Clarence Thomas at it again

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. Those interested in this may wish to hunt for the segment on YouTube (or whatever).

Matthews became very dismissive of Arn Pearson (of Common Cause). Basically, everyone included in teh discussion (including Pearson) acknowledge there is absolutely nothing wrong with Thomas appearing at the Federalist Society meeting etc.

Arn Pearson's actual 'complaint' (and it doesn't appear in this article) is that it wasn't a Federalist Society meeting, but a political strategising and fundraising meeting with/for the Koch bros held behind closed doors.

Matthews repeatedly pressed Pearson for his evidence. Pearson eventually admitted he has none, but said something in a Koch bros brochure prompted him to raise the issue.

Matthews seemed less than impressed.

Unless something much more significant pops up this looks to be a non-event going no where.

Fern
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. Those interested in this may wish to hunt for the segment on YouTube (or whatever).

Matthews became very dismissive of Arn Pearson (of Common Cause). Basically, everyone included in teh discussion (including Pearson) acknowledge there is absolutely nothing wrong with Thomas appearing at the Federalist Society meeting etc.

Arn Pearson's actual 'complaint' (and it doesn't appear in this article) is that it wasn't a Federalist Society meeting, but a political strategising and fundraising meeting with/for the Koch bros held behind closed doors.

Matthews repeatedly pressed Pearson for his evidence. Pearson eventually admitted he has none, but said something in a Koch bros brochure prompted him to raise the issue.

Matthews seemed less than impressed.

Unless something much more significant pops up this looks to be a non-event going no where.

Fern

Ah, so absolutely nothing there, just some disgruntled leftists from common idiocy ...errr.... common cause raising a stink over nothing.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
Yeah, I wondered about this also.

I suspect because the answer is that he doesn't know the amount.

Take meals for example. If he were there for a day (let's say) how could he possibly know how much a single breakfast, lunch and dinner would cost? I'm betting it's a banquet type setting.

Somebody who was responsible for the arrangements (a F.S. employee) would have to gather an awful lot of accounting info and make some wild guesses, particularly if the resort gave them a fixed price for eveything (food + refreshments + accomodations + transportation from the airport on a shuttle etc).

Fern

The portion stated in the OP says that he was reimbursed, not that the hosting organization provided for his room + meals up front. How would he not be privy to the cost then?

I don't think anyone reasonable is worried that the foundation paid for his hotel bill, but that his reimbursements that he won't disclose the amount of was some sort of bribe declared on paper to be a reimbursement. That he won't/can't disclose the amount and then ruled on a case involving said party is fishy, and having further investigation into the matter sounds more like due diligence rather than a witch hunt.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
The portion stated in the OP says that he was reimbursed, not that the hosting organization provided for his room + meals up front. How would he not be privy to the cost then?

Good point (if indeed "reimburse" is the correct term, not "provied". But "reimburse" is not in quotation marks so we can't know if that's the author's term or Thomas' term)

But as I posted above in #28, after watching Arn Pearson speak about his concerns the reimbursements, and their amount, are not relevent. Pearson is not concerned with them.

Instead, he said he suspects that Thomas was not at a Federalist Society meeting, but at a Koch bros meeting.

The article seems to be misleading and not at all what Pearson's concern is about.

I don't think anyone reasonable is worried that the foundation paid for his hotel bill, but that his reimbursements that he won't disclose the amount of was some sort of bribe declared on paper to be a reimbursement. That he won't/can't disclose the amount and then ruled on a case involving said party is fishy, and having further investigation into the matter sounds more like due diligence rather than a witch hunt.

Are you saying the reimbursement (in an unknown amount) was a bribe? If so, I haven't heard anyone else make that acusation. Pearson didn't.

And the Federalist Society wasn't a party in that case.

And again, Pearson did not express anything about the Federalist Society as a concern. As I mentioned above he seemed to agree with Matthews that there was nothing wrong with Thomas attending a Federalist Society meeting.

After hearing Pearson speak last night and then re-reading the article, I'm having trouble reconciling the two. Whatever the allegations or concern, IMO they need to be much better articulated. At this point it sounds like some vague conspiratorial thingy alleged between Thomas, the Kock bros and the court case.

Fern
 
Last edited:

preCRT

Platinum Member
Apr 12, 2000
2,340
123
106
Clarence Thomas at it again?


