Clarence Thomas Defends Undisclosed “Family Trips” with GOP Megadonor. Here Are the Facts.
---
You've probably seen Thomas explanation for why he did not disclose lavish travel provided by billionaire Harlan Crow.
But legal ethics experts we consulted said the law clearly requires that gifts of transportation, including private jet flights, be disclosed. If Thomas is arguing otherwise, the experts said, he is incorrect.
If @ProPublica didn't consult any "legal experts" offering a different opinion, then they really seem to be just asking those who will give you the answer they want for their sensational story.
This onesided method of investigation and reporting is really unhealthy, for the public no less.
it is, however, par for the course for that organization. They have a long history of putting out slanted stories to grab headlines.
@volkris @ProPublica There isn’t any question whether he broke the law, the only question is whether any one can stop him.
Not only are there major questions about whether he broke a law, there are even questions as to whether there was a law that he COULD HAVE BROKEN given the three coequal branch design of the US government.
And that's not even getting into the claim of preclearance, that Thomas had already had this matter adjudicated and was given the all-clear from the relevant legal experts.
To say there is no question is blindly ignore the tremendous weight of evidence suggesting there was no way he could have.
@volkris then why did the newspaper have to dig through ten layers of hacks to find an “expert” who thinks the Supes are above any and all laws?
In my experience, so many experts that I know personally are absolutely fed up with news reports misreporting things about their own fields.
There's a good reason people are losing so much faith in the press lately. We can see for ourselves that they are reporting things that we know, that we can see with our own eyes, are untrue. And then we see reporters supposedly only consulting with experts who will tell them what they want to hear to justify the stories they want to tell.
No, the justices aren't above the law. They're required to obey the same laws as the rest of us.
However, if we want an independent judiciary, then Congress cannot have power over the Supreme Court, and cannot be allowed to bully justices.
Why a newspaper couldn't find an expert to point this out, well, you'll have to ask the paper about their methodology there.
@volkris one side is carefully cherry-picking “experts” who agree with them, and it isn’t ProPublica.
The reason I can tell that's untrue is because ProPublica is the one presenting a single perspective in their reporting.
It's weird to say that the one representing a single perspective is the one that's not cherrypicking.
No: those are the cherries.
@volkris this is just like climate change or election conspiracies: the warm stream media desperately wants to frame it as a debate between two sides but the “other side” is just lying.
The thing is, when you check out the other side and see that they have no ground to stand on, it makes a person that much more confident that they're on the right side.
It's a red flag that Propublica is cherrypicking here *even if they're picking the right cherries*.
Let's see that the other side is wrong. Let's not leave it potentially right.
I think they didn't because they explicitly said they didn't.
It's unfortunate to me how proud people seem to be sometimes not to have considered other viewpoints.
@volkris the fact that they can’t find a qualified expert who believes that the Earth is flat does not mean that they haven’t given the Flat Earth hypothesis sufficient consideration.
You're really ready to die on this hill, huh? Alright then.
@volkris what makes you think they didn’t? If they fact-checked and didn’t find any, there’s no valid story. “People who think Nixon did nothing wrong also think Thomas did nothing wrong” is not a story and the WaPo is embarrassing itself.