Payments to Rajan Vasisht, an aide from 2019-21, underscore ties between the justice and lawyers who argue cases in front of him

  • @rjcM
    link
    231 year ago

    Hopefully it’s $10 for “pizza contribution” and not $10,000 for “wink wink”

    • @Fredselfish
      link
      171 year ago

      It was for him to vote in their favor 1000% bribery here and yet nothing gets to happen to him. He could all give us the finger take away all our rights. While the GOP cheers and the Democrats wring their hands. Fucking pathetic.

      Hell Biden administration doesn’t even acknowledge it. They hope we will ignore it. But goddammit I won’t. Neither should anyone else.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    201 year ago

    Jfc I am underestimating how dumb these people are. Guess Monero is still extremely underpriced.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      There’s no mention of bribery being illegal in the Constitution so the Supreme Court won’t have a problem with this

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Congress won’t do that. If you remove a Justice for bad behavior, it opens up the door for Representatives and Senators to be removed on bad behavior.

          They don’t want to be held accountable for anything.

          • @captainlezbian
            link
            31 year ago

            Well of course. There are people in congress who saw what happened to Nixon and made it their life mission to ensure that it wouldn’t happen again

  • fmstrat
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    Painter said he would possibly make an exception if recent law clerks were paying their own way for a party. But almost all of the lawyers who made the payments are senior litigators at big law firms. Kedric Payne, the general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, said that – based on available information – it was possible that the former clerks were paying their own party expenses, and not expenses for Thomas, which he believed was different than random lawyers in effect paying admission to an exclusive event to influence the judge. He added: “But the point remains that the public is owed an explanation so they don’t have to speculate.”

    This is a tough one. While I have great disdain for the abuses of the court recently, there’s no telling of this was money to split a bottle of booze or something more nefarious. These men all used to work together, so it would be perfectly normal to contribute to a party.

    The fact that there is no easy, public explanation from a public figure is why it’s worrying.

    • Overzeetop
      link
      231 year ago

      As a former executive branch employee, the required ethics training is clear: the appearance of a conflict of interest is just as severe as an actual conflict of interest and we were counselled to avoid both at all cost. If that means it is inconvenient for you or a contractor, that’s too bad because impropriety in government dealings is unacceptable.

      This is codified in many areas, such as any employee - up to and including the president iirc - not being allowed to accept gives or honoraria above a fairly low financial threshold.

      • ivanafterall
        link
        fedilink
        101 year ago

        Yeah, I worked in government and they hammered us about how fucked we could be for even taking too much swag above a certain dollar limit. He’s so far across every ethics line I was ever taught that it’s just laughable.

      • fmstrat
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Good to know, and solves my floating on this one. Thank you.

  • @orangeNgreen
    link
    61 year ago

    I mean the payment descriptions are probably something like “Def not a bribe.” There’s nothing that can be done.

    • @kaitco
      link
      61 year ago

      To be honest, I bet the descriptions are all set to Public and say “For Case #AXK-20100427PartB”.

      • Vegaprime
        link
        41 year ago

        Cause “🥒🥒 $$$ for that underage girl” didn’t sink Matt.

  • @Newstart
    link
    -81 year ago

    It’s crazy how all these institutions lost all their prestige and respects.