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

If someone gives a politician a gift and somewhere down the road some policy is implemented that happens to benefit that person in some way, it might be shady but it is not PROOF of anything
for proof you would need to find the transaction/communication that took place where something was implied , you know "enjoy that gift, i sure couldn't keep giving them if a certain tax code remains the way it is"
another words, what you have here folks is another NOTHING BURGER
and it isn't even a juicy one.

 

The difference, is that these ties are real (not "non-existing"-- are you suggesting the pictures of Thomas on these lavish vacations, are of holograms? One of Crow's gifts to Thomas was a painting, of Thomas with the rest of their elite crew, on holiday, which Crow had commissioned, for God's sake) and it is all the Biden allegations which are phantasmic. The Republican view, which you & others here manifest, is the choice to take as fact, disinformation, from a Chinese spy, while rejecting hard evidence, which is not even denied by Justices Thomas or Alito, or by Harlan Crow, or anyone else.

This makes the GOP, look DAP (desperate and pathetic).

 

The article you posted made some pretty substantial accusations against Mr. Crow's self-reported tax returns, but in an area where the personal and professional kind of mix, which I used to do myself when I paid for expenses related to taking a customer fishing in the Columbia River Bar area, but which are pert near impossible to prove, and is rarely even investigated, disallowed, or prosecuted because it is such a grey area. There was nothing there that implicated Justice Thomas about, well, anything except perhaps being the recipient of similar such expenses, that were probably a stretch, but had nothing to do with him.

What concerns me more than any accusations against Crow is that somehow this pro-politicia organization seems to have gotten their hands on a lot of sensitive tax information that they should not have... You probably justify it in your mind by relying on your envy based reaction to wealthy people, and wanting to see bad things happen to them even if by questionable, fishy circumstances, but if they have those people's data, what's to stop them from getting, or already having yours, mine, and anyone else's? If it takes somebody leaking what amounts to classified data (even if it is legally some other category, probably dealing with privacy concerns) in order to 'stick it' to the evil, rich people whom you despise, even if it solves our government's fiscal problems (and it won't, you could confiscate 100% of these individual's net worth and still not make a meaningful dent in our budgetary holes), it's a price I'm not willing to 'pay', even if it is a legitimate complaint. However, at best there may be something there with Crow, though considering he probably employs a small army of accountants and lawyers, I doubt it, there is nothing at all, not even some weak accusations against Thomas, at all.

I know you and the rest of the left hate him for his Constitutionally sound rulings, because you think the Constitution itself is old and outdated, and would rather it be treated as a 'living document' that morphs and changes over time, but without bothering with the actual process involved in making such changes. Between Dobbs, Heller, and especially Bruen, not to mention the cases on 'major decision' doctrine that involved the EPA, but has much broader implications not only in the area of 2A jurisprudence, but with the power of federal departments to basically create laws on their own whims being curtailed, a lot of other areas are at risk as well, which I think is great, but I very much doubt that you do. Then again, I am an originalist constitutionalist, much like Thomas, and while I am not an attorney and do not follow every single case coming out of the Supremes, I can't think of a single decision he has authored that I am not in agreement with, and Crow has never taken me for a ride on his boat. If he wants to, however, I'd love to go, and if he wants to write off those expenses, why would I care?

 

And, as I asked IF you suspect they're not being ethical let's see some proof. Bribing a SCOTUS justice has to be one of the most fruitless things every = nine justices vote on each issue and only after discussions and considerations. A justice voting contrary from his/her long establish judicial philosophy would be obvious and may invite investigation; going fishing with a rich dude, not so much.
Having rich friends is not a crime, if it were half of Congress would be gone as well as many other civil servants.

Your last sentence is beyond ridiculous. As I've said several times in this thread. We need more than having rich friends to accuse a justice.

 

A good commentary on your source.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/propublica-is-the-lefts-biggest-muckraker-you-never-heard-of

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/propublica-is-the-lefts-biggest-muckraker-you-never-heard-of

 

So not disclosing expensive gifts is ethical ??!!!!

 

Apparently it WASN'T. As hard as Dems are trying.

 

Most people want impartiality and by not disclosing it and having a case brought before him makes a lot of red flags.

 

Only in your imagination.

 

Ohh my god a supreme court justice on a yacht? The shock of a SCJ hanging with the elite like all the other SCJ, and politicians. All the while Hunter getting free rides on AF1 and millions for BS jobs and you guys are play dumb. Sorry it's washington, it's what they all do.

 

Yeah people want judges to partisan, I'm sure Trump feels that way.

 

There is an acuation that Thomas gave Crow something in exchange for a boat ride.

