OMG, Well your knowledge isnt really worth anything to begin with and we all know it but you really believe this? Please tell me you don't?
Is Clarence Thomas in trouble?
- Thread starter 82hoosier
- Start date
I do. Prove me wrong. How did the Clintons personally profit from their foundation?
According to what we see the odds they didnt kill themselves is one as one.
You really are foolish enough to believe this aren't you? The Clintons, America's best crime family ever to exist! I know Trump is corrupt to the hilt but the goddamn Clinton's never did a thing. All I need to know about you.
This drives me nuts. You CANNOT drive donations to your favorite charities, and definitely not to your own charity. Whether she deliberately did it or not doesn’t matter. The appearance of impropriety is enough to be unethical.
I don't disagree. But you brought the Clintons into this. Thomas personally benefited from millions in luxury travel and vacations. I know of no evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from donations to their foundation while HRC was in office (although I suppose they could have or may have traveled on the foundation's dime when on foundation business).
I think there were some accusations that the Clintons used their Foundation to gain free travel. If they were only traveling on Foundation business, that isn't really a personal gain, but if they were taking advantage of it for personal reasons, that would be shady. Not saying they did, just saying I remember that being floated.
It does not matter in the least whether the Clintons personally benefitted or not. When I was in government we had to do annual online courses on various subjects (they still do) and one was on ethics. They added a scenario to the ethics course which was a very thinly disguised scenario of HRC’s charity situation. She’s a rock star, because they also added a scenario to the cybersecurity course which was obviously about her email scandal. In addition, they published a new DoD instruction about email usage that was 100% because of her email situation. She has a legacy and it’s not positive.
Last edited:
Back to Justice Thomas. This is a terrible look for a person sitting on the Supreme Court. This is especially true considering how publicly political his wife is. This should not be brushed under the rug.
I wonder how many other Justices knew about these lavish trips. If they knew and no one thought to report them, that is a seriously bad look for them as well.
I wonder how many other Justices knew about these lavish trips. If they knew and no one thought to report them, that is a seriously bad look for them as well.
Not required to be reported. Only recently has that changed.
Check out today’s WSJ for a greater explanation.
and Thomas didn't have friends like that either, until AFTER he became a judge.
that said, no doubt his becoming a judge had absolutely zero to do with Clarence's post becoming a judge best buds, who just like hanging with him for his great personality.
as for the Clinton's, their now $120 mil net worth is obviously due to hitting Powerball.
The legal ethics classes at Yale must have been amazing with Hillary, Bill and Clarence.
Last edited:
Here's some rambling thoughts:
- If he broke the laws regarding reporting, he should be punished. I don't know what that looks like, but something should happen
- It's a bad look for any judge if they are getting things from a large political donor, particularly if that donor only funds one party
- From what the reports are saying, they've been good friends for a while, so I don't necessarily think that you can simply just say - this is political influence, bribery, etc.
Rule 69 subsection 420
"Wives are off limits"
Exclusions:
"Only when the husband/wife/partner/civil unionist/common law partner/etal. posts on the WC or AOTF with some regularity"
Ruling: Comment is in line and funny.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The right solution is that as a judge you don't accept gifts like this, ever. As a judge, you take on a set of responsibilities, one of which is to always avoid the appearance of impropriety, and realize that the people's faith in the rule of law and the legal system in part depends upon this.
Imagine the outrage if we found out that Kagan and Sotomayor were going on vacation with their long-time friend, George Soros?
The problem I see is didn't he say he's been friends with the guy for 25 years, but he's been a judge for over 30 years?
To add to your last point, imagine if Kagan and Sotomayor went on trips with George Soros and it was discovered Soros liked to show off artwork and autographed autobiographies of Lenin and Marx?
I was commenting that last sentence in jest. But I agree. It's a bad look for the Judicial branch.
Wholeheartedly again with this. I’d also add that Justice Thomas is not just a judge. He sits on the highest court in the land, and not some podunk county court in Pigs Knuckle, WV. A US Supreme Court Justice’s ethics and integrity should be beyond reproach.
While I wouldn't spend my money on them myself, making an issue of Crow's taste in collectibles shouldn't be a part of this discussion.
I actually agree with you. I doubt that in my coin-flipped situation conservative pundits, politicians and voters would feel the same way and extend the same grace.
IIUC, he's not legally obligated to report anything. He's supposed to follow the ethical guidelines, but there's no enforcement mechanism short of impeachment. He made the mistake a number of years ago of reporting on a trip or vacation he received and the LA Times picked up on it and wrote it up. After that, he got his "guidance" and hasn't declared anything since.
He's not "supposed" to do shit. There are no ethical guidelines for the Supremes.
I think it's pretty amazing that in my lifetime the Supreme Court has went from the final arbiters of "right and wrong" to he did nothing wrong because there are no ethical guidelines. Turns out they're just a collection of a$$holes in black robes.
They’ve never been the arbiters of right and wrong. That’s never been their purpose.
I understand that the Supreme Court is to interpret the law and defend the Constitution. But that wasn't really my point.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Thomas leaked it accidentally while drunk on Crow's super yacht lol
Sad. Shielding the identity of the leaker(s) diminishes the integrity of the court more so than outing them.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
In the same vein, keeping Thomas on the court does more to diminish the integrity of the court than any leaker.
But we all know that won't happen because that would mean giving up some of the conservative majority on the court.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Yup, that’s what they’re claiming. Would’ve liked to see the FBI lead the investigation, rather than the Marshall, they’re much more well equipped for this type of thing.
Clarence Thomas must be thinking this latest smear on his reputation is another high tech lynching of an uppity black.
