After ProPublica's explosive report that corrupt right-winger "Justice" Clarence Thomas had been given unreported luxury gifts over a span of decades by a billionaire Republican donor, Thomas attempted to defend himself. It was not convincing. From the Associated Press:
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday he was not required to disclose the many trips he and his wife took that were paid for by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.
Describing Crow and his wife, Kathy, as 'among our dearest friends,' Thomas said in a statement that he was advised by colleagues on the nation’s highest court and others in the federal judiciary that 'this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.' Thomas did not name the other justices or those in the judiciary with whom he had consulted." (our emphasis)
He didn't name the other justices because there likely were none. The "personal hospitality from close personal friends" phrasing used by Thomas is an ethics loophole that he wants the gullible to accept. However, here's a sample of the "personal hospitality" that Thomas and his loopy seditionist wife received:
"Thomas, 74, and his wife, Virginia, have traveled on Crow’s yacht and private jet as well as stayed at his private resort in New York’s Adirondack Mountains, ProPublica reported. A 2019 trip to Indonesia the story detailed could have cost more than $500,000 had Thomas chartered the plane and yacht himself."
We suspect there are other "close personal friends" who have been showering the right-wing justice and his spouse with unreported "personal hospitality" over the years to keep him on a short leash. Those will be the next shoes to drop.
Legal ethics experts weren't buying Thomas' lame excuse for decades of receiving lavish gifts:
"New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an authority on legal ethics, said Thomas’ statement 'is an abdication of his responsibility' under ethics guidelines.
'Thomas is shamelessly seeking to shift the blame for his failure to report Crow’s princely hospitality to advice he allegedly received from other Justices when he joined the court more than 30 years ago. Most of them are now dead and, conveniently, cannot contradict him,' Gillers wrote in an email.
Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University who studies judicial ethics, wrote in an email that he doubts any justice would have advised Thomas against disclosure if he had laid out the details in ProPublica’s report, 'hundreds of thousands of dollars in luxurious travel and accommodations at exotic locales spanning decades, from a benefactor who has a deeply rooted partisan and ideological interest in the future of the Court on which the justice sits.'” (our emphasis)
The ethical course for Thomas would have been to report the gifts even if he believed they weren't subject to disclosure. But he hid them because he knew they were a problem. Now, let's see what other problems he has.
BONUS: Thomas says he's just a Walmart, RV kind of guy.
(photo: Drew Angerer / Getty Images)
No comments:
Post a Comment