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

If he's only mentioned as a sightseer, why the did you include him in the title and the OP suggesting impropriety? If your post is ONLY that Crow is playing games with his boats and taxes, WTF mention Thomas at all? IF Thomas is just a sightseer why the title that connect Crow's actions with his friendship with Thomas. Why do you suggest Thomas may have been bribed? And then you try to hide behind some faux concern about the Court's reputation.

 

I have already answered your question, but here it is, again. There are two parts. As to why Thomas is in the title, I suppose I should ask if you are familiar with the Forum policy, for Current Events threads, rather than assuming that you should know, that the member's title is supposed to match that of the linked article. And the linked article, of course, mentions Justice Thomas, since being Thomas's ticket to the good life, is Crow's greatest claim to notoriety.

As to my own, giving a quick summation of the Crow - Thomas connection, as the story has evolved thus far: that had only been a matter of context, and of refreshing of memories, for any who may have forgotten some of the details. There was nothing I had said, I don't think, which was erroneously portrayed as a fact. There are certain aspects of the background which are factual-- the vacations, the land purchase, the renovation of Thomas's mother's home, not charging of any known, reasonable rent to Thomas's mother, the footing the bill for an expensive private school, for a child relative of Thomas, who the Justice was, himself, raising, etc.-- and there are others which I had portrayed as only potential, but which are founded upon common sense and generally accepted principles: for example, that receiving extravagant gifts from a benefactor, creates a situation in which there's a strong possibility for the recipient's impartiality, to be compromised, in any cases in which he is aware of his benefactor having a strong interest, and preference in one outcome, over another; therefore, it is expected, standard practice, for judges to avoid this appearance of impropriety, by recusing themselves from such cases (which Thomas has not done-- that is one of the concrete, factual pieces).

The only remaining question, is how many more times, will you be asking me the same thing?

 

LOL. And yet another rehash of the same nonsense. I'm amazied at the number of tines you can rehash the same nonsense and pat yourself on the back on your brilliance. Sadly, you're failing miserably.

 

From someone who is repeatedly demonstrating his mastery of failure, in his arguments here, I suppose I should be flattered(?).

 

Well, I guess this is the price one must be willing to pay, when working to see that our society is governed correctly, through keeping a Supreme Court Justice, as a pet.

 

So, when all else fails go to insults. Says a lot - none of it good.

 

As I am getting to your two posts, in my replies, I see that I have already addressed the same mistaken perspectives, numerous times. So, to be sure you each see these counterpoints to your way of viewing things, I am just going to quote for you, some of those responses, which I have just now written:


DEFinning said: ↑
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.

DEFinning said: ↑
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

 

LOL-- I was "drafting" behind your own post, to me:

Bullseye said: ↑
LOL. And yet another rehash of the same nonsense. I'm amazied at the number of tines you can rehash the same nonsense and pat yourself on the back on your brilliance. Sadly, you're failing miserably.

<End Quote>


How is my saying that your arguments in this thread had repeatedly failed, different from your saying the same thing-- besides that you say that it is me, personally (not just my arguments) who is failing?


DEFinning said: ↑
From someone who is repeatedly demonstrating his mastery of failure, in his arguments here, I suppose I should be flattered(?).

<End Quote>


It looks like failure is not the only area, in which you excel: your art of projection, likewise, seems at an expert level.

 

I might find more interest in your position if you had the same outrage for Sotomayor's book sales tacktics or Hunter's art, laptop, tax fraud, etc. But you don't so I don't really care. I don't care for partisan arguments. Like I said, if either of them broke the law, then charge them.

 

and yet you say in on post that Thomas was just a bystander while the tread title says he worked for Crow. make up your mind and debate from that.

 

Offer a debate argument.
As I cannot change the title of the Pro Publica article, the point you, once again, make here, is moot.

I think the article, and my OP, speak for themselves. I don't know what need there is, for me to supply any additional argument (as I'm sure this is not the last we will be hearing, of compromised Supreme Court Justices).

 

I have! Over and over and over. Based on what you wrote. You brought out a font-sized monstrosity to "explain" what you meant. Other than hiurting my eyes it did nothing to change anything.
[quote[DEFinning]
As I cannot change the title of the Pro Publica article, the point you, once again, make here, is moot.[/quote]Whorng - the thread is yours not ProPublica.

