418

A report from The New York Times details yet another luxury obtained by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas using funds from a wealthy associate. In this instance, it's been revealed that he purchased a Prevost Marathon RV in 1999, using $267,230 received from Anthony Welters, a former executive at UnitedHealthCare who worked alongside Thomas in the Reagan administration, per the outlet. In a statement on the matter, Welters said that the funds were considered a loan and that it has since been "satisfied," avoiding the phrasing "paid off," which means it could have been a gift that would have then needed to be disclosed

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 88 points 1 year ago

Anthony Welters, a former executive at UnitedHealthCare who worked alongside Thomas in the Reagan administration

A Democratic donor who worked for the Reagan admin? Come on now

[-] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

It doesn’t really matter. Thomas is easily bought off and that’s the problem.

[-] norbert@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah I don't think anyone was upset because they thought it was only Republicans bribing people. A bribe from a Democrat(ic/lobbyist/whatever) is the problem. Taking the money and not saying anything about it is the problem to me. His co-worker coming out and saying "yeah congress doesn't have any authority over us" last week is a problem to me. All these ruling-class college frat chums paying each other off and fucking everyone else in the process, is a problem to me.

[-] Soap10116@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

And this is the difference between us and the Maga cult

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago
[-] rezifon@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you misread. The article seems to refer to Thomas’ time when he served in the Reagan administration and working alongside Welters who was an executive at UnitedHealthCare at the time.

I agree it’s awkwardly phrased and hard to follow.

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Looks to me that Weller is an R who worked for Reagan at the time of the donation. His wife may have worked for Obama later on and could indeed be a Dem, or perhaps switched.

[-] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago

Probably donates so the Dems don’t do single payer.

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

the dates and who was actually doing the donating at the time makes a difference.

[-] nvimdiesel@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

I don't care what their politics is. I hope pro publica takes this up and tracks the money to the source and prints eye watering story about it.

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

This is the way.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

Why is that hard to believe? Trump used to be a Democrat, Biden voted for anti-LGBQT laws (eg. DOMA), Liz Cheney has recently supported LGBQT rights, etc.

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Trump has never been anything other than a deranged psychopath. He's non-political. What I mean is it really doesn't matter. Corruption is just corruption. The reporting is misleading. That's what I take issue with.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I know, but Trump isn't the only corrupt politician who cares more about power than policy.

this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
418 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18883 readers
5434 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS