The Biden Crime Family (a.k.a. "Biden is an honest guy"

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Read the ProPublica articles including the most recent which provides the details of a quid pro quo arrangement in place for the past 20 years by which Thomas would be richly compensated by conservative donors for not resigning from the bench in pursuit of a higher income (i.e., I give you money and you don't resign from the court and you keep ruling for the conservative causes I support).

Call it what you want, but taking many millions over decades while rendering impactful decisions from a position from which you would have otherwise resigned were it not for the generosity of your interested patrons is some very shady shit. Of course you'll find some way to defend it.

We'll see if this ethically-challenged moneygrubber will recuse himself from any upcoming J6 cases considering his wife was a such a cheerleader for the Trump criminal conspiracy.

Here we go again. You stated:

BTW, there is significantly more evidence of the Trump clan and Clarence Thomas actually taking real bribes than there is for Joe Biden (actually, there's zero evidence of Biden accepting bribes). Why zero interest from you in real examples of bribery and corruption?

There's no mention in the article you quoted of anything that could be interpreted as a quid pro quo. In fact, the persons from which the funds were received "...(Crow) has not had cases at the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it and has previously said Thomas is a dear friend. David Sokol, a conservative financier who has taken Thomas on vacation on a private jet, said in a statement that he and Thomas had never discussed the justice’s finances or when he might retire.

I've already stated that Thomas' actions have justifiably prompted questions about ethics. So stipulated.

As far as your claim of "evidence of taking bribes"? Still waiting for you to produce that evidence to back up your claim.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Here we go again. You stated:

BTW, there is significantly more evidence of the Trump clan and Clarence Thomas actually taking real bribes than there is for Joe Biden (actually, there's zero evidence of Biden accepting bribes). Why zero interest from you in real examples of bribery and corruption?

There's no mention in the article you quoted of anything that could be interpreted as a quid pro quo. In fact, the persons from which the funds were received "...(Crow) has not had cases at the Supreme Court since Thomas joined it and has previously said Thomas is a dear friend. David Sokol, a conservative financier who has taken Thomas on vacation on a private jet, said in a statement that he and Thomas had never discussed the justice’s finances or when he might retire.

I've already stated that Thomas' actions have justifiably prompted questions about ethics. So stipulated.

As far as your claim of "evidence of taking bribes"? Still waiting for you to produce that evidence to back up your claim.

I explained the nature of the (blatantly obvious) quid pro quo in plain English. It might well be better described as extortion than bribery (i.e., I'm gonna quit (and thereby stop being a reliable conservative vote) if you don't provide me a lavish lifestyle). This is a far more obvious quid pro quo than whatever unproven narrative you're asserting about Biden.

As predicted, you came up with a tenuous defense of Thomas's conduct. Also, you deftly didn't address the myriad corrupt practices of the Trump White House which started with embezzlement during his 2016 inauguration and continued from there (Trump hotel in DC, Trump's planned hotel in Moscow, Ivanka's Chinese trademarks, Trump embezzling money from "Stop the Steal" contributions, persistent tax and bank fraud while President, porn star payoffs from the Oval Office, Kushner's $2 billion gift from Saudi Arabia ...).

You're simply too far gone down the MAGA rathole to realize that whole Biden impeachment thing is nothing other than a Trump-directed effort that will allow him to say "Sure, I was impeached, but so was Biden."

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I explained the nature of the (blatantly obvious) quid pro quo in plain English. It might well be better described as extortion than bribery (i.e., I'm gonna quit (and thereby stop being a reliable conservative vote) ...

The problem is that no one is making that claim except you and yours. The Pro Publica article you posted SPECULATES the motivation behind the trips, etc. was linked to a conversation Thomas had with Stearns. But beyond this speculation, there is no evidence of a connection. Thus we're back to: do you have any actual evidence other than your opinion?

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're simply too far gone down the MAGA rathole to realize that whole Biden impeachment thing is nothing other than a Trump-directed effort that will allow him to say "Sure, I was impeached, but so was Biden."

You're too demented to realize how demented you sound.

[finnbow]

You're simply too far gone down the MAGA rathole to realize that whole Biden impeachment thing is nothing other than a Trump-directed effort that will allow him to say "Sure, I was impeached, but so was Biden."

Originally Posted by whell

You're too demented to realize how demented you sound.

Do you honestly think it is something other than that?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Do you honestly think it is something other than that?

I know you do. I'm asking if you have anything beyond your (and ProPublica's) speculation that supports your belief. So far, you've provided nothing.

You're willing to believe that there's "evidence of bribery" in Thomas's case. I'm willing to believe that ethical lines were crossed, but I don't see evidence of bribery. What's the difference then, assuming that your "evidence of bribery" continues to be something that can't be produced?

You blame me and tell me I'm all MAGA and shit because I don't see the same "evidence of bribery" that you do, even though you can't provide examples of this evidence.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe this issue isn't me?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I know you do. I'm asking if you have anything beyond your (and ProPublica's) speculation that supports your belief. So far, you've provided nothing.

You're willing to believe that there's "evidence of bribery" in Thomas's case. I'm willing to believe that ethical lines were crossed, but I don't see evidence of bribery. What's the difference then, assuming that your "evidence of bribery" continues to be something that can't be produced?

You blame me and tell me I'm all MAGA and shit because I don't see the same "evidence of bribery" that you do, even though you can't provide examples of this evidence.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe this issue isn't me?

So, accepting multi-millions over two decades in exchange for consistent conservative votes on the SCOTUS doesn't strike you as corrupt? Figures.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, accepting multi-millions over two decades in exchange for consistent conservative votes on the SCOTUS doesn't strike you as corrupt? Figures.

That's not what I asked you, is it? I asked you for evidence that Thomas accepted bribes. In an earlier post, you stated that evidence was plentiful. Yes, when asked to point to that evidence, you can't.

Figures.