Clarence Thomas Has Reportedly Been Accepting Gifts From Republican Megadonor Harlan Crow For Decades—And Never Disclosed It

[H_Arendt]

@Samm

A knowledgeable, intelligent person would not be taken in by such promises. Sorry you were disappointed.

A more thoughtful poster might have noticed that I was aligning with a Donald Trump campaign position – which demonstrates just how silly all the accusations of TDS are.

[Ben_Natuf]

no, you were just complaining about something that didn’t get done… TDS

[H_Arendt]

@Ben_Natuf

no, you were just complaining about something that didn’t get done… TDS

I described what happened correctly. How can you conflate that with psychological disorder?

I know.The terror on the right of anything critical is… in a word… pathological. Especially when the criticism is factual.

By the way: I liked Trump’s healthcare goals, as stated during the 2016 campaign, too.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Samm

A knowledgeable, intelligent person would not be taken in by such promises. Sorry you were disappointed.

A more thoughtful poster might have noticed that I was aligning with a Donald Trump campaign position – which demonstrates just how silly all the accusations of TDS are.

And an observant and perceptive poster would know that I am not a Trump supporter, nor did I accuse you of TDS. There must be something else going on in your head that caused you to draw such erroneous conclusions. In spite of your back-handed compliment to Trump, maybe you do have TDS after all.

[WuWei]

Thomas’ vote in US v Rahimi was a vote for Hunter Biden.

[Ben_Natuf]

He must have taken him fishing

[STODR]

Oh look deceptive accounting, say it isn’t so.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-thomas-ally-pens-scathing-wsj-opinion-piece-detailing-errors-and-deceptions-in-recent-report/ar-BB1oR3WW

[tnt]

@Samm

@H_Arendt

Your analogy between expert witnesses and filing amicus briefs, claiming these were both neutral activities.

What about it? An amicus brief is simply testimony by a knowledgeable party on behalf of the plaintiff. That does not make then a party to the entity whose case is before the court.

Often those filing an amicus brief have somethin to gin from the case at hand, even if they are not a named party.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@H_Arendt

Your analogy between expert witnesses and filing amicus briefs, claiming these were both neutral activities.

What about it? An amicus brief is simply testimony by a knowledgeable party on behalf of the plaintiff. That does not make then a party to the entity whose case is before the court.

Often those filing an amicus brief have somethin to gin from the case at hand, even if they are not a named party.

If you have a specific accusation to make, make it. Generalities don’t cut it.

[tnt]

@Samm

@tnt

Often those filing an amicus brief have somethin to gin from the case at hand, even if they are not a named party.

If you have a specific accusation to make, make it. Generalities don’t cut it.

What are you talking about?

Simply pointing out that amicus briefs are often filed by those who stand to gain by a decision one way or the other in the case they file the brief for.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

Often those filing an amicus brief have somethin to gin from the case at hand, even if they are not a named party.

If you have a specific accusation to make, make it. Generalities don’t cut it.

What are you talking about?

Simply pointing out that amicus briefs are often filed by those who stand to gain by a decision one way or the other in the case they file the brief for.

So, you have nothing, but generalities. Okay.

[H_Arendt]

@Samm

If you have a specific accusation to make, make it. Generalities don’t cut it.

Leo has been bribing Clarence Thomas. millions of dollars in “gifts” Thomas has tried to hide in exhange for votes against any and all forms of execution interpretation of law.

[STODR]

Name one he paid for and Thomas hid but was required to disclose

[H_Arendt]

@STODR

Name one he paid for and Thomas hid but was required to disclose

You will argue that Supreme Court ethics are so loose, that there was no requirement to disclose. So what. He chose to hide every one and dribble them out a few at a time. They are still bribes regardless of the quibble over “required.”

And with the “new” guidelines, each justice is required to reduce in any matter a family member has an interest in. Yet he has not recused on the J6 matter despite his wife having played a role in organizing the J6 demonstration.

Look, I know you like the guys rulings, but his ethics are disaster.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@Samm

If you have a specific accusation to make, make it. Generalities don’t cut it.

Leo has been bribing Clarence Thomas. millions of dollars in “gifts” Thomas has tried to hide in exhange for votes against any and all forms of execution interpretation of law.

We have been over this several times. No quid for the pro and it’s not a bribe. There have been no votes for Leo. You’ll have to come up with something new.

[Samm]

@H_Arendt

@STODR

Name one he paid for and Thomas hid but was required to disclose

You will argue that Supreme Court ethics are so loose, that there was no requirement to disclose. So what. He chose to hide every one and dribble them out a few at a time. They are still bribes regardless of the quibble over “required.”

And with the “new” guidelines, each justice is required to reduce in any matter a family member has an interest in. Yet he has not recused on the J6 matter despite his wife having played a role in organizing the J6 demonstration.

Look, I know you like the guys rulings, but his ethics are disaster.

Don’t you ever get tired of making ■■■■ up?

[DougBH]

@STODR

Oh look deceptive accounting, say it isn’t so.

MSN

Not only did the original “analysis” employ the Judge Endogon school of accounting, but trips were considered gifts for Thomas but not for other justices, like Bryers, who received free trips.

[STODR]

@H_Arendt

And with the “new” guidelines, each justice is required to reduce in any matter a family member has an interest in

Link it I don’t believe you.

Other then that all you got is feelings because you don’t like his rulings. As the article showed that I posted the accounting of the money was a hit job with no consistently to it.

[H_Arendt]

@Samm

Don’t you ever get tired of making ■■■■ up?

I get tired of people who cannot refute the facts pretending that I am making things up.

[STODR]

What facts, you haven’t presented any. You have only made vague reference’s. I provided an article and study that shows the hit piece about Thomas and money was false.