Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire

[Dill]

(04-13-2023, 02:34 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh i know all of this, talk to the OP that posted a report about only the bad statues and nothing else about this guys collection, then Pally posted a Hitler document as well, out of the thousands that he could have posted. To me it appeared he was trying to further the Nazi angle.

Not sure why you are taking offense, you and one other poster said if it's part of a much larger collection then no problems, which i pointed that very thing out.

Media these days is get a couple facts, omit ones that don't support your bias and fill in the gaps with speculation. Print.

So far there doesn't seem to be much if any factual evidence that Thomas didn't follow the rules as they were. There's way too much speculation going on. 

Last point first--there is quit a bit of evidence that Thomas is following neither the ethical norms nor the legal requirements supposed to establish the Supreme Court's independence and probity. The right would be screaming if unions subsidized Sotomayor's vacations with the kind of unreported money flowing to Thomas. 

As has already been pointed out, many of the unwritten rules of Congress, the Executive, and Judicial branches remained unwritten because our government was formed at a time when no one could imagine such flagrant venality among gentlemen. The occasional violations brought shame, not defense along the lines of "well, no laws were broken." Now we are in an era in which non-gentlemen are finding the honor system makes government an opportunity, like a San Fran Walmart with no security cameras. 

I "took offense" because you ignored "the very thing" I and others pointed out, and decided to respond as if we all had accused Crow of something he had not done. Then you complain "the media" omits facts which don't support their bias.

There is one news organization famous for blatant selective reporting. But the Propublica article which heads this thread is definitely NOT an example of "bias" and "filling gaps with speculation." It explains very clearly how Thomas' behavior runs counter to law and ethical norms, thereby doing exactly what journalism is supposed to do in democracy--holding power accountable.  

We should be supporting that, and NOT defending Thomas' elite-funded vacations with "friends." 

[*pally*]

(04-13-2023, 02:34 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh i know all of this, talk to the OP that posted a report about only the bad statues and nothing else about this guys collection, then Pally posted a Hitler document as well, out of the thousands that he could have posted. To me it appeared he was trying to further the Nazi angle.

Not sure why you are taking offense, you and one other poster said if it's part of a much larger collection then no problems, which i pointed that very thing out.

Media these days is get a couple facts, omit ones that don't support your bias and fill in the gaps with speculation. Print.

So far there doesn't seem to be much if any factual evidence that Thomas didn't follow the rules as they were. There's way too much speculation going on. 

New reporting from Pro Publica
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

IN 2014, Crow bought the house Thomas's mother was living in and 2 vacant lots.  The home was co-owned by Thomas, his mother, and late brother.  Mrs. Thomas remains the resident. There was no evidence to show whether she is paying rent or not.  I'm betting on not. Crow then immediately spent 10's of thousands of dollars improving the property.  He claimed he bought the property to turn it into a museum. Crow later sold the 2 vacant lots which started the gentrification of the aging neighborhood..

Justice Thomas FAILED to report this transaction as required for property sales of over $1000.  The only exception is for a primary residence which this transaction certainly was not.  

This BFF relationship is amazing

1) Crow owns the home of Thomas's mother
2) Crow donated 1/2 a million dollars to a new PAC founded by Ginni Thomas which in turn paid her a $120,000/year
3) Crow financed a documentary about Thomas's life,  Thomas talked about his love of RV trips but somehow missed talking about his regular vacations on luxury yachts in exotic locations
3) Other guests on these vacations include high-ranking officials whose companies or industries have cases in front of the court
4) Crow regularly makes large donations to institutions and causes with strong Thomas ties, including a fund honoring him at Yale, a library wing, a statue for a favored teacher, etc
5) Crow is a major financier in the Federalist Society's attempt to make over the courts as well as the publicity campaign behind all 3 of Trump's SC nominees
6)Makes you wonder what Thomas contributes to this relationship which didn't begin until AFTER Thomas joined the court.

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2023, 04:28 PM)pally Wrote: New reporting from Pro Publica
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

IN 2014, Crow bought the house Thomas's mother was living in and 2 vacant lots.  The home was co-owned by Thomas, his mother, and late brother.  Mrs. Thomas remains the resident. There was no evidence to show whether she is paying rent or not.  I'm betting on not. Crow then immediately spent 10's of thousands of dollars improving the property.  He claimed he bought the property to turn it into a museum. Crow later sold the 2 vacant lots which started the gentrification of the aging neighborhood..

