(04-06-2023 11:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 11:02 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 10:50 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 10:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 10:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Why can't it be both?

Good point.

To me it seems insane that Thomas has been accepting gifts of this level for so long without reporting it. He must realize just how bad it looks but he either doesn't care or never thought that it would be exposed.

I think he's trying to walk the line between illegal and not illegal. The reporting rules were "recently" changed but the article is (intentionally?) vague on "recent". Hospitality at donor-owned residences does not need to be reported, for example, so it doesn't matter how luxurious the food and accommodations, it's not illegal to not report those. Transportation is supposed to be, but only "recently". I have the feeling he, Crow, and their accountants know exactly what does and does not have to be reported. If there's been an error in judgement there... well, I don't like to see judges make errors in judgement. I doubt he thought this would never been exposed; he's made no secret at all of these trips. Then, too, the article gets spurious - Clarence has no obligation at all regarding Crow's gifts to charitable institutions.

I thought it was telling that the judge in the article remarked on how they don't even mention their position while making restaurant reservations in order to avoid any hint of favor.

These private plane/yacht free-for-alls are certainly well into six-figures every time he does one. To think that wouldn't be reported is, well, just stupid.

I don't think it's as simple as, "He's stupid," is all I'm saying.

Yeah. I think we're on the same page.

My guess is that he decided that there was enough wiggle room to claim innocence if these trips every came to light. Maybe there will be but it is still a terrible look that a Supreme Court justice accepted what is surely millions of dollars in gifts from a Republican donor (operative?) and decided against reporting those gifts.

Quote:

Quote:I'm not sure what reports Crow needs to do... I'm more interested in Thomas' lack or reporting.

So am I, hence the term "spurious" with regards to the article conflating Crow's gifts to institutions with Crow's gifts to Thomas. I said "both" when you asked if this is an ethics issue or a media hatchet-job.

Yep. I think it's both but there seems to be a fair amount of meat on this bone based on this single article. I think Thomas needs to address this.