John Oliver and his million dollar offer to Clarence Thomas

[Ohio Guy]

John Oliver offers Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year for life plus a new motor coach if he steps down from the Supreme Court.

Thomas has 30 days from last night to accept.

If you're thinking this sounds like it should be against ethics rules or even against the law, John Oliver agrees with you. He had lawyers review this offer and as the rules are written, it's completely above board and legal as far as Supreme Court justices are concerned.

I know a some of you will dismiss Oliver as some sort of partisan comedian, but his clip on the Supreme Court - Thomas specifically - is worth watching.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

John Oliver offers Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year for life plus a new motor coach if he steps down from the Supreme Court.

Thomas has 30 days from last night to accept.

If you're thinking this sounds like it should be against ethics rules or even against the law, John Oliver agrees with you. He had lawyers review this offer and as the rules are written, it's completely above board and legal as far as Supreme Court justices are concerned.

I know a some of you will dismiss Oliver as some sort of partisan comedian, but his clip on the Supreme Court - Thomas specifically - is worth watching.

I hope there is video of Thomas laughing in his face

 

[zeke4ahs]

I hope there is video of Thomas laughing in his face

Corrupt Supreme Court justices is truly a positive in our country, right?

 

[Ohio Guy]

I hope there is video of Thomas laughing in his face

If ever there was proof that people who hold high office and/or appointments in Washington have no respect for accountability or their appointments/office, that hypothetical video would be it.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

If ever there was proof that people who hold high office and/or appointments in Washington have no respect for accountability or their appointments/office, that hypothetical video would be it.

How so?

Publicly offering bribes to a SC Judge?

If it's not a laughing matter, the clown needs to see jail time.

 

[zeke4ahs]

How so?

Publicly offering bribes to a SC Judge?

If it's not a laughing matter, the clown needs to see jail time.

I believe he said he checked with attorneys. But what are your thoughts on the many “ gifts” Thomas has already accepted?

 

[Ohio Guy]

How so?

Publicly offering bribes to a SC Judge?

If it's not a laughing matter, the clown needs to see jail time.

The whole point in Oliver doing it is that it isn't illegal - and thinks it should be.

I think your ire is misdirected. Are you just now learning about all the trips and gifts Thomas has accepted - and didn't report - over the last few decades?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

The whole point in Oliver doing it is that it isn't illegal - and thinks it should be.

I think your ire is misdirected. Are you just now learning about all the trips and gifts Thomas has accepted - and didn't report - over the last few decades?

Bribes?

What was required of Judge Thomas? How did he reciprocate?

I'll wait.

What did Burisma offer the judge?

 

[Ohio Guy]

Bribes?

What was required of Judge Thomas? How did he reciprocate?

I'll wait.

What did Burisma offer the judge?

Wait - are you saying that people who have cases being heard by the Supreme Court should be able to take Justices on lavish trips and buy things from and for them? And the Justices shouldn't have to report all that?

And let's put a pin in the Burisma stuff for now, but we can come back to it. Because that's turning out to be pretty bonkers too.

I'm genuinely interested in what you think of all the Thomas/Supreme Court gifts stuff.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Wait - are you saying that people who have cases being heard by the Supreme Court should be able to take Justices on lavish trips and buy things from and for them? And the Justices shouldn't have to report all that?

And let's put a pin in the Burisma stuff for now, but we can come back to it. Because that's turning out to be pretty bonkers too.

I'm genuinely interested in what you think of all the Thomas/Supreme Court gifts stuff.

Not saying that at all.

Still waiting for your answer to the questions..

How did he reciprocate?
What parties received material benefit?

Should be easy. You are adamant ...

 

[Ohio Guy]

Not saying that at all.

Still waiting for your answer to the questions..

How did he reciprocate?
What parties received material benefit?

Should be easy. You are adamant ...

You're moving the goalposts way out of the stadium here.

The whole point of what Oliver is doing is pointing out that Supreme Court Justices aren't beholden to other ethics laws that countless other legislators and political appointees are. There are strict rules on state and federal legislators on what they can accept as a gift and what they need to report. I think we can agree that that's a good thing.

