...forgot all about that one.
Yep; this is 2 conservative justices with "odd paper trails".
Clarence Thomas
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
...forgot all about that one.
Yep; this is 2 conservative justices with "odd paper trails".
I guess the next logical step is finding kiddie porn in Alito's closet.
Corruption is SO very one sided in Washington, no matter what Republican voters try to tell us to make themselves feel better. The court has lost it's moral compass, and it's, again, because of wealthy Republicans.
I think it is most of them. This stuff with Pelosi's husband isn't just coincidence. Even other Democrats were calling for changes. She had no clue about working class people.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s net worth has ballooned since the 2008 financial crisis — with the help of her husband’s lucrative stock trades, a report said.
Pelosi — who recently backed a ban on trading for lawmakers and senior government officials — has seen her assets increase by a hefty $140 million, according to the Washington Free Beacon.
The speaker, one of the richest members of Congress, has vehemently denied sharing any information with her spouse — a venture capitalist.
However, many have questioned trades made by Paul Pelosi that happened to coincide with major congressional decisions.
In June, he exercised call options to purchase up to $5 million in the graphics card manufacturer Nvidia just weeks before the House considered a bill to provide more than $50 billion in subsidies to domestic semiconductor manufacturers, the Beacon said. He also bought up Tesla stock in March as his wife pushed for electric vehicle subsidies.
Pelosi’s 2021 net worth is estimated at $171.4 million, according to numbers reported in her financial disclosure statement, the Free Beacon reported.
Her exact value is unknown as members of Congress are not required to report exact dollar amounts and instead report a range of values.
The speaker was recently slammed by a Democratic colleague for failing to get the bill that would ban lawmakers from trading stock while in office pushed through Congress.
“This moment marks a failure of House leadership — and it’s yet another example of why I believe that the Democratic Party needs new leaders in the halls of Capitol Hill, as I have long made known,” the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) said.
Pelosi has faced mounting bipartisan pressure to move the legislation forward — with critics pointing to her husband’s stock trades as a potential conflict of interest.
I wouldn't make that broad claim; there are shady/self-serving politicians of every ilk.
But the past decade or so, Democrats have been more willing to hold their own accountable for corruption, because more of them will stand on that principle.
Republicans will look the other way, if it will impact their ability to retain power.
Here's the problem with this item. Biden announced in Feb '21 - four months previously - that he was going to seek tens of billions of dollars to create a chip-manufacturing footprint in the US. The two separate bills that were eventually merged to create the Chips and Science Act originated during the Trump years. It takes zero "insider" knowledge to imagine that's going to create some investment avenues. It also doesn't take a genius to recognize that, with Dems holding the House and the Senate at the time, this legislation in whatever form it took, would sail through.
And? Was Pelosi pushing this in secret and only disclosed this to her husband? Is a Democratic leader pushing for subsidies for green tech something unheard of? Did the House take action on these subsidies? Did they pass? Bottom line - what could Pelosi have told her husband that wasn't common knowledge? If there's something there - investigate it and prosecute. But what's being reported here is a literal non-story.
It appears that the WSJ is attempting some whataboutism and engaing in sloppy reporting in an article accusing another news outlet of "sloppy reporting errors".
I hear you but again, lets go back 50 years and look at arrests and indictments in presidential administrations. It's EXTREMELY one sided. It's constant Republican corruption now. You're right, the Republicans refuse to hold each other accountable. No damn way George Santos, for one, should be making decisions for the rest of us. It's incredible.
I agree, over the past decades. Pre-1980s, you could flip this IMO
- Sep 13, 2002
- 95,814
- 196,061
- 113
Pepsi is our board paste eater.
You really want to play this game, idiot?
I actually kind of have sympathy for him.
Unlike the Northerns, DooBis and Abbys of the board, he comes across as just very simple minded and duped, not actually stupid, angry and assholish.
This would appear to be yet ANOTHER glaring conflict of interest...
Intentionally hiding the relationship, too.
Intentionally hiding the relationship, too.
New article says Crow paid the $6k per month private school tuition for a nephew Justice Thomas was raising.
Not impeachable, in my opinion, if Harlan Crow can provide a list of other black friends he has included on his lavish vacations around the world with him on his private jet, and paid for their kids/nephew’s tuition to private schools.
I’m feeling though, like Clarence might be his only black buddy. Could be wrong, but more of a gut feeling.
Mr. Crow needs to testify before a Congressional committee and tell America all about his relationship with Thomas.
It would be delicious if Crow/Thomas tried to claim privilege if Crow were subpoenaed. 🤞
Maybe not impeachable, but he should not be on the court any longer.
He has zero integrity now.
When questioned before the Senate, Crow should be told to bring the receipts for high dollar private schools he paid out to all the other disadvantaged kids he helped out.
Not saying Democrats have clean hands but if cons weren't hypocrites they'd have NO principles...
Seems like we've moved well past the "ethics" part here, and into "unreported income" and "bribery"
I’d say this isn’t quite accurate. @abby97 , @HawkeyeHitman , @Pete MaIIoy are all enthusiastically defending the bribery.
Each day a new story on more "ethics" violations comes out. If they have found this so easily over the past week or two what will they find in the weeks ahead as they keep digging? This looked bad before, but looks terrible the longer it goes on. Even Cons have to be beside themselves about this behind closed doors.
Would love to be a fly on the wall at the SC. Do they care about this? Are they talking about it at all?
Tho I think he’s wrong in his approach, roberts has made clear that cares a great deal about how his legacy will be viewed, and does care about the SC and it’s place in history.
I'm sure the Susan Collins approach here will reap big dividends for both his Court's legitimacy, and his own legacy...
Oh I’m not a fan at all - I do think he at least has integrity as a conservative jurist even tho I disagree with him a lot. But he has seemingly tried countless times since Trump was elected to preserve the Court as a politically neutral body; usually not successfully. He has a chance here to do so imo.
Being "apolitical" means holding your own accountable.
And preventing them from using nonsensical logic to overturn nationwide abortion rights on shadow-dockets. He has shown no willingness to do any of this.
True, but he has a chance to do the former here. The latter he no longer has the ability to stop thanks to the 6-3 majority.
Let's remember that Democrats pushed Al Franken out of the Senate based on photos of "fake boob grabbing".
Where do these current ethics lapses stand, relative to that?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 95,814
- 196,061
- 113