For a brief moment I thought maybe he opened his mouth and actually participated during court.
 

tk149

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2002
7,253
1
0
Just wanted to share my story. About 15 years ago, I went to see the Supreme Court in action. Two things stand out in my memory.
1. My fellow law students and I were shocked to see one of our professors arguing a case in front of the Justices. He never told us that he would be there and I think he was shocked to see us too.
2. Clarence Thomas fell asleep. I felt embarassed as an American.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Just wanted to share my story. About 15 years ago, I went to see the Supreme Court in action. Two things stand out in my memory.
1. My fellow law students and I were shocked to see one of our professors arguing a case in front of the Justices. He never told us that he would be there and I think he was shocked to see us too.
2. Clarence Thomas fell asleep. I felt embarassed as an American.

As Cobert said last night, A judge who is supposedly one of the nine brightest legal minds in the country couldn't fill in his wife's income on a legal form (Disclosure form).
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
As Cobert said last night, A judge who is supposedly one of the nine brightest legal minds in the country couldn't fill in his wife's income on a legal form (tax form).

It was not a tax form. People who think that are smart have a hard time comprehending
 

Shallok

Member
Jul 12, 2005
38
0
0
Arn Pearson's actual 'complaint' (and it doesn't appear in this article) is that it wasn't a Federalist Society meeting, but a political strategising and fundraising meeting with/for the Koch bros held behind closed doors.

Actually the complaint was "If Justice Thomas received a four-day all-expenses-paid trip to Palm Springs in January 2008 just to give a speech at a dinner, the bulk of his expenses should have been reported as a gift." Fairly reasonable complaint.

Its really more of a trap though, either Justice Thomas states that he failed again to properly disclose such matters, or that there were other things he was doing there. According to the complaint, "a review of the Federalist Society’s extensive on-line archives produces no record of any Federalist Society event in Palm Springs on those dates. When Common Cause called the Federalist Society to inquire further, staff members could not recall any corresponding event."

The brochure in question is for the 2011 retreat, which stated explicitly that Justices Scalia and Thomas have attended past retreats. And, of course, these retreats are an "action-oriented program brings together top experts and leaders to discuss – and offer solutions to counter – the most critical threats to our free society."

So, yeah, there may be nothing to it beyond Thomas failing to properly report a gift, but when a leading group of conservatives boasts that two sitting Supreme Court Justices have participated in their brainstorming retreat questions should be asked.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Actually the complaint was "If Justice Thomas received a four-day all-expenses-paid trip to Palm Springs in January 2008 just to give a speech at a dinner, the bulk of his expenses should have been reported as a gift." Fairly reasonable complaint.

Its really more of a trap though, either Justice Thomas states that he failed again to properly disclose such matters, or that there were other things he was doing there. According to the complaint, "a review of the Federalist Society’s extensive on-line archives produces no record of any Federalist Society event in Palm Springs on those dates. When Common Cause called the Federalist Society to inquire further, staff members could not recall any corresponding event."

The brochure in question is for the 2011 retreat, which stated explicitly that Justices Scalia and Thomas have attended past retreats. And, of course, these retreats are an "action-oriented program brings together top experts and leaders to discuss – and offer solutions to counter – the most critical threats to our free society."

So, yeah, there may be nothing to it beyond Thomas failing to properly report a gift, but when a leading group of conservatives boasts that two sitting Supreme Court Justices have participated in their brainstorming retreat questions should be asked.

Meetings were also attended by such brain trusts like Glenn Beck !! :sneaky:
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,402
44,916
136
Actually the complaint was "If Justice Thomas received a four-day all-expenses-paid trip to Palm Springs in January 2008 just to give a speech at a dinner, the bulk of his expenses should have been reported as a gift." Fairly reasonable complaint.

Its really more of a trap though, either Justice Thomas states that he failed again to properly disclose such matters, or that there were other things he was doing there. According to the complaint, "a review of the Federalist Society&#8217;s extensive on-line archives produces no record of any Federalist Society event in Palm Springs on those dates. When Common Cause called the Federalist Society to inquire further, staff members could not recall any corresponding event."

The brochure in question is for the 2011 retreat, which stated explicitly that Justices Scalia and Thomas have attended past retreats. And, of course, these retreats are an "action-oriented program brings together top experts and leaders to discuss &#8211; and offer solutions to counter &#8211; the most critical threats to our free society."

So, yeah, there may be nothing to it beyond Thomas failing to properly report a gift, but when a leading group of conservatives boasts that two sitting Supreme Court Justices have participated in their brainstorming retreat questions should be asked.


Very well said!


