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

The 4th Amendment says nothing about only applying to the government...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Again, what private tax information is available to the public?

 

Of course, it's meant to apply to government officials; tell me, what would be a reasonable search and seizure-- from a private individual?

Yes, certain information is supposed to be kept confidential, and sometimes the safeguards fail-- as occurs whenever there is a successful computer hack. But these are not 4th Amendment violations, even if they do break the law.

It's just interesting, though, that what you seem so concerned about, is not the 19 Attorney Generals, government officials, who want to go after seeing people's out of state, confidential medical records, to pursue those who go out of state for abortions or transgender care. Where do you express your compassion for the family, who has to, in the first place, bring their 12 or 13 year old daughter out of state, to get an abortion, then has to fear prosecution from the state, finding by out about it, through invading their family's private medical records? Instead, it's a violation of the poor billionaire's rights, that has you up in arms.

 

And how exactly did Thomas cut Crow's tax bill? How did the "scam" work exactly?

 

LOL-- that misinterpretation has been very common here, but only among those on the Right. I am now interested: is the way you assess information, that you see Thomas's name in a title with Crow, and then just assume that you he story is making new allegations, about Justice Thomas? Because that is not what the title says, strictly speaking. It says that Crow slashed his tax bill, by taking Thomas out on his yacht-- which he did, because every time Crow went out on his super-yact, according to the tax records leaked to Pro Publica, he deducted it, as a business expense. Was that not clear in the snip? If you go to the article, it is short, and will add more detail, to clarify it for you. Or, if you keep reading the thread, you will see me answering both this question of yours, and others that were popular on the Right, so which you may also have. I will repost one explanation, and link another, for starters.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-harlan-crow-slashed-his-tax-bill-by-taking-clarence-thomas-on-superyacht-cruises.612056/page-2#post-1074328962

 

And who made the law that allowed this deduction? If you want to change the law, I applaud you. That's not what the objective is though. The objective of the story is to say that Thomas' actions were not ethical. But Thomas didn't make the law that allowed the deduction. He didn't even hear the case in 2004 because the case wasn't heard.
Additionally, at least one judicial ethics professor has said that Thomas didn't behave unethically.

So, please proceed with changing the law that allows tax deductions for boat trips. While you are at it, remove the deduction that the health care industry frequently take for removing charges on their bills that were artificially inflated in the first place.

 

You are still very mixed up:
1) This deduction is not allowed; to deduct a business expense, it has to be a legitimate business expense. Taking a non business, pleasure cruise, is not a valid business expense (unless you want to stipulate that Crow is conducting "business" with Thomas). Therefore, Crow is pulling a fast one, on the government. That was the point of the story.

No law needs changing; the article is only pointing IRS auditors to Crow, upon whom this law needs enforcing.

2) The "objective of the story," is not to say that Thomas's actions were not ethical; that is a given, but it is not the main focus in this story. This story is about the ethics of the person who is enabling Thomas to live the lifestyle of a much richer man, than he actually is.

 

You claimed:

...presumedly disposing Justice Thomas to give deference...

Nothing in your post proves this.
You have only your presumption, which means nothing.

 

Yes, and...? As you quote, I say "presumedly disposing." So I never maintained it was more than a presumption: but that doesn't make it meaningless because, for one thing, it is a generally recognized, common sense presumption, that extravagant gifts can dispose the recipient to do favors for their benefactor. If you do not, like most people, recognize this connection, that is your prerogative. But it is not just my own opinion. Courts, for example, all (excluding the SCOTUS) acknowledge this truth, in their rules for both declaring gifts, and recusing oneself from cases involving, or of keen interest to, a judge's "friends." And it doesn't even matter, whether or not any partiality, ultimately affected the judge's decision-- since it is important, in maintaining public trust, to avoid even the APPEARANCE of bias-- which this situation most definitely gives because, as I said, most recognize that it can sway a person's impartiality, when the decision affects someone who is lavishing gifts upon the judge.

 

It doesn't matter how many people presume facts not in evidence -- the facts are not in evidence.
You have no rational or factual basis for your claim - and thus, it means nothing.
As your entire argument rests on your meaningless presumption, your argument fails.