I agree; both are gibberish.

You have to own what you post. Your " I can't change the title" excuse is weak sauce. That the article to another forum thread that doesn't require duplicating the headline.

 

1) "Hunter" has zero to do with this. So much, for your claim about not caring for "partisan politics."

2) I can't have "the same outrage"-- because the two situations, not close to identical. In your thread about Sotomayor, I had quoted from the article you had linked, IIRC, saying the same thing: about the incomparably graver seriousness, of the Thomas affair.

I did, however, say I had no problem with addressing the criticisms of Justice S., in an official code of ethics, for the Justices, which is clearly the sensible way to remediate ethics concerns, regarding all the Justices. Therefore, your attitude of only being critical of Justice Sotomayor-- or even if you, instead, had voiced an opinion that what both were doing, was fine-- is not at all an equivalence, despite your post striving to paint it as such, to my own disposition, in favor of strict ethical guidelines, applicable to every Justice.

 

As this is a current event, and a news item, it seems most appropriate to post it, in this forum. The following quote, is from the Forum Rules, #11, under "Thread Creation:"

...There are additional rules for "Latest U.S and World News" and "Current Events": All thread titles must be copy/pasted from source article titles. Article titles that are too long to fit, should be abbreviated, keeping as close to the original title as possible. No personal opinions are allowed within thread titles. Threads must have a sourced article or news video, and the full article/video must be accessible upon clicking. (Content behind a paywall does not qualify as a source.)
<End>


While I guess I'm not allowed to call it "nervy" of you to even suggest that I should move my thread to a different forum, just so I could change its title, to something you, personally, would find less objectionable, I would not be surprised if some moderators might think it was a pushy move, on your part.

 

Weak sauce. You seem intelligent enough to not get trapped into rules that makes your post a farce. You could have easily taken it to another thread that didn't require exactly replication of the headline. But you did, so you have to accept the consequences. You can't say "I only want part of the headline to count".

 

Nor did I say, what you quote me as saying (your idea, I guess, of being ironic?). I explained to you, the reason why Thomas is tied to this story. It is his relationship with Crow, that makes this newsworthy, to begin with. A corrupt businessman, is not "hot news." One who has a Supreme Court Justice hooked on all the lavish gifts he gives to that Justice, has more significance. And there is the truly ironic element, of a man who sits on the Highest Court in the land, while indulging in luxury sailing extravagance, being an unwitting party in an activity, tied to federal tax fraud.

 

Complete nonsense. The title of the three says you have PROOF of Thomas helping out Crow. You don't. You never did. as you yourself admit. You offered not one "fact" that tied Thomas did anything within SCOTUS to help Crow out. Not a damn word or piece of evidence.

 

You missed the point. Those records are as, if not more confidential than medical ones, and while you can release yours if and as you see fit, and I can do the same to mine, only under very specific circumstances, usually involving criminality can anyone in government do so, in fact I suspect that if you can't point to a concrete reason you have a specific "Need To Know", even accessing an individuals tax records, even if you are cleared to deal with such things in general, is (or damn well should be) a literal crime.

This means that either someone from the outside accessed governmental tax records, an event that if it happened, I would have expected to hear about and did not, or someone from the inside improperly and criminally released them.

Now, if Crow is actually accused of a crime in his own right, and having read the article it sounds like pure wishful conjecture than any actual investigation or impending charges, then he has to deal with that and take whatever punishment, if found guilty, a Court sees fit to sentence him to. BUT... Neither the writer of the article, nor you, nor anyone else (that I've noticed at least) has even tried to connect his and Thomas' friendship to specific cases where even a cynical observer can point to a specific USSC decision and say, "That is totally out of line with Thomas' known thoughts on jurisprudence, and is quite surprising given the facts of the case". Until and unless that happens, you are creating sound and fury that signifies nothing.

