A report from The New York Times details yet another luxury obtained by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas using funds from a wealthy associate. In this instance, it’s been revealed that he purchased a Prevost Marathon RV in 1999, using $267,230 received from Anthony Welters, a former executive at UnitedHealthCare who worked alongside Thomas in the Reagan administration, per the outlet. In a statement on the matter, Welters said that the funds were considered a loan and that it has since been “satisfied,” avoiding the phrasing “paid off,” which means it could have been a gift that would have then needed to be disclosed

  • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anthony Welters, a former executive at UnitedHealthCare who worked alongside Thomas in the Reagan administration

    A Democratic donor who worked for the Reagan admin? Come on now

    • nvimdiesel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t care what their politics is. I hope pro publica takes this up and tracks the money to the source and prints eye watering story about it.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is that hard to believe? Trump used to be a Democrat, Biden voted for anti-LGBQT laws (eg. DOMA), Liz Cheney has recently supported LGBQT rights, etc.

      • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Trump has never been anything other than a deranged psychopath. He’s non-political. What I mean is it really doesn’t matter. Corruption is just corruption. The reporting is misleading. That’s what I take issue with.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why can the SC accept donations if they are supposed to be impartial?

    • nvimdiesel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are no rules saying they can’t. This is all still legal if completely immoral. SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of the government which in the past had be given to regulating itself. It’s starting to look like Congress will have to step in and pass some ethics constraints since SCOTUS won’t adopt one.

  • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Man, I want a job where people just give me six figures in addition to my salary and I can do whatever the fuck I want with it.

    “Good afternoon Bob.”.
    “Good afternoon, Soda. How’s the family?”.
    “Doing great, not affected by anything I do at work at all.”.
    “That’s great, Soda. Oh by the way here’s $300,000”
    “Nice, thank you Bob. I’ll see you around.”