6 ms·

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 journ

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!
      - smitty1e 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - klyrs 3y ago
      Sorry, but what's shameful about prosecuting corruption in the nation's highest officials? I think that when partisans of any stripe circle the wagons and protect the corrupt is something we should be especially critical of. Or are you referring to Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford? I'd prefer that we appoint supreme court justices with the highest moral fiber, not the basest, personally. But if you're looking to skewer Biden, I'd note that he made a back-room deal with Republicans to prevent further witnesses to Thomas's sexual harassment from taking the stand. That is pretty shameful. But then, I don't think many are particularly proud of Biden's legacy, on either side of the aisle.

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!
    - smitty1e 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Sorry, but what's shameful about prosecuting corruption in the nation's highest officials? I think that when partisans of any stripe circle the wagons and protect the corrupt is something we should be especially critical of. Or are you referring to Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford? I'd prefer that we appoint supreme court justices with the highest moral fiber, not the basest, personally. But if you're looking to skewer Biden, I'd note that he made a back-room deal with Republicans to prevent further witnesses to Thomas's sexual harassment from taking the stand. That is pretty shameful. But then, I don't think many are particularly proud of Biden's legacy, on either side of the aisle.