Justice Thomas FAILED to report this transaction as required for property sales of over $1000.  The only exception is for a primary residence which this transaction certainly was not.  

This BFF relationship is amazing

1) Crow owns the home of Thomas's mother
2) Crow donated 1/2 a million dollars to a new PAC founded by Ginni Thomas which in turn paid her a $120,000/year
3) Crow financed a documentary about Thomas's life,  Thomas talked about his love of RV trips but somehow missed talking about his regular vacations on luxury yachts in exotic locations
3) Other guests on these vacations include high-ranking officials whose companies or industries have cases in front of the court
4) Crow regularly makes large donations to institutions and causes with strong Thomas ties, including a fund honoring him at Yale, a library wing, a statue for a favored teacher, etc
5) Crow is a major financier in the Federalist Society's attempt to make over the courts as well as the publicity campaign behind all 3 of Trump's SC nominees
6)Makes you wonder what Thomas contributes to this relationship which didn't begin until AFTER Thomas joined the court.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-13-2023, 07:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We actually don't know, because the conversations over these cases between the justices is not in the public. I will let you in on a secret, though, the information in briefs is always biased.

I'll let you in on another secret.
When someone doesn't like what's written up in a report because it feels biased to them, it some how gets leaked to the public and then the media slams it

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-13-2023, 04:28 PM)pally Wrote: New reporting from Pro Publica
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

IN 2014, Crow bought the house Thomas's mother was living in and 2 vacant lots.  The home was co-owned by Thomas, his mother, and late brother.  Mrs. Thomas remains the resident. There was no evidence to show whether she is paying rent or not.  I'm betting on not. Crow then immediately spent 10's of thousands of dollars improving the property.  He claimed he bought the property to turn it into a museum. Crow later sold the 2 vacant lots which started the gentrification of the aging neighborhood..

Justice Thomas FAILED to report this transaction as required for property sales of over $1000.  The only exception is for a primary residence which this transaction certainly was not.  

This BFF relationship is amazing

1) Crow owns the home of Thomas's mother
2) Crow donated 1/2 a million dollars to a new PAC founded by Ginni Thomas which in turn paid her a $120,000/year
3) Crow financed a documentary about Thomas's life,  Thomas talked about his love of RV trips but somehow missed talking about his regular vacations on luxury yachts in exotic locations
3) Other guests on these vacations include high-ranking officials whose companies or industries have cases in front of the court
4) Crow regularly makes large donations to institutions and causes with strong Thomas ties, including a fund honoring him at Yale, a library wing, a statue for a favored teacher, etc
5) Crow is a major financier in the Federalist Society's attempt to make over the courts as well as the publicity campaign behind all 3 of Trump's SC nominees
6)Makes you wonder what Thomas contributes to this relationship which didn't begin until AFTER Thomas joined the court.

1) So? was there an agreement between Thomas and Crow or did Crow do that on his own?
2) So she's like the ONLY person in all of DC that benefited from that?  
3) And it was cleared up by both Crow and Thomas that no SC business was discussed.
4) ? so he admires him, but that's not breaking the laws, he's not giving it to him directly which IS against the law.
5) Isn't that part of Freedom of Speech? He's using his money to get the message out that he wants heard.
6) When they met isn't all that important considering the length of time that they have already established as being friends.

as i said before, you grab a fact and make everyone speculate the rest and if they don't speculate the same as you, you argue it with them. When there's nothing really there worth arguing about.

Just read a bit ago that Mr Crow and his firm have never had a case that was brought before the SC...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741877-harlan-crow-statement

Statement from Harlan Crow: 

My wife Kathy and I have been friends with Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni since 1996. We are very dear friends. The hospitality we have extended to the Thomas’s over the years is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends. We have been most fortunate to have a great life of many friends and financial success, and we have always placed a priority on spending time with our family and friends. Justice Thomas and Ginni never asked for any of this hospitality. 

