ProPublica released a new report on Friday detailing Justice Clarence Thomas’ close relationship with the Koch brothers with previously undisclosed and extraordinarily damning new details.
According to ProPublica, the justice developed a friendship with the Kochs as they were funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into right-wing causes, many of which ended up before the Supreme Court. The brothers then used Thomas to raise money for their sprawling network, inviting him to speak at “donor events” that brought in millions of dollars.
He disclosed none of these activities on his annual disclosure forms, an obvious violation of federal ethics law.
So before, we could only assume from the preponderance of evidence that Thomas is corrupt as shit. Now we know it for a fact. And still, nothing will change because the Koch brothers own more than some SCOTUS justices. They also own most of congress.
End legalized bribery now.
Let’s end the Koch family fortune while we are at it.
Pretty sure you’d have to end the Koch family to do that. I wouldn’t stop you.
See: George Carlin - The Big Club (NSFW)
It’s just the Koch brother now. Happily one of the wretched fucks died a few years ago.
If I recall right there’s 3 brothers. Two were right wing scumbags, but I think the third wanted absolutely nothing to do with any of it
It’s actually not legal to bribe a government official and charging the Kochs and others would be an excellent start (since going after a SC Justice is apparently difficult)
Well of course not, thats why they’re not called “bribes”, they’re called “campaign donations”.
Are they campaign donations for the next time Thomas has to run for his lifetime appointed office?
Problem is the people who are taking the bribery also get to determine the legality of it. SCOTUS could say that bribing a justice is totally legal and the only recourse would be a new amendment. Even then, I’m not sure what would stop them from ignoring the new amendment in their rulings.
The problem with the court granting itself judicial review was that it didn’t come with checks and balances like the rest of the government functions.
deleted by creator
the link you shared further up the thread was the first place I heard it
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
Did I misunderstand?
deleted by creator