Sadly, I think it reflects poorly on many here that the desire for healthy, much needed scrutiny on our officials is nothing but sour grapes from those that they don't agree with. ANY possibility of conflict of interest within the nation's highest court should be scrutinized, period. It's a procedural issue really, not a partisan one, why go out of your way to make yourself look immature over it?

Why isn't St. Reagan's advice of "Trust, but verify" not applicable here?
I realize that Thomas is the Judicial branch's George W Bush, but shit, expecting a SC Justice to be able to read receipts and operate a calender are not unreasonable expectations.




Oh no wait, Chris Matthews was unimpressed, I take it all back.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Meetings were also attended by such brain trusts like Glenn Beck !! :sneaky:
Amusing that you guys think Beck and Clarence Thomas are idiots, but the man who stood up and thanked himself for inviting himself to the White House to meet himself is the smartest guy ever.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Actually the complaint was "If Justice Thomas received a four-day all-expenses-paid trip to Palm Springs in January 2008 just to give a speech at a dinner, the bulk of his expenses should have been reported as a gift." Fairly reasonable complaint.

Its really more of a trap though, either Justice Thomas states that he failed again to properly disclose such matters, or that there were other things he was doing there. According to the complaint, "a review of the Federalist Society’s extensive on-line archives produces no record of any Federalist Society event in Palm Springs on those dates. When Common Cause called the Federalist Society to inquire further, staff members could not recall any corresponding event."

The brochure in question is for the 2011 retreat, which stated explicitly that Justices Scalia and Thomas have attended past retreats. And, of course, these retreats are an "action-oriented program brings together top experts and leaders to discuss – and offer solutions to counter – the most critical threats to our free society."

So, yeah, there may be nothing to it beyond Thomas failing to properly report a gift, but when a leading group of conservatives boasts that two sitting Supreme Court Justices have participated in their brainstorming retreat questions should be asked.

Very well said!


Sadly, I think it reflects poorly on many here that the desire for healthy, much needed scrutiny on our officials is nothing but sour grapes from those that they don't agree with. ANY possibility of conflict of interest within the nation's highest court should be scrutinized, period. It's a procedural issue really, not a partisan one, why go out of your way to make yourself look immature over it?

Why isn't St. Reagan's advice of "Trust, but verify" not applicable here?
I realize that Thomas is the Judicial branch's George W Bush, but shit, expecting a SC Justice to be able to read receipts and operate a calender are not unreasonable expectations.




Oh no wait, Chris Matthews was unimpressed, I take it all back.
Well said to you both, and agreed. Unfortunately we live with a political system where the vast majority of both parties agreed that a man who could not pay his taxes even though the taxes were explained to him by his employer, he was forced by his employer to sign a statement agreeing to pay his taxes, he was busted by the IRS for failing to pay the exact same taxes in different years, and his employer actually cut him a check to reimburse him for the taxes, was the only possible man to run the Treasury Department and be in charge of collecting taxes. Accountability is not big in D.C.

This certainly sounds like a gift to me. I am not under any illusions about any of our justices' politics, but this seems to me to be beyond the pale, like Delay openly doing what everyone else was doing behind the scenes but while observing the letter of the law. This should be investigated and, if it is as it sounds, Thomas should have to report this as income AND pay a hefty fine as well.

Clearly this is a typical harassing maneuver by Common Cause, but at some point one has to draw the line and say "Okay, that's just a little TOO blatant!" I've no problem with justices giving speeches, serving on panels, and generally interacting with favored groups about pressing legal issues of the day, but these need to be open events covered by the media. I generally like the Federalist Society, but I do not believe these retreats are open to any recognized media that wish to cover them. That sounds like such a jaunt is either a gift, or a conflict in interest for any case to which the Federalist Society is a party.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Basic point of this post is demonstrate how confused this whole matter has become and to emphasize the true nature of the (sort of implied) allegation. I put the transcript of Arn pearson, of Common Cause, describing the complaint/allegation/suspicion below. I think he's more capable of articulating their concern(s) than the author of the article in the OP or any poster here.

Cliff are at bottom.

Note, if you're gonna quote this, please dear God, edit it down.
-------------------

Just to clear up some misc BS that helped motivate me to try to make the point better. (If you're not interested, skip down to transcript below.)

Actually the complaint was "If Justice Thomas received a four-day all-expenses-paid trip to Palm Springs in January 2008 just to give a speech at a dinner, the bulk of his expenses should have been reported as a gift." Fairly reasonable complaint.

No, the complaint/allegation is I said above. See the transcript below of Arn Pearson's (Common Cause) own words on the matter. (This is an example as to how confused this whole matter has become, how vague and murky these accusations are.)

