A ProPublica story about the justice's flights, yacht trips, and resort vacations — and his ridiculous response that they're just "personal hospitality from close personal friends."
In addition to Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern's piece that I link to in my piece, I'd recommend folks — particularly those upset that Justice Thomas is facing scrutiny here — also check out Stern's thread on Twitter from this morning: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1644714997560360960
I find it amazing that Clarence "parse every word and comma of the Constitution" Thomas relied on what people told him about the rules instead of simply reading the damn rules himself.
Which specific rule do you think he violated, and what do you think was the purpose of gifts? Based on some experience with Federal ethics and financial disclosure rules, which are somewhat convoluted and recognize personal relationships as a separate matter from prohibited and restricted gifts, I think Pro Publica received bad info from their supposed expert ethics advisor, but I am open to reconsider application of specific rules.
What he did was expand "personal" beyond its meaning (along with the reporting of payment of travel expenses, which has never been unclear. I don't believe that getting those free is even remotely considered a "personal" matter.) The purpose of the gifts is irrelevant to the violation, since the failure is not in accepting them but in not reporting them. It's relevant to one's opinion of what a justice who can decide issues for all of us should be.
As I understand it, "personal" visits referred to visits to friends' homes. The Adirondack Resort was not Crowe's home--that is apparently in Texas. And the rules except from "personal" visits to those places owned by entities, which I also believe applies to the Adirondack Resort, though reporting could be wrong about that. I do doubt that Crowe holds that place in his personal name, if only for tax reasons. But real estate records should easily solve the question.
This is not to say that this is an impeachable offense. Far as I can tell shooting someone on 5th Avenue would not be considered impeachable by the GOP because it isn't a "high" crime. There SHOULD be consequences. The refusal to recuse from cases involving his wife is a direct violation of the law, not ethical guidelines, so that would have a better shot. (I looked up this law back when the recusal issue came up. I can't remember the cite, but it was the one that actually INCLUDES the word "justices" in it. Its problem was that it doesn't specifically state a penalty.)
Perhaps the only punishment will turn out to be actually having to stay in a camper in a Walmart parking lot for his next vacation. Hypocrisy is JUST what I want to see in a justice of the supremes. A better result could be just taxing the value of the clear-cut travel violations. Even with his salary that would take some time to pay off. And of course, under IRS rules I suspect failing to report such as income could be considered tax evasion. Would the GOP consider tax fraud as impeachable?
As I understand it, since I haven't read the actual ethical rules, the recent "clarifications" were not ADDITIONS to those rules, but just saying them very.slowly.so.the.wilfully.ignorant can't duck them anymore.
"Convoluted" doesn't mean "not understandable." Ask any student taking Tax in law school. Not to mention the Rule Against Perpetuities.
Apr 8, 2023·edited Apr 8, 2023Liked by Chris Geidner
Bingo and thank you. I knew I had seen it. It is quite a bit more comprehensive than I remembered--probably because during the recusal arguments the disclosure bit didn't come up.
Thanks to Chris Geidner for focusing on actual guidance. For content of reports there is a clear exception for gifts "received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported" 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A)[corrected as my first cite was erroneous]. This goes to purpose of rules, which are not to limit or disclose gifts unrelated to official business relationships.
While agency regulations implementing code do not apply here, for every one I've worked with in the past the purpose and character of relationships has very much mattered both for gift limits and reporting obligations. I appreciate the admission that you haven't actually read the rules, but as I mention below there is a clear exception--gifts "received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported" 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A)[corrected as my first cite was erroneous].
the disclosure isn't a law per se--should be, probably--just an ethical violation. I'm not suggesting that anyone IS arguing violations of any laws about this apparent lapse. Not even me. I'm just wondering what kind of penalties COULD take place. The law affecting recusal is out there but as I said, it has no teeth and isn't worth looking up. The tax would be in the nature of imputed income. But I'm not suggesting that anyone pursue that.
What I AM trying to highlight is that apparently Supreme Court Justices can violate their own ethical standards with impunity and still get to have the name Justice.
