How Harlan Crow Slashed His Tax Bill, By Taking Clarence Thomas On Superyacht Cruises

From the OP:

Oh, what a surprise: the person who has for years been plying one of our Supreme Court Justices with extremely expensive "gifts," which smack of a "soft" form of bribery-- presumedly disposing Justice Thomas to give deference to Crow's known positions on various issues before the Court (IOW, influence-pedalling)

the "person" is Harlan Crow. do I have to explain the rest?

 

That is NOT THE STORY-- that is my OP, my own opinion. The "snip" from the story, I customarily begin with "<Snip>" (and end with, "<End Snip>"). Are you unfamiliar with this practice?

That part you highlighted in red, merely cited the already known relationship (by nearly everyone) between Crow and Thomas.

 

And you are still interpreting it wrongly

you are getting close to being invited to look at my signature

 

And, who was the Supreme Court Justice he was trying to influence (Hint:Thomas)

 

Huh. It can be any clearer. Again, for possible comprehension:
"Oh, what a surprise: the person who has for years been plying one of our Supreme Court Justices with extremely expensive "gifts," which smack of a "soft" form of bribery-- presumedly disposing Justice Thomas to give deference to Crow's known positions on various issues before the Court (IOW, influence-pedalling)

. I'll consider the source.

 

Is it the word “disposing” that is the issue?

 

So?? It is still about Harlan Crow and his tax “minimisation”

 

And how he got them by taking Thomas on cruises.

 

You are stopping, mid sentence. I will give you that I use numerous clauses, reiterating what was already known about Crow's buying influence with Thomas, in between my mention of the subject and my carrying on with the verb, but I did not think it was too complicated to follow, for anyone who understands the use of commas, dashes, and other marks of punctuation. But I will offer you, once more, a visual guide. Understand, that the part that is in very small print, is not part of the main sentence idea, which begins with "the person who," and then picks up with "has now been revealed, himself..." So, for the sake of just seeing the underlying frame of the sentence, you can translate the small print part, as "yada, yada-yada."


DEFinning said: ↑
...
Oh, what a surprise: the person who has for years been plying one of our Supreme Court Justices with extremely expensive "gifts," which smack of a "soft" form of bribery-- presumedly disposing Justice Thomas to give deference to Crow's known positions on various issues before the Court (IOW, influence-pedalling)-- gifts which the Justice has not reported, since 2004, and which did not cause Thomas to recuse himself from any cases in which his real or perceived favoritism (had the gifts been accurately reported, as they were supposed to have been) shown toward Crow's issues, has now been revealed, himself, to apparently have been guilty of cheating the government, with bogus tax write-offs, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars...

 

Are you denying that he did that?

 

Not to me, I'm not sure about you.

 

Took him on cruises? Nope.

 

He took the write-off, as if one of his companies was renting this yacht, which Crow owned, from another of Crow's companies. The evidence suggests that no rental fees were ever charged or changed hands. But, regardless, they could only be written off, if the time on the yacht had been a legitimate business expense. How is taking Clarence Thomas on a vacation cruise, conducting "business?"

 

Oh, give me a break. What pitiful attempt. If you weren't try to link them in illegal activity why mention Thomas at all. AND WHY MENTION him in the friggin' thread title.

 

Then why did you include Thomas and the gifts Crow gave him? You're spinning on your axle, DEF. Frankly the only one you're fooling is yourself.

 

The suggested illegal activity, is Crow's alone (and/or is of Crow's business), as tax fraud. However, many people commit tax fraud, and each one does not warrant individual news coverage. What makes Crow's illegal tax write- offs of note, and of interest, is that he is the person who has been revealed in an illicit-- not illegal, although one might quibble over violations of Clarence's failing to report gifts-- relationship with Justice Thomas. This story does not add any additional charges against Thomas-- instead it shows a bit of the character of the man, wielding influence over the Justice.

Perhaps you do not appreciate the irony of it, but @Bowerbird commented right away, on this guy's chutzpa, & I believe it is pretty obvious to anyone who is appalled by the Court's blatant corruption: Crow'$ u$ing of hi$ illegal tax $cheme, on every occa$ion, he'd taken the $upreme ¢ourt Ju$tice on hi$ yacht (to curry favor, on our Highe$+ Court).

 

Maybe Harlan is adopting Clarence?

 

And what you asked for was very clear cut and simple.

The lack of a forthcoming answer seemed very defensive instead of just admitting that deffining could not answer your questions

 

You mean the one that was full of ifs and maybes?

 

LOL-- I answered him, numerous times, and he still couldn't, or wouldn't, catch on to the fact that he was misinterpreting the story, therefore what he was asking for, did not apply.

 

You seem to have focus issues, this thread is about SCOTUS corruption and the far RW oligarchs that are corrupting the system designed for freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

 

And yet not a single case of SCOTUS has been demonstrated. Hob-Nobbing with rich people isn'a t a crime. YOU have PROVE Thomas, or any other justice for that matter ACTUALLY changed his vote because of said hob-nob. Can you point to a case where Thomas was the swing vote and voted contrary to his long establish judicial standing?

 

Thomas works for the IRS now?

 

Not disclosing such gifts, while currently may not be illegal, but it sure is unethical, and the far greater majority of the nation prefers judges of the highest courts to be impartial. Make excuses for Thomas if that is your political nature, but then you shouldn't be complaining about others, that would the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

Amazing watching leftist connect non existing dots here, but then become blind when it comes to their mafia boss Biden. Just more fake left wing outrage.