Time for DoJ to open another investigation - Clarence Thomas

[Marius25]

New ProPublica report shows the breathtaking corruption Thomas engages in, taking frequent lavish gifts from a billionaire GOP donor to do the GOP's bidding.


https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow


It's a shame the DoJ doesn't care about protecting American institutions.

[Zambero]

1. He beat the Anita Hill rap and perceives himself as invincible for life

SCOTUS couples zero accountability with lifetime appointments, a perfect recipe for corruption and malfeasance. Thomas takes it to the next level.

[Marius25]

4. One of the dumbest decisions of the Founders imo

Why they ever thought the 1) Judges were immune from political interference and 2) that lifetime appointments were a good thing I'll never know. Lifetime appointments just increase political problems, since you can never face consequences for political corruption as a judge.

[GenXer47]

7. people didn't live very long back then

By the time a judge rose to the level of a potential SCOTUS justice, they had about 10 years or less to live (avg. life expectancy was 38).
Another irony when the 2A gun nuts on the court talk about the "history and traditions" of gun ownership in the US, I wonder why they don't apply the "history and traditions" of Justices lifespans to themselves.

[Ocelot II]

27. That's not accurate. If you made it past childhood in those days you stood a good chance

of living into old age. The reason the average life expectancy at birth (not when reaching adulthood) was 38 was that infant and child mortality was very high. But the writers of the Constitution wouldn't have set the minimum required age for a president at 35 if that person was really expected to live only another three years. People have managed to lived as long as they do now for centuries if some childhood disease didn't kill them off. John Adams lived to be 91, Jefferson 83, and Roger Taney (the 5th chief justice and the author of the Dred Scott decision) made it to 87. There were lots of old people in the old days.

[SouthernDem4ever]

30. +1

[Zambero]

9. Indeed. A very close semblance to royalty with elements of theocracy

SCOTUS has more in common with the College of Cardinals than an institution that represents a "separate but equal branch of government". Lifetime appointments make the judicial branch quite a bit more "equal" than the other two. Term limits should have been enacted decades ago.

[Dios Mio]

28. He doesn't seem concerned.

He seems to know he is invincible.

[The Wielding Truth]

2. Proven Supreme Court corruption? Is there a rectifying solution?

[Ace Rothstein]

18. Impeachment but that isn't going to happen.

[Ocelot II]

3. It isn't up to the DoJ to police the Supreme Court, which has no ethics rules.

I agree that Thomas is a corrupt creep who doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, but unfortunately the only remedy for Thomas' behavior is impeachment (which isn't likely to happen - it was attempted once, in 1805, and the justice, Samuel Chase, was acquitted). Unless he commits an actual crime - and taking gifts isn't a crime unless it can be proved to constitute bribery - DoJ has no jurisdiction.

[Marius25]

5. Things like taking bribes are a crime, not just ethical violations

[Ocelot II]

17. It's a bribe only if the offerer has a case before the court and the money is paid

in an exchange for a favorable ruling, or a promise of one. This happens fairly often at lower state court levels but is pretty rare among federal judges. Here's an example, Rodolfo Delgado of Texas:

Delgado is currently a justice in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals for the State of Texas. He was previously the presiding judge for the 93rd District Court for the State of Texas, which has jurisdiction over Texas criminal and civil cases located within Hidalgo County. As a district judge, Delgado conspired with an attorney from January 2008 to November 2016 to accept bribes in exchange for favorable judicial consideration on criminal cases pending in his courtroom.

As part of an investigation conducted by the FBI, Delgado also accepted bribes on three separate occasions in exchange for agreeing to release three of the attorney’s clients on bond in cases pending before his court. The first two bribes totaled approximately $520 in cash and the third bribe, which occurred in January 2018, totaled approximately $5,500 in cash. After Delgado learned of the FBI’s investigation, he also attempted to obstruct justice by contacting the attorney and providing a false story about the payments.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-judge-convicted-bribery-and-obstruction

This is the sort of behavior - taking money or something else of value in direct exchange for a favorable court decision - that would result in a bribery conviction. Thomas hasn't done that, as far as we know. His rich BFF hasn't been a litigant before the Supreme Court, and Thomas would be a right-wing loon even without him. I'd love to see Thomas gone, but I think he knows just exactly how far he dares to go.

