Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Benefactor Collects Hitler Art

[admin]

Harlan Crow: The Billionaire Philanthropist and Michaela Rose Yacht Owner: Net Worth
by Superyacht Fan: Superyachts & Owners
Accessed: 4/13/23
https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht/michaela-rose/

[x]
Michaela Rose Yacht • Owner Harlan Crow
Name: Harlan Crow
Country: USA
Net Worth: $500 million
Company: Crow Holdings
Born: October 10, 1949
Age: 73
Wife: Kathy Crow
Residence: Dallas, TX
Jet Registration: N900GX
Jet Type: Bombardier Global 5000
Yacht: Michaele Rose
Yacht Builder: Schweers
Yacht Value: $10 million

Harlan Crow: A Billionaire Philanthropist and Real Estate Mogul

Introduction

[x]

Harlan Crow is a prominent American businessman and philanthropist, known for his success in real estate and investments. With a net worth of $500 million, he has made significant contributions to various fields and causes throughout his career.

Early Life and Career

Born in Dallas, Texas in 1949, Harlan Crow is the son of Trammell Crow, the founder of Trammell Crow Company. After graduating from Southern Methodist University with a degree in business administration, Harlan Crow joined his father’s company and quickly climbed the ranks to become its president in 1988. He played a vital role in the company’s growth and success, leading it to become one of the largest real estate firms in the world.

Philanthropy and Public Service

Harlan Crow is focused on philanthropy and public service. He is the founder of the Crow Family Foundation, which supports various causes and organizations, such as education, healthcare, and the arts. His foundation has donated millions of dollars to improve the lives of countless people around the world.

Luxurious Lifestyle

Harlan Crow is also known for his extravagant lifestyle, owning a luxurious yacht named Michaela Rose and a private jet with registration N900GX. T The jet is a Bombardier Global 5000, known for its range and comfort, capable of non-stop flights from New York to Tokyo.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Harlan Crow is a self-made billionaire who has dedicated his wealth and resources to making a positive difference in the world. Through his philanthropy and public service, he has supported various causes and organizations, improving the lives of countless people. Despite his luxurious lifestyle, he remains grounded and committed to his efforts to make the world a better place.

[admin]

If the Law Is Legitimate, Clarence Thomas Must Stand Trial: The Supreme Court justice repeatedly broke the law for two decades. But do the laws even apply to the leaders on our judicial branch?
by Max Moran
The American Prospect
April 10, 2023
https://prospect.org/justice/2023-04-10 ... and-trial/

[x]
ProPublica reported last week that for two decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has secretly taken luxury global vacations at the expense of conservative mega-donor Harlan Crow. CLIFF OWEN/AP PHOTO

Americans are taught in high school civics classes that our laws are legitimate because they apply to everyone equally. This has never been true. But if we even want to pretend that we believe in this ideal, then Congress must immediately investigate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Recent reporting indicates that Thomas has broken the law, knowingly and repeatedly, for two decades. If an investigation corroborates this reporting, then Thomas must immediately be impeached and removed from the bench.

If Congress instead greets these allegations with a perfunctory shrug, then this country can no longer claim to even theoretically believe in equal justice under law. Congressional inaction would set a precedent that the Supreme Court appointees need not abide by the laws they interpret. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” Richard Nixon said 46 years ago. Congress would be extending that pathology to the Supreme Court if they do nothing.

On Thursday, ProPublica reported that for two decades, Thomas has secretly taken luxury global vacations at the expense of conservative mega-donor Harlan Crow, a patron of right-wing political influence groups including the Club for Growth, American Enterprise Institute, and Hoover Institution. Thomas also accepted expensive gifts from Crow, such as a $19,000 Bible once owned by Frederick Douglass, and regularly vacationed at Crow’s retreat in the Adirondacks. There, Thomas held court, so to speak, with conservative luminaries like Leonard Leo, the architect of the right-wing Federalist Society and dark-money financier of other conservative projects.

Thomas’s failure to disclose these gifts directly violates the post-Watergate Ethics in Government Act. He claims that this all falls under an exception for “personal hospitality” from friends, a reading so tortured it would make the statute pointless. That exception doesn’t apply if the “personal hospitality” involves official government business. How can regular meetings with the leading legal minds of the conservative movement, whose organizations regularly appear before the Court or file amicus briefs in major cases, not be considered “official business”? Thomas once swore in a federal judge in Crow’s personal library, almost certainly taking Crow’s private jet to and from D.C. in the process. Thomas is asking the public to ignore what their lying eyes are showing them.

This is not even the first time he has been caught in this exact scandal. In 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported that Thomas was receiving these same gifts from Crow, down to the Douglass Bible detail, without disclosing them. According to ProPublica, he simply went right back to accepting these gifts without disclosure. Thomas’s fix for the ethical violation, then, was to try to make it harder to track.

There is no reasonable ambiguity about this. If the ProPublica reporting is accurate, Thomas has knowingly and brazenly violated federal ethics law for decades.

Nor is this even Thomas’s only disclosure scandal. In 2011, Thomas was forced to amend 20 years’ worth of disclosure forms after Common Cause “questioned the omission of his wife’s place of employment.” He lied, under penalty of perjury, for decades when asked if his spouse had an income. Congress and then-President Obama did absolutely nothing in response.

If the ProPublica reporting is accurate, Thomas has knowingly and brazenly violated federal ethics law for decades.

No one should have ever believed that Thomas observed an ethical code in the first place. During his confirmation hearings, legal scholar Anita Hill famously testified to Thomas’s serial sexual harassment. She was vilified and slandered for it, which then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden allowed to stand before cutting the hearings short and denying three other women who had prepared to testify to Thomas’s behavior the chance to speak.

Since then, Thomas has made it as plain as humanly possible that he is a purely partisan tool. Over decades of Supreme Court proceedings, he has barely asked any questions. He is there to rule in favor of the maximally conservative position, and he has no interest in maintaining any illusion otherwise. See, for example, his spiteful concurrence in last year’s Dobbs ruling, where he makes clear that he’d like to invalidate other privacy-derived rights, such as same-sex marriage and contraceptive access. Being relentlessly partisan on the Court isn’t illegal. Consistently violating the law is.

Speaking of which, the January 6th Committee revealed that Thomas’s wife Ginni repeatedly urged Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows to help overturn the results of the 2020 election. Later, Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself from hearing Donald Trump’s petition to prevent the House of Representatives from gaining access to January 6th–relevant documents. The Court ultimately ruled against Trump. Thomas was the lone dissenter.

Thomas’s latest scandal is not even that unusual for this right-wing Court. Shortly after destroying Americans’ rights to control their own bodies last year, Justice Samuel Alito enjoyed an ostensibly academic trip to Rome on the dime of the Religious Liberty Initiative at Notre Dame University, which files frequent amicus briefs before the Court.

The difference here is that Thomas may have somehow managed to knowingly break one of the vanishingly few ethics laws for Supreme Court justices that do exist. These allegations demand an investigation and trial.

