(04-15-2023 04:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-15-2023 04:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-15-2023 04:40 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-15-2023 04:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-15-2023 04:01 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  An omission on a lengthy form nine years ago isn’t “continuing” anything.

What would he possibly have to gain by it? What did he gain by it?

The coordinated effort by prominent Democrats and the media to bring down a political enemy disturbs me. This sort of swampy behavior is becoming the norm. It’s certainly no councidence that suddenly this paperwork matters, just weeks after the SC ruling on abortion. They need to get him, and they’re pulling out all the stops.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the Supreme Court justice is breaking the law (again) by failing to disclose something (fairly obvious TBH) that he was supposed to.

I don't know what he thought he was gaining by it. You'd have to ask him. Perhaps free/upgraded lodging for his mom for the rest of his life, valuable gifts for himself, etc. Maybe he thought that stuff might go away if light was shed on this relationship.

Do you think that he just keeps forgetting to disclose the Crow stuff? He remembered to disclose other stuff in 2014 but not the sale of a house that he owned?

I don’t know. And I don’t care. It’s trivial. 2014 is nine years ago. Hardly present tense. “Keeps forgetting”?

What is the statue of limitations for shady behavior (if there was shady behavior, mind you) from a Supreme Court justice?

Please answer me this. If this was Sotamayor and a far-left billionaire do you think Fox News would:

A) be going crazy over it, investigating every angle of their financial arrangement, and talking about it on every show or
B) Ignore it. Who cares? It was 2014. Is there proof that Sotamayor ever changed the vote for her benefactor?

I don’t watch Fox News. But you do have a point. They’d be the only ones covering it. Propublica certainly wouldn’t bother.

Yeah... um... the partisan news channels cover stuff that makes the other side look bad. How much coverage is Fox News doing on this Clarence Thomas/Crow stuff.

Is the fact the Propublica wouldn't cover the case some sort of damning statement? I'm not sure I get it beyond the point that partisan news media is partisan.

Quote:[quote]


Also, I don’t know what the statute of limitations is on this law.

I meant your personal statute of limitations on caring. You implied that because it was 9 years ago it wasn't important. Would this somehow concern you more if it was 2 years ago? I don't really know why the time elapsed would make a difference.