12 ms·

Billionaire Harlan Crow bought property from Clarence Thomas in undisclosed deal

71 points by Geekette 4y ago

smitty1e 4y ago
[flagged]
- cactacea 4y ago
  > I extol the virtues of Japanese whisky while trolling the left Uh, thanks for posting? I guess?
- ulrashida 4y ago
  Had a hard time listening to this -- they start by rubbishing "Propublica people" and alluding to because they are funded by "the left" that somehow their journalism is intrinsically less worthy. Their primary point is that because journalists couldn't prove influence peddling the question of Justice Thomas behaving inappropriately is "ludicrous". As someone who has to declare any gift over $50 from a third party and receives annual training on code of ethics and conduct application in a corporate environment, it is flat out insane that Thomas could defensibly claim "oh, I was told it was okay to accept gifts from my friends" and somehow that's okay.
  - swsdsailor 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - Geekette 4y ago
      The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978 [1] and it appears Clarence Thomas was aware of implications, including how it had featured in a previous supreme court justice's resignation[2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/14/clarence-thomas-mother-house-crow/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/14/clarence-...
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    > Their primary point is that because journalists couldn't prove influence peddling the question of Justice Thomas behaving inappropriately is "ludicrous". So, just accept the next installment of the three-decade "high tech lynching" campaign that the propaganda peddlers have waged against an impeccable legal mind? Propublica are false and despicable on this issue. And 'flagging' a simple, opposing viewpoint brings no honor to those who did so. How illiberal.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      "High tech lynching" sounds a lot like Trump's "witch hunt." It's not hard to find ProPublica investigations of Democrats, they aren't as one-sided as you're claiming. https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democratic-donor-tax-breaks https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democrati... https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democratic-donor-tax-breaks https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democrati...
      - jamierhocks 3y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        jstarbucks 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - smitty1e 4y ago
        [flagged]
        clipsy 4y ago
        Ah yes, heaven forfend the Democrats object to putting Nixon’s hatchetman on the supreme court. How dare they corrupt the process by not allowing an unethical criminal with utter disregard for democracy on the court!
just_steve_h 4y ago
This is pretty big. Not only did Crow buy the house & then Thomas failed to disclose the sale (which he is obligated to do)… Crow also made a huge donation to Ginni Thomas’s organization, out of which Ginni received a fat salary.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  He also made $36k in improvements for Thomas’ mother who still lives there. > Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent. Soon after Crow purchased the house, an award-winning local architecture firm received permits to begin $36,000 of improvements.
- sgammon 4y ago
  He also bought the house next door and razed it. They were loud partiers, not that that is at all relevant of course. /s
thegaulofthem 4y ago
[flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  If you have evidence that implicates Biden, I’m sure we would all love to hear it.
egberts1 4y ago
No one seems to know the percentage that Clarence owns with two other co-owners of the said property. "Here's $1, Mom" Chathum County property deed https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774272-warranty-deed-thomas-and-crow https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774272-warranty-de...
- klyrs 4y ago
  From the article, > In the late 1980s, when Thomas was an official in the George H.W. Bush administration, he listed the addresses of the three properties in a disclosure filing. He reported that he had a one-third interest in them. Unless you're saying that he perjured himself in the 80s, it's hard to see how he'd end up with a $1 stake without triggering a necessary disclosure.
  - clipsy 4y ago
    Well, we already know of one case in which he failed to disclose a “necessary disclosure” - I agree he probably maintained his one third share until selling it to Crow, but given his behavior it’s not exactly unreasonable to question whether there’s more to the story.
  - egberts1 4y ago
    A child gifting his parent.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      That doesn't appear to be an exemption §13104(a)(5) Transactions.—Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000— ..(A) in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse; or ..(B) in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104
klyrs 4y ago
Thomas sure claims ignorance of the law a lot more than I'd expect of a Supreme Court Justice. You'd think he would have picked up a thing or two over the decades.
- CmdrLoskene 4y ago
  What he picked up was that he didn't even have to hide his contempt for the law any more. He can't just flaunt it, yet, but he doesn't have to bother working hard to hide it, either. Laws are for little people and Democrats. That's what he picked up.
oliwarner 4y ago
What's the bar they need to reach here to accomplish something? My limited understanding here is that Congress can impeach but it has to pass both houses. Is there a scenario where an actual crime had been committed and the traditional legal process can remove a Supreme Court judge?
- jaybrendansmith 4y ago
  Can't the local jurisdiction indict him here? Irrespective of whether or not it ends up back in the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be instructive to bring him up on bribery charges?