What is it, exactly, that Thomas gave? Can you cite the decision? Were other justices in on it? It takes 5 to tango on the SC so where is this exciting evidence?

 

Nope! But last time I looked it was not wise to Chet the IRS

 

For a judge to recuse themselves there only has to be n appearance of compromise/misconduct
. “Caesars wife”

 

Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself from a 2004 appeal tied to Harlan Crow's family business, per Bloomberg

 

Great, we're getting somewhere. But, per Bloomberg, "At the time of this case, Trammell Crow Residential operated completely independently of Crow Holdings with a separate management team and its own independent operations," the statement to Bloomberg said. "Crow Holdings had a minority interest in the parties involved in this case and therefore no control of any of these entities. Neither Harlan Crow nor Crow Holdings had knowledge of or involvement in this case, and a search of Crow Holding's legal records reveals no involvement in this case. Harlan Crow has never discussed this or any other case with any justice.

When did Thomas go on these trips? How did the other justices vote on that case? You don't have to yell. My eyes aren't that bad. Still seems like a nothing burger.

 

You have no evidence of this.
Your presumptions mean nothing.
/ thread

 

Harlan Crow's office told Bloomberg that. Of course they our going to say the two didn't discuss anything case specific.

The gifts started in 1997. It doesn't matter how any of the other justices voted.

 

I couldn't have said it, more effectively, myself. I guess I should, in retrospect, have been more emphatic of this point, in my OP, since many respondents seem to have the confused notion, that this story is a direct allegation against Justice Thomas, rather than that it's about the man to whom Thomas is indebted, for a lifestyle he could not come close to affording, but in which, obviously, Thomas enjoys partaking.

Still, it is worth noting that all those who make this mistake, seem to be of a particular political stripe, and that any who are not partisan supporters of Justice Thomas, seem to have had no trouble understanding this story, in its proper perspective.

Thomas is not merely "hob-nobbing," with Crow. Justices can be friends with whomever they choose. It has long been accepted practice, however, for a judge to recuse himself, in a case in which one of his friends has an interest. This is only more true, when that "friend" lavishes expensive gifts upon that Judge. You ignore the fact that part of the reason for such recusal, is not just the real potential for bias-- conscious, or unconscious-- but the impression of impropriety it gives to citizens. The standard, is based on the way any situation might look-- not on being able to prove a judge's thinking, in any given ruling (which is nearly impossible-- despite the fact that judges have, in the past, accepted bribes in exchange for ruling on a case, in a given way).

It is a given that you would object, if Justices on a High Court with a liberal majority, were carrying on a similar "friendship" with, for example, George Soros (to use the Right wing Boogeyman). This might well be the case, even if those Justices had recused themselves, on all cases in which Soros had a dog in the fight-- which Thomas has not done, in the cases of interest to Crow. And it would certainly be a complaint of yours-- and of mine, as well-- if those hypothetical, liberal Justices, were failing to report their largesse, received from Soros.

Arguments that would so clearly not be made, if simply the characters involved were of a different political persuasion, are self-indicting, of their lack of credibility.

Non sequitur. Let me ask you: if the story was about Harlan Crow being arrested for murdering his wife-- would you assume that Thomas's name would not come up, unless Thomas had a side gig, on the police homicide squad, investigating the case?

 

No. The "in other words," are: so clearly you do not understand the difference between
1) the policy, practice, and principle of our judiciary, that not only must it dispense equal justice, but that it should also have the outward appearance of objectivity and impartiality, which cannot exist, when one of the jurists is a beneficiary of such extravagant gifts, from someone with an interest in a case, in which that jurist is taking part, and
2) the requirements for proving bribery, in a court of law.

The expectations of judges, in our system, rises above merely that they not be convicted of bribery.

 

Unless Thomas presided over a case, I think your connecting dots that don't exist.

Are judges not allowed to have friends now?

 

You just keep rehashing the same vapid arguments; over and over and over. And they STILL make little sense. Justices travel all over delivering speeches or participating in seminars or even teaching courses. By your reasoning if someone in those events happened to have dealing before SCOTUS the justice involved would have to recuse him/herself.

 

<Google Snip>
Tax data reviewed by ProPublica shows the expenses for Rochelle Charter—Crow's company that owned the yacht—typically exceeded its revenue and thus taxes didn't have to be paid on the company's income, meaning that Crow treating his yacht as a business and claiming business expenses saved him money on his taxes.2 days ago
https://www.forbes.com › 2023/07/17
Harlan Crow's Luxury Travel—Including With Clarence Thomas—May ... - Forbes
<End Google Snip>

More, below.