We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue. More generally, I am unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that. These are gatherings of friends. 

On a number of occasions, we have made contributions to projects celebrating the life and legacy of Justice Thomas, just as we have done with other great leaders and historically significant figures. He and Ginni never asked us to do any of this. We did so because we believe Justice Thomas to be one of the greatest Americans of our time, and we believe it is important to make sure as many people as possible learn about him, remember him, and understand the ideals for which he stands. We will continue to support projects that advance this goal.

[GMDino]

(04-13-2023, 07:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1) So? was there an agreement between Thomas and Crow or did Crow do that on his own?
2) So she's like the ONLY person in all of DC that benefited from that?  
3) And it was cleared up by both Crow and Thomas that no SC business was discussed.
4) ? so he admires him, but that's not breaking the laws, he's not giving it to him directly which IS against the law.
5) Isn't that part of Freedom of Speech? He's using his money to get the message out that he wants heard.
6) When they met isn't all that important considering the length of time that they have already established as being friends.

as i said before, you grab a fact and make everyone speculate the rest and if they don't speculate the same as you, you argue it with them. When there's nothing really there worth arguing about.

Just read a bit ago that Mr Crow and his firm have never had a case that was brought before the SC...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741877-harlan-crow-statement

Statement from Harlan Crow: 

My wife Kathy and I have been friends with Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni since 1996. We are very dear friends. The hospitality we have extended to the Thomas’s over the years is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends. We have been most fortunate to have a great life of many friends and financial success, and we have always placed a priority on spending time with our family and friends. Justice Thomas and Ginni never asked for any of this hospitality. 

We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue. More generally, I am unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that. These are gatherings of friends. 

On a number of occasions, we have made contributions to projects celebrating the life and legacy of Justice Thomas, just as we have done with other great leaders and historically significant figures. He and Ginni never asked us to do any of this. We did so because we believe Justice Thomas to be one of the greatest Americans of our time, and we believe it is important to make sure as many people as possible learn about him, remember him, and understand the ideals for which he stands. We will continue to support projects that advance this goal.

Oh, well, if the guy says there was nothing going on then that's that.

Just like any possible law breakers we just take them at their word.

Good to know.  

[StoneTheCrow]

(04-13-2023, 09:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, well, if the guy says there was nothing going on then that's that.

Just like any possible law breakers we just take them at their word.

Good to know.  

[*pally*]

(04-13-2023, 07:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1) So? was there an agreement between Thomas and Crow or did Crow do that on his own?
2) So she's like the ONLY person in all of DC that benefited from that?  
3) And it was cleared up by both Crow and Thomas that no SC business was discussed.
4) ? so he admires him, but that's not breaking the laws, he's not giving it to him directly which IS against the law.
5) Isn't that part of Freedom of Speech? He's using his money to get the message out that he wants heard.
6) When they met isn't all that important considering the length of time that they have already established as being friends.

as i said before, you grab a fact and make everyone speculate the rest and if they don't speculate the same as you, you argue it with them. When there's nothing really there worth arguing about.

Just read a bit ago that Mr Crow and his firm have never had a case that was brought before the SC...

Crow sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute which has written dozens of amicus briefs on cases before the court. But he doesn't have to discuss a specific case if it is already known how Crow wants Thomas to vote
Would you be making up excuses if George Soros was secretly giving Justice Sotomayor hundreds of thousands of dollars in "gifts" every year?
For the Supreme Court to carry authority and gravitas they must not even have the appearance of corruption.  Clarence Thomas in part because of his election-denying wife crossed that line a long time ago.

[NATI BENGALS]

Actual deep state stuff. Pretty cool.



I'm going to pretend its just status quo stuff.

[Belsnickel]

(04-13-2023, 07:27 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'll let you in on another secret.
When someone doesn't like what's written up in a report because it feels biased to them, it some how gets leaked to the public and then the media slams it

Amicus briefs are generally public. Their bias, though, isn't covered because given that cases before SCOTUS are never cut and dry (that's why they are there after all) the briefs submitted are always going to be biased to the side they are supporting. It is the nature of the situation. Bias is constantly present so reporting on it is pointless. We throw around the word as if bias is some big thing that magically makes an argument null and void but the truth is that bias is constantly at play in every aspect of these things.