71 points by Geekette 4y ago

smitty1e 4y ago

[flagged]

cactacea 4y ago
> I extol the virtues of Japanese whisky while trolling the left Uh, thanks for posting? I guess?
ulrashida 4y ago
Had a hard time listening to this -- they start by rubbishing "Propublica people" and alluding to because they are funded by "the left" that somehow their journalism is intrinsically less worthy. Their primary point is that because journalists couldn't prove influence peddling the question of Justice Thomas behaving inappropriately is "ludicrous". As someone who has to declare any gift over $50 from a third party and receives annual training on code of ethics and conduct application in a corporate environment, it is flat out insane that Thomas could defensibly claim "oh, I was told it was okay to accept gifts from my friends" and somehow that's okay.
- swsdsailor 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Geekette 4y ago
    The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978 [1] and it appears Clarence Thomas was aware of implications, including how it had featured in a previous supreme court justice's resignation[2]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/14/clarence-thomas-mother-house-crow/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/14/clarence-...
- smitty1e 4y ago
  > Their primary point is that because journalists couldn't prove influence peddling the question of Justice Thomas behaving inappropriately is "ludicrous". So, just accept the next installment of the three-decade "high tech lynching" campaign that the propaganda peddlers have waged against an impeccable legal mind? Propublica are false and despicable on this issue. And 'flagging' a simple, opposing viewpoint brings no honor to those who did so. How illiberal.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    "High tech lynching" sounds a lot like Trump's "witch hunt." It's not hard to find ProPublica investigations of Democrats, they aren't as one-sided as you're claiming. https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democratic-donor-tax-breaks https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democrati... https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democratic-donor-tax-breaks https://www.propublica.org/article/george-norcross-democrati...
    - jamierhocks 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jstarbucks 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - smitty1e 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - clipsy 4y ago
        Ah yes, heaven forfend the Democrats object to putting Nixon’s hatchetman on the supreme court. How dare they corrupt the process by not allowing an unethical criminal with utter disregard for democracy on the court!

just_steve_h 4y ago

This is pretty big. Not only did Crow buy the house & then Thomas failed to disclose the sale (which he is obligated to do)… Crow also made a huge donation to Ginni Thomas’s organization, out of which Ginni received a fat salary.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
He also made $36k in improvements for Thomas’ mother who still lives there. > Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent. Soon after Crow purchased the house, an award-winning local architecture firm received permits to begin $36,000 of improvements.
sgammon 4y ago
He also bought the house next door and razed it. They were loud partiers, not that that is at all relevant of course. /s

thegaulofthem 4y ago

[flagged]

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
If you have evidence that implicates Biden, I’m sure we would all love to hear it.

egberts1 4y ago

No one seems to know the percentage that Clarence owns with two other co-owners of the said property. "Here's $1, Mom" Chathum County property deed https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774272-warranty-deed-thomas-and-crow https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23774272-warranty-de...

klyrs 4y ago
From the article, > In the late 1980s, when Thomas was an official in the George H.W. Bush administration, he listed the addresses of the three properties in a disclosure filing. He reported that he had a one-third interest in them. Unless you're saying that he perjured himself in the 80s, it's hard to see how he'd end up with a $1 stake without triggering a necessary disclosure.
- clipsy 4y ago
  Well, we already know of one case in which he failed to disclose a “necessary disclosure” - I agree he probably maintained his one third share until selling it to Crow, but given his behavior it’s not exactly unreasonable to question whether there’s more to the story.
- egberts1 4y ago
  A child gifting his parent.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    That doesn't appear to be an exemption §13104(a)(5) Transactions.—Except as provided in this paragraph, a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000— ..(A) in real property, other than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse; or ..(B) in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104

klyrs 4y ago

Thomas sure claims ignorance of the law a lot more than I'd expect of a Supreme Court Justice. You'd think he would have picked up a thing or two over the decades.

CmdrLoskene 4y ago
What he picked up was that he didn't even have to hide his contempt for the law any more. He can't just flaunt it, yet, but he doesn't have to bother working hard to hide it, either. Laws are for little people and Democrats. That's what he picked up.

oliwarner 4y ago

What's the bar they need to reach here to accomplish something? My limited understanding here is that Congress can impeach but it has to pass both houses. Is there a scenario where an actual crime had been committed and the traditional legal process can remove a Supreme Court judge?

jaybrendansmith 4y ago
Can't the local jurisdiction indict him here? Irrespective of whether or not it ends up back in the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be instructive to bring him up on bribery charges?