So, yeah, there may be nothing to it beyond Thomas failing to properly report a gift, but when a leading group of conservatives boasts that two sitting Supreme Court Justices have participated in their brainstorming retreat questions should be asked.

Sounds like you're saying the brochure was from the Federalist Society. The Federalist society is a group of lawyers focused on Constitutional issues. Why the heck shouldn't they note that their meeting have Sup Court Justices at these meeting when advertising them to their lawyer members? Wouldn't that help attract these lawyer to attend? That's just normal advertising and nothing at all wrong with it.

But I don't believe Arn Pearson is talking about any F.S. brochure, see his remarks below, he's referring to a Koch bros "letter". (Another exmple of the confusion here.)


Very well said!


Sadly, I think it reflects poorly on many here that the desire for healthy, much needed scrutiny on our officials is nothing but sour grapes from those that they don't agree with. ANY possibility of conflict of interest within the nation's highest court should be scrutinized, period. It's a procedural issue really, not a partisan one, why go out of your way to make yourself look immature over it?

Why isn't St. Reagan's advice of "Trust, but verify" not applicable here?
I realize that Thomas is the Judicial branch's George W Bush, but shit, expecting a SC Justice to be able to read receipts and operate a calender are not unreasonable expectations.

Oh no wait, Chris Matthews was unimpressed, I take it all back.

Oh bullshit. No one but you is raising the general issue of scrutiny. This matter is well past that, and no one is criticising 'scrutiny', We're looking at a specific allegation by Arn Pearson (Common Cause), even if it's not well articulated.


--------------------

Transcript

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/smith-plays-hardball-with-common-cause

Here's the transcript (Might be easier to just click the link and listen to the interveiw.)

and it's a valid point to note that Chris Matthews, a Lefty/progressive on MSNBC, appears to have difficulty giving this allegation credence.

Chris Matthew's remarks are in blue font.

Arn Pearson/Common cause is in red font.

Brad Smith, a (former?) FEC official is in black font.

>>> welcome back to "hardball." president obama made clear in that speech he opposed the ruling in the cases known as citizens united. now the group xhoun cause is pushing for an investigation into whether supreme court justice thomas had a conflict of interest. orrin pierce is pushing for that investigation, former -- charm bradley smith also joins us. he says common cause is wrong. so we have both sides here. Arn, let me ask you this question. did justice thomas take money or gain any kind of perk or any kind of favor from a group that had an interest in a -- did he take anything from a koch brothers or anyone that had an interest in a supreme court decision?

>> well, no, justice thomas didn't take any money. that isn't the standard.

>> does did he get any benefits? that's usually what we look for in conflict of interest. did he tyke anything? did he get anything? any favors? any benefits at all that might have influenced a decision he voted on?

>> no, he didn't. hi wife had a financial interest that we have raised in this matter action and he had -- there's an appearance of conflict, which is actually the standard. in order to recuse a judge, you don't need a judge to receive a financial benefit.

>> then what's the appearance? i didn't know about this meeting out there. you're saying because he went to a meeting of the federalist society, and that's all over the place in this town. i didn't know they were a discredited organization or conservative legal society. you're saying to appear before the federalist society is a conflict of interest?

>> no, it's not appearing before the federalist society. we're raising questions about whether he attended a closed-door political strategy and fund-raising in the session by koch industries and paid his way is there by the federalist society.

>> i see. in other words, this was a pass-through to get him to go to a koch brothers event. is that what you're saying?

>> that's what it appears to be. we raised the question, because koch industries put out a letter touting their past events had featured justices thomas and scalia. when we raised those questions, the court put out an official statement saying they spoke as a federalist dinner sponsored by the kochs and justice thomas just dropped by. we went back and looked at his disclosures forms, and he had his accommodations and meals paid for in sunny palm springs for four days.

>> by the federalist society. i nigh you threw in the sunny part to slant it -- it's not funny.
>> no, it's not. he went to a federalist society meeting, and i just want to know, has any associate justice or supreme court or federal judge talked before a common cause event, to your knowledge?


>> no, i haven't, but you're misunderstanding.

>> no, i'm asking, has the supreme court justice ever spoken to a common cause event at all?
>> no. what other groups do you not want a supreme court justice to speak to?


>> this isn't about the federalest society. we're not challenging an event. what we're raising a question about is whether he attended a political strategy and fund-raising closed-door session with koch industries.

>> do you know if he did?

>> the judges appear.

