Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Thursday, May 4, 2023

Clarence didn't report this, either:


The stench is getting stinkier.

Let's not forget that Harlan Crow had business before SCOTUS, and Clarence didn't recuse himself from his benefactor's cases. 

In addition to the luxurious vacations, private jet transportation, gifts, buying Clarence's mother's home and financing its rehabilitation, ProPublica has uncovered the fact that Crow financed Clarence's nephew's education.

Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.

"Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising 'as a son.' 'This is way outside the norm,' said a former White House ethics lawyer."


Shaw Kenawe said...

The Rude Pundit
Republicans are holding Hunter Biden, who has no role in the government, to higher standards than a Supreme Court justice. God, they are a disgusting joke.


Anonymous said...

Hmmm. Thomas came in under a cloud and it looks like he may be leaving under another cloud or two. Abe Fortas resigned after a week and a half of controversy for doing less than Thomas has. He didn't want to soil the reputation of the court.

Apparently Republicans don't really care about SCOTUS' reputation - or even the country that much. The problem is republicans have no shame. They are sociopaths. You can't shame them into doing the right thing.

They have no moral center.

Les Carpenter said...

The conservatives and republicans can, in all good conscience, lay full claim to bringing us the stinky dark High Court and the Rising of the Gun gods.

This nation is growing sicker by the day.

Dave Miller said...

In some other place, Abe Fortis and Richard Nixon are both wondering what they did wrong. Fortis, a former SCOTUS justice resigned after he was found to have done far less than Thomas. Nixon, well, we all know that one.

But think about it... and Trump.

Both of those men put the honor of country above personal gain and resigned rather than sully the US, their offices and our culture. But Thomas, following in the Trump defined lane of never back down, never retreat, never admit anything, never resign, has chosen otherwise.

And we are worse for it.

Dave Miller said...

Some words from former Judge J. Michael Luttig, appointed by President GHW Bush...

"Whether the Supreme Court is subject to ethical standards of conduct or not is emphatically not a partisan political issue and must not become one. But just as emphatically, the issue of the Court’s ethical standards of conduct does not present a constitutional question, much less one of any constitutional moment. This is not to say that the issue and question of whether the Supreme Court should be bound to ethical standards in its non-judicial conduct and activities is not important. It is unquestionably important. It is even of surpassing importance. But it ought not be thought of as anything more – and certainly nothing less -- than the housekeeping that is necessary to maintain a Republic.

Lest the Congress and the Supreme Court ill serve the nation in the course of attempting to resolve the constitutionally fraught question before them, they should together address the question with the solemnity and wisdom that the question deserves and requires. If they do but this, they will almost assuredly conclude that the answer they seek is the answer they both should want.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave M.

Judge Luttig: "It is even of surpassing importance. But it ought not be thought of as anything more – and certainly nothing less -- than the housekeeping that is necessary to maintain a Republic."

That is exactly why this is important. But I have no hope that the Roberts court will address this festering sore that's infected it.

America seems not to be able to agree on anything anymore. And I think that's why we're headed for a terrible fate.

skudrunner said...

You make it sound like the supreme court is not just another arm of of partisan politics. Why is it that there is so much emphasis on getting a certain party appointed. Because it affects judgements for decades. Has it been proven that thomas made decisions helping crow, no. Is it illegal for a friend to help another friend. Has it been shown that other politicians helped a friend of relative manipulate stock trading, no because that is what politicians do best. They help themselves and their friends/family at the expense of everyone else. It is a political system we vote for.

Hope we get some reasonable and competent candidates to vote for instead of bumbler and narcissist.

Les Carpenter said...

Shaw, there was a time, a period of many years, that i believed in America. That it was, for the most part, a ethical and moral country. A shining city on a hill. I no longer carry those feelings about this nation. And it was political party and the people representing it that made that chane possible.

Shaw Kenawe said...


This was written by an ultra-conservative judge who understands what "standard of ethics" means vis-a-vis the SCOTUS. "Considered a conservative legal heavyweight, Luttig’s willingness to weigh in is notable. He previously made headlines for his testimony to the House select committee that investigated January 6, 2021, where he stated that former President Donald Trump had tried to overturn the election and that 'Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American Democracy.' ”

Leading conservative former judge warns Supreme Court it must adopt the ‘highest’ standard of ethics rules

In a carefully worded, but blunt statement, conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig sent a warning shot to the Supreme Court, calling on the Court to enact a code of conduct that would “subject itself to the highest professional and ethical standards that would render the Court beyond reproach.”

If the Supreme Court does not take such action, he cautioned, Congress has “the power under the Constitution” to prescribe ethical standards of conduct for the court.

