4 ms·

it is not tyranny that you must disclose flying on private jets and sailing around on yachts in indonesia. he just had to report them and didn't. because he is

it is not tyranny that you must disclose flying on private jets and sailing around on yachts in indonesia. he just had to report them and didn't. because he is a public official.

smitty1e 4y ago
If you think Turley knowledgeable, here is a clarifying thread => https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1644408283741003792?t=QC8VGP3V8YV4Gv8GGG-E3g&s=19 https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/164440828374100379... It's sad to see everyone going all Winston Smith here, but these are our degenerate times.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Turley's summary "It suggests that it would cover extensive travel benefits" significantly mischaracterizes the contents of the actual complaint. > Furthermore, the personal hospitality exception for food, lodging or entertainment items that Justice Thomas appears to have tried to rely on is clearly limited and can only be used when the covered items are extended “for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of or on property or facilities owned by that individual or his family.”56 Since neither a private aircraft nor yacht would generally be viewed as “real property,” the personal hospitality exception that covers “food, lodging, or entertainment” offered at a “personal residence” would not be applicable.57 Additionally, since “personal hospitality” can only be extended by an “individual” not a corporate entity, any “food, lodging and entertainment” offered on Mr. Crow’s aircraft or yacht would still need to be reported unless it could be established that the aircraft and yacht were “properties or facilities” owned by Mr. Crow personally as an individual rather than through an LLC or corporate entity, which is how these entities are normally held for liability purposes. Further, they question the "personal friendship" claimed by Crow and Thomas, > Rather, the reporting indicates that Mr. Crow fostered a friendship with Justice Thomas after he joined the Court and that his gifts bestow a level of luxury on Justice Thomas and his wife, which they not only cannot afford for themselves or reciprocate on the Justice’s salary, but which could only be replicated by the very wealthiest members of our society. The estimated cost of the Indonesia trip alone would exceed $500,000 to replicate.77 When informed about the trips, one retired federal judge noted that “it’s incomprehensible that someone would do this.”78 The exclusive, luxurious and repeated nature of these vacations act to subsidize the lifestyle of Justice Thomas and his wife to a degree that is unimaginable for most federal judges, and thereby causes a reasonable person to believe that Justice Thomas has violated his ethical obligations by repeatedly accepting expensive gifts from the same person on so frequent a basis that he is using his public office for private gain. Unless you're accusing Turley of rewriting history, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your "Winston Smith" dig. > Moreover, when Mr. Crow entertains Justice Thomas, he surrounds him with guests representing a particular ideological viewpoint and agenda, as evidenced by the Topridge painting, affording them unique access and opportunities to influence a sitting Member of the Court year after year in informal settings at Mr. Crow’s Adirondack luxury resort, and on his private aircraft and far-flung yacht cruises. As an aggravating factor, Mr. Crow and his guests commingle their social and offcial ties to Justice Thomas by inviting him to participate in an official capacity in events sponsored by their respective conservative organizations.80 Under these circumstances, the vacation and travel opportunities offered by Mr. Crow do not evidence a “bona fide,” personal relationship separate and apart from his judicial office, but rather an ongoing influence campaign targeting Justice Thomas as a Member of the Court in an apparent effort to promote a particular judicial philosophy that furthers Mr. Crow’s and his guests' private business interests and ideological agendas.81
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - klyrs 4y ago
      CREW is not Comey. The facts in this case are not identical to the facts in the Clinton case. Yes, the Clintons should be held accountable for their misdeeds, Bush and Obama for their war crimes, Trump for his plethora of financial crimes and abuses of power. But Thomas shouldn't get off just because you think somebody else deserves it more.
      - smitty1e 4y ago
        [flagged]
        klyrs 4y ago
        Yes, I understand that your arguments are in bad faith. You do you, I guess.
        smitty1e 4y ago
        Bless your heart. Doubtless you think Alvin Bragg other than a tawdry political hack, too.
        klyrs 4y ago
        Bless your heart.
smitty1e 4y ago
And here is a tweet linkin to the actual legal complaint => https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1647359797824479238?t=FQp-xOVlW_Y2IX2QEemJGw&s=19 https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/164735979782447923...