>> did he? are you accusing him of doing that? are you accusing him of involving himself in conservative strategy that would affect a supreme court ruling? conservative strategy?

>> it appears that koch industries has said he intended. his disclosure forms show him in palm springs for four days on days that appear to be the same day.

>> okay. so it's a federal society meeting, they paid for his trip out there, he stayed a few extra days he shouldn't have. fine. that's your point. now, the question is, do you know if he participated in a strategy meeting yourself? would you swear to the fact that he was at a strategy meeting -- i don't think they should have anything to do with the ko counter. h brothers. are you saying he sat in a strategy meeting with him?

>> no.

>> what are you saying?

>> we're asking the question.

>> you're asking the question.

>> we don't have the information. we're asking the question. we asked the justice department to investigate.

>> let's hear from the other gentleman.

>> well, chris -- i think -- there are legitimate interests about -- justice breyer's does it, scalia does it, thomas does it, and some people say they should take the approach, but justice thomas has been on the supreme court for over 20 years. he's voted to strike down as unconstitutional every single campaign finance case that's come before him. nobody thinks his decision has anything to do with, you know, him having spoken to a group of people that immediate meet that talk about political issues.

>> your response, arn? you're saying it affects his decision?

>> i think if the -- if a liberate justice had attended a democracy aliancalliance, strategy and --

>> but you don't know --

>> the republicans would be up in arms.

>> but you don't know -- i just asked you, are you charging an associate justice with sitting in on a strategy session?

>> i am raising the question, based on the koch industries' own statement that he was featured at a strategy session, and by his disclosure forms that suggest that he was there, and asking the court to provide the american public with a clear explanation of whether he was there or not.

>> and he was at a corh brothers there, a federalist society event or koch brothers event.

>> exactly.

>> i'm asking the question. was he at a federalist society event, which he clearly put on his form, four days paid for, he's not denying it, he said he was there, he did that. you're saying it was something different he was a koch brothers event?

>> we think there's a strong likelihood that it was, yeah. there's no record of a federalist society event, so --

>> okay. mr. smith?

>> let me take this further, of course, to give the nature of the complaint. they have several counts. one of alleged counts, so to speak is that clarence thomas is on the supreme court. engine ip ginny tom was worked for, at on the board runs a man who runs a consulting business. one of his clients at times has been the koch brothers. the koch brothers used the constitutional liberties that the court affirmed. and the koch brothers then used that liberty in the last campaign. from that common cause wants you to hold that justice clarence thomas i just don't think -- it's just a partisan effort to sort of discredit the court, and it's the kind of thing that historically liberalists have sort of championed the independence of the court. we shouldn't let conservatives or others maid broadsided attacks, and i think common caution is engaging in that tactic, not to excuse what conserve 'tises may have done in the past. there's no question of bias here and this complaint is just to gain attention and try to discredit the court.

Cliffs:

1. The (implied) allegation is that Thomas was NOT at a Federalist Society meeting, but a Koch bros. meeting.

2. And, moreover, the problem is that meeting was about strategising and fundraising behind closed doors with the Koch bros.

3. No one has any complaints about Thomas or others attending a F.S. meeting.

4. No allegations about payment or bribes etc.

5. Upon questioning by Matthews, Arn Pearson backs off from making any allegation and say he's just "raising the question".

-------------------

I have no idea if Thomas was at a secret meeting with the Koch bros. If he were there, and I must assume they are alleging it was for legal strategy Thomas may suggest they employ in the case, and fund raising ideas/strategy thomas might advise them on, he should be impeached and disbarred.

Now, this is so vastly different than the line of discussion this thread had going on I felt compelled to go to all this bother.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Shallok

Member
Jul 12, 2005
38
0
0
No, the complaint/allegation is I said above. See the transcript below of Arn Pearson's (Common Cause) own words on the matter. (This is an example as to how confused this whole matter has become, how vague and murky these accusations are.)

Sorry, I should have made it clear before, but I was quoting directly from the letter that Common Cause sent to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773617&ct=9126701

I would consider the actual letter sent to be the definitive source for the complaint. Not what was said on tv. So, the complaint is not what you said above.

Sounds like you're saying the brochure was from the Federalist Society. The Federalist society is a group of lawyers focused on Constitutional issues. Why the heck shouldn't they note that their meeting have Sup Court Justices at these meeting when advertising them to their lawyer members? Wouldn't that help attract these lawyer to attend? That's just normal advertising and nothing at all wrong with it.

