It's not just the lavish personal travel, Crow paid organizations which in turn paid Ginni

[bigtree]

Greg Pinelo @gregpinelo 20h
It's not just the lavish personal travel that is so troubling. Crow was filling the Thomas family coffers through large donations to organizations which in turn paid Ginni. It's a classic pass-through that makes a mockery of ethics.

ClearingTheFog @clearing_fog · 20h
The timing is interesting. With $550K from Harlan Crow, Ginni Thomas founded what may have been the very first dark money group with Leonard Leo, Liberty Central, in late 2009 -- weeks or months *before* the Citizens United ruling. Leo registered it in VA *one week* before CU.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

related:


2011 Politico, Justice Thomas’s wife now lobbyist
https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812

[Irish_Dem]

1. Fascist dark money owns the Supreme Court.

And half of the US congress.

Time to face reality.

[dalton99a]

2. Betcha they used a similar scheme to fund the insurrection

[markodochartaigh]

26. Steve Bannon is a major player in bitcoin and

there was a huge runup in bitcoin leading up to January 6. Coincidence? I have no idea.

[ffr]

3. What a complete random coincidence. Every factor was in place with perfect timing.

And Gini Thomas was the beneficiary of influence her husband would promote. Hmmm. Any normal person would conclude that it was not coincidence, but Gini would disagree.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Who is surprised by this?

Thomas is owned by the RWNJs

[global1]

5. Well Finally - A Republican George Soros.....

Harlan Crow. Turn about is fair play.

[pandr32]

11. Agreed.

His name should be brought up every time Soros' is along with the explanation that one is really doing damage to our institutions while the other serves as a one-size-fits-all bogeyman.

[Traildogbob]

13. Damn you Soros

Up your game. How about a propaganda channel and a Judge or two?

[pandr32]

17. Yes--he gets too much credit and not enough spoils.

[COL Mustard]

18. Mock him and shame him.

If he has any shame.

[Carlitos Brigante]

22. I mean, they've had like 50 of those...minus one Koch spawn. nt

[markodochartaigh]

24. The differences, of course,

are that George Soros is above board and transparent in his donations, and that he donates to causes which actually reinforce democracy.

[allegorical oracle]

6. The dirty little truth about the Harlan Crows is that they might not directly influence a

Clarence Thomas, but that Crow's ilk are matchmakers -- ensuring that important people, who are dedicated to changing the courts and society, will meet other more overt influencers, like Leo Leonard. It's danger flying below the radar.

[tanyev]

7. I've seriously wondered if Ginni holds most of the power

and it's not that she became influential because she's married to Clarence, but that he got his SC gig because he's married to her.

[Marius25]

8. Paging Merrick Garland - might want to look into this...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Who receives money from Harlan Crow?

Link to tweet

[dchill]

10. This crap is what caused the phrase "Perfectly legal."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

12. Thomas hid that Harlan Crow was a donor to his wife

Link to tweet

[republianmushroom]

14. Oh yes, circumvention.

[EndlessWire]

15. Clarence has the same kind of impeachment protection

that a President has, when we don't have the numbers in the House OR Senate to fire him. Of course, his appointment is for LIFE. Even a President has to eventually give it up, but not Clarence.

Every ruling he makes will be scrutinized for influence and bias, but it won't make a difference. We can impeach him only if we take both the House and the Senate in 2024. So, we now have yet another criminal in a position of power.

But, Ginni isn't so protected. Look for her to be investigated. Roberts may choose to pressure Clarence to quit.

[usaf-vet]

16. It's simply buying a vote of a SCOTUS justice. No more no less in my opinion.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

19. Clarence says he talked with "someone" decades ago who said it was okay.

Clarence is a guy who allegedly relies on multiple sources to make a decision -- except when it affects his personal interests. Then he finds someone who likes him enough to say, "It's okay, Clarence. Go do what you want to do."

What is missing is a statement from Thomas that he's going to stop going on half-million dollar trips with his "good friend," who happens to be a GQP mega-donor.

He has no shame.

[ancianita]

20. Ginni Thomas' LC group only lasted two years. She ducked responsibility, lied, and turned her

agenda over to the Conservation Action Project.

from Wikipedia

Thomas has been criticized for her involvement in Liberty Central because someone who contributes to the group may have a case before the Supreme Court.[6] However, there is no law limiting what Thomas can do, and according to some legal experts Supreme Court Justices are not required to recuse themselves from cases where they may have a conflict of interest.[6]

On October 21, 2010, Thomas was specifically criticized for taking a position, via Liberty Central, on an issue that was likely to come before the Supreme Court - whether the 2010 health care legislation was unconstitutional.[9] A memo signed by Thomas that called for the repeal of the law and that was posted on the Liberty Central website was removed following the criticism.

A Liberty Central spokesperson explained that Thomas had not personally reviewed the memo and that it been mistakenly approved by a staff member, and had been circulated by another group, the Conservative Action Project.

Here's the Conservative Action Project.

Here is the CAP letter to the 118th Congress, telling the House Freedom Caucus what to do about the debt, along with other "Memos."

...Fixed Dollar Amount. Some have suggested that the debt ceiling should be suspended—i.e., that there should be no debt ceiling for a certain period of time. This is also outrageous. Just as a bank would never eliminate a credit card limit for a customer who repeatedly reaches his or her credit limit, so too must Congress not be so irresponsible with the nation’s finances. Any negotiated increase in the debt ceiling must be a fixed dollar amount.

Now and the Future. Any negotiated increase in the debt ceiling must be accompanied by substantial reductions in federal spending now—in the current fiscal year—AND in each of the subsequent nine fiscal years, at a minimum. The spending reductions must be real (as opposed to accounting gimmicks) and very difficult to stop, once enacted into law.

Discretionary and Direct Spending. Any negotiated spending reductions to accompany a debt ceiling increase must come from both discretionary and direct (a.k.a. “mandatory”) spending accounts.

Defense. While any negotiated discretionary spending reductions should come from as many parts of the federal budget as possible, any cuts to outdated, harmfully bureaucratic, or “woke” spending in the Defense Department should, to the greatest extent possible, be transferred into national security accounts aimed at meeting the realities of the moment, such as repelling the growing threat of China.

Social Welfare Payments. While any negotiated direct spending reductions should come from as many so-called “entitlement” programs as possible—from Medicaid for non-poor people, to welfare without work, to long-term housing—we encourage you to avoid any reductions to American citizens’ Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits in this particular negotiation.

[markodochartaigh]

21. "Such tax exempt groups were supposed to

make sure that less than half of their activities are political."

So more than half their activities were traveling to resorts?

/$

[Sneederbunk]

23. The DOJ could go after Crow, but won't.

No one is above the law.

[DallasNE]

25. Actually The 501-c4 Statute Reads

The organization "must operate exclusively for the benefit of social welfare".A lawyer in the Eisenhower administration issued issued a clarification on "exclusive" to mean the "majority". And today that stands as over 50%. But nobody ever examines the books so today it all goes to administration and politics. Exclusive now means none. The funny part is there is a law that allows unlimited contributions to political causes that never gets used because the donors of gifts exceeding something like $5,000 must be disclosed. Disclosure has a chilling effect on "gifts".

[LymphocyteLover]

29. wow, interesting

[LymphocyteLover]

28. that sounds seriously criminally corrupt. Damn if only the House was in Dem hands

maybe we could actually impeach Thomas

[halfulglas]

30. And the Thomas family money is fungible.

The whole thing smells. I hope they never get the stink off.