came in.

The FBI was tasked with investigating the allegations against Kavanaugh. The idea, or so we were told, was that the bureau would be competent and impartial: that they would get to the bottom of this. Tips poured into the FBI hotline.

There were multiple allegations against Kavanaugh, and witnesses to his alleged misconduct with women – a seemingly unending number of former college classmates who had seen a drunken Kavanaugh pull his penis out at Yale and shove it into a freshman’s face, for instance – were calling in with what they felt was urgent information about the judge’s character.

They depicted him as a boorish, drunken, groping misogynist, a man without dignity or self-awareness, who was patently unfit for the office to which he had been nominated.

Their mistake, maybe, was in thinking that it would matter. The FBI wrapped up their “investigation” within a week. They never even interviewed Blasey Ford.

On Tuesday, the office of Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island senator, released a report confirming what many of us who observed this fracas at the time already knew: there was no real investigation into Kavanaugh’s conduct.

Instead, the FBI allowed itself to be used as a prop in a bit of political theater, orchestrated by the Trump administration, which was designed not to uncover the truth of the sexual violence allegations against Kavanaugh, but to bury it……..

The FBI conducted a sham investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. Surprised? | Moira Donegan

The bureau shamefully allowed itself to be used as a prop in political theater, orchestrated by the Trump administration

www.theguardian.com