The statement is part of written testimony Luttig – a former judge on the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals – has submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee holding hearings Tuesday and follows weeks of ethical controversies involving the Supreme Court. Luttig’s public admonition is especially notable because of his conservative credentials and his longstanding, close ties with the Supreme Court."

I don't think you understand the difference between politicians -- Congresscritters -- and Supreme Court justices and the absolute importance of being untarnished and untainted by even an APPEARANCE of quid-pro-quo.

The Roberts court has been cheapened by its unwillingness to police itself and rid itself of the stench of the appearance of money influence on certain justices.

PS: You deliberately keep forgetting that Harlan Crow became palsy with Clarence AFTER Clarence became a Supreme. They are NOT lifelong buddies.

May I remind you and other conservatives who think this should be brushed off as nothing important: Remember how conservatives HOWLED with OUTRAGE when ex-President Clinton met on the tarmac with then President Obama's AG, Loretta Lynch? No 20 years of gifts and luxury vacations were exchanged and no one knew what went on in that meeting, but boy howdy they sure didn't like THE APPEARANCE of what it could have meant!

IMO, your reaction to this issue is a knee-jerk reaction.

Shaw Kenawe said...


I understand your feeling completely.

Just today, the Proud Boys who were on trial were found guilty of seditious conspiracy. I wonder if any of the Trumpers remember how Trump signaled to them "stand back and stand by" their motto during a presidential debate against Biden in 2020. IOW, Trump was a friend of those who conspired to overthrow the United States government!

And yet millions of Americans still want that corrupt man to be POTUS again.

Your "friend" Silver, of course, NEVER talks about this, but continues to believe that the Democrats are the real danger to America and freedom. What a joke!

Who can blame us, or any thinking person, for feeling despair for America?

Dave Miller said...

Skud... the SCOTUS was/is supposed to above politics. Sure, they're appointed by politicians wanting to push agendas, but even the most liberal, or conservative justice used to at least give lip service to following the rules, precedent and law.

Scalia is a good example. I never agreed with his politics, but his legal opinions were at least rooted in the law as he understood and interpreted it.

Same with his longtime friend, RBG.

As it relates to Thomas and your question, no, there is no problem with a justice accepting gifts from a friend. All he, or she has to do is report it on his ethics in government form and be transparent.

Why did Thomas not do that? This is all of his own making and he clearly doesn't care. Nor do Republicans.

A judge is supposed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Has that happened with Thomas? I'd argue no. You clearly will choose to include all manner of other examples, but try and focus on just Thomas...

Has he avoided the appearance of impropriety? Should he have been more transparent about the gifts he has accepted from Harlen Crow?

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... Silver more than leans right but he is open to being swayed. He's stated many times that he sees problems on both sides, but of course, more to the left. And... he frequently demands us lib folks bring receipts, but rarely is the right subjected to the same standard.

As for the Proud Boys, convicted insurrectionists today, let's remember their defense in the trial. This group of far right MAGA supporters had a simple three word defense for their actions...

It was Trump. They came to the capitol, did what they did, wrecked what they wrecked and beat officers all day because they believed President Trump called on them to do so.

Now, do we have a direct line of Trump's words to the actions of the Proud Boys? A direct line we could provide to someone like Silver? Of course not. But we certainly have the rioters and their belief that there was, in fact, that line.

Don't know how we get around that...

Shaw Kenawe said...

To skud and others:

This is how Thomas's and other Supremes' behavior undermines its credibility for Americans:

Moe Davis (U.S. Air Force, Retired)

My daughter couldn’t sell a $2 bar of band candy on base, but a Supreme Court Justice can let the co-founder of the political action committee Club For Growth give his mom a house, his nephew an elite education, and he and his wife millions in luxury vacations? That’s bullsh*t!

skudrunner said...

I thought you objected to hijacking a subject but I guess you couldn't pass on not making this about trump.
Thomas did nothing illegal, unethical yes but not illegal. Maybe congress should pass a law making it illegal to accept gifts from friends then the issue would be a non issue. Congress did pass a weak law banning members from sharing stock tips with anyone, even a spouse, so it is within their purview.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud The Proud Boys verdict is featured on my sidebar, so it is fair to comment on it.

Also, one of the Proud Boys' biggest fans is Trump. He admired the boys who are now convicted felons for conspiring to commit sedition against the United States of America -- traitorous behavior by him and them!

Oh, so Thomas did nothing illegal, just unethical, so we'll just pass on it and say unethical behavior, while legal, is just fine and dandy when Supremes engage in it. After all, as you point out, other people do it, so what's the prob?

This is what one expects from Banana Republics, not the U.S. But the Republican Party of today has no bar low enough to shame them.

Les Carpenter said...

