1138

Clarence Thomas’ Latest Pay-to-Play Scandal Finally Connects All the Dots (slate.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

136 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 226 points 10 months ago

So before, we could only assume from the preponderance of evidence that Thomas is corrupt as shit. Now we know it for a fact. And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices. They also own most of congress.

End legalized bribery now.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 79 points 10 months ago

Let's end the Koch family fortune while we are at it.

[-] xenoclast@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Pretty sure you'd have to end the Koch family to do that. I wouldn't stop you.

[-] spider@lemmy.nz 18 points 10 months ago

And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices. They also own most of congress.

See: George Carlin - The Big Club (NSFW)

[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices.

It's just the Koch brother now. Happily one of the wretched fucks died a few years ago.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

If I recall right there's 3 brothers. Two were right wing scumbags, but I think the third wanted absolutely nothing to do with any of it

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

It's actually not legal to bribe a government official and charging the Kochs and others would be an excellent start (since going after a SC Justice is apparently difficult)

[-] DragonAce@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's actually not legal to bribe a government official

Well of course not, thats why they're not called "bribes", they're called "campaign donations".

[-] stringere@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

Are they campaign donations for the next time Thomas has to run for his lifetime appointed office?

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Problem is the people who are taking the bribery also get to determine the legality of it. SCOTUS could say that bribing a justice is totally legal and the only recourse would be a new amendment. Even then, I'm not sure what would stop them from ignoring the new amendment in their rulings.

The problem with the court granting itself judicial review was that it didn't come with checks and balances like the rest of the government functions.

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Have you got a source for that? Because that is absolutely not true.

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

the link you shared further up the thread was the first place I heard it

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

Did I misunderstand?

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

No, my bad and I was wrong. I misunderstood you. You're right.

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023

1138 points (99.1% liked)

politics

18586 readers

4927 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News