Clarence Thomas’ Latest Pay-to-Play Scandal Finally Connects All the Dots
slate.com
ProPublica released a new report on Friday detailing Justice Clarence Thomas’ close relationship with the Koch brothers with previously undisclosed and extraordinarily damning new details.
According to ProPublica, the justice developed a friendship with the Kochs as they were funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into right-wing causes, many of which ended up before the Supreme Court. The brothers then used Thomas to raise money for their sprawling network, inviting him to speak at “donor events” that brought in millions of dollars.
He disclosed none of these activities on his annual disclosure forms, an obvious violation of federal ethics law.
You are viewing a single comment
Oh shit, do you have evidence of other justices engaging in a similar level of corruption?? I'm very interested to see any articles or evidence you have to that effect.
Otherwise engage with the topic at hand, which is Thomas and the Koch brothers.
Well, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito have some stank on them, but one is dead, and the other two were smart enough to cover their tracks better. Kavanaugh had hundreds of thousands of dollars in gambling debt magically disappear before he was seated. I wonder if "whoever" paid that off wants something in return...
None of those rise to the rank of "wHy aReN't wE tAlKiNg aBoUt ThEm?? though. The crimes or corruption of a dead guy, and Kavanaugh whose corruption was widely discussed before and during and after his confirmation, don't warrant changing the topic away from crimes and corruption freshly unearthed about Thomas.
Dude was being distracting on purpose.
What are you talking about? Who is changing the topic? I'm saying ALL of the conservative Justices are as corrupt as Thomas. The Heritage Foundation, which is heavily connected to Koch, pushed Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. They're ALL bought and paid for.
This is the comment I had a problem with, not yours. Thomas isn't being "targeted" , he's having huge scandals break. He isn't being targeted alone the scandals of his peers have broken years ago (the ones that have broken thus far anyway, I'm sure there's more we don't know about yet). And those scandals were widely discussed at the time they broke.
Why would there be current articles about the other justices when we don't have current scandals for them? That's why I say the dude (not you, you're good) was trying to change the topic.
You are wrong, and you're doubling down because you know you're wrong. Bad habit.
I'm wrong in thinking that vaguely asking for articles about other justices instead of engaging with the current discussion of a specific justice whose scandal just broke is distracting? How?
And why are you and I fighting about this? You're not even the guy I called out for being distracting. I don't have beef with you.
And btw, I'm doubling down because I know that I'm right. When I know I'm wrong I just admit it, like an adult.