The US republican party may just be lower than your typical banana republic political parties. I find it hard to imagine any organization being bigger hypocrites than the gop.

Les Carpenter said...

Shaw, I might have called Silver a friend at one time. But i begin to notice a bit of disingenuousness in his responnses some years ago. Following communication with our old friend Octopus, who filled me in on an experience he had with Silver lying to him, i have considered his statements with a grain or salt since. He is not one whose thoughts or opinions i place much trust in.

Dave Miller said...

Skud stated... "Thomas did nothing illegal, unethical yes but not illegal. Maybe congress should pass a law making it illegal to accept gifts from friends then the issue would be a non issue.

Here's the relevant law, the 1978 Ethics in Government Act...

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA) established financial disclosure reporting requirements for
many high-level government officials and employees, including the Chief Justice of the United States and
the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices must file publicly available financial
disclosure statements that report certain financial transactions.

The EIGA requires, among other things, that covered employees file annual
financial disclosure statements reporting:

-income from any source (other than from current employment by the federal government)
including honoraria; payments made to charity in lieu of honoraria; and any dividends,
rents, interest, and capital gains that exceed $200;
-gifts and reimbursements (although filers do not have to report gifts received from
relatives or food, lodging, or entertainment “received as personal hospitality of an
-interests in property;
-liabilities exceeding $10,000 owed to any creditor other than a close family member
(with certain exceptions such as mortgages for personal residences);
-transactions that exceed $1,000 in real property (other than a personal residence) and

So Skud, how do read this?

Did Justice Thomas break the law? Did he act in a way that did, or is not following the EIGA?

I'd argue that of course Justice Thomas acted unethically, a provable offense not seen with so much evidence since Fortis was forced to resign. But more than just being unethical, Thomas has, in fact broken the law.

Why is he still a judge?

Shaw Kenawe said...

David Rothkopf
The Supreme Court of the United States can no longer be considered a legitimate judicial entity as long as Clarence Thomas continues to sit on it. His corruption is too great and too well established. Ignoring it is for the court to assert it is above the law.

David J. Rothkopf (born December 24, 1955) is a foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator. He is the founder and CEO of TRG Media and The Rothkopf Group, a columnist for the Daily Beast and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is the author of ten books.

Ray said...

How many stories need to come out before we seriously discuss impeachment of corrupt Supreme Court justices?

Part of the public’s loss of faith in our institutions comes from a lack of accountability of the privileged. Thomas doesn’t think the rules apply to him, and for that, he is unfit to serve.

Les Carpenter said...

And yet Ray there will likely be zero accountability. Hypocrisy runs deep in the gop. At all levels.

The rancid stench and rot we smell in government flows primarily from the right. Not the left.

Dave Miller said...

Clarence also didn't report that conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo gave Kellyanne Conway thousands of dollars to funnel to Ginni Thomas, wife of SCOTUS judge Clarence Thomas. Then in a memo, now uncovered, directed Conway to make it anonymous to hide who it was for.

And once again, neither Thomas or his wife Ginni reported this purposely hidden "salary." I wonder why? Especially after he'd been admonished before to make sure he reported such income.

How about now Skud... is it starting to look illegal? Or so unethical that Thomas should resign?

Anonymous said...

And, the grift goes on…


skudrunner said...

Rev and Ms. Shaw, Is a favor from a friend a gift. What is a hidden salary. Was it salary when the -H- took money from a option trade she didn't make or is it salary for pelosi to pass stock tips to her hubby. I'm not saying what thomas did was ethical but what defines a gift, bribe or sharing with a friend. If this was a democrat would you feel the same because they have a spotty history just like the republicans. This has nothing to do with ethics or legality. It is all about control of the court. The justices are suppose to be non political but we all know everything is political

Les Carpenter said...

So skud, when you see an unethical or immoral situation is your posistion... no big deal, everybody does it. So, why sweat it? Just accept it and move on?. Becaust it sure sounds like it.

Dave Miller said...

No Skud... there's no Hillary talk here. I understand your reflexive need to pull that crap, but I'm not having it.

You see, Thomas later admitted Ginni had received hundreds of thousands of dollars, wait for it... in salary. So I'll let him be the judge, at least for that.

I noticed you purposefully avoided any of the questions I posted above, probably because you couldn't figure out a way to answer them with either working in joey, the swell guy or -HRC-.

And again, while many here might be uncomfortable with the gifts/favors Thomas received, that really isn't the issue. The issue is that Thomas did not report them, worked to conceal those gifts, and presumedly, has paid no taxes on them as they exceed the amount allowable under IRS law, without declaring an amount, value and paying taxes.

But hey, I guess that's alright with you.

skudrunner said...