The conservative movement will, of course, immediately mobilize not only to prevent Thomas from facing any accountability, but to destroy anyone who even attempts to do otherwise. Conservatives have developed a full victim complex on Ginni Thomas’s behalf, and Republicans responded to the arraignment of former President Donald Trump by calling to starve the agencies that investigated him of funds. Defund policing for me, but not for thee.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) is leading that particular charge. Jordan will almost certainly not do the right thing and draft articles of impeachment. Democratic representatives should fight the noble fight to draft their own articles—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) rightly called for impeachment within hours of the ProPublica story’s publication—but the Republican Party hates equality under the law too much for anyone to have much faith in the success of that project.

That means Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL) now has an extraordinary responsibility. He must immediately begin a thorough investigation to determine if ProPublica’s reporting is accurate. Thomas should testify as part of that investigation.

Figuring out the facts will not be difficult. According to the story, Crow literally hung a kitschy painting in his Adirondacks resort of Thomas smoking cigars with the masterminds of the conservative legal movement. One of ProPublica’s photos of the Thomases vacationing with the Crows came from a public Instagram account.

The difficult part will be getting Congress to treat this investigation with the urgency it deserves, and perhaps more important, ending the perverse way leading liberal scholars think about the Court of their dreams.

For decades, ostensible liberals, often anticipating potential future business before the Court, have treated conservative jurists like Thomas as walking gods on Earth, simply because of their job title. Originalism, the Federalist Society’s go-to tool to shoot down any government intervention, has been mythologized as some high-minded theory, even though it’s not consistently applied, and has now given way to the “major questions doctrine,” which suggests that even textual basis for a policy is not enough if it’s not specific. (Does Thomas actually think it was Congress’s original intent for judges to take multimillion-dollar gifts from political activists who appear before their court, so long as they called them “personal hospitality” when anyone asked questions?)

The unspoken assumption is that, by definition, Supreme Court justices cannot be unethical, partisan cynics. It is an absurd, self-serving mythos propagated by legal elites who have earned the American people’s abhorrence.

Thomas’s ethical quagmire exposes the Supreme Court’s self-mythology for the lie that it is. “Public trust in SC is already bad. A big circus would destroy it completely,” one Democratic congressperson apparently texted a Democratic strategist. Then let it be destroyed.

If the highest justices in the country regularly violate the laws they interpret, then they do not deserve to be arbiters of legality. Failing to act on something this clear means Democrats accept that regular people have no guaranteed rights, and those with power and prestige can do no wrong. Refusing to create “a big circus” might maintain congressional Democrats’ personal delusions of bipartisan comity, which has never been reciprocated. The cost of this self-serving fantasy, though, would be any fleeting claim that the United States government has legitimacy in the first place.

Anyone who does not endorse vigorous, unflinching congressional action believes one or both of the following: that powerful conservatives have an absolute right to do whatever the hell they want, and that keeping a pleasant atmosphere between Democrats and Republicans at D.C. cocktail hours matters more than the consent of the public to their being ruled. It’s as simple as that.

Copyright 2023 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved

[admin]

Clarence Thomas Broke the Law and It Isn’t Even Close: It probably won’t matter. But it should.
by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph stern
Slate
April 06, 20234:26 PM
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... -crow.html

[x]
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 21, 2021, in Washington. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

ProPublica’s scrupulously reported new piece on Justice Clarence Thomas’ decadeslong luxury travel on the dime of a single GOP megadonor will probably not shock you at all. Sure, the dollar amounts spent are astronomical, and of course the justice failed to report any of it, and of course the megadonor insists that he and Thomas are dear old friends, so of course the superyacht and the flights on the Bombardier Global 5000 jet and the resorts are all perfectly benign. So while the details are shocking, the pattern here is hardly a new one. This is a longstanding ethics loophole that has been exploited by parties with political interests in cases before the court to curry favor in exchange for astonishing junkets and perks. It is allowed to happen.

We will doubtless spend a few news cycles expressing outrage that Harlan Crow has spent millions of dollars lavishing the Thomases with lux vacations and high-end travel and barely pretended to separate business and pleasure, giving half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas in 2011 (which funded her own $120,000 salary). But because the justices are left to police themselves and opt not to do so, we will turn to other matters in due time. Before the outrage dries up, however, it is worth zeroing in on two aspects of the ProPublica report that do have lasting legal implications. First, the same people who benefited from the lax status quo continue to fight against any meaningful reforms that might curb the justices’ gravy train. Second, the rules governing Thomas’ conduct over these years, while terribly insufficient, actually did require him to disclose at least some of these extravagant gifts. The fact that he ignored the rules anyway illustrates just how difficult it will be to force the justices to obey the law: Without the strong threat of enforcement, a putative public servant like Thomas will thumb his nose at the law.

If there is a single image that captures this seedy state of affairs, it is a painting of Thomas hanging out with Leonard Leo (Federalist Society co-chair and judicial power broker) and Mark Paoletta (who has served as chief counsel to former Vice President Mike Pence and general counsel of Donald Trump’s Office of Management and Budget). Both are political operatives, though Crow assures us that they would never dare talk about Thomas’ work. This image should be enough to shock anyone into taking action against the spigot of dark money that flows directly from billionaire donors into the court, its justices, and their spouses’ pockets. Continuing to live as though there is nothing to be done about any of this is a choice. We make it every day.

In addition to working in the Trump-Pence administration, Paoletta serves as the Thomases’ longtime fixer, attack dog, and booster. He represented Ginni Thomas when she spoke to the Jan 6. committee about her support for overturning the 2020 election. He also edited a biography of Clarence Thomas based on an almost comically obsequious documentary (in which he was also involved). So it should not be a surprise that Paoletta has also testified against any ethics reform measures for the Supreme Court, dismissing the reform movement as part of “the coordinated campaign by some Democrats and their allies in the corporate media to smear conservative Justices with the goal of delegitimizing the court.”

The lack of a binding ethics code for justices redounds to Paoletta’s benefit: ProPublica reports that he joined the Thomases on a trip through Indonesia’s Lesser Sunda Islands on the Crows’ yacht. At the time, Paoletta was serving in the Trump administration, and was therefore subject to far stricter ethics rules than the justice; he told ProPublica that he reimbursed Crow for the trip, although he would not give a price tag. (It is an extraordinary feat for a public servant to be able to afford a private international yacht adventure; it also proves that even in government posts that actually have enforceable ethics rules, those rules may not be up to the job of policing corruption.)

This story is a perfect example, in miniature, of how Thomas’ network of benefactors ensure the justice’s billionaire lifestyle stays off the books. Paoletta testifies before Congress that ethics reforms are evil; Crow funds the Republican lawmakers who ensure ethics reforms don’t pass; and nobody knows the extent of Thomas’ unceasing stream of gifts until ProPublica reporters wrangle the details from yacht crews and flight records.

We should pause here to note that the situation is not entirely hopeless: Just last month, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts issued new guidance directing justices to disclose the kind of gifts that Thomas has enjoyed for decades. Indeed, in retrospect the guidance almost seems designed to force Thomas into reporting trips, flights, vacations, and other opulent presents from his pals. These rules have long exempted “personal hospitality” from disclosure requirements. But the new guidance clarifies that “personal hospitality” does not include “gifts other than food, lodging or entertainment, such as transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation.” And it explicitly states that stays at “property or facilities” owned by an entity (like the private resorts Thomas frequents) must be disclosed, even if they’re owned “wholly or in part by an individual.”

