Get Off My Lawn said:

---

The left's actions scream to how much they hate blacks who successfully leave their plantation. Doubly so when said black could be a role model who leads others. Triply so when said uppity black thwarts their political goals.

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

etxag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow's superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow's sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks.

---

Quote:

---

Thomas didn't report any of the trips ProPublica identified on his annual financial disclosures. Ethics experts said the law clearly requires disclosure for private jet flights and Thomas appears to have violated it.

---

Quote:

---

"If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law," said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the nonprofit government watchdog Campaign Legal Center. (Thomas himself once reported receiving a private jet trip from Crow, on his disclosure for 1997.)

---

In know our tribal politics there is little accountability for ones own team, but people should be aware of how unethical this has all become. Whataboutisms are expected.

---

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow's superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow's sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks.

---

Quote:

---

Thomas didn't report any of the trips ProPublica identified on his annual financial disclosures. Ethics experts said the law clearly requires disclosure for private jet flights and Thomas appears to have violated it.

---

Quote:

---

"If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law," said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the nonprofit government watchdog Campaign Legal Center. (Thomas himself once reported receiving a private jet trip from Crow, on his disclosure for 1997.)

---

In know our tribal politics there is little accountability for ones own team, but people should be aware of how unethical this has all become. Whataboutisms are expected.

---

Democrats and Leftists are my enemy and nothing you say or post is trustworthy, relevant. or will change that.

I'd trust Clarence Thomas with my life before I'd trust my own Leftist family members.

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

DTP02 said:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court.

---

Quote:

---

Crow and his firm have not had a case before the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it, though the court periodically hears major cases that directly impact the real estate industry.

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

DTP02 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

It's right there in the Post article which I quoted for you, but here it is again since you overlooked/ignored it in your fervor:

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

Why the need to specify that in the rules changes which just took effect if it was already a rule?

Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment. Maybe next time!

Or, if you're really a crusader for ethics in government, you could focus your attention on the Biden administration where it's a much more target rich environment.

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

It's right there in the Post article which I quoted for you, but here it is again since you overlooked/ignored it in your fervor:

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

Why the need to specify that in the rules changes which just took effect if it was already a rule?

Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment. Maybe next time!

Or, if you're really a crusader for ethics in government, you could focus your attention on the Biden administration where it's a much more target rich environment.

---

Like you said, it is right there.

The old rules provided an exemption for "food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality." It doesn't say anything about lending jets for a judge's personal use.

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

It's right there in the Post article which I quoted for you, but here it is again since you overlooked/ignored it in your fervor:

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

Why the need to specify that in the rules changes which just took effect if it was already a rule?

Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment. Maybe next time!

Or, if you're really a crusader for ethics in government, you could focus your attention on the Biden administration where it's a much more target rich environment.

---

Like you said, it is right there.

The old rules provided an exemption for "food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality." It doesn't say anything about lending jets for a judge's personal use.

---

These are made up rules. Please cite the broken LAW.

Agian, no cares on our side because no one cares on your side.

---

• Congress and the SCOTUS should be no different than any other Fed. Anything beyond an outsider buying lunch at El Heartburn or a gimme cap is forbidden.

etxag02 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

It's right there in the Post article which I quoted for you, but here it is again since you overlooked/ignored it in your fervor:

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

Why the need to specify that in the rules changes which just took effect if it was already a rule?

Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment. Maybe next time!

Or, if you're really a crusader for ethics in government, you could focus your attention on the Biden administration where it's a much more target rich environment.

---

Like you said, it is right there.

The old rules provided an exemption for "food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality." It doesn't say anything about lending jets for a judge's personal use.

---

These are made up rules. Please cite the broken LAW.

Agian, no cares on our side because no one cares on your side.

---

5 CFR 2634.304

I get it. When tribalism makes you believe the other tribe is literally evil, anything goes.

---

etxag02 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

It's right there in the Post article which I quoted for you, but here it is again since you overlooked/ignored it in your fervor:

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

Why the need to specify that in the rules changes which just took effect if it was already a rule?

Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment. Maybe next time!

Or, if you're really a crusader for ethics in government, you could focus your attention on the Biden administration where it's a much more target rich environment.

---

Like you said, it is right there.

The old rules provided an exemption for "food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality." It doesn't say anything about lending jets for a judge's personal use.

---

These are made up rules. Please cite the broken LAW.

Agian, no cares on our side because no one cares on your side.

---

5 CFR 2634.304

I get it. When tribalism makes you believe the other tribe is literally evil, anything goes.

---

Quote:

---

Why do you look at the speck that is in your brothers eye but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

---

etxag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow's superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow's sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks.

---

Quote:

---

Thomas didn't report any of the trips ProPublica identified on his annual financial disclosures.

---

Quote:

---

"If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law," said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the nonprofit government watchdog Campaign Legal Center. (Thomas himself once reported receiving a private jet trip from Crow, on his disclosure for 1997.)