It would help clarify that balance if there was a law clarifying what a "high crime and misdemeanor" is for impeachment purposes. Right now, other than treason and bribery, any Senator can choose to decide that any crime, however well proven, is "not impeachable." And there is no recourse.
Have you forgotten that the 0bamas frequently vacationed at the homes of billionaires? Where was your outrage then? Were their hosts REAL friends and Thomas's NOT real friends? Regarding rules for the Federal Judiciary made by Congress, the Federal Judiciary has been founded by Congress, the Supreme Court was founded by the Constitution.
Having worked on Federal ethics rules, this is absolutely correct. Gift rules recognize that a personal relationship purpose is distinct from questions of prohibited sources and conflicts of interest. The judicial context is different, but I have not seen any reasonable claim that he didn't recuse when handling cases related to this family--no such cases have been presented. Federal employees have private lives, and given Thomas's extensive written record it is a bit silly to think that Thomas was swayed to change his philosophy based on this relationship.
Well ethics rules also limit gifts in many cases, but this exception is for the contents of disclosures related to gifts "received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported" 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A)[corrected as my first cite was erroneous]. This goes to purpose of rules, which are not to limit or disclose gifts unrelated to official business relationships.
Did you read in that very Code what "personal" gifts need not be reported? "Food, lodging, or entertainment." Nary a word about travel expense.
This is quite apart from the question of when something is "personal."
BTW the section you cite is for gifts to spouses or dependents. The rule applying to the individual is section 5 U.S. Code § 13104 (A) (2) A: "except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported," If that cigar was worth more than $100 it too should have been reported.
Actually, 13104 (E) doesn't have subparts. What you tried to cite is actually § 13104 A (e)(1)(c).
In the case of any gifts received by a spouse or dependent child which are not received totally independent of the relationship of the spouse or dependent child to the reporting individual, the identity of the source and a brief description of gifts of transportation, lodging, food, or entertainment and a brief description and the value of other gifts.
Thus, if Ginni's took trips with Clarence, all HER lodging, food and entertainment and transportation needed to be reported. If the total was over a million, all he had to report was that the total income, etc was over a million and didn't need to be itemized. I have no idea what he reported about Ginni--given all her other activities, that particular blanket revelation might indeed have been made.
You are correct, I rushed and was clearly wrong on citation, and was looking at 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A), and was not actually looking at dependents for the core of this exchange, though that can be an issue for other cases, such as those involving government contractors.
As I said at the outset, parsing a statute can be hard. I spent a career doing a lot of it. I would like to think that someone as presumably qualified as a Supreme Court Justice could figure it out.
It's incredible how brazen this appears to be, even from a cursory glance over the facts.
It blows my mind how out in the open this kind of corruption can be, how blatantly obvious it is, and how often it's simply ignored!
And there's no doubt that it is corruption. I certainly hope that you don't get to the Supreme Court without having the ability to read a list of rules and ethics standards...although having said that, looking at recent Supreme Court decisions, perhaps that's just me being naïve.
So what is the rule Thomas supposedly broke? At worst, he failed to make a disclosure that he should have. No case is made here that he participated in adjudicating a case where he had a conflict of interest, or that he failed to disclose information that would have revealed a conflict. This looks like petty sniping.
Can’t wait on this one: Rumor that Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow will be starring in the next season of White Lotus, with goddess Virginia ‘Ginny’ Thomas taking over Jennifer Coolidge’s role 😂
Apparently friendship has some bearing on the law here, according to Thomas, it does not. And why do you suppose they became friends beyond quid pro quo.
Thomas Is happy to tell us that we should reassess gay marriage and contraception in light of Dobbs,, but performs no legal analysis on his own situation.
Leonard Leo on the lavish trips as well. Dear friends.
In addition to Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern's piece that I link to in my piece, I'd recommend folks — particularly those upset that Justice Thomas is facing scrutiny here — also check out Stern's thread on Twitter from this morning: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1644714997560360960
Partisan smears are unethical.
I find it amazing that Clarence "parse every word and comma of the Constitution" Thomas relied on what people told him about the rules instead of simply reading the damn rules himself.