[MineralMan]

6. DOJ has no jurisdiction over the SCOTUS.

That's a congressional thing. There won't be any DOJ investigation.

[Marius25]

8. This is blatantly false.

Judges have judicial immunity related to cases they specifically preside over, but they are not immune from prosecution. Supreme Court justices can be arrested.

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-can-justices-on-the-supreme-court-face-criminal-civil-charges/281-599239828

While justices and all judges for that matter are granted "judicial immunity" for lawsuits related to cases or trials they oversee, for crimes or actions committed outside their role, they face the same punishments and judicial actions as any other US citizen.

[MineralMan]

12. For what federal crime would he be investigated?

Please be specific.

On the other hand, he could be impeached for "bad behavior," since that is the only thing mentioned with regard to tenure as a SCOTUS justice. There's certainly plenty of "bad behavior" on his part, but the DOJ doesn't investigate that, as far as I know.

[Marius25]

14. Probably Bribery, but that's not what you said

or what this topic is about. I merely asked for investigations into possible crimes. You claimed the Executive branch has no authority over the Supreme Court, and that's just blatantly wrong. Supreme Court Justices are not above the law anymore than Presidents are. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Supreme Court justices can be investigated and prosecuted for crimes.

[MineralMan]

16. Again, what federal crime?

The DOJ doesn't do investigations of individuals except for criminal issues. They have no jurisdiction to do so. You mention bribery, but that would be very difficult to prove, I'd think.

[Marius25]

23. According to the ProPublic report, he violated disclosure laws

It's illegal to take private jets and yacht trips as a government official without disclosing them.

Supreme Court justices are constrained by fewer ethical restrictions than lower rungs of the judiciary. Some groups have called to implement a code of ethics for the high court.

But justices still submit financial disclosures, and experts say they are required to disclose all gifts valued at more than $415. While there are exceptions to that requirement, transportation is not one of them.

“If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law,”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-took-gop-megadonor-harlan-crow-secret-luxury-trips-report.html

[Ocelot II]

29. Disclosure law violations are misdemeanors. The law has few teeth;

the penalties for violating it are fines and late fees, and Harlan Crow would probably be happy to lend or give him the money to pay the fines. Thomas isn't going to be impeached for disclosure law violations. He's an ethical cesspool but the DoJ can't offer any remedy, nor can the Court itself. We are probably stuck with him, since I doubt the publication of this information will shame him into changing his ways.

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Or at least a Senate investigation

I’m not sure what law Thomas may have violated, unless bribery can be proven, since SCOTUS has no statutory code of ethics the justices are required to follow.

[Marius25]

11. Looks like bribery to me.

Wine and dine a Justice so he makes rulings that favor the GOP.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. An indictment based on that alone would be quickly acquitted, if not dismissed. Nt

[Marius25]

15. Why do you think that?

[Ocelot II]

21. Because Harlan Crow has not been a party in any case before the Supreme Court

and there's no evidence that Thomas enjoys his largesse in direct exchange for any particular rulings. Thomas is and always has been a right-wing ideologue with or without Crow.

[Kingofalldems]

35. He could be a go between.

[Ocelot II]

38. Is there evidence of this?

[Kingofalldems]

40. He's a republican.

[Ocelot II]

42. That's not evidence. It's opinion and supposition.

The OP thinks the DoJ should do "something" but can't do anything unless there's evidence of a crime. Evidence in this context means something that would be admissible in court, which that isn't.

[Kingofalldems]

43. I don't care what you think.

I'll post what I want.

I posted speculation. Too fucking bad you don't like it.

[Ocelot II]

45. All righty, then; and I'll do likewise. Have a nice day.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. 18 US code Sec. 201:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

Explain to me how you would prove “intent to influence” without a document or recording of a quid pro quo conversation? It’s all unethical as hell, but without evidence of intent, not illegal. If it were illegal, every lobbyist in DC would be in prison.

You’re dreaming if you think a jury could be convinced to unanimously convict without such evidence.

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

[Ocelot II]

20. Wining and dining in exchange for rulings that favor the GOP isn't bribery.

Thomas would normally rule in favor of GOP interests even without the wining and dining, but the crime of bribery consists of taking something of value in direct exchange for a favorable ruling in a case where the alleged briber is a party. Thomas' pal has not been a party in a case before the Supreme Court.

