Meanwhile, a city clerk can't accept a box of chocolates from the public, for fear of an ethics violation
Well yeah, we don't want the public to have any sway over our politicians, just rich folk.
Simply business strategy, if you can, keep the barrier to entry high enough to limit your competition.
Can't give water to someone waiting to vote.
I can’t even give a firefighter a bottle of Gatorade without approval from my company.
Fuck that company. Give the firefighter the bottle.
I prefer to leave the bottle unattended.
It fell off the back of a truck... A firetruck ...
But what if unattended bottles will be confiscated??
What was that Chief Justice Roberts was saying about how he doesn't like that the public doubts the court's legitimacy?
Remind me again what Roberts did to enforce ethical rules against Supreme Court judges taking bribes? Oh yeah, he was mad about the PR hit, not the bribery.
I'm just gonna leave this here...
That was a chilling read that connected some dots for me. Thank you.
Super weird that he just totally forgot to pay it and they totally forgot to collect it. Wonder why that never happens with any of my loans?
You wanted him and we listened! Clarence Thomas is getting back on the road for his "How can I take more bribes and break democracy on a bus?" tour!
Clarence will be playing his greatest hit's such as "Citizens United", "Bush V Gore", "Thanks for that house for my mom", "Can't stop, won't stop, baby making, by law." and everyone's favorite "If you've got the cash then the rest can eat trash."
With special guest Bretty K and the Blackout Boys.
Buy tickets now, cause they're going fast and once their gone all records of their sale will be immediately lost and never acknowledged!
Kind of amazing the sort of lifestyle these justices live, given that their actual PAY is in the senior-coder range (mid 200K).
Its almost like they have all manner of other sources of income.
Well, speaking fees of course. Thomas had a $500,000 advance on a $1.5M fee for a book.
But, yeah, something hinky going on.
Lock him up
:sigh: Throw it on the pile.
Ol sugar baby Clarence back in the spotlight again. I’d say he should be ashamed but he clearly isn’t capable of it.
This guy makes Robert Menendez look like Eliot Ness.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas failed to repay much – or possibly all – of a “sweetheart deal” to borrow more than $267,000 to buy a luxury motor home, a Senate committee found.
On Wednesday, the Times quoted Michael Hamersley, a tax lawyer and congressional expert witness, as saying “‘this was, in short, a sweetheart deal’ that made no logical sense from a business perspective”.
The original RV story came amid a torrent of reports, many by ProPublica, about alleged ethical lapses by Thomas, a conservative appointed in 1991 who has failed to declare numerous lavish gifts from rightwing donors.
Thomas denies wrongdoing but the reports, particularly concerning the mega-donor Harlan Crow, alongside stories about other justices’ undeclared gifts and windfalls, have prompted questions about impartiality on the conservative-dominated court and calls for ethics reform.
As described by the Times, when the loan came due, in 2004, Welters granted a 10-year extension “despite the fact that the previous year Justice Thomas had collected $500,000 of a $1.5m advance for his autobiography, according to his financial disclosures.
Such outcomes remain vastly unlikely but on Wednesday Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog Accountable.US, said Thomas had reached “a new low”, the justice going “about business as usual on the supreme court while skirting all ethics standards to cash in on his wealthy friends – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The original article contains 692 words, the summary contains 233 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News