There is some dispute about whether the new guidance captures Thomas’ conduct for the first time ever, or if it merely bolds, italicizes, and underlines what should’ve already been obvious. ProPublica cites ethics experts who say that at least some of Thomas’ behavior was prohibited under the old guidance. NBC News cites an ethics expert who says the justice’s behavior was arguably permissible, even if it rested on an interpretation that was, at best, “a stretch.” This question is not academic: The answer determines whether Thomas’ conduct prior to the promulgation of the new rule was outright illegal or simply unseemly.

We align ourselves with the former view: Clarence Thomas broke the law, and it isn’t particularly close. The best argument in his defense is that the old definition of “personal hospitality” did not require him to disclose transportation, including private flights. This reading works only by torturing the English language beyond all recognition. The old rule, like the statute it derives from, defined the term as hospitality that is “extended” either “at” a personal residence or “on” their “property or facilities.” A person dead-set on defending Thomas might be able to squeeze these yacht trips into this definition, arguing that, by hosting Thomas on his boat for food, drink, and sightseeing, Crow “extended” hospitality “on” his own property. But lending out the private jet for Thomas’ personal use? Come on. There’s no plausible way to shoehorn these trips into the old rule—which quotes the statute verbatim—even under the most expansive interpretation imaginable. Letting somebody use your private jet to travel around the country is not “extend[ing]” hospitality “on” your property. It is lending out your property to someone else so they can avoid paying for a commercial flight. Thomas broke the law, a law which contains serious civil penalties, though the bogus technicality on which he relies, in addition to his political clout, will be more than enough to ensure that he never faces any actual legal consequences.

If you need further evidence, there’s another, equally clear indication about the nature of the hospitality exception to the disclosure requirement in a neighboring provision of the statute. This section explains which gifts, exactly, a justice must include in their annual report. It reiterates the exception for “personal hospitality,” but provides an even clearer definition of the types of hospitality at issue: “any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.” (Emphasis added.) This language confirms the narrow scope of the hospitality exception: It covers housing, meals, and activities provided during a visit. It does not cover transportation. And even if you read an implied inclusion of transportation to reach the “lodging”—which is implausible, but whatever—that does not cover Crow lending Thomas his jet to fly around for the justice’s personal adventures.

For years we have been hearing from the justices that it’s not their fault so many parties with business before the court are also their best friends. We’ve heard that it’s not on them to stop generous pals from lavishing gifts upon them. We have been given to understand—as Justice Antonin Scalia explained in justifying his own travels with parties litigating before him—that justices need to hang out with fabulous and wealthy movers and shakers because who else is there to hang out with. Oh, and for years we have swallowed the pablum that these trips are so intrinsically fun and interesting that Clarence Thomas, Leonard Leo, Mark Paoletta, and a megadonor can sit around for hours chatting about sports, and not talking about any past, present, or future matter that may come before the court.

Within the legal community, this state of affairs is all justified on the grounds that no justice can retire to become a millionaire lobbyist or general counsel (because, naturally, they must protect the seat). And so unlike regular politicians—as well as other life-tenured judges who step down to take lucrative positions in private practice—the justices are tragically trapped in jobs that don’t pay what they think they are worth. The logic that allows interested parties to buy access by funneling cash to the Supreme Court Historical Society, or judicial spouses, or to million-dollar luxury travel is seen as perfectly acceptable. Indeed, it’s somehow seen as reasonable compensation for lost opportunities—a more dignified alternative to the revolving door. And so long as we believe Supreme Court justices are quasi-monarchs who are entitled to live like lords, they will find ways to live like lords. Those who can afford to purchase their lordliness will pony up whatever it takes. And we will all say that it’s awful. Until we learn about the next one, and the next one, and the one after that.

[admin]

Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas, are their own ethics police: The latest questions about Supreme Court ethics were raised by a ProPublica article alleging that Justice Clarence Thomas went on lavish trips funded by a conservative billionaire.
by Lawrence Hurley
NBC News
April 6, 2023, 11:50 AM MDT / Updated April 6, 2023, 12:13 PM MDT
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna78520

WASHINGTON — For many years, a loophole that allowed Supreme Court justices to avoid disclosing certain gifts — including travel — funded by their friends was apparently big enough to fly a private jet through.

The federal judiciary just last month announced in a letter to lawmakers that it had tightened its rules for what judges and justices need to include in annual financial disclosure statements.

That tweak was made just weeks before a ProPublica article published Thursday detailed extravagant trips that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas allegedly took that were funded by conservative billionaire and Republican donor Harlan Crow.

Thomas did not disclose these trips — allegedly including travel in Crow's private jet and visits to a private resort in upstate New York — on his annual financial disclosure statements. Under the rules that existed until recently, he may not have been required to.

"In my view, before the recent amendments, the situation was sufficiently vague to give Thomas a basis to claim that reporting was not required," said Stephen Gillers, an expert on judicial ethics at New York University School of Law. "I think that such an interpretation would be a stretch ... but the interpretation is plausible."

The "personal hospitality" exemption means judges and justices don’t have to disclose certain gifts, including accommodations and food, when the person involved is a friend. The new interpretation made it clear that travel by private jet and stays at resort-type facilities owned by private entities have to be disclosed. That would appear to cover trips ProPublica said Thomas has taken to the private resort Crow owns in upstate New York, as well as travel on the donor's jet. NBC News was not immediately able to confirm the details of ProPublica's reporting.

ProPublica reported that it "uncovered the details of Thomas’ travel by drawing from flight records, internal documents distributed to Crow’s employees and interviews with dozens of people ranging from his superyacht’s staff to members of the secretive Bohemian Club to an Indonesian scuba diving instructor."

The article does not allege that Crow asked for anything in return from Thomas, which would constitute quid pro quo corruption. The news outlet also said Thomas did not respond to a detailed list of questions. Crow said in a statement issued to ProPublica and subsequently obtained by NBC News that he has never sought to influence the justice. The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Charles Geyh, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said whether or not Thomas should have disclosed the gifts, the larger concern is a judge accepting hospitality of such value.

"Thomas and Crow were not childhood friends. They met when Thomas was on the Supreme Court, when the justice had to understand that Crow’s interest in bringing Thomas into the fold of friends who enjoyed such lavish treatment was attributable to his status as a judge," he said.

Thomas has been the focus of much scrutiny in recent months, largely driven by the actions of his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, including her support for former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Thomas himself faced criticism for failing to step aside from cases involving Trump and the election.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has angered liberals by dramatically shifting American law to the right, most notably with its ruling last year that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that said women had a constitutional right to obtain abortions.

More broadly, the latest attention on Thomas draws attention to how the Supreme Court justices are generally left to police themselves when it comes to ethics issues. The justices are facing increasing pressure to adopt a formal code of ethics similar to the one that binds lower court judges.

So far, the justices have held firm, even though district court and appeals court judges are bound by a judicial ethics code. Among other things, it requires judges to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” If judges breach the code, they can be investigated and reprimanded through a separate complaint process.

The justices say they follow the spirit of the code, introduced in 1973, but they have never formally adopted one of their own. There is also no procedure that allows for complaints to be investigated short of the drastic step of impeachment. Members of Congress have introduced legislation requiring the justices to adopt a code, although there are questions as to whether it could be enforced.

Thomas' actions in allegedly accepting such largesse from Crow could be seen as violating the code of conduct that applies to lower court judges, Geyh said.

For those calling for stricter ethics rules, the ProPublica report is a sign that the current system doesn’t go far enough.

"The highest court in the land shouldn't have the lowest ethical standards," Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in a statement Thursday. Thomas' alleged behavior was "simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a justice on the Supreme Court," he added.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted that Thomas should be impeached and removed from office.

Gabe Roth, executive director of ethics watchdog Fix the Court, said that judges and justices need similar disclosure rules to those that bind members of Congress. A judicial ethics office should be set up to approve trips in advance, whoever is footing the bill, he added, and reports should be required within 30 days.

“It’s clear that the personal hospitality rules the judiciary adopted last month do not go far enough,” he said.

Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News Digital.

[admin]

Who is Republican donor and Justice Clarence Thomas' friend Harlan Crow?
by Laura Sanicola
Reuters
April 7, 20233:31 PM MDT Last Updated 6 days ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/who-is ... 0in%201948.

April 7 (Reuters) - Real estate magnate Harlan Crow has come under scrutiny after ProPublica reported on Thursday that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury trips over decades from the Republican donor despite a federal law requiring the disclosure of most gifts. The following are some key facts about Crow.

WHO IS HARLAN CROW?

Crow, 74, is the chairman and former CEO of Crow Holdings, a Texas-based family real estate firm established to manage the capital of the Trammell Crow family. Crow’s father, noted real estate developer Trammell Crow, founded the company in 1948.

Crow, a Dallas resident, graduated from The University of Texas at Austin and began working in a variety of roles at his father’s companies before taking the helm of Crow Holdings in 1988.

While his net worth is unclear, Crow Holdings had $19.6 billion in assets under management in 2020.

HOW DID THE CROW FAMILY ACCUMULATE THEIR WEALTH?

Trammell Crow's real estate enterprises boomed in the post-World War Two years. In 1971, the company was considered the largest private landlord in the United States, eventually owning and developing a combination of industrial, hotel and other real estate assets.

Harlan Crow was pivotal in restructuring the company’s debt in the 1980s, saving it from bankruptcy, according to media reports.

HARLAN CROW'S POLITICAL LEANINGS

Crow has a history of donating to conservative causes. He is a director at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank that promotes free markets and an active U.S. foreign policy role.

He also serves on the boards of the George W. Bush Foundation, the Supreme Court Historical Society and the Hoover Institution.

Crow Holdings has donated more than $3 million, mostly to Republican causes and campaigns, included to Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the conservative Coalition Por For Texas PAC, according to Transparency USA.

The extent of Crow's personal political contributions, however, is not known. He has previously said he does not disclose contributions that he is not required to disclose.

HARLAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH CLARENCE THOMAS

In a statement on Friday, Thomas said he and his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, had long counted Harlan and Kathy Crow among their dearest friends.

"As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them," Thomas said.

In 2009, Harlan Crow provided $500,000 to conservative political advocacy group Liberty Central, which was founded by Ginni Thomas, a Politico investigation found.

Laura Sanicola, Thomson Reuters. Reports on oil and energy, including refineries, markets and renewable fuels. Previously worked at Euromoney Institutional Investor and CNN.

[admin]

Statement from Harlan Crow
by Harlan Crow
4/13/23

My wife Kathy and I have been friends with Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni since 1996. We are very dear friends. The hospitality we have extended to the Thomas’s over the years is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends. We have been most fortunate to have a great life of many friends and financial success, and we have always placed a priority on spending time with our family and friends. Justice Thomas and Ginni never asked for any of this hospitality.

We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue. More generally, I am unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that. These are gatherings of friends.

On a number of occasions, we have made contributions to projects celebrating the life and legacy of Justice Thomas, just as we have done with other great leaders and historically significant figures. He and Ginni never asked us to do any of this. We did so because we believe Justice Thomas to be one of the greatest Americans of our time, and we believe it is important to make sure as many people as possible learn about him, remember him, and understand the ideals for which he stands. We will continue to support projects that advance this goal.

[admin]

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.
by Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski
PropPublica
April 13, 2:20 p.m. EDT
https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

The transaction is the first known instance of money flowing from Crow to the Supreme Court justice. The sale netted the GOP megadonor two vacant lots and the house where Thomas’ mother was living.

In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased a string of properties on a quiet residential street in Savannah, Georgia. It wasn’t a marquee acquisition for the real estate magnate, just an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road. What made it noteworthy were the people on the other side of the deal: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives.

The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice. The Crow company bought the properties for $133,363 from three co-owners — Thomas, his mother and the family of Thomas’ late brother, according to a state tax document and a deed dated Oct. 15, 2014, filed at the Chatham County courthouse.

The purchase put Crow in an unusual position: He now owned the house where the justice’s elderly mother was living. Soon after the sale was completed, contractors began work on tens of thousands of dollars of improvements on the two-bedroom, one-bathroom home, which looks out onto a patch of orange trees. The renovations included a carport, a repaired roof and a new fence and gates, according to city permit records and blueprints.

A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.

The disclosure form Thomas filed for that year also had a space to report the identity of the buyer in any private transaction, such as a real estate deal. That space is blank.

“He needed to report his interest in the sale,” said Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer now at the watchdog group CREW. “Given the role Crow has played in subsidizing the lifestyle of Thomas and his wife, you have to wonder if this was an effort to put cash in their pockets.”

Thomas did not respond to detailed questions for this story.

In a statement, Crow said he purchased Thomas’ mother’s house, where Thomas spent part of his childhood, to preserve it for posterity. “My intention is to one day create a public museum at the Thomas home dedicated to telling the story of our nation’s second black Supreme Court Justice,” he said. “I approached the Thomas family about my desire to maintain this historic site so future generations could learn about the inspiring life of one of our greatest Americans.”

Crow’s statement did not directly address why he also bought two vacant lots from Thomas down the street. But he wrote that “the other lots were later sold to a vetted builder who was committed to improving the quality of the neighborhood and preserving its historical integrity.”

ProPublica also asked Crow about the additions on Thomas’ mother’s house, like the new carport. “Improvements were also made to the Thomas property to preserve its long-term viability and accessibility to the public,” Crow said.

Ethics law experts said Crow’s intentions had no bearing on Thomas’ legal obligation to disclose the sale.

The justice’s failure to report the transaction suggests “Thomas was hiding a financial relationship with Crow,” said Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis who reviewed years of Thomas’ disclosure filings.

There are a handful of carve-outs in the disclosure law. For example, if someone sells “property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse,” they don’t need to report it. Experts said the exemptions clearly did not apply to Thomas’ sale.