it is not tyranny that you must disclose flying on private jets and sailing around on yachts in indonesia. he just had to report them and didn't. because he is a public official.

smitty1e 4y ago

If you think Turley knowledgeable, here is a clarifying thread => https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1644408283741003792?t=QC8VGP3V8YV4Gv8GGG-E3g&s=19 https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/164440828374100379... It's sad to see everyone going all Winston Smith here, but these are our degenerate times.

klyrs 4y ago
Turley's summary "It suggests that it would cover extensive travel benefits" significantly mischaracterizes the contents of the actual complaint. > Furthermore, the personal hospitality exception for food, lodging or entertainment items that Justice Thomas appears to have tried to rely on is clearly limited and can only be used when the covered items are extended “for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of or on property or facilities owned by that individual or his family.”56 Since neither a private aircraft nor yacht would generally be viewed as “real property,” the personal hospitality exception that covers “food, lodging, or entertainment” offered at a “personal residence” would not be applicable.57 Additionally, since “personal hospitality” can only be extended by an “individual” not a corporate entity, any “food, lodging and entertainment” offered on Mr. Crow’s aircraft or yacht would still need to be reported unless it could be established that the aircraft and yacht were “properties or facilities” owned by Mr. Crow personally as an individual rather than through an LLC or corporate entity, which is how these entities are normally held for liability purposes. Further, they question the "personal friendship" claimed by Crow and Thomas, > Rather, the reporting indicates that Mr. Crow fostered a friendship with Justice Thomas after he joined the Court and that his gifts bestow a level of luxury on Justice Thomas and his wife, which they not only cannot afford for themselves or reciprocate on the Justice’s salary, but which could only be replicated by the very wealthiest members of our society. The estimated cost of the Indonesia trip alone would exceed $500,000 to replicate.77 When informed about the trips, one retired federal judge noted that “it’s incomprehensible that someone would do this.”78 The exclusive, luxurious and repeated nature of these vacations act to subsidize the lifestyle of Justice Thomas and his wife to a degree that is unimaginable for most federal judges, and thereby causes a reasonable person to believe that Justice Thomas has violated his ethical obligations by repeatedly accepting expensive gifts from the same person on so frequent a basis that he is using his public office for private gain. Unless you're accusing Turley of rewriting history, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your "Winston Smith" dig. > Moreover, when Mr. Crow entertains Justice Thomas, he surrounds him with guests representing a particular ideological viewpoint and agenda, as evidenced by the Topridge painting, affording them unique access and opportunities to influence a sitting Member of the Court year after year in informal settings at Mr. Crow’s Adirondack luxury resort, and on his private aircraft and far-flung yacht cruises. As an aggravating factor, Mr. Crow and his guests commingle their social and offcial ties to Justice Thomas by inviting him to participate in an official capacity in events sponsored by their respective conservative organizations.80 Under these circumstances, the vacation and travel opportunities offered by Mr. Crow do not evidence a “bona fide,” personal relationship separate and apart from his judicial office, but rather an ongoing influence campaign targeting Justice Thomas as a Member of the Court in an apparent effort to promote a particular judicial philosophy that furthers Mr. Crow’s and his guests' private business interests and ideological agendas.81
- smitty1e 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - klyrs 4y ago
    CREW is not Comey. The facts in this case are not identical to the facts in the Clinton case. Yes, the Clintons should be held accountable for their misdeeds, Bush and Obama for their war crimes, Trump for his plethora of financial crimes and abuses of power. But Thomas shouldn't get off just because you think somebody else deserves it more.
    - smitty1e 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - klyrs 4y ago
        Yes, I understand that your arguments are in bad faith. You do you, I guess.
        smitty1e 4y ago
        Bless your heart. Doubtless you think Alvin Bragg other than a tawdry political hack, too.
        klyrs 4y ago
        Bless your heart.

smitty1e 4y ago

And here is a tweet linkin to the actual legal complaint => https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/1647359797824479238?t=FQp-xOVlW_Y2IX2QEemJGw&s=19 https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/status/164735979782447923...