ProPublica has another scoop involving Justice Clarence Thomas and his friend Texas billionaire Harlan Crow.
Harlan Crow is a really good friend to Supreme Court Justice Thomas. Not only did he give Justice Thomas and his wife fabulous vacations over the past two decades (which the Justice never reported on financial disclosure forms), but the very generous Mr. Crow bought Justice Thomas’s family home in Georgia, with his mother still living in it. He also bought two vacant lots from Justice Thomas on the same street. The billionaire made some repairs on the home. He sold the two lots. It’s not clear whether Mama Thomas continues to live in the home purchased by the kindly billionaire.
Justice Thomas did not report that sale, as he did not report the lavish vacations that were gifts from Crow.
A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica.
Justice Thomas broke the law.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Poor little Clarence didn’t get good advice from grownups in the court
Thomas said in a statement that he asked around when he first joined the court and was told that “personal hospitality from close personal friends”—even eye-popping levels of “hospitality,” from “friends” who have spent their lives influencing politics and policy—was totally permissible and that he definitely didn’t need to officially report it.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-statement
Why should Thomas report all his trips on planes, trains, yachts and automobiles?
Do you report it every time you get on a bus?
Time to start disbarment procedures against Thomas. Should have happened years ago.
Anita Hill tried to warn us.
If only Angela Wright had been allowed to corroborate her….
dienne77,
Biden voted NOT to confirm Justice Thomas. Biden voted NO.
Biden believed Anita Hill, as did most Democrats. There were witnesses who corroborated Hill’s testimony called.
Angela Wright had a DIFFERENT story of being sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas that was read into the record because Biden’s committee welcomed her story as evidence of a pattern by Thomas.
Just because you didn’t believe Anita Hill and you didn’t believe any of the people who corroborated Anita Hill and you also think no one should have believed the sworn testimony of Angela Wright because you wanted Republicans to publicly humiliate Wright does not mean that any reasonable person would agree with you that Republicans were correct in confirming Clarence Thomas.
Biden believed Anita Hill. He believed Angela Wright and her testimony was part of the record. Biden believed all the people who corroborated that Anita Hill had told them of Thomas’ harassment at the time.
If you didn’t believe Anita Hill, own it. If you didn’t believe Angela Wright’s sworn testimony, own it.
Why would you think that the conservative male Senators who voted FOR Clarence Thomas would have changed their strong support of Clarence Thomas because they got a chance to call another woman a liar to her face? They all had Angela Wright’s sworn testimony and they chose not to believe it.
Biden’s committee did a quite extensive investigation of Thomas, which is why they had Angela Wright’s testimony placed into the record. If you or other Republicans dismissed Wright’s testimony because the Republicans didn’t have a chance to publicly humiliate her, that’s on you.
But don’t offer up a laughable theory that Republicans who called Anita Hill a liar and who didn’t believe Angela Wright’s sworn testimony would have believed Angela Wright if they had a chance to publicly humiliate her.
Susan Collins voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and while it sickens me that the Republican controlled committee did a shoddy investigation, it was absolutely clear that nothing was going to change Susan Collins’ faith in Kavanaugh.
Why do you always say that anyone with a long history of telling the truth who accuses a Republican of wrongdoing needs massive corroboration to be believed. But anyone who accuses a Democrat must be believed even if they have a long history of lying and grifting? Your double standard is mysterious.
Why does a woman accusing a Republican always have to have corroboration to be believed? Biden believed Anita Hill which is why he voted not to confirm Thomas.
Yeah. Don’t hold your breath.
You are correct but at least I can dream that the laws written for all citizens of this country should apply to everyone including Thomas and his wife.
What a dream that is!!!
A 21-year-old kid who mishandles classified information and shows off to his friends on a gamer platform by sharing it is IMMEDIATELY arrested (as he should be). But Trump does the same with well over a hundred pieces of the most highly classified/sensitive documents and . . .
months and months and months later, nothing.
