Turley's summary "It suggests that it would cover extensive travel benefits" significantly mischaracterizes the contents of the actual complaint. > Furthermor

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