Billionaire Harlan Crow BOUGHT PROPERTY From JUSTICE THOMAS. The Justice DIDN'T DISCLOSE

The connections by themselves don't bother me at all. Any law, or constitutional violations bother me.

Well, Republicans want justices who uphold the Constitution as it's written. Democrats want justices that interpret the Constitution in whatever way needed to further the Leftist agenda.

 

"Most" but not all? Maybe it wasn't necessary to disclose the sales. Maybe Thomas said he'd sell him the properties if he agreed to fix up his Mothers place. Or maybe the buyer came up with the idea to improve the value after purchase. The rules don't say that a Justice can't buy or sell property, or have friends and go on vacations with them. Is Thomas being investigated or charged with anything, or is this just another public lynching of a black man by Democrats with a long history of similar behavior.

 

No the rules just say he has to report most of it.... Is that so ****ing hard? It's probably a paragraph in an EMAIL to somebody....

It's been requested that he be investigated by the DOJ, which is hardly a public lynching...

Besides, after Tennessee 2 weeks ago, I wouldn't be so fast to bring up that topic..

 

I don't quite understand your "putting on airs," comment-- did you think that is what I am hoping for? I had described how it had seemed to me, that Murphy was overly eager for self advancement, and that his job performance, at first, was more slipshod, because of that disordering of what should be the priorities, of a good leader. I then commented on how I think he has matured, while on the job. I had merely added that I would like to see that same process continue on its course a bit longer-- the very same as would apply to aging a wine-- before it would really be what I might consider, his right "time."

That "people are clamoring for" something, is not, alone, always a good justification for giving it to them; in 2016, people were "clamoring," for a change to a non-politician, populist President (and we see how that turned out). Back in 2007, truth be known, when I'd first heard that people were talking about a first term Senator, Barak Obama, in connection with being a Presidential nominee, I thought of it as a joke. Though obviously I was wrong, when it came to his electability, I think the record shows my feeling to have been very well founded, that he'd lacked sufficient experience; while there will inevitably be some "on the job training," for any President, we should not expect that to apply to the basics of the job.

For Obama's first term, especially, he was behind the learning curve on understanding how to negotiate & deal with Republicans: to speak plainly, they made him their bitch. I later heard an interview with the longest serving Representative in the House, John Dingell-- now deceased, but replaced by his wife, Debbie; he served 59 years in the House, taking the seat when his father had stepped down from it, after long service of his own-- in which he agreed that he thought Obama had come in, a bit wet behind the ears, not expecting the sort of tactics he would encounter, so not being prepared to deal with them. I don't remember if he'd added that Pres. Obama would have been more effective, had he taken the time to develop more political savvy, but the implication of this, was surely there.

I think it is a mistake to over-emphasize this one data point, of a candidate's age. As you pointed out, it was not that long ago that we did elect the fairly young, Mr. Obama. George W. Bush had not been especially old, when he was first elected, nor had been Jimmy Carter, not to mention, the young John F. Kennedy. So it is not like old white men, have had such a solid lock on that office, that anyone should feel that putting a young person in charge would make all the difference, & so should be prioritized, over other considerations. We should be concerned, instead, with the overall qualifications of the actual people running, or prospective candidates, not some hypothetical generic, under 50 year old, black woman, or whatever be one's wishes.

When looking at the last two people who we have elected to our country's highest office, to lead us, Biden had been elected at the age of 78, and Trump at 70. So there is a lot of room, for electing a "younger" candidate, without dropping all the way down to a 49 year old, like Sen. Murphy. In his case, as far as I can see, there's no reason to rush it.

 

You are just making excuses. The answer to all of your maybes... (?), is no: this case, in which the properties were purchased from Thomas and his family members, is one which definitely appears to have violated law; you are emphasizing the wrong part of the sentence. Here is another source, Bloomberg, in which I highlight the most salient information:

<Snip>
Judicial experts interviewed by the investigative journalism organization said that omission appears to violate a federal law passed after the Watergate scandal that requires justices and other officials to provide details about most real estate transactions over $1,000.
<End Snip>

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...s-sold-family-properties-to-wealthy-gop-donor

There are many reasons why this is troubling, but allow me to give you just a thumbnail sketch. First, as I understand it, all 3 parcels of land, were owned in common, by Thomas, his mother, and the estate of his deceased brother. So Thomas owned one-third of the whole. I believe it has been reported that Thomas had reported the value of his stake, had a value of $15 k or less. So that means, the total value, would have been around $45 k, according to Thomas (if one is to trust him). Yet, the purchase price, had been $133 k. This is the primary reason, why real estate sales are of such interest: they are a very convenient way, by simply overpaying for a property, of funneling illicit funds, into someone's hands. IOW, paying 3 times the value for Thomas's property, was essentially a bribe.

