Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Benefactor Collects Hitler Art

[admin]

A look back at Harlan Crow's jaw-droppingly rich library: The library itself, built near the Crow home four years ago, is a perfect realization of a rich man's library: two-story wooden columns.
by Michael Merschel
The Dallas Morning News
12:07 PM on Apr 3, 2014 CDT
https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-enterta ... h-library/

[x]

This weekend, the Texas Institute of Letters will gather in San Marcos to hand out awards for the state's best writing. You can see the nominees here, and we expect to publish the winners on Sunday.

When the TIL gathered in Dallas several years ago, I tagged along, to what turned out to be the most spectacular private library I have ever seen, at least in terms of net worth.

That library, Harlan Crow's, was in the news lately as he wrangled with Highland Park officials about converting it to a museum. For the moment, he has backed off. (I would have put my money on the billionaire with Supreme Court connections in such a fight, but this is why I don't gamble.)

We've since published a lovely tour of the library, with photos much nicer than the ones I shot with what I think was a then-new iPhone 3, but it seemed like a good moment to revive a lost blog post from my visit, courtesy of the Wayback Machine.

Inside the Harlan Crow library with the Texas Institute of Letters

(Originally posted April 18, 2008.)

When the members of the Texas Institute of Letters gather, it's always a remarkable collection of people. I doubt they've ever gathered amid a collection as remarkable as the one tonight.

Tomorrow, the venerable institution's annual awards will be given; you'll be able to find a list of winners right here. Tonight, their reception was held at the private library of businessman Harlan Crow.

I was aware of Mr. Crow's interesting taste in statuary -- he owns a collection of fallen communist leaders that he has arranged along an tree-shaded walkway. It's known as the "Garden of Evil." (A massive head of Winston Churchill stands in a sunny space near the garden -- "On the high ground," Mr. Crow noted to me.)

And I was prepared to see some interesting historic bric-a-brac befitting a zillionaire. Dallas historian Darwin Payne wrote in the TIL newsletter that the library contains artifacts such as Eisenhower's five-star helmet, a silver tankard created by Paul Revere, the deed to George Washington's Mount Vernon estate and paintings by Gilbert Stuart, John Singleton Copley, Rembrandt Peale and more.

[x]

But that was just the beginning.

The library itself, built near the Crow home four years ago, is a perfect realization of a rich man's library: two-story wooden columns. Alcoves and shelves filled with custom-bound materials, statuary and historical materials. I would not have been surprised to see Bruce Wayne walk in, clutching a cocktail in one hand, deftly closing the secret entrance to the Batcave with his other.

I saw no comic books, actually. Nor did I see the Stradivarius -- it was on loan for the evening. But librarian Sam Fore did show me a letter -- the letter -- Harry Truman wrote to Washington Post critic Paul Hume, who had disdained daughter Margaret's singing. The president wrote, "Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!"

That letter is worth an entire chapter in a Truman biography.

James Donovan (pictured) pulled a volume of correspondence from George Armstrong Custer off another shelf. Mr. Donovan did some of his research for "A Terrible Glory" in this library. In the letter he showed me, the young soldier is telling a young woman that he hopes the thing they talked about doing the next time they met is something they will still get to do.

And we're not even to the "rare books" shelf yet.

The "rare" books I saw included first editions by Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Newton. I missed the copy of the first U.S. Census, signed by Thomas Jefferson, and Vasco de Gama's original report on the New World.

I noted the autographed "Mein Kampf," and found Hitler's placesettings and linens in the cabinet upstairs -- discretely kept in a closed cabinet, so the swastikas are not on display.

[x]

There was also a handwritten letter of thanks from Justice Clarence Thomas (displayed next to the official Senate roll call card showing his confirmation) and a miniature model of the "Little Boy" atomic bomb, signed by the pilot of the Enola Gay, Col. Paul W. Tibbets.

"I'm a conservative," Mr. Crow told me, early in the evening. That may be an understatement.

If you prefer fiction to history or biography, this would not be your dream library. I did note a complete collection of Mark Twain's works, but that was all I saw. Of course, I was too busy studying the cannonball embedded in the tree removed from Gettysburg, and the two life masks of Abraham Lincoln, to take a full inventory. [UPDATE 4/21: A reliable source tells me he witnessed some Dickens volumes as well -- and one of Dickens' own dining room chairs.]

Still, it's a remarkable collection, which the delighted TIL crowed pored over for their entire time. Mr. Fore told me that the collection, which Mr. Crow started seriously working on about 10 years ago, is being built with an eye toward opening it to the public after Mr. Crow and his wife have died.

I can only imagine what he will have amassed by then.

For all the treasures, though, the company of intelligent, engaging people is always just as valuable as whatever relics might be nearby. So I also enjoyed a few priceless moments with journalist and JFK assassination witness Hugh Aynesworth as he described his firsthand encounters with Jack Ruby. And hearing Bryce Milligan of San Antonio's Wings Press describe the pleasure he gets (and money he loses) making custom-bound books.

And then there are remarks from the likes of Mary Specht, current holder of a Dobie Paisano Writing Fellowship, which allows her to spend six months writing -- alone, on a 254-acre spread west of Austin, where wildlife plays and Barton Creek flows. It's the exact opposite of the Mr. Crow's estate.

"I think I like my life there better," she said.

She paused for a moment.

"But he does have his own librarian. How cool would that be?"

Michael Merschel. Michael Merschel edits coverage of books and performing arts. A graduate of the University of Kansas School of Journalism, he's edited award-winning narrative features and was a fellow at the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Theater and Musical Theater. He's also contributed to "A Prairie Home Companion," and his first novel, "Revenge of the Star Survivors," was published by Holiday House in April 2017.
mmerschel@dallasnews.com @mmerschel

[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:

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

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 popock 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 Tegan or tanji 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 cavito
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 kataji brown Jacksons the Elena
kagans the Sonia sotomayores 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
every week I curate with my co-anchors
on the legal AF podcast a show on
Wednesdays and Saturdays where we take
the top stories just like this one and
we bring it to you in an hour-long
podcast format both on YouTube on the
Midas touch Network and everywhere every
platform you can get an audio podcast
and we're ranked regularly in the top 50
worldwide in news and then if you like
what I'm doing
give a thumbs up it helps it keeps this
content coming directly to you on an
uninterrupted write a comment write a
review I definitely take a look at it it
improves my presentation and my work for
you and if you like what I'm doing I'm
Michael popock you can follow me on all
things social media at Ms poke this is
Michael popock for legal AF reporting
hey Midas Mighty love this report
continue the conversation by following
us on Instagram at Midas Touch to keep
up with the most important news of the
day what are you waiting for follow us
now
thank you
[Music]