What I'd hope we can agree on is that it's a bad thing that Supreme Court Justices aren't held to the same legal standard.

 

[NewGuyToTheBoard]

John Oliver offers Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year for life plus a new motor coach if he steps down from the Supreme Court.

Thomas has 30 days from last night to accept.

If you're thinking this sounds like it should be against ethics rules or even against the law, John Oliver agrees with you. He had lawyers review this offer and as the rules are written, it's completely above board and legal as far as Supreme Court justices are concerned.

I know a some of you will dismiss Oliver as some sort of partisan comedian, but his clip on the Supreme Court - Thomas specifically - is worth watching.

 

[VanPastorMan]

John Oliver offers Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year for life plus a new motor coach if he steps down from the Supreme Court.

Thomas has 30 days from last night to accept.

If you're thinking this sounds like it should be against ethics rules or even against the law, John Oliver agrees with you. He had lawyers review this offer and as the rules are written, it's completely above board and legal as far as Supreme Court justices are concerned.

I know a some of you will dismiss Oliver as some sort of partisan comedian, but his clip on the Supreme Court - Thomas specifically - is worth watching.

I had not seen this thread. My question is how much do supreme court justices make? Also as a justice do they get speaking gigs? It is possible Oliver should offer a lot more.

 

[DDE-6-20-23]

John Oliver offers Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year for life plus a new motor coach if he steps down from the Supreme Court.

Thomas has 30 days from last night to accept.

If you're thinking this sounds like it should be against ethics rules or even against the law, John Oliver agrees with you. He had lawyers review this offer and as the rules are written, it's completely above board and legal as far as Supreme Court justices are concerned.

I know a some of you will dismiss Oliver as some sort of partisan comedian, but his clip on the Supreme Court - Thomas specifically - is worth watching.

Nah sh!t like this never happens...LOL. Who runs things?

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-06-...ble-for-constant-wars--1kkwwHNRhIc/index.html

From 1991 to 2022, the U.S. launched at least 251 military interventions, according to the Congressional Research Service, a U.S. think tank that compiles information on behalf of Congress.

From 2002 to 2020, military contractors tripled their political donations to congressional candidates, according to OpenSecrets, a non-profit organization that tracks data on campaign finance and lobbying. This is what Eisenhower warned about – if the influence of the military-industrial complex was left uncheck, it could threaten democracy itself.

"American-style democracy advocates that everyone has one vote, but ordinary voters simply cannot compete with the campaign investment paid by the big financial groups in the military-industrial complex," said Zhang Tengjun, deputy director of the China Institute of International Studies Asia Pacific.

Another powerful tool of the military-industrial complex is its ability to shape elite discussions on national security issues by funding foreign policy think tanks.

At least 14 of the 15 think tanks represented in House Armed Services Committee hearings from January 2020 to September 2022 accepted arms industry cash, according to "US government and defense contractor funding of America's top 50 think tanks" report by Bee Freeman, a research fellow with expertise in lobbying and money in politics at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

"Think tanks are supposed to shape government policies in an unbiased manner, free from the influence of big money that can distort in-house policy planning," said Stephen Semler, cofounder of Security Policy Reform Institute, a grassroots-funded U.S. foreign policy think tank.

However, many of the most influential think tanks have been compromised by the same financial interests as Congress, including military contractors, Semler argued.

 

[DANC]

You're moving the goalposts way out of the stadium here.

The whole point of what Oliver is doing is pointing out that Supreme Court Justices aren't beholden to other ethics laws that countless other legislators and political appointees are. There are strict rules on state and federal legislators on what they can accept as a gift and what they need to report. I think we can agree that that's a good thing.

What I'd hope we can agree on is that it's a bad thing that Supreme Court Justices aren't held to the same legal standard.

That's your go-to response when you can't answer a question without embarrassing yourself.

 

[DDE-6-20-23]

That's your go-to response when you can't answer a question without embarrassing yourself.

What you understand, Mas understands, and others is that the article, similar to what I posted and, could post 100 more, describes "The Swamp". DC is a money hungry cesspool with tons of bad characters. Bad enough that it is destroying our foundations from within. And here we are, practically a shell of what we once were. Big money is running everything, it always has, but to this level? We're being bought out now by idea's that are completely backwards. Lovely.

 

[Ohio Guy]

That's your go-to response when you can't answer a question without embarrassing yourself.

Did it really take you three months to come up with that zinger?

 

[Ohio Guy]

View embedded media

OK.

I'm not sure this is the 'gotcha' you might think it is. If Biden has been negligent in this area he should be held accountable. Maybe he should join Trump as a co-defendant in the case where he's claiming presidential immunity.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

View embedded media

“If there’s a deliberate omission of a gift, an intentional lie, that can very well be prosecuted as a criminal offense,” said Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.”

There you go. I want a complete investigation and if there is ANY WAY he can be charged, I want Biden prosecuted.

Even if they have to extend SOL’s or tie it in some dubious way to another act which may or may not make it a crime.

Let’s get on it pubs.

 

[DANC]

Did it really take you three months to come up with that zinger?

No, just finally got tired of seeing that worn out trope.

 

[DANC]

Nah sh!t like this never happens...LOL. Who runs things?

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-06-...ble-for-constant-wars--1kkwwHNRhIc/index.html

From 1991 to 2022, the U.S. launched at least 251 military interventions, according to the Congressional Research Service, a U.S. think tank that compiles information on behalf of Congress.

From 2002 to 2020, military contractors tripled their political donations to congressional candidates, according to OpenSecrets, a non-profit organization that tracks data on campaign finance and lobbying. This is what Eisenhower warned about – if the influence of the military-industrial complex was left uncheck, it could threaten democracy itself.

"American-style democracy advocates that everyone has one vote, but ordinary voters simply cannot compete with the campaign investment paid by the big financial groups in the military-industrial complex," said Zhang Tengjun, deputy director of the China Institute of International Studies Asia Pacific.

Another powerful tool of the military-industrial complex is its ability to shape elite discussions on national security issues by funding foreign policy think tanks.

At least 14 of the 15 think tanks represented in House Armed Services Committee hearings from January 2020 to September 2022 accepted arms industry cash, according to "US government and defense contractor funding of America's top 50 think tanks" report by Bee Freeman, a research fellow with expertise in lobbying and money in politics at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

"Think tanks are supposed to shape government policies in an unbiased manner, free from the influence of big money that can distort in-house policy planning," said Stephen Semler, cofounder of Security Policy Reform Institute, a grassroots-funded U.S. foreign policy think tank.

However, many of the most influential think tanks have been compromised by the same financial interests as Congress, including military contractors, Semler argued.

When people run for office now, their campaign ads should say "Funded by XYZ Corporation". That way we know who they're beholden to.

 

[OpenWheels]

If Trump wins (which I don't think will happen, but if) then Clarence should take it. He'd probably be pleased to have a younger guy continue his legacy.

Oh, NVM! He's not that dumb, it does say 'immediately'.

 

[OpenWheels]

When people run for office now, their campaign ads should say "Funded by XYZ Corporation". That way we know who they're beholden to.

If the sheep are who vote in all the laws governing the wolf, I don't mind the wolf being able to spend money to try to defend themselves.

If three people vote to tax themselves at a lower rate and rich guy at high rate. Or laws on rich guy but not themselves? Rich guy would be stupid to not spend it on influence. It's what he's got.

If people voted for politicians and laws that followed the constitution, probably be less necessary. But as it is?

 

[DANC]

If the sheep are who vote in all the laws governing the wolf, I don't mind the wolf being able to spend money to try to defend themselves.

If three people vote to tax themselves at a lower rate and rich guy at high rate. Or laws on rich guy but not themselves? Rich guy would be stupid to not spend it on influence. It's what he's got.

If people voted for politicians and laws that followed the constitution, probably be less necessary. But as it is?

I'm not blaming the giver. What's wrong with a list of major donors being listed when politicians run ads? I think it would be enlightening.

 

[OpenWheels]

I'm not blaming the giver. What's wrong with a list of major donors being listed when politicians run ads? I think it would be enlightening.

I don't think we have a need, or right, as a government, to track anyone's spending. But we do, extensively.
So I guess I'm OK with it in this case. Maybe it's even relatively legal.

 

[DDE-6-20-23]

When people run for office now, their campaign ads should say "Funded by XYZ Corporation". That way we know who they're beholden to.

Hey @Joe_Hoopsier references his sponsor.

 

[DANC]

I don't think we have a need, or right, as a government, to track anyone's spending. But we do, extensively.
So I guess I'm OK with it in this case. Maybe it's even relatively legal.

I think we have a right to know who is funding political campaigns. That's not tracking spending.

 

[UncleMark]

I'm not blaming the giver. What's wrong with a list of major donors being listed when politicians run ads? I think it would be enlightening.

I don't think we have a need, or right, as a government, to track anyone's spending. But we do, extensively.
So I guess I'm OK with it in this case. Maybe it's even relatively legal.

I think we have a right to know who is funding political campaigns. That's not tracking spending.

The Supremes queered all the attempts to do this a while back.

 

[DDE-6-20-23]

The Supremes queered all the attempts to do this a while back.

https://www.opensecrets.org/

 

[BradStevens]

John Oliver offers Clarence Thomas a million dollars a year for life plus a new motor coach if he steps down from the Supreme Court.

Thomas has 30 days from last night to accept.

If you're thinking this sounds like it should be against ethics rules or even against the law, John Oliver agrees with you. He had lawyers review this offer and as the rules are written, it's completely above board and legal as far as Supreme Court justices are concerned.

I know a some of you will dismiss Oliver as some sort of partisan comedian, but his clip on the Supreme Court - Thomas specifically - is worth watching.

Oliver is a partisan. Even WaPo admits that.

Not sure if he's a comedian anymore. He was OK on the Daily Show back in the day.

 

[DANC]

Oliver is a partisan. Even WaPo admits that.

Not sure if he's a comedian anymore. He was OK on the Daily Show back in the day.

Just an attempt to get publicity and try to resurrect his career.

 

[NewGuyToTheBoard]

OK.

I'm not sure this is the 'gotcha' you might think it is. If Biden has been negligent in this area he should be held accountable. Maybe he should join Trump as a co-defendant in the case where he's claiming presidential immunity.

The attacks on Clarence Thomas are coordinated foolish, racist trash.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

The attacks on Clarence Thomas are coordinated foolish, racist trash.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, triggers certain people more than a black conservative.

Thats why CT is so reviled.

 

[stollcpa]

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, triggers certain people more than a black conservative.

Thats why CT is so reviled.

💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, triggers certain people more than a black conservative.

Thats why CT is so reviled.

Almost as much as a black POTUS.

 

[NewGuyToTheBoard]

Almost as much as a black POTUS.

Obama wasn’t reviled. He was loved.

Until he ran a despicable, racially charged 2012 campaign.

 

[UncleMark]

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, triggers certain people more than a black conservative.

Thats why CT is so reviled.

My disdain for Thomas is no more based on race than my disdain for Alito.

 

[Ohio Guy]

The attacks on Clarence Thomas are coordinated foolish, racist trash.

That is not factually accurate.

 

[NewGuyToTheBoard]

That is not factually accurate.

Supreme Court justices bolstered by free travel, royalties, rental income

Before inspiring celebration, debate and dictionary searches last week, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court managed to squeeze in some globetrotting — on someone else’s dime. Six of the court’s nine members received paid trips to Europe in 2014, including to Berlin, London and Zurich, as...

publicintegrity.org

Why was Thomas singled out? Because he’s black and Conservative.

The progressive line of attack on him is absolutely evil.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, triggers certain people more than a black conservative.

Thats why CT is so reviled.

Yea, has nothing to do with unreported bribes. Claiming it has to do with race is laughable and given stoll griping about playing the racist card but then liking your post is yet another illustration of hyocrisy