I believe that those cases which are exceptions to the rule, involve selling of one's own, primary home. But with rental properties, which is what Thomas had been declaring these as, up until 2001, there is absolutely no question, the sale should have been disclosed on his government reporting form (instead, he'd only noted on the subsequent form, that these properties were no longer producing rental income for him; then they'd just disappeared from his reports).

That it is clear that Thomas actively attempted to hide this overpayment, shows that he understood that it was not proper. Or do you think he just lacked the legal background, to understand the form, or his obligations?

 

That’s a demonstration of the dem party leaders atm, attacking politics opponents, weaponizing the doj.

 

Only if up is down and down is up in Ruskie styled Propagandalandia.

 

It’s the demonstrable reality

 

Yes, in Russia and Propagandalandia.

 

Oh good grief you are talking a couple of thousands if any and there was NOTHING nefarious about it the long time family friend wants to eventually build a museum to our 2nd black Justice. He perhaps did not properly list the one piece of property on a form.

"...But my review of Justice Thomas’s disclosures and other documents convinces me that any failure to disclose was an honest mistake. On all other matters involving his scanty real-estate inheritance, he followed the Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, prepared by the Committee on Financial Disclosures of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Those instructions don’t make clear the statutory obligation to disclose the 2014 transaction.

Further, the ProPublica troika made a sloppy reporting error, the effect of which is to cast Justice Thomas’s disclosures in a falsely unfavorable light—to make them look shambolic or perhaps even dishonest when in fact they followed the filing instructions without fail.

The reporters’ error involves a confusion about what Justice Thomas did disclose. “By the early 2000s,” ProPublica reports, “he had stopped listing specific addresses of property he owned in his disclosures. But he continued to report holding a one-third interest in what he described as ‘rental property at ## 1, 2, & 3’ in Savannah.” It’s worth noting—ProPublica doesn’t—that the filing instructions (on page 32) prescribe disclosing rental properties in precisely this manner.

The story continues: “Two of the houses were torn down around 2010, according to property records and a footnote in Thomas’ annual disclosure archived by Free Law Project.” That footnote in Justice Thomas’s 2010 disclosure states in full: “Part VII, Line 2 - Two of the Georgia rental properties have been torn down. The only remaining property is an old house in Liberty County.”

Liberty County is where our journey began, but the ProPublica troika somehow missed it on the map. Their story leads the reader to think that the “remaining property” was the Savannah house where Justice Thomas’s mother lived. A Friday letter from the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington—co-signed by Virginia Canter, the first of ProPublica’s “four ethics experts”—expressly says so and accuses Justice Thomas of deceptively disclosing (rather than failing to disclose) the property’s disposition.

The footnote makes clear that this is wrong. There’s a fourth property. Justice Thomas’s 2009 disclosure listed three rental properties in “Sav., GA.” Beginning in 2010, he listed only one, in “Liberty Cty, GA.” Savannah is in Chatham County, not Liberty. But Liberty County is in the Savannah area, roughly a 45-minute drive from the city. For someone living hundreds of miles away, it would have been reasonable to describe the three rental properties collectively as being “in Savannah.”

That implies that Justice Thomas never disclosed his interest in the Savannah house where his mother lived. But he didn’t need to. “Information pertaining to a personal residence is exempted from reporting, unless the property generates rental income,” the filing instructions say on page 33. Nor was there any requirement to disclose the ownership of the other two Savannah properties after the houses were demolished. Who wants to rent an empty lot in Savannah?...."

Further here including about when a property is no longer rented it does not have to be reported.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tr...rgia-harlan-crow-ethics-court-91cd21df?page=1

Tell me what exactly you want to happen here?

 

Only if one has an issue understanding the clarity of what I posted. Sounds more like a reinterpretation, and a bad one at that, of my saliently clear and accurate post.

 

.....

 

It was a misinterpretation. It was a correction.

 

Doubtful that "talent" is available so more likely spin.

 

No spin was necessary.

 

That’s the issue with these philosophical laws. They can be interpreted in any ways people want and when they throw out a respect for the constitution as many Dems do you see the left wing as of recently.

When people are reasonable and respect the constitution there is no issue.

 

Denial is not the river in Egypt but symptomatic of Trump D syndrome that also relates to projection is confession. Crow seems to be pulling Clarence's strings?

 

You aren’t making any sense here.

 

You need to read my post a few times then?

 

@Bluesguy

Like..."Here lived the Mother of the second black SCOTUS?" Matey, I can guarantee I ain't gonna move my arze from Down Here to over there to see that 'museum.'

Like he...'perhaps' failed to disclose all the largesse this GOP donor handed his way....because of course he is just a good friend who just happens to be a SCOTUS.

Mayey......come on.

 

It’s not necessary

 

I disagree based on what you yourself claimed. My post was crystal clear.

 

It really wasn’t though.

 

Actually it was, crystal.

 

Nothing about that post was clear.