I totally get you don't like the guy, especially his rulings and opinions vis-à-vis the Second Amendment and Constitutional Originalism, but I am a Constitutional Originalist myself, and the idea that it is a 'living document' like so many on the left like to preach about is bullshit. It is a written document that says what it says unless and until it is changed, either through the Amendment process, a hypothetical future con-con (which I oppose in the strongest possible terms), or some Court ruling, but the latter doesn't change the document itself, only how it is interpreted by Courts charged with doing the interpretations. So, in your mind you want him gone by any means, legal or otherwise, legitimate or otherwise, and preferably when there is a (D) in the Oval, and enough of them in the Senate to get whichever black woman that (D) POTUS might want to put up for the job, whether they are qualified or not is secondary (if that) to their left-wing cred.

Scary stuff. It's literally an effort to overturn the country from within, and to do away with our most redeeming features in search of some paradise that if only you can get it going, people will learn how wrong they were to oppose it. I say no.

 

The records, themselves, were not released to the general public. Pro Publica only let us know one discrete thing that they found, in those records. Being as that it showed Harlan Crow to be a tax cheat (on top of a big-money influencer of a member of our Supreme Court), I have no tears to cry, for the divulging of Crow's dishonest & dishonorable secret, discovered in his private tax records. This is called "investigative journalism."

Also, btw, if you are going to follow the practice of both your prior post, and this one, of purporting to tell me what I think, in order to assail my character, for daring to have a different opinion than your own--

-- then, I will point out that 19 Attorneys Generals, have just petitioned to be able to see citizens' medical records. All of these are, unsurprisingly, Republicans. So you can stick that argument, about Conservatives being more concerned about privacy rights, back in the hole you pulled it from.

<Snip>
All told, a total of 19 state attorneys general have signed on to a joint letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, making the case for being able to access out-of-state medical records — not just for abortion, but also for gender-affirming care.
<End Snip>

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/maddow/blog/rcna94935

Apparently you did not see my post #73, toward the bottom of page 3, in which I addressed the source of these records. While Pro Publica is protecting their source-- the Press is given rights, in our Constitution, too (as much as you "probably think" that's a whole bunch of progressive bunk, and all those "Commie" journalists on the Left should be thrown in prison)-- the strong suggestion is that they came from someone who is or was in the IRS, as a result of a series of articles that Pro Publica had done on the 2018 gouging of funds out of the IRS, leading to the firing of many of the auditors, who investigate the complicated returns of the uber-wealthy. An interesting pairing, with Trump's tax cut, focused predominantly on that same group. And that also shows why those IRS agents are understaffed, for catching all of the cheating, in these private tax records.

Here is a link, to my post:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...eryacht-cruises.612056/page-3#post-1074331842

 

Hunter Biden deducted sex club fees and hookers as business expenses. So, the standards have changed. It's all good.

 

Having your rights and the law violated is the price you pay for being on the wrong side of the political fence?

 

What law was violated-- besides, apparently, tax law, by Harlan Crow?

 

His 4th Amendment rights, possibly. The law that keeps sensitive tax information confidential, is another, possibly. I'm not aware of any personal tax information that is accessible by the public.

 

LOL-- unreasonable search and seizure, applies to such, being performed by some official arm of government (typically, of law enforcement). An ex-IRS auditor, sharing your info, while, no doubt, running afoul of some regulations, is absolutely not a 4th Amendment violation.

For your citing of "that law" that keeps "sensitive" tax information confidential, I'll need something more specific. But, again, this is not the government or the IRS, in any official capacity, who leaked the info. It was the act of an individual, who will face punishment, if he is caught. And the specific data, itself-- the returns-- were not made public, just the finding that the signs strongly point to Crow running a scam, by deducting his time on his yacht, as a business expense. The press apparently has the right to print what it finds, in data that was leaked to them, illegally. Compare this to the way, speaking of the 4th Amendment, police are not allowed to go into your home to search, without a warrant. But if some private individual searches another's home & finds something incriminating, law enforcement is allowed to receive and use that evidence.

So we are talking about a lone person's act, not a political war, as you make it sound-- hey, stuff happens. Your reaction seems akin to lamenting a drunk driver's ramming into a getaway car, thereby unjustly spoiling the bank heist. I can't see why anyone should be so overly sympathetic, in this instance, unless they are, also, defrauding the government, on their taxes.