The revelation of a direct financial transaction between Thomas and Crow casts their relationship in a new light. ProPublica reported last week that Thomas has accepted luxury travel from Crow virtually every year for decades, including private jet flights, international cruises on the businessman’s superyacht and regular stays at his private resort in the Adirondacks. Crow has long been influential in conservative politics and has spent millions on efforts to shape the law and the judiciary. The story prompted outcry and calls for investigations from Democratic lawmakers.

In response to that reporting, both Thomas and Crow released statements downplaying the significance of the gifts. Thomas also maintained that he wasn’t required to disclose the trips.

“Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends,” Thomas wrote. “As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips.” Crow told ProPublica that his gifts to Thomas were “no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends.”

It’s unclear if Crow paid fair market value for the Thomas properties. Crow also bought several other properties on the street and paid significantly less than his deal with the Thomases. One example: In 2013, he bought a pair of properties on the same block — a vacant lot and a small house — for a total of $40,000.

[x]
The block in Savannah, Georgia, where Texas billionaire Harlan Crow bought property from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Today, the vacant lots Thomas sold to Crow have been replaced by two-story homes. Credit: Octavio Jones for ProPublica

In his statement, Crow said his company purchased the properties “at market rate based on many factors including the size, quality, and livability of the dwellings.”

He did not respond to requests to provide documentation or details of how he arrived at the price.

Thomas was born in the coastal hamlet of Pin Point, outside Savannah. He later moved to the city, where he spent part of his childhood in his grandfather’s home on East 32nd Street.

“It had hardwood floors, handsome furniture, and an indoor bathroom, and we knew better than to touch anything,” Thomas wrote of the house in his memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.”

He inherited his stake in that house and two other properties on the block following the death of his grandfather in 1983, according to records on file at the Chatham County courthouse. He shared ownership with his brother and his mother, Leola Williams. In the late 1980s, when Thomas was an official in the George H.W. Bush administration, he listed the addresses of the three properties in a disclosure filing. He reported that he had a one-third interest in them.

Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1991. By the early 2000s, he had stopped listing specific addresses of property he owned in his disclosures. But he continued to report holding a one-third interest in what he described as “rental property at ## 1, 2, & 3” in Savannah. He valued his stake in the properties at $15,000 or less.

Two of the houses were torn down around 2010, according to property records and a footnote in Thomas’ annual disclosure archived by Free Law Project.

In 2014, the Thomas family sold the vacant lots and the remaining East 32nd Street house to one of Crow’s companies. The justice signed the paperwork personally. His signature was notarized by an administrator at the Supreme Court, ​​Perry Thompson, who did not respond to a request for comment. (The deed was signed on the 23rd anniversary of Thomas’ Oct. 15 confirmation to the Supreme Court. Crow has a Senate roll call sheet from the confirmation vote in his private library.)

Thomas’ financial disclosure for that year is detailed, listing everything from a “stained glass medallion” he received from Yale to a life insurance policy. But he failed to report his sale to Crow.

[x]
Thomas’ signature on the deed for his deal with Crow. Credit: Chatham County Superior Court.

[x]
A 2014 photograph shows the vacant lots that Crow bought from Thomas. Credit: Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Commission.

Crow purchased the properties through a recently formed Texas company called Savannah Historic Developments LLC. The company shares an address in Dallas with Crow Holdings, the centerpiece of his real estate empire. Its formation documents were signed by Crow Holdings’ general counsel. Business records filed with the Texas secretary of state say Savannah Historic Developments is managed by a Delaware LLC, HRC Family Branch GP, an umbrella company that also covers other Crow assets like his private jet. The Delaware company’s CEO is Harlan Crow.

A Crow Holdings company soon began paying the roughly $1,500 in annual property taxes on Thomas’ mother’s house, according to county tax records. The taxes had previously been paid by Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent. Soon after Crow purchased the house, an award-winning local architecture firm received permits to begin $36,000 of improvements.

[x]
Drawings illustrate some of the improvements made to Thomas’ mother’s home after Crow bought it. Credit: Obtained by ProPublica

Crow’s purchases seem to have played a role in transforming the block. The billionaire eventually sold most of the other properties he bought to new owners who built upscale modern homes, including the two vacant lots he purchased from Thomas.

Crow also bought the house immediately next door to Thomas’ mother, which was owned by somebody else and had been known for parties and noise, according to property records and W. John Mitchell, former president of a nearby neighborhood association. Soon the house was torn down. “It was an eyesore,” Mitchell said. “One day miraculously all of them were put out of there and they scraped it off the earth.”

“The surrounding properties had fallen into disrepair and needed to be demolished for health and safety reasons,” Crow said in his statement. He added that his company built one new house on the block “and made it available to a local police officer.”

Today, the block is composed of a dwindling number of longtime elderly homeowners and a growing population of young newcomers. The vacant lots that the Thomas family once owned have been replaced by pristine two-story homes. An artisanal coffee shop and a Mediterranean bistro are within walking distance. Down the street, a multicolored pride flag blows in the wind.

Justin Elliott is a ProPublica reporter covering politics and government accountability. To securely send Justin documents or other files online, visit our SecureDrop page or reach him through one of the methods below.

[admin]

Ginni Thomas pressed 29 Arizona lawmakers to help overturn Trump's defeat, emails show: The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas sent the messages using FreeRoots, an online platform intended to make it easy to send pre-written emails to multiple elected officials.
by Emma Brown
Washington Post
JUNE 10, 2022 — 10:11PM
https://www.startribune.com/ginni-thoma ... medium=web

[x]
Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, arrives to watch Amy Coney Barrett take the Constitutional Oath on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 26, 2020. ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed 29 Republican state lawmakers in Arizona - 27 more than previously known - to set aside Joe Biden's popular vote victory and "choose" presidential electors, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.

The Post reported last month that Thomas sent emails to two Arizona House members, in November and December 2020, urging them to help overturn Biden's win by selecting presidential electors - a responsibility that belongs to Arizona voters under state law. Thomas sent the messages using FreeRoots, an online platform intended to make it easy to send pre-written emails to multiple elected officials.

New documents show that Thomas indeed used the platform to reach many lawmakers simultaneously. On Nov. 9, she sent identical emails to 20 members of the Arizona House and seven Arizona state senators. That represents more than half of the Republican members of the state legislature at the time.

The message, just days after media organizations called the race for Biden in Arizona and nationwide, urged lawmakers to "stand strong in the face of political and media pressure" and claimed that the responsibility to choose electors was "yours and yours alone." They had "power to fight back against fraud" and "ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen," the email said.

Among the lawmakers who received the email was then-Rep. Anthony Kern, a Stop the Steal supporter who lost his reelection bid in November 2020 and then joined U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and others as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Vice President Mike Pence, a last-ditch effort to overturn Biden's victory. Kern was photographed outside the Capitol during the riot on Jan. 6 but has said he did not enter the building, according to local media reports.

Kern did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. He is seeking his party's nomination for a seat in the Arizona state Senate and has been endorsed by former President Donald Trump.

On Dec. 13, the day before members of the electoral college were slated to cast their votes and seal Biden's victory, Thomas emailed 22 House members and one senator. "Before you choose your state's Electors . . . consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don't stand up and lead," the email said. It linked to a video of a man urging swing-state lawmakers to "put things right" and "not give in to cowardice."