Which specific rule do you think he violated, and what do you think was the purpose of gifts? Based on some experience with Federal ethics and financial disclosure rules, which are somewhat convoluted and recognize personal relationships as a separate matter from prohibited and restricted gifts, I think Pro Publica received bad info from their supposed expert ethics advisor, but I am open to reconsider application of specific rules.
What he did was expand "personal" beyond its meaning (along with the reporting of payment of travel expenses, which has never been unclear. I don't believe that getting those free is even remotely considered a "personal" matter.) The purpose of the gifts is irrelevant to the violation, since the failure is not in accepting them but in not reporting them. It's relevant to one's opinion of what a justice who can decide issues for all of us should be.
As I understand it, "personal" visits referred to visits to friends' homes. The Adirondack Resort was not Crowe's home--that is apparently in Texas. And the rules except from "personal" visits to those places owned by entities, which I also believe applies to the Adirondack Resort, though reporting could be wrong about that. I do doubt that Crowe holds that place in his personal name, if only for tax reasons. But real estate records should easily solve the question.
This is not to say that this is an impeachable offense. Far as I can tell shooting someone on 5th Avenue would not be considered impeachable by the GOP because it isn't a "high" crime. There SHOULD be consequences. The refusal to recuse from cases involving his wife is a direct violation of the law, not ethical guidelines, so that would have a better shot. (I looked up this law back when the recusal issue came up. I can't remember the cite, but it was the one that actually INCLUDES the word "justices" in it. Its problem was that it doesn't specifically state a penalty.)
Perhaps the only punishment will turn out to be actually having to stay in a camper in a Walmart parking lot for his next vacation. Hypocrisy is JUST what I want to see in a justice of the supremes. A better result could be just taxing the value of the clear-cut travel violations. Even with his salary that would take some time to pay off. And of course, under IRS rules I suspect failing to report such as income could be considered tax evasion. Would the GOP consider tax fraud as impeachable?
As I understand it, since I haven't read the actual ethical rules, the recent "clarifications" were not ADDITIONS to those rules, but just saying them very.slowly.so.the.wilfully.ignorant can't duck them anymore.
"Convoluted" doesn't mean "not understandable." Ask any student taking Tax in law school. Not to mention the Rule Against Perpetuities.
It ... is a law. I don’t know what you all are going on about, but it absolutely is a law. Here’s the financial disclosure law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-IV/chapter-131/subchapter-I
Bingo and thank you. I knew I had seen it. It is quite a bit more comprehensive than I remembered--probably because during the recusal arguments the disclosure bit didn't come up.
Thanks to Chris Geidner for focusing on actual guidance. For content of reports there is a clear exception for gifts "received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported" 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A)[corrected as my first cite was erroneous]. This goes to purpose of rules, which are not to limit or disclose gifts unrelated to official business relationships.
It's been bugging me. The one I remembered re: recusal is 28 U.S. Code § 455
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
While agency regulations implementing code do not apply here, for every one I've worked with in the past the purpose and character of relationships has very much mattered both for gift limits and reporting obligations. I appreciate the admission that you haven't actually read the rules, but as I mention below there is a clear exception--gifts "received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported" 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A)[corrected as my first cite was erroneous].
the disclosure isn't a law per se--should be, probably--just an ethical violation. I'm not suggesting that anyone IS arguing violations of any laws about this apparent lapse. Not even me. I'm just wondering what kind of penalties COULD take place. The law affecting recusal is out there but as I said, it has no teeth and isn't worth looking up. The tax would be in the nature of imputed income. But I'm not suggesting that anyone pursue that.
What I AM trying to highlight is that apparently Supreme Court Justices can violate their own ethical standards with impunity and still get to have the name Justice.
It would help clarify that balance if there was a law clarifying what a "high crime and misdemeanor" is for impeachment purposes. Right now, other than treason and bribery, any Senator can choose to decide that any crime, however well proven, is "not impeachable." And there is no recourse.
Justice Thomas has no shame, but we knew that already............