[Marius25]

22. According to the ProPublic report, Thomas violated the disclosure law

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-took-gop-megadonor-harlan-crow-secret-luxury-trips-report.html

Supreme Court justices are constrained by fewer ethical restrictions than lower rungs of the judiciary. Some groups have called to implement a code of ethics for the high court.

But justices still submit financial disclosures, and experts say they are required to disclose all gifts valued at more than $415. While there are exceptions to that requirement, transportation is not one of them.

“If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law,”

[Ocelot II]

24. Disclosure regulations are regularly violated, which doesn't make it OK,

but it's a misdemeanor punishable by a fine. There's also a late filing fee of $200. The disclosure law has no teeth to speak of, and Thomas isn't likely to be impeached for it.

[Thunderbeast]

19. Only remedy is impeachment.

When was the last time this country had 66 senators that were not in on the right-wing corruption?

[CatWoman]

32. ....

Link to tweet

?s=20

[usonian]

26. Tax evasion?

Show me the 1099.

[NJCher]

31. so if it's the case that we can do nothing

and are unlikely to be able to do anything in the foreseeable future, there must be other measures that can be taken. One path blocked? Take another one.

I think we have to get inside Thomas's head and see what he's afraid of. Well, here's one thing: being without Ginni. He's said so many times. The photographs of the two say it all, too.

Staying on her, investigating her, publicizing her activities, making her life miserable...all seem like viable options that could crack the nut in another direction, yet be quite effective.

If Ginni had tax fraud incidents, why couldn't she go to prison? Clarence would be bereft without his partner.

But that's not the only path. There are surely others, but off the top of my head this was the best I could think of and IMO is certainly viable.

[Earth-shine]

37. The least we can do is embarrass the hell out the them with constant mockery.

The least we can do may well wind up being the most we can do.

[JudyM]

33. Important to support their great investigative work! I just hit the DONATE button at the top :)

Thanks for posting this, Marius25.

[Paladin]

34. So, are other Supreme Court justices sucking up goodies from billionaires?

And if they're not, why not? Judging from this thread, it's not as if they can't get away with it, and never have to face any punishment. Is this a great country, or what?

[Earth-shine]

36. Maybe we need a Jan-6-style congressional panel on SCOTUS corruption to kick the DOJ into motion.

[Ocelot II]

39. As stated above, this is not a matter for the DoJ. However,

what might happen as a result of this kind of reporting - a quick googling revealed that it's all over today's news - is more pressure for the Supreme Court to adopt the same code of ethics that applies to the lower courts. Thomas is a blot on the Court's reputation even worse than Kavanaugh, and he's always been a terrible judge who never should have been appointed in the first place. (Kavanaugh at least writes fairly coherent, if wrong, opinions; Thomas just produces partisan bullshit). His footsie with Harlan Crow probably hasn't made any significant difference in his ideology or the quality of his opinions, but it's incredibly stinky. One consolation is that Thomas, though not ancient, is no spring chicken, and maybe the dangling dick of destiny will aim at him sooner rather than later. He won't be impeached, unfortunately.

[Earth-shine]

41. As stated above, the least we can do is embarrass the hell out the them with constant mockery.

Might be the best we can do.

As you imply, legally, nothing can be done.

[Ocelot II]

44. I'm all for that. Roberts has lost control of his court,

and I hope this revelation about Thomas is embarrassing enough that he'll at least make an effort to reign in both Thomas and Alito (who is just about as unethical in his out of court behavior).

[Earth-shine]

47. I don't have hope that Roberts can do anything.

Alito and Thomas are uglier than the others. They are on their own power trips and do not care what anyone thinks, except for their powerful friends and benefactors.

Roberts, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch exhibit occasional glimmers of decency.

[Ocelot II]

48. I'm afraid you're right.

Alito and Thomas have always been the worst of the justices, worse than Scalia and even Rehnquist. Not much can be done right now except wait for them to retire or die and hope a Democratic president has a chance to appoint some better people.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

46. @SenatorDurbin 's statement on reports of undisclosed gifts accepted by Justice Clarence Thomas.

Link to tweet

[NotVeryImportant]

49. Clarence remains one of America's biggest embarrasments

And that's putting it lightly.