Codes of ethics exist to prevent undue bias and to promote equitable actions by the state. But they can't eliminate all bias because of how engrained it is.

[Dill]

(04-13-2023, 07:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: as i said before, you grab a fact and make everyone speculate the rest and if they don't speculate the same as you, you argue it with them. When there's nothing really there worth arguing about.

It's not "speculation" that Thomas failed to report the gifts lavished upon him by a billionaire. And that he has violated ethical norms. 
That is the case whether we know exactly what these two whispered about on Crow's jet and yacht or not.

You are the one "speculating" here when you assume nothing untoward follows from the incredible access Crow's
wealth gives him to a Supreme Court Justice.

Would you think there was nothing to argue about if you found out that Art Rooney II provided expensive vacations for the head ref of the next Bengal Steeler game, and Rooney bought his mother's home, in which she still lives, etc.?

That would be ok if they had been "great friends" since 1996, when they guy began reffing NFL games, and no one could "prove" any wrongdoing, right? 

[*pally*]

(04-14-2023, 08:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Amicus briefs are generally public. Their bias, though, isn't covered because given that cases before SCOTUS are never cut and dry (that's why they are there after all) the briefs submitted are always going to be biased to the side they are supporting. It is the nature of the situation. Bias is constantly present so reporting on it is pointless. We throw around the word as if bias is some big thing that magically makes an argument null and void but the truth is that bias is constantly at play in every aspect of these things.

Codes of ethics exist to prevent undue bias and to promote equitable actions by the state. But they can't eliminate all bias because of how engrained it is.

Bias exists but what we have here is a massive indication of CORRUPTION which is hardly the same thing

[Belsnickel]

(04-14-2023, 05:19 PM)pally Wrote: Bias exists but what we have here is a massive indication of CORRUPTION which is hardly the same thing

My point was in response to the implication that if something presented to the court were biased something would be said. It's just so commonplace that it is an accepted reality that bias is present in those filings.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

Another high tech lynching.

[Dill]

(04-14-2023, 05:19 PM)pally Wrote: Bias exists but what we have here is a massive indication of CORRUPTION which is hardly the same thing

Denying even the POTENTIAL for corruption, the HIGH PROBABILITY of it, 

is a form of "denial bias"--though there is much more involved here than just bias. *

What is interesting is that this sort of bias works in practice by registering the

recognition of probable/actual bias as itself a kind of bias--"liberal bias." 

THEY are the ones "speculating" etc.  

While those who see nothing wrong with a public servant's $500,000 vacation 

paid for by a billionaire whose profits and political power depend on that servant's decisions

suppose themselves possessed of a wholly "neutral" vision.  

Very likely Thomas and Crow see it that way too, as they discuss judicial moves with the'

head of the Federalist Society over a campfire. 

*what we are really talking about here is not discrete biases, but an ideology which misconstructs perception, a worldview. 

[GMDino]

(04-15-2023, 04:46 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Another high tech lynching.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/04/16/clarence-thomas-ginger-financial-disclosure/

Quote:Clarence Thomas has for years claimed income from a defunct real estate firm
The misstatements, which began when a family business transferred its holdings to another company, are part of a pattern that has raised questions about how the Supreme Court justice views his obligation to accurately report details about his finances to the public.
By Shawn Boburg
 and 
Emma Brown


April 16, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. EDT

Thomas’s disclosure history is in the spotlight after ProPublica revealed that a Texas billionaire took him on lavish vacations and also bought from Thomas and his relatives a Georgia home where his mother lives, a transaction that was not disclosed on the forms. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)

Listen
7 min
Comment9523

Gift Article

Share
Over the last two decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has reported on required financial disclosure forms that his family received rental income totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership.

But that company — a Nebraska real estate firm launched in the 1980s by his wife and her relatives — has not existed since 2006.

That year, the family real estate company was shut down and a separate firm was created, state incorporation records show. The similarly named firm assumed control of the shuttered company’s land leasing business, according to property records.
Since that time, however, Thomas has continued to report income from the defunct company — between $50,000 and $100,000 annually in recent years — and there is no mention of the newer firm, Ginger Holdings, LLC, on the forms.