Have you forgotten that the 0bamas frequently vacationed at the homes of billionaires? Where was your outrage then? Were their hosts REAL friends and Thomas's NOT real friends? Regarding rules for the Federal Judiciary made by Congress, the Federal Judiciary has been founded by Congress, the Supreme Court was founded by the Constitution.
What rules, precisely, did Thomas break? Despite your parsing, there is no rule or law that has been violated.
Having worked on Federal ethics rules, this is absolutely correct. Gift rules recognize that a personal relationship purpose is distinct from questions of prohibited sources and conflicts of interest. The judicial context is different, but I have not seen any reasonable claim that he didn't recuse when handling cases related to this family--no such cases have been presented. Federal employees have private lives, and given Thomas's extensive written record it is a bit silly to think that Thomas was swayed to change his philosophy based on this relationship.
you keep mixing up GETTING gifts with REPORTING them. Sort of like violations of campaign funds. But with no teeth.
Well ethics rules also limit gifts in many cases, but this exception is for the contents of disclosures related to gifts "received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported" 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A)[corrected as my first cite was erroneous]. This goes to purpose of rules, which are not to limit or disclose gifts unrelated to official business relationships.
Did you read in that very Code what "personal" gifts need not be reported? "Food, lodging, or entertainment." Nary a word about travel expense.
This is quite apart from the question of when something is "personal."
BTW the section you cite is for gifts to spouses or dependents. The rule applying to the individual is section 5 U.S. Code § 13104 (A) (2) A: "except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported," If that cigar was worth more than $100 it too should have been reported.
Actually, 13104 (E) doesn't have subparts. What you tried to cite is actually § 13104 A (e)(1)(c).
In the case of any gifts received by a spouse or dependent child which are not received totally independent of the relationship of the spouse or dependent child to the reporting individual, the identity of the source and a brief description of gifts of transportation, lodging, food, or entertainment and a brief description and the value of other gifts.
Thus, if Ginni's took trips with Clarence, all HER lodging, food and entertainment and transportation needed to be reported. If the total was over a million, all he had to report was that the total income, etc was over a million and didn't need to be itemized. I have no idea what he reported about Ginni--given all her other activities, that particular blanket revelation might indeed have been made.
You are correct, I rushed and was clearly wrong on citation, and was looking at 5 U.S. Code §13104(a)(2)(A), and was not actually looking at dependents for the core of this exchange, though that can be an issue for other cases, such as those involving government contractors.
As I said at the outset, parsing a statute can be hard. I spent a career doing a lot of it. I would like to think that someone as presumably qualified as a Supreme Court Justice could figure it out.
Someone who would rather have money and gifts rather than respect or ethics.
It's incredible how brazen this appears to be, even from a cursory glance over the facts.
It blows my mind how out in the open this kind of corruption can be, how blatantly obvious it is, and how often it's simply ignored!
And there's no doubt that it is corruption. I certainly hope that you don't get to the Supreme Court without having the ability to read a list of rules and ethics standards...although having said that, looking at recent Supreme Court decisions, perhaps that's just me being naïve.
So what is the rule Thomas supposedly broke? At worst, he failed to make a disclosure that he should have. No case is made here that he participated in adjudicating a case where he had a conflict of interest, or that he failed to disclose information that would have revealed a conflict. This looks like petty sniping.
Can’t wait on this one: Rumor that Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow will be starring in the next season of White Lotus, with goddess Virginia ‘Ginny’ Thomas taking over Jennifer Coolidge’s role 😂
Called for his resignation a year ago: https://nickcoccoma.substack.com/p/clarence-thomas-resign
Apparently friendship has some bearing on the law here, according to Thomas, it does not. And why do you suppose they became friends beyond quid pro quo.
Thomas Is happy to tell us that we should reassess gay marriage and contraception in light of Dobbs,, but performs no legal analysis on his own situation.
Leonard Leo on the lavish trips as well. Dear friends.
He’s gonna resign by the time this is over.
He cannot dig his way out of this.
The Biden Administration must be corrupt not to prosecute these crimes. Right, Chris? LOL
Well said. I guess Pompeia would have something to say…
They hate Clarence Thomas because he's a conservative justice. That's the ONLY reason.