Rev, I looked again at your posts and didn't see any questions so your accusations I'm not having it. Good remark and I applaud you for using it. The condemnation of thomas is not about unethical decisions but about diverting attention away from hunter using the VP post to make millions and joey b to allow it.

Les Carpenter said...

shaking head in amazement at how out of touch with reality some folks can be.

Dave Miller said...

Here Skud... apparently in your hurry to bring Hunter Biden into the discussion of Justice Clarence Thomas, you must have missed those questions...

How about now Skud... is it starting to look illegal? Or so unethical that Thomas should resign?

Here's a bonus question for you...

You seem to be really worried that Hunter might have enriched himself, or daddy at China's or Ukraine's expense. I think it's a fair question, and one that is being investigated.

Tell us why we never heard you voice any worries about an admitted enrichment of over 2 billion dollars for Javanka from the Saudis while he served in the Trump Administration?

skudrunner said...

Rev, Everything comes back to trump, guess you just can't help yourself. We will see how the investigation of hunter goes but my guess is nothing will happen. As has been proven the FBI and DOJ have hidden evidence for two years you why would they allow something to come out now.

What is concerning is trump is beating joey b in the polls. As I am sure you are aware elections on a national scale are decided by independents so the excuse it is wingnuts, I'm not having it. Unless the democrat party puts someone other that joey b to run they may get beat by a narcissistic, lying orange hair who might govern from prison. Now we have reade accusing joey b of sexual assault. Can't we get competent politicians who have morals or is that out of the question. The competent may be to far as a stretch but someone with morals would be a change.

Les Carpenter said...

shaking head in amazement how out of touch with reality some folks can be.

Getting competent politicians requires competent, intelligent, thoughful, folks putting their selfish self interests aside for the good of our diverse country and culture.

Good luck with that. Especially given the trajectory one party has been on since at least 2008.

Shaw Kenawe said...

No, skud. Everything comes back to Trump because it is painfully obvious that you only see wrongdoing in the Hunter Biden scandals, and yet you've never mentioned how Ivanka and Jared enriched themselves through the Office of the Presidency. That's colossal hypocrisy and absolutely weakens your claims of moral outrage over Hunter's alleged misdeeds.

Jared and Ivanka made up to $640 million in the White House

skud "...but someone with morals would be a change."

We had a moral, NO SCANDALS in EIGHT YEARS, president in Barack Obama, and you did and still do nothing but denigrate and make fun of him -- sarcastically referring to him as "swell guy." So, IMO, it's not about that either, since you have shown us that you've dismissed and ridiculed a moral man.

So what is it that you think we need, since you've disregarded a moral man?

skud "As has been proven the FBI and DOJ have hidden evidence for two years you why would they allow something to come out now."

Where is the link to that allegation? I read that some agent that tried to cover up information on Hunter, but that was ONE AGENT. ONE. Do you have a link to something that is more corrupt than one agent? The FBI and DoJ are huge organizations. One agent acting dishonestly doesn't impugn the entire investigation. What else and what info do you have?

Setting aside your obsession with Hunter Biden, skud, I ask you and other anti-Biden Americans how you or they could even think of letting Trump in the Oval Office again.

Trump has been criminally indicted on 34 felony counts, he's still under investigation in Georgia for interfering in that state's presidential election, asking the secretary of state to find him votes so he could CRIMINALLY steal the election from Biden, and we are now awaiting the verdict on his rape and defamation trial.

This is the character that many Americans want as their representative of their ideals and values? Really?

Anyone who wants Trump back in office, IMO, lacks morality and intelligence.

Les Carpenter said...

skud is thoroughlyunaware by choice Shaw. He so believes the stories he tells himself he is no longer able to successfully discern reality.

skudrunner said...

Ms. Shaw, You were the one who objected to me referring to the swell guy by his name so I reject your accusations I'm not having it.

You paint BHO as a saint but it is the press who made him one because he was the first mixed race president and they were in awe. No scandals that were ever reported but I consider his red line in the sand, attempting to destroy the middle class and being an admitted racist is a non hyped scandal.

Not knowing about the FBI and DOJ admissions shows lack of research and one woman accused kavanaugh which was huge but one FBI agent doesn't matter. Again accused does not mean guilty because contrary to madam pelosi, we are innocent until proven guilty. I have no desire to allow trump or joey b into the oval office but it is the democrats who anointed -H- to be their anointed one and as a fall back due to no candidates selected joey b. Sad isn't it.

Les Carpenter said...

Oy vey!

Yes skud, you're a sad case. But you deserve credit for consistency

possumlady said...

Goodness Skud. Reading your reply instantly reminded me of one of my favorite album's -- Steely Dan's Pretzel Logic.