---

In know our tribal politics there is little accountability for ones own team, but people should be aware of how unethical this has all become. Whataboutisms are expected.

---

Quote:

---

Supreme Court justices are required to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics and Government Act of 1978.

The law includes an exception for food, lodging, or entertainment received as "personal hospitality," and the new regulations seek to clarify the term. The exception only covers certain gifts of a nonbusiness nature and does not apply to those extended at a commercial property, according to the updated rules.

They go on to note that "personal" means a judge has a personal relationship with the host and should not include situations in which the invitation is merely being delivered personally.

---

Quote:

---

ProPublica has a Lean Left bias. An April 2020 AllSides independent review found that ProPublica's bias is Lean Left. ProPublica's "Zero Tolerance" section on President Trump's immigration policy included mostly pieces about children being separated from their families at the border, with no right-wing perspectives on the policy to be found. ProPublica's Politics section includes mostly pieces critical of or investigating right-wing leaders, and few pieces on left-wing politicians.

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

It's right there in the Post article which I quoted for you, but here it is again since you overlooked/ignored it in your fervor:

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

Why the need to specify that in the rules changes which just took effect if it was already a rule?

Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment. Maybe next time!

Or, if you're really a crusader for ethics in government, you could focus your attention on the Biden administration where it's a much more target rich environment.

---

Like you said, it is right there.

The old rules provided an exemption for "food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality." It doesn't say anything about lending jets for a judge's personal use.

---

These are made up rules. Please cite the broken LAW.

Agian, no cares on our side because no one cares on your side.

---

5 CFR 2634.304

I get it. When tribalism makes you believe the other tribe is literally evil, anything goes.

---

Amazing self ownedge. What branch of the government does the Supreme Court belong to?

Because I don't think it's the executive branch.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/part-2634

---

Quote:

---

(a)Except as permitted by subsection (b), no Member of Congress or officer or employee of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch shall solicit or accept anything of value from a person

---

Quote:

---

Hospitality extended for a nonbusiness purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that individual or his or her family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or his or her family. Notes: (1) The personal hospitality gift reporting exemption applies only to food, lodging, or entertainment and is intended to cover such gifts of a personal, nonbusiness nature. Therefore, the reporting exemption does not include: gifts other than food, lodging or entertainment, such as transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation; gifts extended for a business purpose; gifts extended at property or facilities owned by an entity, rather than by an individual or an individual's family, even if the entity is owned wholly or in part by an individual or an individual's family; gifts paid for by any individual or entity other than the individual providing the hospitality, or for which the individual providing the hospitality receives reimbursement or a tax deduction related to furnishing the hospitality; or gifts extended at a commercial property, e.g., a resort or restaurant, or at a property that is regularly rented out to others for a business purpose. (2) A judicial officer or employee is not permitted to solicit or accept anything of value from a person seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other entity served by the judicial officer or employee, or from any other person whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the judge's official duties, but a judicial officer or employee may accept a gift authorized by the Judicial Conference's regulations. See: 5 U.S.C. 7353; Guide, Vol. 2C, Ch.6.

---

etxag02 said:

---

DX2011 said:

---

The jet rides seem like a real potential for a violation, but are the stays at property, if you are a guest of the owner and the owner is present, considered a gift? Honest question, even the flights, if you are riding with the owner, is that considered something that you report?

It may be specifically called out in some regulation but it seems like, even if it's a bit shady, that it is technically no different then staying at a friends house or jumping in their car for a road trip.

Definitely seems like something that should be disclosed, but asking about the legal responsibilities.

---

Crow owns the property through a company and filing instructions require disclosure for such stays.

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

DTP02 said:

---

etxag02 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

There is, of course, much more to the story.

Here's the key part the OP left out, from the Post's story on this (buried in the Post's story as well, but at least it's in there) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/06/clarence-thomas-trips-republican-donor/:

Quote:

---

Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered "personal hospitality."

Revised rules adopted by a committee of the Judicial Conference, the courts' policymaking body, seek to provide a fuller accounting. The rules took effect March 14.

Gifts such as an overnight stay at a personal vacation home owned by a friend remain exempt from reporting requirements. But the revised rules require disclosure when judges are treated to stays at commercial properties, such as hotels, ski resorts or corporate hunting lodges. The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

So yes, in the past Thomas accepted "personal hospitality" gifts of a nature which would need to be reported going forward under the rules put in place three weeks ago.

In short: nothingburger.

---

Lending a judge a private jet does not count as "personal hospitality" and never has.

Quote:

---

Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow's plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

---

In short: unethicalburger that will likely be ignored by the tribe

---

It's right there in the Post article which I quoted for you, but here it is again since you overlooked/ignored it in your fervor:

Quote:

---

The changes also clarify that judges must report travel by private jet.

---

Why the need to specify that in the rules changes which just took effect if it was already a rule?

Sorry to ruin your gotcha moment. Maybe next time!

Or, if you're really a crusader for ethics in government, you could focus your attention on the Biden administration where it's a much more target rich environment.

---