Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[The5thHorseman]

So it's subjective then.

I thought laws were not supposed to be subjective

The rules on reporting gifts are not.

 

[Papageorgio]

If they were my personal friends I would be and that would be no ones business imo

For you however it is a law that requires those in those positions must report, you would not be required to, they would.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So it's subjective then.

I thought laws were not supposed to be subjective

Not at all. You asked how they could have influence, I gave an answer.

The law has them report all such things over a set amount to avoid being subjective.

 

[The5thHorseman]

It's because he's Black, right ? And I don't watch Tucker.

No...it's because he's corrupt.

 

[struth]

Does that 3800 include a private jet?

Show me where the rental for this private jet is $500K for a trip. Also show me where Thomas never paid any fare.

I'll wait.

 

[Blues Man]

The rules on reporting gifts are not.

He just said it's a gift "depending on how much they like going on those vacations"

Maybe read the post I was responding to.

 

[Blaster]

I have to think this will get interesting. Thomas has taken a ton of trips paid for by a billionaire campaign donor.

On the surface this appears to be in violations of federal law when he reported none of them.


IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.....................................

.....................These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

A bought and paid for Supreme Court judge. That's the very definition of a banana republic.

Nobody cares who paid for these trips. He is just one of many political figures that do this.

 

[Blues Man]

Show me where the rental for this private jet is $500K for a trip. Also show me where Thomas never paid any fare.

I'll wait.

If a person owns a private jet how is it a gift to give a person a ride in it?

If you pick up a SCOUTS judge in your car and give him a ride is it a "gift"

 

[Blaster]

No...it's because he's corrupt.

You don't even know the meaning of corruption.

 

[The5thHorseman]

He just said it's a gift "depending on how much they like going on those vacations"

Maybe read the post I was responding to.

As he pointed out, the rules establish dollar thresholds.

It's the same for brokers and financial advisors.

Their reporting threshold is $100.

 

[Blues Man]

Not at all. You asked how they could have influence, I gave an answer.

The law has them report all such things over a set amount to avoid being subjective.

What case would it influence since no one really knows what cases SCOTUS will hear ?

Did his friend actually benefit from any SCOTUS rulings made by Thomas? Were there even any cases heard in the last 20 years that this rich guy had a vested interest in?

 

[The5thHorseman]

If a person owns a private jet how is it a gift to give a person a ride in it?

If you pick up a SCOUTS judge in your car and give him a ride is it a "gift"

It is.

You've asked this same dumb question repeatedly.

 

[Blues Man]

As he pointed out, the rules establish dollar thresholds.

It's the same for brokers and financial advisors.

Their reporting threshold is $100.

No one reports a ride somewhere as a "gift" no matter how much it costs.

 

[Blues Man]

It is.

You've asked this same dumb question repeatedly.

It isn't.

If I give a person a ride in a vehicle I own no one considers it a "gift"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Show me where the rental for this private jet is $500K for a trip. Also show me where Thomas never paid any fare.

I'll wait.

Make sure to hold your breath while you are waiting.

 

[The5thHorseman]

What case would it influence since no one really knows what cases SCOTUS will hear ?

Did his friend actually benefit from any SCOTUS rulings made by Thomas? Were there even any cases heard in the last 20 years that this rich guy had a vested interest in?

This is a case of Patronage.

Do you think Clarence goes back every summer and explains his principled opposition to the positions of his Conservative johns?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What case would it influence since no one really knows what cases SCOTUS will hear ?

Did his friend actually benefit from any SCOTUS rulings made by Thomas? Were there even any cases heard in the last 20 years that this rich guy had a vested interest in?

Who knows?

The law is the law so that we do not have to make such calls. If he would have just followed the law we would not be having this discussion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It isn't.

If I give a person a ride in a vehicle I own no one considers it a "gift"

Depends on who they are and how far you take them.

 

[The5thHorseman]

It isn't.

If I give a person a ride in a vehicle I own no one considers it a "gift"

It is if you give them a ride in your jet, your yatch, or chauffered limo.

Nod.

 

[Blues Man]

This is a case of Patronage.

Do you think Clarence goes back every summer and explains his principled opposition to the positions of his Conservative johns?

I don't think that you have any evidence that Thomas ruled in favor of his friends on any SCOTUS case. If you can't even produce a case where there was even the appearance that he did then you cannot prove any "patronage"