 

In point of actual fact, if you are not going to read, quote, or respond to the full idea as I explain it, in my post, then your reply is invalid, meaningless, and the true failure, of an argument, here.

Secondarily, if this editing of my response is your reaction to my taking the trouble to answer your weak as hell criticism, don't expect that I will necessarily continue doing so.

 

I'm sorry you do not like the fact your presumptions are not a factual or rational basis for an argument - but there's nothing I can do about it.

Feel free to run away at any time.

 

As already explained, in this case, we are not talking about only my presumption, but that of society generally, and of all our courts, specifically, which have ethics rules which they need follow. So there's that.

It is you, who is the one relying on nothing but his own, obviously false presumption that Clarence Thomas could never be swayed by gifts or friendship, in his judging duties, and that the general public trusts Thomas as much as you do. In fact, according to this recent (April) poll, 70% of the public favors an Ethics investigation into Clarence Thomas; 19% oppose. So there's that, too.

https://demandjustice.org/amid-clar...cs-investigation-into-supreme-court-justices/


Your ultra lame, patently bogus argument, offers no reason for anyone to "run away."

 

Fallacy: argumentum ad populum
It doesn't matter who holds the presumption -- it is not a factual or rational basis for an argument.
So there's that.

 

LOL, but with a sad face, for how pathetic it is, when someone misuses this counter-argument, trying to sound intelligent, by using Latin, not realizing that this answer does not apply in all cases. If, for example, I said one candidate is polling much higher than the other, you wouldn't answer, "argumentum ad populum fallacy." Well, that is to say, not that you personally, might not answer that, but that it would be a foolish thing to say, because elections are decided by popularity.

Similarly, public impression is a central concern of our court system. So, in this case, popular opinion, is important. Therefore, if many presume our courts to be biased, FYI, those presumptions do matter; as does the half of my argument you'd omitted, about 70% of respondents thinking that an ethics investigation of Justice Thomas is warranted.


That makes you 0 for 2.

 

Still beats your basis: that is, on nothing to support any of your statements.

Also, your assertion here is erroneous, as the poll I mentioned and linked, but which you never quoted or rebutted, showed that people do care about this, and that polling organizations (Gallup) recognize it as an issue of some substance (or else they wouldn't conduct a poll on it).


Meanwhile, you think your post constitutes an "argument?" Just because you say it does?
That is, in your own words:

 

You were the one who inject Thomas into it not me, why did you do that what does Thomas have to do with his tax returns and business deductions? And why are you so gleeful about someone illegally obtaining someone's tax records and then someone publishing them? What happened to our right to our privacy as private citizens? Did Pro Publica prove that on each of those voyages there was not a legitimate business not that I care about this guy if he didn't report all his taxes or took business deductions to which he wasn't entitled then treat him just as Hunter Biden is being treated. But still waiting for you to explain how Thomas has something to do with it.

 

It is unlawful for anyone to release someone else's tax returns except under rare occurrences such as in a trial and even that is very limited and usually they are on used in camera and hidden.

Is it illegal for journalists to publish tax information received unsolicited?
The same federal statute says yes. But the statute is almost certainly unconstitutional.

“It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information” is disclosed without authorization, the law says, “thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information.”

But the Supreme Court has said that journalists are free to publish truthful information on matters of public concern notwithstanding laws to the contrary as long as they did nothing illegal in obtaining the information.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/...awful for,such return or return information.”

So what is the matter of public concern with this private citizen's tax return?

 

I see you plan to boldly go, where have gone before you, numerous other Republicans.
I didn't really "inject Thomas" into this story; he was mentioned in the story, of course, as well as in the title. The good thing, though, about your following the conservative "program," so closely, in your posts, is that I can just quote your answer, from my earlier posts.

DEFinning said: ↑
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).
<End Quote>


In summary, the Justice and Patron relationship, between Crow & Thomas, is now pretty well-known. That is Crow's claim to notoriety, and the reason there is a story about his tax fraud. Just for the sake of context, any story about Crow, will likely at least mention Justice Thomas.