Speaker of the House Russell "Rusty" Bowers and Rep. Shawnna Bolick, the two recipients previously identified, told The Post in May that the outreach from Thomas had no bearing on their decisions about how to handle claims of election fraud.

But the revelation that Ginni Thomas was directly involved in pressing them to override the popular vote - an act that would have been without precedent in the modern era - intensified questions about whether her husband should recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election and attempts to subvert it. Ginni Thomas's status as a leading conservative political activist has set her apart from other spouses of Supreme Court justices.

Ginni Thomas did not respond to requests seeking comment for this report. She has long insisted that she and her husband operate in separate professional lanes.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not respond to questions for Clarence Thomas.

The Post obtained the emails under Arizona's public records law, which - unlike the laws in some other key 2020 swing states - allows the public to access emails, text messages and other written communications to and from state lawmakers.

In March, The Post and CBS News obtained text messages that Ginni Thomas sent in the weeks after the 2020 election to Mark Meadows, then Trump's chief of staff. The messages showed Thomas spreading false claims and urging Meadows to keep fighting for Trump to remain in the White House.

"That conflict of interest just screams at you," said Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who serves on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, on MSNBC in response to The Post's May report revealing the emails to Bolick and Bowers.

Schiff pointed to Clarence Thomas's decision not to recuse when Trump went to the Supreme Court to try to block the House committee from getting access to his White House records. The high court declined to block the release of those documents. Thomas, siding with Trump, was the only justice to dissent.

"Here you have the wife of a Supreme Court justice," Schiff said, trying to "get Arizona to improperly cast aside the votes of millions. And also, to add to it, her husband on the Supreme Court, writing a dissent in a case arguing against providing records to Congress that might have revealed some of these same e-mails."

After the May article, Mark Paoletta - a longtime ally of the Thomases who, as a member of the George H.W. Bush administration, played a role in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court - confirmed that Ginni Thomas signed the emails, but he sought to minimize her role.

"Ginni signed her name to a pre-written form letter that was signed by thousands of citizens and sent to state legislators across the country," Paoletta wrote on Twitter on May 20. He described Thomas's activities as "a private citizen joining a letter writing campaign" and added, sarcastically, "How disturbing, what a threat!"

The letter-writing campaigns were organized on FreeRoots.com, which advertised itself as a platform to amplify grass-roots advocacy across the political spectrum. A Post review of its archived webpages shows that it was heavily used in late 2020 by groups seeking to overturn the presidential election results.

One of those groups was Every Legal Vote, which organized the campaign to send the message that Ginni Thomas sent on Nov. 9. In those first days after the Nov. 3 election, Every Legal Vote described itself online as a "labor of love by American citizens, in partnership" with the nonprofit United in Purpose, according to webpages preserved by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. United in Purpose, which harnesses data to galvanize conservative Christian voters, in recent years hosted luncheons where Thomas presented her Impact Awards to right-wing leaders.

On Dec. 14, 2020, Biden electors in Arizona cast their votes, after the election results were certified by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, and Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican.

Trump electors met in Arizona that day and signed a document declaring themselves the state's "duly elected and qualified Electors." One of them was Kern, the outgoing state representative.

Kern was among more than a dozen lawmakers who signed on to a letter to Congress that same day calling for the state's electoral votes to go to Trump or "be nullified completely until a full forensic audit can be conducted."

The lawmakers' letter was an exhibit in Kern and Gohmert's lawsuit asking a federal court to rule that Pence had the "exclusive authority and sole discretion" in deciding which electoral votes to count for a given state. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the case was dismissed in lower courts. The day after the Jan. 6 insurrection, the court declined in an unsigned order.

[admin]

Whistleblower reveals MASSIVE SCANDAL of Chief Supreme Court Justice
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
May 1, 2023 Legal AF Podcast - Full Episodes

Michael Popok of Legal AF reports on the brewing ethical scandals on the US Supreme Court embroiling right wing Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Roberts, as the Chief Justice thumbs his nose at the Senate Judiciary and issues a watered down “ethical statement “ that most of them have already violated.



