Apparently, uh, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is becoming the new George Santos,
because now we can't go go more than like two or three days without getting a new story
of how corrupt Clarence Thomas is.
And this latest one is actually quite a doozy because when the initial stories of Clarence
Thomas accepting these gifts from Harlan Crow came out and Oh yeah, I didn't disclose them
for 20 years, he was like, it's okay because Harlan Crow has not had any business in front
of my Supreme Court.
So I haven't violated any rules.
There was no conflict of interest.
I just didn't report what he gave me, you know, because the LA Times me off back in
the early two thousands because they reported on the gifts I was receiving.
So I just stopped reporting them.
But there was no conflict of interest because Harlan Crow had no business in front of the
Supreme Court.
That's a lie.
Thanks to a report from Bloomberg yesterday, we now know that yes, in fact, Harlan Crow
did have business in front of the Supreme Court.
And guess what?
He also won that case.
The case involved a company Tramel Crow, residential Crow, as in Harlan Crow.
It was a business that he had an ownership stake in a financial interest, and they won.
They won their case.
But after this news broke, Bloomberg did reach out to Trammel Crow.
And here's what they said.
At the time of this case, Tramel Crow residential operated completely independently of Crow
Holdings with a separate management team and its own independent operations.
Okay?
So it was, this was not Harlan Crow's main company.
It was just a different company that he also owned.
Like y'all aren't refuting that.
You can't sit there and be like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That is a totally different company owned by Harlan Crow.
It, it doesn't matter if it was a part of Crow Holdings or not a part of Crow Holdings.
If he owned it, then he still had a financial stake in the outcome of that case.
Do you morons not see how that works?
Or do you think the rest of us are so stupid that we don't see how that works?
Because it's one of those two, you're either morons or you think everybody else is a moron.
Either way, your little excuse here doesn't hold water whatsoever because as long as Crow
is in the frigging name and on the official documents, he had a financial stake in it.
Doesn't matter if it's part of the other company or not, people can own more than one thing.
By the way, I don't know if y'all know that over there at, uh, Trammel Crow residential,
but yeah, he can own two things.
He could own three things.
So just throwing that out there so you stop treating everybody else like they're complete
and total brain dead morons.
But we also learned yesterday, it ain't just Clarence Thomas.
Neil Gorsuch also sold property nine days after he was confirmed to the United States
Supreme Court to the chief executive of the law firm of Greenburg Traurig, who frequently
has cases in front of the United States Supreme Court.
So what happened was that Mr. Gorsuch had a piece of property for sale for two years.
Nobody wanted to buy it.
Two years, it was on the market, couldn't find a buyer.
Nine days after he gets confirmed to the Supreme Court and sworn in, the chief executive of
one of the main law firms arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court says, oh, look
at this lovely property.
My wife and I would love to have this Here is 1.24 million.
Thank you and have a wonderful day, Mr. Gorsuch.
Mr. Gorsuch, of course, only owned 20% of the property, so he didn't get the full amount,
but he still got hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And then of course, when it came time for Greenberg, Troy to, uh, go back and have cases
in front of the Supreme Court, Gorsuch never once recused himself, even though he had a
business deal, the sale of a property to the chief executive of that law firm.
Eight out of the 12 cases that Greenberg Traurig brought in front of Gorsuch's Supreme Court,
he voted in favor of Greenberg Traurig.
Four of them, he voted against them.
Eight, he voted for zero.
He recused himself from, and none of this is technically illegal, not the stuff with
Clarence Thomas, not the stuff with Neil Gorsuch.
Is it unethical?
Absolutely.
Unfortunately, there is no official code of ethics for the United States Supreme Court.
None.
There's literally none.
The only mechanism that we have to hold these people accountable is impeachment.
And given the split makeup of both the House and the Senate, there is no way that you can
have a successful impeachment of anybody.
Whether it's a Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter.
So there's nothing we can do at this moment in time, folks.
There is nothing we can do about this.
We can sit here and report it.
We can be super about it, and you should be, but we like, we can't.
We can't do anything about it.
And that is the worst feeling of all.
We have a Supreme Court that is corrupted to its core, absolutely to the core.
It does not function properly.
It cannot function properly when you have justices who are not adhering to the same
standards that lower court justices have to adhere to.
Lower courts do, by the way, have codes of ethics.
If happened to an appellate court judge, even a federal appellate court judge, they would
be removed, but not at the Supreme Court.
All we can do is sit back and be because apparently our brilliant founding fathers didn't think
the Supreme Court was gonna need any oversight whatsoever.
And we've now created this holy, corrupt institution that we can't even touch.