What is of importance, I would hope you would agree, is whether or not the information is credible. Most news organizations seem to regard it as such. Yet it is of course legitimate, to question how Pro Publica gained access to these tax records. I will provide you with that news organization's own explanation, given at a virtual forum they'd held, to talk with reporters and editors, about their reporting on the U.S. tax system, covering this trove of IRS records, which were leaked to them:

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-inside-story-of-how-we-reported-the-secret-irs-files/amp

<Snip>

Tofel: Jesse, what you can tell us about how we got this data and what we understand about why?

Eisinger: We received this vast trove of information. We’re unfortunately not talking about this in great detail. The reason we’re not talking about it is that one of the top principles of being journalists is to protect sources, especially if those sorts of sources seem to have taken some risk to get you information that you believe is in the public interest. So we received some information, and my first experience with it passed the initial smell test. It looked like a massive amount of information about taxes. It looked real, it had jargon, it had words that the IRS uses.

The reason we were told we had received it is that Paul and I had done an extensive series of stories on the gutting of the IRS. In 2018, we looked at how Congress had stripped the IRS of its budget and how that had led to an exodus of revenue agents, the kind of auditors who really understand taxes and (who've) looked at corporations and the wealthy in particular.

One result was that, as Paul’s fabulous story showed, the chances of being audited if you were a member of the working poor in the United States was greater than if you made the affluent salary of about half a million dollars, which was pretty stunning. That’s why we believe we got this information. The first call I made was to Paul to say, if this is true, this is probably one of the most memorable days of your journalism career. And I think it has proven out to be the case.


Tofel: As you explained, we’re not talking a lot about the sourcing. However, the other thing that readers and listeners and viewers should know is: We don’t actually know who the source is.

Eisinger: Right. What was important to us was whether the information was true, and whether it was newsworthy. The provenance of it never struck me, speaking personally, as very important. I’ve been a reporter for a very long time, especially in the financial markets. People have bias and agendas when they give me information. The task before us was to figure out whether this vast trove of information in incomprehensible jargon-filled numbers was real, and that was really something that only Paul Kiel could do.


Tofel: So how did we do that? How did we authenticate this?

Kiel: We spent a lot of time with the data initially, just trying to figure it out, because it was given to us in a way that wasn’t tailored. We didn’t have a seminar to sit down and understand, like, how do you use this data? We had to figure that out for ourselves.

In terms of verification, there are a number of ways we did it. One is we were able to contact people who are in this database. The other way is, this is a vast amount of information. It’s not just tax returns. It’s also things like records of stock trades, information that is sent to the IRS about financial activities. Sometimes that stuff surfaces in public — forms that might be in a lawsuit, that’s one place to look. It might be in disclosures that companies make through SEC filings. So we were looking at a lot of these different places.
<End>

In other words, some of the private data, included in the cache, could be independently verified, with enough searching, through other public data, such as in lawsuits or SEC filings. Also, the information leaked to them, included the names of many IRS employees, former and current, whom Pro Publica also contacted.

 

Your question was answered, in the very same post in which I'd addressed your prior reply. It's the answer right above yours. Would a link back to the post you're now addressing, help you to find it?

In short, there is nothing wrong with having friends. Adjudicating cases, in which those friends have a personal interest, however, is against the ethics rules of all U.S. courts-- all those which have ethics rules, that they must follow.

 

LOL-- attending a Justice's speaking event, is in no way comparable to taking him on exotic and extravagantly expensive vacations, every year (and renovating his mother's home, free of charge, which one has purchased from the Justice, and is allowing the mother to continue living in, rent free; not to mention, paying for the pricey, private school education of a child relative of the Justice, whom is also living with, and being raised by that Justice). It is your own ignoring dismissals of these facts, which make no sense, and which reek of desperation.

Once more, however, Thomas is only mentioned in this story, as a sightseer, or as an oblivious witness, in an activity which was fraudulently portrayed by Crow's business, as business expense, and so was illegally written off, in its taxes. The significance of the story, other than for its irony, is that it shows the ethical character of the man who is and has been spending so much money for Thomas's benefit, when the two were never "friends" or even acquaintances, prior to Justice Thomas's seating on the High Court. It can only be presumed, that the gifts are not unrelated to Thomas's position, and that they are meant to give Crow some "pull" with Thomas. It is, in fact, common sense to assume a high likelihood that any judge, being a beneficiary of such grand gestures, from a friend/acquaintance, would feel gratitude, and possibly indebted, and so would be swayed in his thinking, by knowing Crow's view on an issue, and Crow's keen interest in a case coming before Thomas's judgement.