He plays golf, crashes wedding parties, has Repugnican stooges come kiss his ring, scarfs down cheeseburgers, “truths” out lies, attends Trump love fest rallies, plays more golf.
Teflon Don.
Ever since Marbury Vs Madison, laws have not applied to the Supreme Court majority because they can rule any law unConstitutional.
It’s a feature, not a bug.
Oh pleeeze. The law is for little people.
Isn’t that what it says on the west pediment of the Extreme Court?
“The law applies to little people.”
Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Brett K are all short (5’9″,,).
The law definitely doesn’t apply to them.
“Just us uber alles” is the motto of the supremes
Slight correction: Enforcement of the law is for little people. Big distinction! It’s not what legal or illegal that counts. It’s how and who interprets and enforces them.
Yes. The law is FOR the purpose of Big people herding Little people.
I always compared the lavish gifts that Crow bestowed on his BFF Clarence Thomas with the Harvard U. fencing coach getting lavish gifts from the parent of one fencing team member whose 2nd kid was a less accomplished fencer and applying to Harvard while the dad was so generous with the coach. But it’s funny that in both cases there were real estate transactions that were too ridiculously obvious to justify. You don’t buy homes for far more than you have to in order to own them UNLESS you want the owner to have that extra money but want to hide that gift because you know it is improper.
Among other shoddy transactions, the dad of the fencing recruit bought the coach’s house for $400,000 more than its value (and soon sold it for a huge loss). Perhaps he got that idea from Harlan Crow. But even Harvard, with its questionable ethics, could not come up with some rationale why that transaction was okay because the coach’s extra special treatment of the potential student had nothing to do with why that applicant got admitted.
The fencing coach was fired. Harvard didn’t wait to see if he would be convicted of a crime. What the coach did was improper, period. Just like what Clarence Thomas did was improper. Someone with a very keen interest in Thomas’ opinions was giving him lavish financial rewards. Clarence Thomas needs to step down. Or be fired via impeachment. Thomas hid these gifts BECAUSE they were improper. And the media should be making Republicans who say it is okay pay a price.
Republicans will not touch the illegal actions that Thomas has done. The current Republican do not have the capacity to fully understand what Thomas has done illegally nor do they, if they recognize what is being done illegally, the integrity and intestinal fortitude to do any substantial about and impeach Thomas.
The GOP has a new ethical standard for members of their own party: none.
Nailed it, Diane
This is the party of the Ooze Cruz
Problem is that the House will never vote to impeach Thomas. And he will never resign. He’s a crook.
What about John Roberts’ wife? She is a headhunter for law firms. She must have a booming business.
To me the problem isn’t that the House will never vote to impeach Thomas.
It is that the so-called media accepts that as NORMAL and treats those Republican politicians as if they weren’t corrupt themselves.
There is no cost whatsoever to Republican politicians when they spurn the law. Or when they blatantly lie. The so-called liberal NYT will still treat their every utterance as if it was valid and important. They are the boy who cried wolf where the townspeople — the NYT — just keeps running and running and running to his rescue no matter how many times he lies, and when the 30th time the wolf appears, the townspeople praise the boy for his great work.
And our democracy is in big trouble.
Every single Republican in Congress can say they are fine with Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and they will all be quoted as serious thinkers in the NYT and might even be invited to write some op eds. Or become a weekly columnist.
To Thomas’s credit, he is against “high-tech lynching[s] for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order.” What he seemly is for low tech corruptions for servile Blacks who will not in any way deign to think for themselves, want others to do for them, as long as one has the same ideas, and it is an unspoken directive to kowtow to the anonymous old order.
Thomas is now eating Crow
Hey, you stole the joke I wrote last week! Great minds!
I have a feeling Clarence and Ginni have been eating a lot of Crow over the past 25 years.
Are you trying to make me want crow for Thomas’ eating Crow?
That’s almost enough crow to make a murder. I wouldn’t be that stark raven mad.
Whaddya call a Crow family reunion? A murder!