The brochure was in response to you saying:
Matthews repeatedly pressed Pearson for his evidence. Pearson eventually admitted he has none, but said something in a Koch bros brochure prompted him to raise the issue.

So, no its not a federalist society brochure. Its a brochure related to the koch brothers and their annual strategy retreats. You're too hung up on Matthews being an idiot aand going down the path of the Federalist Society.

I'm assuming that the font-size changes and underlining are from you. Just for your own edification, it doesn't matter if Justice Thomas personally took money from a group. The other issue with Justice Thomas right now is his wife's income and his failure to properly report it.

So, to summarize:

1. There is no issue with Justice Thomas speaking at a Federalist Society dinner. No one has an issue with it.

2. There is an issue with receiving 4 days of comped lodging/meals in Palm Springs if he was only speaking at a dinner. Namely that the bulk of expense should have been reported as a gift. Nowhere in the complaint does it allege a bribe.

3. There is uncertainty that the Federalist Society even had an event at that time.

4. The Koch brothers did have their planning/strategizing meeting at that time.

5. The Koch brothers letter for this year boasted that in the past their event has been attended by Justice Thomas. The event is intended to formulate political strategy.

6. Based on the above information, it is reasonable to question as to whether or not a sitting Supreme Court Justice is actively participating in the strategy meetings of a purely political group.

One more item real quick, nowhere is there an allegation actually made, only that uncertainty exists, and largely due to the Koch brothers letter, the Federalist Society not having a record of a meeting and Justice Thomas's difficulty in properly disclosing financial information.

I hope this helps.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Sorry, I should have made it clear before, but I was quoting directly from the letter that Common Cause sent to the Clerk of the Supreme Court. http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773617&ct=9126701

I would consider the actual letter sent to be the definitive source for the complaint. Not what was said on tv. So, the complaint is not what you said above.

I see where you're coming from, but after reading the letter I still think the complaint is as Arn Pearsion has said. I should think he would know. The matter of 4 day's worth of reimbursement is brought up because it appears to contradict the statement that Thomas was there for a dinner speech and to "drop by" a Koch bros session.

If not for that "4 days" statement, I don't think there would be any questions. This brings your "trap" remarks in post #38 into sharper focus.


You're too hung up on Matthews being an idiot aand going down the path of the Federalist Society.

The F.S. "path" is not Matthews doing. Before that segment appeared I googled this complaint and saw several Left-type sites that were on this path. And we have posters here calling them a Koch bros "front". From checking, the F.S. appears legit, and I thought Matthews seeming agreement in that assessment was of note.


I'm assuming that the font-size changes and underlining are from you.

Yes

Just for your own edification, it doesn't matter if Justice Thomas personally took money from a group.

I'm aware of that and have noted it in this thread. yet we have others here who believe differently.

The other issue with Justice Thomas right now is his wife's income and his failure to properly report it.

We have another thread on that. As I pointed out there, the form doesn't require her income to be reported, merely the name of her employer.

And that thread is even more confused than this; many posted about it being omitted form his tax return etc.

1. There is no issue with Justice Thomas speaking at a Federalist Society dinner. No one has an issue with it.

Agreed

2. There is an issue with receiving 4 days of comped lodging/meals in Palm Springs if he was only speaking at a dinner. Namely that the bulk of expense should have been reported as a gift. Nowhere in the complaint does it allege a bribe.

I didn't say that Common Cause alleged it was a 'bribe", that was directed at posters here who have. (Again, trying to clarify in this thread what the actual complaint is)

Fern
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Fern,

Of the latter stays that you've had experience with, how many have you actually asked for a breakdown of costs?

There is a quick and easy way of getting a breakdown of costs, including discounted rates, you ask. The front desk only knows "retail rates" when they are quoting, once a guest is already checking out, getting a tally is very easy to do.

It is none of your business, you do not need to know what somebody else paid for to accommodate you....
sounds to me like you have no clue what you are attempting to rant about!!
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
It is none of your business, you do not need to know what somebody else paid for to accommodate you....
sounds to me like you have no clue what you are attempting to rant about!!

I think that it is you that is unsure of what you are attempting to rant about. I, and every other American citizen (including the uniformed like yourself) have every right to know what a SC judge pays for (or in this case, didn't pay for) to speak at a meeting that could possibly impact public policies or override laws of the land.

In fact, he's required to report it without me or anyone else even asking. That is the crux of the thread and the issue that Common Cause is raising which you failed to grasp.

Fern,

Thanks for the transcript. Life is always better when getting a first hand clarification of what the complaint is all about.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |