Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So it's okay to bribe judges? $25K to his wife, $150K to his nephew, lavish trips what else? This is acceptable to you?what law???
I am looking for evidence he was bribe. It's not bribery to be a family friend and help out with a great nephew's education or buy them dinner, or a gift etc...judges are allowed to have freinds.So it's okay to bribe judges? $25K to his wife, $150K to his nephew, lavish trips what else? This is acceptable to you?
Then you shouldn't mind Hunter Biden getting money from special interests. What laws did Hunter break? Then stop complaining. If you don't mind what Clarence is doing then don't tell us you mind Hunter.
nypost.com
um she's allowed to have a job and get paid for it.Why answer absurd questions?
You guys want to play this game?
'No mention of Ginni.' Conservative activist directed money to wife of Justice Clarence Thomas
Leonard Leo directed money to Ginni Thomas, according to a new report. It's the latest news about money and gifts Clarence Thomas and his family have received.www.usatoday.com
So now this is the 2nd billionaire (we know of) giving Clarence Thomas and his fat ass ugly wife $
$25K
$6K a month for their nephew. Did you hear Harlan Crow's excuse? He was just trying to help a inner city kid? BULLSHIT ALERT! LOL
SCOTUS reviewed case involving Thomas' billionaire pal Harlan Crow
"It would be supremely naive" to think Crow didn't have stake in a case before the court, watchdog says.www.salon.com
ThisBozos a idiotwhat law???
This tops stupid. These bullshit brain dead are a gas.thomas doesnt fit the democrat narrative that all blacks are oppressed by white people and need more welfare
Because stupid, there are laws against it. This uncle Tom never claimed these bribes.I am looking for evidence he was bribe. It's not bribery to be a family friend and help out with a great nephew's education or buy them dinner, or a gift etc...judges are allowed to have freinds.
This guy has never even had a case on the Court.....
Meanwhile, you said nothing when Justice Sotomayor heard a case involving a pubisher she got $3million dollars from....she didn't recuse herself, said nothing...you all stayed silent. So what's the difference? Oh, Thomas is a black man.....I would say there are different standards, but this beyond that....one Justice actually heard a case involving a company she was getting paid from, in business with...directly....the other involves two friends, and no case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according t…
Um stupid.um she's allowed to have a job and get paid for it.
Geez....
That law doesn't apply to Justices on the SCOTUS. It applies to members of Congress, certain members of their staffs and employees of the branch, folks running for Congress, certainemployees of the Executive branch, certainly employees of the judical branch, including Judges...but not Justices. Why? Because they are the Judicial Branch, it also doesn't apply to the President (once in office) or the VP (once in office)ThisBozos a idiot
Page 57
ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1978
Pub. L. 95–521, titles I–V, Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1824–1867, as amended Pub. L. 96–19, §§ 2–9, June 13,
1979, 93 Stat. 37–44; Pub. L. 96–417, title VI, § 601(9), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1744; Pub. L. 96–579,
§ 12(c), Dec. 23, 1980, 94 Stat. 3369; Pub. L. 97–51, § 130(b), Oct. 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 966; Pub. L. 97–164,
title I, § 163(a)(6), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 49; Pub. L. 98–150, §§ 2, 3(a)–(c), 4–12, Nov. 11, 1983, 97 Stat.
959–963; Pub. L. 99–190, § 148(b), Dec. 19, 1985, 99 Stat. 1325; Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat.
2095; Pub. L. 99–573, § 6, Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3231; Pub. L. 100–191, § 3(b), Dec. 15, 1987, 101 Stat.
1306; Pub. L. 100–598, §§ 2–9, Nov. 3, 1988, 102 Stat. 3031–3035; Pub. L. 101–194, title II, §§ 201, 202, title
VI, § 601(a), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1724–1744, 1760, 1761; Pub. L. 101–280, §§ 3(1)–(10)(A), (C), 7(a)–(c),
May 4, 1990, 104 Stat. 152–157, 161; Pub. L. 101–334, July 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 318; Pub. L. 101–650, title
III, § 319, title IV, § 405, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117, 5124; Pub. L. 102–25, title VI, § 605(a), Apr. 6,
1991, 105 Stat. 110; Pub. L. 102–90, title I, § 6(b), title III, §§ 313, 314(a), (b), Aug. 14, 1991, 105 Stat.
450, 469; Pub. L. 102–198, § 6, Dec. 9, 1991, 105 Stat. 1624; Pub. L. 102–378, § 4(a), (b), Oct. 2, 1992, 106
Stat. 1356, 1357; Pub. L. 102–506, § 2, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3280; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, § 902(b)(2),
Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title XI, § 1182(d)(3), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat.
1773; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title IX, § 924(d)(3), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2832; Pub. L. 103–359, title
V, § 501(m), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3430; Pub. L. 104–65, §§ 20, 22(a), (b), Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 704,
705; Pub. L. 104–179, §§ 2, 3, 4(b)(2), Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1566, 1567; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, § 216,
Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1747; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XI, § 1122(b)(2), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat.
2687; Pub. L. 105–318, § 7, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 3011; Pub. L. 105–368, title V, § 512(b)(1)(D), Nov.
11, 1998, 112 Stat. 3342; Pub. L. 107–119, § 2, Jan. 15, 2002, 115 Stat. 2382; Pub. L. 107–126, Jan. 16,
2002, 115 Stat. 2404; Pub. L. 108–271, § 8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 108–458, title I,
§ 1079(c), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3696; Pub. L. 109–55, title I, § 1003(a), Aug. 2, 2005, 119 Stat. 572;
Pub. L. 109–289, div. B, title II, § 21069, as added Pub. L. 110–5, § 2, Feb. 15, 2007, 121 Stat. 57; Pub.
L. 109–435, title VI, § 604(c), Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3241; Pub. L. 110–24, §§ 2, 3, May 3, 2007, 121 Stat.
100; Pub. L. 110–81, title VII, § 702, Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 775; Pub. L. 110–177, title I, § 104, Jan.
7, 2008, 121 Stat. 2535; Pub. L. 110–323, § 7, Sept. 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 3547; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A],
title IX, § 931(b)(1), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4575
TITLE I—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL
Sec.
101. Persons required to file.
102. Contents of reports.
103. Filing of reports.
104. Failure to file or filing false reports.
105. Custody of and public access to reports.
106. Review of reports.
107. Confidential reports and other additional re-
quirements.
108. Authority of Comptroller General.
109. Definitions.
110. Notice of actions taken to comply with ethics
agreements.
111. Administration of provisions.
[TITLE II—REPEALED]
[TITLE III—REPEALED]
TITLE IV—OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
401. Establishment; appointment of Director.
402. Authority and functions.
403. Administrative provisions.
404. Rules and regulations.
405. Authorization of appropriations.
406. Omitted.
407. Annual pay of Director.
408. Reports to Congress.
TITLE V—GOVERNMENT-WIDE LIMITATIONS ON
OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
501. Outside earned income limitation.
502. Limitations on outside employment.
503. Administration.
Sec.
504. Civil Penalties.
505. Definitions.
TITLE I—FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL
CODIFICATION
Title I of Pub. L. 95–521 was classified to chapter 18
(§ 701 et seq.) of Title 2, The Congress, prior to general
amendment of title I by Pub. L. 101–194, title II, § 202,
Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1724.
§ 101. Persons required to file
(a) Within thirty days of assuming the posi-
tion of an officer or employee described in sub-
section (f), an individual shall file a report con-
taining the information described in section
102(b) unless the individual has left another po-
sition described in subsection (f) within thirty
days prior to assuming such new position or has
already filed a report under this title with re-
spect to nomination for the new position or as a
candidate for the position.
(b)(1) Within five days of the transmittal by
the President to the Senate of the nomination of
an individual (other than an individual nomi-
nated for appointment to a position as a Foreign
Service Officer or a grade or rank in the uni-
formed services for which the pay grade pre-
scribed by section 201 of title 37, United States
No, working a job isn't stupid.Um stupid.
They answer questions because they are supoposed to be working for us not against us. When they do not answer they are not doing their job.Why answer absurd questions?
You guys want to play this game?
'No mention of Ginni.' Conservative activist directed money to wife of Justice Clarence Thomas
Leonard Leo directed money to Ginni Thomas, according to a new report. It's the latest news about money and gifts Clarence Thomas and his family have received.www.usatoday.com
So now this is the 2nd billionaire (we know of) giving Clarence Thomas and his fat ass ugly wife $
$25K
$6K a month for their nephew. Did you hear Harlan Crow's excuse? He was just trying to help a inner city kid? BULLSHIT ALERT! LOL
SCOTUS reviewed case involving Thomas' billionaire pal Harlan Crow
"It would be supremely naive" to think Crow didn't have stake in a case before the court, watchdog says.
omg according to a report…somebody “wanted” to do something? wow…According to a report from the Washington Post, conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo wanted to send thousands of dollars to Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas, in 2012.
But, he didn't want her named in the payment paperwork, the Washington Post reported.
Imagine that, he wanted to pay her but he wanted to go through someone else and make sure her name wasn't associated.
Why?
The same year Conway reportedly helped send the money to Ginni, the nonprofit that paid her submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court about a landmark voting rights case.
Though Justice Thomas didn't cite the nonprofit's brief, he did vote in favor of the side they supported.
Good question. Better get you RW media goons on it, stat.So I wonder what the libtard justices have been up to? Dems better watch where they tread.....There be landmines.
SC justices are the only federal judges not bound by an ethics code. They’re solely self reporters with no system in place to recognize or investigate possible violations.It’s very likely others on the SC and judges throughout our justice system do similar things. Corruption reigns. However with any hope, Thomas will face consequences.
Fuck youThat law doesn't apply to Justices on the SCOTUS. It applies to members of Congress, certain members of their staffs and employees of the branch, folks running for Congress, certainemployees of the Executive branch, certainly employees of the judical branch, including Judges...but not Justices. Why? Because they are the Judicial Branch, it also doesn't apply to the President (once in office) or the VP (once in office)
How about buying the home of Justice Thomas’s mother where she lives rent free or paying for his nephew’s private boarding school tuition with no disclosure? Are those grifty enough?Do you know the relationship of those two?
When I buy friends gifts or dinner should they be required to report it to their employers?
I don't know the details but it takes more than an accusation to get the ball rolling. Like say... Hunter Bidens laptop. Anything to say on that subject?
YOU are so full of shit , that you don't even know when you are lying, This is a ridiculous unsupportable lie. Typical brain-dead thinking from a group that only lies.That law doesn't apply to Justices on the SCOTUS. It applies to members of Congress, certain members of their staffs and employees of the branch, folks running for Congress, certainemployees of the Executive branch, certainly employees of the judical branch, including Judges...but not Justices. Why? Because they are the Judicial Branch, it also doesn't apply to the President (once in office) or the VP (once in office)
Every time you write or say something, you prove just how stupid you are. Have you said one thing that is true here even ,No, working a job isn't stupid.
Uncle Toms can only be republicans now.How about buying the home of Justice Thomas’s mother where she lives rent free or paying for his nephew’s private boarding school tuition with no disclosure? Are those gritty enough?
There should be no way Thomas survives this.