That the Justice is the beneficiary of Crow's largesse, is what makes this tax fraud so much more significant: finding out that a Justice's benefactor, is not too ethical, to cheat on his taxes (even though he clearly has lots of disposable income).

Additionally, there is a real irony, of Crow in the act of something that will be falsely portrayed as business, in the interest of defrauding the government, while simultaneously greasing Thomas, an unwitting participant in the act which will be the source of Crow's crime.

Gleeful? That seems a mis-characterization. I would call it, "unsympathetic."
Additional info:

I already explained the Thomas connection. Let me ask you, do you think that Crow might have been conducting some sort of "business," with Justice Thomas?

These were vacation, pleasure cruises, not wooings of potential business partners. Besides, even if a little business had been conducted on the trip, that is not enough to write it off. The expense of the rental of his own yacht (which there is no sign was ever paid, not that it doesn't already sound like a very sketchy arrangement) could only have legally qualified for a tax write off, if business had been the primary purpose, of the cruise.



Bonus Quote--
DEFinning said: ↑
... 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.
<End Quote>

 

Your statements - prove - my claims.
You ADMIT your argument is based on you presumptions, and the similar presumptions of others - and nothing more.
Your presumption has no rational or factual basis; as such the argument based on your presumption necessarily fails.

 

No, you are completely in the dark, still-- unable to understand a simple concept, though I have explained it several times. Any respondents to the thread, who do not have a Trumpist/Facist attraction, have had no trouble, understanding A. I.-- that is, the meaning of the words: APPEARANCE of IMPROPRIETY. Also, 70% of the population-- the number I'd quoted, who think an ethics investigation of Judge Thomas is called for, obviously understand this concept, as well. So all your personal pronouncements do, is advertise that you are in the class that just doesn't comprehend basic ideas, as well as the rest of us.

It is not proof of criminal behavior, beyond a reasonable doubt, for which we are looking, here; it is about following the same type of rules, as all the other courts in the country, to manifest that judges are honest brokers: irreproachable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since, however, I have no doubt that you would appreciate the inappropriateness of this type of relationship, if the Court had a liberal majority, and one or more of those liberal Justices had the exact same type of relationship with George Soros, as Thomas has with Crow-- it is obvious that the problem is not so much your ability to comprehend, as your partisan prejudice, flaming in full force. I can just hear you , complaining that Sotomayor received costly gifts, but failed to report them, or that Brown- Jackson, did not recuse herself from a case which her vacation pal, Georgie, had been one of those pushing, to the Supreme Court.

As I had said in an earlier post, arguments that would so clearly not be made (defending Thomas), if simply the characters involved were of a different political persuasion, are self-indicting, of their own lack of credibility.

 

I understand fully that you ADMIT your argument is based on you presumptions, the similar presumptions of others - and nothing more.
Your presumption has no rational or factual basis; as such the argument based on your presumption necessarily fails.

 

LOL-- you must be kidding! The tax return of the guy who has been taking one of our country's most powerful political officers on extravagant, luxury vacations for over 20 years, as well as flooding him with other largesse, like a pig in slop? Gifts that Thomas stopped reporting, after 2004? Yet, in not a single Court case, of interest to Crow, hasThomas recused himself?

This "friendship," (which began with an invitation to one such holiday-- only after Thomas was on the Court) has stirred great public concern, which is one major reason behind public approval of our Supreme Court taking its recent nosedive. It is also why 70% of the American public, favors the opening of an ethics investigation, into Thomas. I think that qualifies as a sign of public concern-- don't you?

https://demandjustice.org/amid-clar...cs-investigation-into-supreme-court-justices/

 

To match the level of your own argument, in your last 3 posts, the only thing I could say, would be: "I know you are-- but what am I?"

 

Explain again how being a buddy of a SCOTUS justice affects ones taxes. Besides you emphatically insisted Thomas was just a bystander of no importance.

 

Give it up, Bullseye-- you're hopeless. You've petitioned out of me, more than your share of explanations, of your misreading of the thread. Clearly you are unable, or unwilling to understand.