Transcript

This is Michael Popok legal AF it's time to dive in to the right wing of the U.S. Supreme Court and determine whether through transparency we have an ethical corruption problem on the court primarily by the right wing or are they just playing by the old rules that everybody played by and there's nothing to see here I think it's the former I think we have an ethical problem that light has now been shined on since the Clarence Thomas Revelations but now in broil at least five of the others on the right wing of the Court let's start with Clarence Thomas and how we got here the revelations that Clarence Thomas and his wife have accepted millions of dollars of free luxurious vacations around the world on the back of a person on the right wing who has regular business before the court and that's the key every time I'm talking about something during this hot take I'm going to talk about the fact that it links to an entity a lawyer a professor a party who has regular business before the court and that's the problem and that's the ethical corruption issue so with Clarence Thomas Harlan Crowe Real Estate Mogul far right wing entertains Jenny and Clarence Thomas on yachts jumbo Jets and at Resorts of his around the world has been doing it for over a dozen years and that's not all he also took off of Clarence Thomas's hands his family Homestead and the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in that transaction as if Harlan Crowe couldn't buy any other house but the one that belongs to Clarence Thomas Harlan Crowe and the entities that he uh has either founded or provided fundraising dollars to in the tens of millions of dollars have regular business in front of the court and Thomas does not recuse himself or disqualify himself from listening to these hearings and that is the problem then you turn to Chief Justice Roberts chief justice Roberts has a wife that has her own career that's nothing wrong with that and in the last five years she's averaged about two million dollars a year working for a major legal recruiter headhunting firm that places lawyers and groups of lawyers at law firms the problem is many of the lawyers and groups that she has placed are at law firms who regularly have business in front of the U.S Supreme Court regularly and there's a reason she is placing obviously these people at these certain firms because it's a gateway to her husband right so we have that then we have Neil Gorsuch, Neil Gorsuch who's also on the right wing he has a cabin in the woods that nobody apparently wants except he sells it to the head of Greenberg Traurig a major Farm based in Miami that regularly conducts business in front of the court and again Gorsuch does not recuse himself but he had no problem with a million dollar transaction with the head of Greenberg trial rig of all the cabins in the remote part of Colorado the Greenberg guy how to buy the one belonging to the one of the Supreme Court justices in in which his firm regularly appears come on and then you have Alito who's got his own ethical dilemmas because it was revealed by Reverend Rob shank several months ago that Alito regularly attended dinners with the founder of Hobby Lobby the right-wing fundamentalist Christian conservative entity and at a dinner in 2014 he talked about a decision he was writing Alito that was against contraception rights and chose religious qualities above the right of a woman to choose and that was in 2014 and that was revealed according to Reverend shank at a dinner hosted by a hosted by The Hobby Lobby people attended by Alito and then you've got Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and Thomas the new reporting for the New York Times today is who are regularly showered with gifts and other luxury items and other perks by being visiting faculty at George Mason University's Scalia law school named after the right wing former Justice who died Antonin Scalia but they are whined and dine Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas regularly they are even sent to far away places and they're allowed to choose the Exotic locales that they want to teach courses in in Italy in Iceland in in London and it's all expenses paid for them and their families and then there's faculty members at George Mason who regularly at that law school Scalia law school who regularly submit Friend of the Court briefs we call him amicus briefs amicus briefs to do business in front of the court in which their co-professor the Supreme Court justice was just their buddy for the summer so 25 of the amicus briefs that are submitted by Scalia law professors are from people who worked side by side co-teaching classes with Gorsuch ,Kavanaugh and Thomas I I mean again business before the court if you're doing business before the court you would think that the justices would stay away from entanglements and appearances of impropriety that make it appear like their current they're being favors be encurried with them to change a result I mean Scalia University Scalia law school who nobody ever heard of 30 years ago 25 years ago and was founded just in the 20 2015s or so has rocketed up the charts from almost uh 50 top 50 ranking to now it's pushing top 30 ranking and they want to have this close relationship with the right-wing justices now look other justices for the Supreme Court have also guest lectured at Scalia law school um Kagan has done it Sotomayor has done it the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was very close to Scalia has also but this incestuous closeness between the far right wing of the court and Scalia law particularly which is basically run by the Federalist Society by Leonard Leo formerly a federalist Society executive who donated 30 million dollars in honor of Anthony Scalia the Koch family who donated uh 10 million dollars to the school and then a 1.6 billion with a B billion dollar donation that was made to uh Leonard Leo's Foundation by a little-known uh electronics Mogul in the midwest who used to own a company called trip light t-r-i-p-p-l-i-t-e and who donated 100 of the shares of trip light to a Leonard Leo for him to go out and do all of his uh campaigning against woke principles critical race Theory and then try to reshape the Judiciary spending now UPS upwards of two billion dollars in order to accomplish that task and what are the funnels for the money is the Scalia Law Center at George Mason with these three law uh Supreme Court Justices sitting there with again business being being performed in front of them well why isn't this a violation of Ethics rules you might be asking because the Supreme Court since time immemorial is not subject and has refused to be subject to the canons of judicial ethics that apply to every other federal and state judge every federal and state judge in America is subject to the Cannons of judicial conducted ethics except the U.S Supreme Court they claim well we're just a co-equal branch of government we have our own article in the U.S Constitution and it wouldn't be right for Congress to pass any type of Regulation against us um we'll do it ourselves we'll self-police but how's that going I just outlined at least four or five potential corruption scandals that were all discovered by investigative journalism and and whistleblowers how's that going Justice Roberts and if we're all looking at Justice Roberts he just gave the middle finger and thumbed his nose at the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Dick Durbin who asked for him to come in to talk about why aren't you imposing an ethical set of cannons an ethical Canon on your court you have a court that's running rampant at least to the public perception rampantly unethical and what are you doing about it come talk to us about it and instead of Chief Justice Roberts took the time to respond by telling Durbin we're not I'm not doing that there's only been two other Chief justices that have come before the senate or the house and it was under very different circumstances and I'm not coming before you because of separation of powers but don't worry we're very ethical because we have just signed on all nine justices to a letter which I'm attaching Senator Durbin that you can read and I'm going to read you parts of this and that letter is a statement on ethics professionalism and practices that the U.S. Supreme Court Justices claim that they follow well you've just heard me in this hot take run through all of the areas where people who have business in front of the court have openly tried to Lobby solicit and curry favor with individual Supreme Court justices in various ways paying Headhunter fees and revenue to a wife of a Supreme Court Justice buying real estate and property from taking it off the hands of a Supreme Court Justice where nobody else apparently wanted it um lavishing them with gifts helping them in Gorsuch's case helping him find housing when he moved to Washington when he became a Supreme Court Justice sending clerks for low cost or almost no cost off of the Scalia law school for instance go work for Gorsuch to show how close an incestuous that relationship is traveling and vacationing all expenses paid on luxurious on luxurious trips for years with somebody who is a right-wing Federalist trying to reshape the court and change policy at the court we've talked about all that so how does uh Roberts handle that well here's you be the judge of it here is I'm going to read for you now from his letter which he claims Justice Roberts claims solves the problem right solves for the equation here's what he says the justices like other federal judges consult a wide variety of Authorities on specific ethical issues they may turn to judicial opinions and treatises and scholarly articles and the historical practice of the court and they may take advice from the Court's legal office and from their colleagues in the note note that the Grabber here he doesn't say they do he says they can he doesn't say in any of the circumstances I just outlined that they're going to he then said that the in 1922 Congress instituted the judicial Conference of the United States to manage the lower federal courts and it binds the lower courts below the Supreme Court nevertheless the conference has contributed to the development of a body of ethical rules and practices which are of significant importance to the justices oh isn't that nice so you know that your brethren below are being ethically managed by Congress and you think that's adorable that's a significant importance to you but you don't say how you how you use it in your daily life how you live the gospel in your daily life um and so it goes on uh it says that the canons of Ethics that are applicable not to the Supreme Court justice but other justices are broadly worded principles that inform ethical practice but they are not themselves rules they are far too General to be used in that manner still the canons as a whole give guidance to the federal Judiciary okay now let's keep going they also went on that the like the lower court judges justices at the Supreme Court in engage in extrajudicial activities which include speaking writing lecturing on both Law related and non-legal subjects the law cannons the court cannons encourage public engagement by judicial officers to avoid isolation Okay now it goes on to say that a Justice of the Supreme Court should consider whether doing any of these things working for a law firm working for a law school vacationing with right-wing people having regular dinner meetings with people on the far right selling property to them and and earning a profit in return they should consider whether any of these things would be considered by an unbiased and reasonable person to be improper an appearance of impropriety okay I'm reasonable I'm unbiased I think it's all shows that an appearance of impropriety the way we've described it especially here on the hot Take and then goes on to say that no such appearance will be created when a justice speaks before a group educational institution a bar group or a not-for-profit that does not regularly does not regularly Lobby or Advocate issues that may be implicated in cases that come before the court I've just described to you at least six examples that are obviously Justice Roberts has buried his head in the sand it doesn't want to acknowledge in which entities and people who regularly have business in front of the court are getting into bed with members of the job of the Supreme Court in various ways financial entanglements and otherwise to Lobby them and if they don't realize that they're being lobbied if they don't realize that their that favor is being curried by spending hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars towards them then their judgment is seriously in doubt and they should be they should be removed from the they should be impeached and removed from the U.S. Supreme Court so that's where we are right now we've got multiple examples and they're almost always on the right it's not because I've edited out on this hot take I don't want to tell you about examples where Sonia Sotomayor or Breyer when he was on the court or or um or a Kagan or Katanji Brown Jackson or any of them did something bad that's similar we don't have this kind of equivalency there's no symmetry it's asymmetrical the right wing do things until they are told they can't and they have as their protector chief justice Roberts who Do's never seen an ethical conflict that he hasn't explained away with a wave of his hand and a paragraph in a self-serving letter patronizing letter sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee that's where we are we'll follow all of these stories whether it involves Thomas Gorsuch Alito, Cavanaugh, Roberts on hot takes just like this one that I do on the Midas touch Network and I assure you that if one of the other justices from the more moderate wing the Katanji brown Jacksons the Elena Kagans the Sonia Sotomayors if it if it's discovered that they did something wrong I'll be right back here in a hot day and I'll tell you all about it but I got nothing to say as of right now.

