Yes, and I have one as well. My point was that Thomas has no conscious, and that humility (other than the fake “I prefer WalMart, I’m a man of the people” bullshit) is not part of his DNA), not that yours or mine aren’t meaningful or weren’t hard earned (altho, to be honest, mine has been on inactive status for 30+ years).
I gave you the text of the statute. The statute hasn't changed. The opinions of the WSJ editorial board are irrelevant when they conflict with the plain text of the statute. The statute's text is very clear that only "food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality" are excepted. Does a private jet flight to a destination qualify as food, lodging, or entertainment? No, it does not. And I've yet to see any guidance from the U.S. Courts that included transportation in the exception. In fact, Thomas disclosed those flights (from the same Harlan Crow) in the past until it stirred up controversy. Justice Thomas Reports Wealth of Gifts Clarence Thomas's job is interpreting legal texts. Are you telling me that he couldn't read the statute and recognize that transportation was not part of the enumerated list of exceptions? I'm also not sure how we're going to find out. Thomas is insulated from repercussions. The Republicans will never impeach him, no matter what he does, as long as a Democrat gets to pick his replacement. And Thomas will probably retire under the next Republican President. One final point, if it was clear that the guidance at the time didn't require Thomas to disclose, why didn't the WSJ editorial board offer a link to the rules or quote them? Seems quite odd that they just gave us a blanket statement with no proof behind it. I looked at the previous version of the guidance, and it says nothing that covers transportation or flights.
Reading this statement, it could be seen as ambiguous. What I mean is that the guidance is silent as to transportation/flights. This is exactly what it says: A gift is a payment, advance, forbearance, rendering, or deposit of money, or anything of value, unless consideration of equal or greater value is received by the donor. Section 109(5). Personal hospitality need not be reported. Personal hospitality means hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that person or his family or on property or facilities owned by that person or family. Section 109(14). You can find it here on page 31: https://fixthecourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Instructions-to-file-FDs-for-2021.pdf I imagine the WSJ editorial board is trying to claim that transportation qualifies as "personal hospitality" in the guidance. But the guidance is quite clear that it is only referring to things done AT the property, not transportation that gets you TO the property. And the statute confirms that reading when it refers only to food, lodging, and entertainment, not transportation. But arguing over the technicalities of disclosure is a sideshow. Thomas accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe more) in gifts from a Republican megadonor is the problem here. It comes off as corrupt, even if it is legal because the Supreme Court has no ethical rules. If Congress decided to repeal all of the ethics and anti-corruption laws that apply to them and started accepting massive "gifts" from political donors, I think we'd all recognize that as very, very wrong.
Thomas has some great “friend#”. Harlan collects Hiltler memorabilia (not just Nazi stuff) and his brother is a suspected financier of a global human sex trafficking rind”. We know his wife is a fascist he’s just a little better at hiding it because he never speaks the thought running through his brain are probably vile beyond belief. I shall add him in rotation to my daily 2 minutes of hate.
He has been doing it for decades and consciously decided not to disclose You already know about Clarence Thomas and his lavish vacations. But check out this addition to the story from LA Times reporter David Savage, who wrote about all this stuff 20 years ago: Thomas refused to comment on the article, but it had an impact: Thomas appears to have continued accepting free trips from his wealthy friend. But he stopped disclosing them. That's our Clarence! When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't pull out your hand and apologize. Instead, do a better job of making sure the plebs can't catch you.
The Strict Scrutiny crew mentioned the Caperton decision from 2009, in which Thomas joined in a dissent from presiding over a case in which one of the litigants had donated heavily to their election campaign for the explicit purpose of having them participate in the decision in favor of the litigant/donor. Details at Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. - Wikipedia.
It was a Roman province, while Judea was an ally of Rome and Herod the Great was King of Judea (appointed by Rome) but he died in 4 BCE and Judea only became a Roman Province in 6 AD. So Jesus was born before 4 BCE and was fleeing a local ruler in Judea to a Roman province - illegally as they were not citizens of Egypt, which as a province, did not have Roman citizens except in leadership positions. You gained Roman citizenship in provinces by serving Rome in public or military roles
Thanks!! But, what were the immigration laws? What made a border crossing “illegal”, and what was the punishment for the crime? (I’m interested for the historical perspective, mit religious).
"The Roman imperial power of deportation had life-and-death implications for immigrants and citizens. Furthermore, during the time of Jesus and Paul, both Roman citizens and noncitizens could be deported from Rome. But foreigners who introduced non-Roman cultures in Rome were more likely to be expelled for being perceived as threats." Jesus, Paul and the border debate – why cherry-picking Bible passages misses the immigrant experience in ancient Rome
Thomas sold two vacant lots and the home where his elderly mother lived to Crow. Crow then spent tens of thousands of dollars renovating the mother's home. Thomas once again did not disclose any of this. Clarence Thomas Didn’t Disclose Harlan Crow Real Estate Deal — ProPublica
Stories about tax filing mistakes always make me laugh because back in the 80s I was called in for an IRS audit. My mistake was that my kids all had trust funds. What I didn't realize at the time was that there were a few years that their trust funds made enough capital gains that they were required to file income taxes. I didn't know it and didn't file for them. When I went in for the audit the IRS auditor asked where my kids were. I explained they were minors and I signed their returns when I realized the mistake....He read me the riot act and said I could only sign as the preparer, the kids had to sign their own. The following year when I sent in their returns I gave my 2 year old a crayon and showed him where to sign......Apparently all the IRS was concerned about was getting their money because I never heard a thing about it from them. I was really hoping to hear from them so I could tell them the auditor told me they had to sign their own.
Wut? Thomas isn’t exactly poor (he’s got to be worth millions) why didn’t he do it? Oh yeah it was a payoff for favorable rulings on cases of interest to crow.
He violated/broke a federal law. Real estate sales over $1,000 have to be reported. Thomas did not do that. From the article : A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica. Corruption Rules.