[admin]

Republican billionaire & Clarence Thomas's bestie Harlan Crow says he WON'T provide info to Senate
by Glenn Kirschner
May 14, 2023 #TeamJustice

ProPublica recently revealed that Republican billionaire Harlan Crow lavished extravagant trips and accommodations on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Then it was revealed that Crow also bought Thomas's mother's house and let her live there rent free. But wait, there's more - Crow reportedly payed private school tuition for a grandnephew Thomas was raising as a son.

Not surprisingly, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance Committee demanded Crow provide information about the lavish gifts, benefits and payments to Thomas and his family, in an effort to investigate what kind of legislative fixes need to be enacted to address what appears to be rampant influence peddling and purchasing.

Crow just told the Senate Finance Committee that he will NOT be providing the requested evidence. And wait until you hear the reasons Crow gave for why he was refusing to cooperate with the Senate.



Transcript

so friends a republican billionaire Mega
donor who has been lavishing extravagant
expensive gifts and benefits on Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas just told
the senate committee
no I won't be providing you information
about any of that
about what is essentially his Supreme
Court influence operation
let's talk about that
because Justice matters
[Music]
[Music]
hey all Glenn kirschner here
so friends recent reporting by
propublica revealed that Republican
billionaire megadon or Harlan Crow has
for a very long time been lavishing
millions of dollars worth of luxury
trips and accommodations on Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas
Crowe also reportedly purchased Thomas's
mother's home dumped all kinds of money
into it to make improvements and then of
course let Thomas's mother live there
rent free Crow reportedly paid the
private school tuition of Clarence
Thomas's I believe Grand nephew who he
raises as a son
etc
etc
etc so not surprisingly
Senate committees have requested
information and accounting from crow
about how much money he has dumped into
Clarence Thomas and his family members
in what is a pretty transparent
influence peddling operation
are you ready for Harlan Crow's reply
headline from NBC News Harlan crowed
declines to provide Senate finance
committee with list of gifts he has
given to Justice Clarence Thomas
because of course he declined
the article begins Republican donor
Harlan Crowe wrote in a letter to the
Senate finance committee that he will
not provide a list of gifts he gave to
Justice Clarence Thomas who has faced
recent calls to step down
to resign
to leave the Supreme Court because you
have disgraced this nation
those are my editorial Editions
the article continues
Crow conveyed that decision to committee
chairman Senator Ron Wyden which a
representative for Crow provided to NBC
News
Wyden spokesperson Ryan Carey also
confirmed to NBC that the committee had
received Crowe's letter
friends here's what Crow said
quote we have serious concerns about the
scope of and Authority for this inquiry
as you are aware the committee's powers
to investigate are not unlimited the
letter from Crow's lawyer Michael Bopp
said
the Senate finance committee Bop argued
lacks a legislative purpose in its
request for the list of gifts saying
that the Supreme Court has explicitly
stated that Congress has no authority to
engage in law enforcement investigations
or to conduct investigations aimed at
exposing citizens Private Affairs for
the sake of exposure
the committee also lacks the authority
to conduct a tax audit Bop wrote for the
purpose of determining whether Justice
Thomas complied with ethical standards
the chairman believes should apply in
this instance
in addition Bob said that the panel's
inquiry targeting a Supreme Court
Justice raises substantial separation of
powers concerns
the letter argues that the crows whom
Bob said have been friends with the
Thomases for more than 20 years have
provided Hospitality to the justice and
his family
the IRS Bob wrote has not been
aggressive in arguing a gift tax law
applies in that context
he also said that the sale of properties
related to Thomas which the judge didn't
disclose
complied with federal and state gift tax
laws
wow just
wow
so let's take Harlan Crowe and his
lawyer Mr Bops assertions one at a time
first of all
we have serious concerns about the scope
of and Authority for this inquiry as you
are aware the committee's powers to
investigate are not unlimited I'm quite
sure the committee is aware of its own
powers and the limits thereof
the Senate finance committee lacks a
legislative purpose in its request for
the list of gifts well let's see
maybe Congress should legislate more
robust and farther reaching Financial
disclosure requirements on Supreme Court
Justices and maybe they should legislate
and increase the penalties for knowing
obvious intentional transparent
violations of those financial disclosure
requirements maybe those penalties
should include significant periods of
incarceration if you violate the law and
you abuse the public trust and you
denigrate the legitimacy of the Supreme
Court
as Clarence Thomas has done frankly this
is a legislative purpose Palooza
let's take on Mr Bops next complaint
the committee also lacks the authority
to conduct a tax audit for the purpose
of determining whether Justice Thomas
complied with ethical standards the
chairman believes should apply in this
instance
so what now Harlan Crowe and his
attorney Mr bopper are also representing
the interests of Clarence Thomas they're
defending him they're suggesting he did
nothing wrong don't look at his tax
returns
whatever you do
don't check to see if Clarence Thomas
fully and accurately and truthfully
reported all of the income all of the
benefits the in-kind donations the
tuition payments that he should have
reported no need to pull back that
curtain
but Mr Bop goes on
Bob said that the panel's inquiry
targeting a Supreme Court Justice raises
substantial separation of powers
concerns
wow so now
Harlan Crowe is raising the Grievances
of a co-equal branch of government the
Judiciary the judicial branch Harlan
Crowe believes I guess he gets to assert
that Congress the legislative branches
overstepping its its bounds separation
of powers you have no right to interfere
in the judicial branches business now
what is it that gives Harlan Crowe
standing to assert the the rights and
grievances of the judicial branch of
government
I mean maybe he does feel like a
dues-paying member right with all of the
money and benefits he's lavished on a
Supreme Court Justice maybe he feels
like he's an honorary member of the
Supreme Court right I mean goodness
knows he's paid enough to have influence
there but still he doesn't get to assert
a separation of powers concern that's
really not for him to decide when a
senate committee is seeking information
you know that's generally something we
leave up to the courts
uh Harlan
all right let's just do one more
Bob says that Harlan Crowe has been
friends with the Thomases for more than
20 years Harlan Crowe has provided
Hospitality to the justice and his
family friends has anybody ever provided
you Hospitality that included buying
your mother's home and letting her live
there rent free and putting your kids
through private school
no Harlan Crowe wasn't trying to
purchase influence from a Supreme Court
Justice perished the thought
they're just Buddies
so what now
the answer is actually pretty simple
it's government 101 it's governing 101.
subpoena the information from Harlan
Crowe then subpoena him to testify
let him fight the subpoenas in court he
will lose
and then part two of the simple answer
governing 101 the Department of Justice
should open an investigation
in what seemed to be pretty obvious
violations of public Financial
disclosure laws by Clarence Thomas
you know the integrity and legitimacy of
the United States Supreme Court is too
important not to investigate
Thomas's obvious transgressions
and
because Justice
matters
gloves off
friends gloves off
as always please stay safe please stay
tuned and I look forward to talking with
you all again soon
[Music]