ADVERTISING



The previously unreported misstatement might be dismissed as a paperwork error. But it is among a series of errors and omissions that Thomas has made on required annual financial disclosure forms over the past several decades, a review of those records shows. Together, they have raised questions about how seriously Thomas views his responsibility to accurately report details about his finances to the public.
Thomas’s disclosure history is in the spotlight after ProPublica revealed this month that a Texas billionaire took him on lavish vacations and also bought from Thomas and his relatives a Georgia home where his mother lives, a transaction that was not disclosed on the forms. Thomas said in a statement that colleagues he did not name told him he did not have to report the vacations and that he has always tried to comply with disclosure guidelines. He has not publicly addressed the property transaction.
In 2011, after the watchdog group Common Cause raised red flags, Thomas updated years of his financial disclosure reports to include employment details for his wife, conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas. The justice said at the time that he had not understood the filing instructions. In 2020, he was forced to revise his disclosure forms after a different watchdog group found he had failed to report reimbursements for trips to speak at two law schools.




A judicial ethics expert said the pattern was troubling.
“Any presumption in favor of Thomas’s integrity and commitment to comply with the law is gone. His assurances and promises cannot be trusted. Is there more? What’s the whole story? The nation needs to know,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York University.
Gillers said all three branches of government should investigate Thomas’s compliance or noncompliance with federal ethics law. “The Supreme Court has been the glue that has held the republic together since 1790 with the Civil War the only interruption. We need the public to respect it even when it disagrees with it and to understand why it is important. Generally, the public has,” he said. “But that respect is now in serious jeopardy, and others must do something to stop the free fall.”




Thomas did not respond to emailed questions sent through a court spokeswoman. His wife also did not respond to requests for comment.
Thomas’s income from the firm he describes as “Ginger, Ltd., Partnership” on the financial disclosure forms has grown substantially over the last decade, though the precise amounts are unknown because the forms require only that ranges be reported. In total, he has reported receiving between $270,000 to $750,000 from the firm since 2006, describing it as “rent.” Thomas’s salary as a justice this year is $285,000.
The company’s roots trace back to two lakeside neighborhoods developed decades ago by Ginni Thomas’s late parents in a community in Douglas County, just outside of Omaha.

Ginger Limited Partnership was created in 1982 to sell and lease real estate, state incorporation records show, and its partners were Ginni Thomas, her parents and her three siblings. The firm owned and leased out residential lots in two developments, Ginger Woods and Ginger Cove, collecting rent annually from each occupied plot of land, according to copies of lease agreements on file with the county.



When he was nominated to a federal appeals court in 1990, Thomas listed the firm in a financial statement as one of his wife’s assets — worth $15,000 at the time.
The firm was dissolved in March 2006. Around the same time, Ginger Holdings, LLC was created in Nebraska, according to state records, which list the same business address as the shuttered company and name Joanne K. Elliott, the sister of Ginni Thomas, as manager.

The same month, the leases for more than 200 residential lots in Ginger Woods and Ginger Cove were transferred from Ginger Limited Partnership to Ginger Holdings, LLC, property records in Douglas County show.
Reached by phone, Elliott referred questions about the two companies to Ginni Thomas.
“You could call her and she could answer anything that she wants you to know,” Elliott said before hanging up.
Ginni Thomas is not named in state incorporation records related to Ginger Holdings, LLC.

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, walks during a break as she speaks behind closed doors Sept. 29, 2022. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

In his most recent disclosure, in 2021, Thomas estimated that his family’s interest in Ginger Limited Partnership, the defunct firm, was worth between $250,000 and $500,000. He reported receiving an income from it between $50,000 and $100,000 that year.




On Friday, congressional Democrats with oversight of federal courts cited Thomas’s “apparent pattern of noncompliance with disclosure requirements” in calling on the Judicial Conference — the policymaking body for the federal courts — to refer him to the attorney general for an investigation into whether he violated federal ethics laws.
In addition to the recent revelations about Thomas’s financial relationship with Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire, they cited a period in the 2000s in which Thomas failed to disclose his wife’s employment as required by law until the omission was reported by the watchdog group Common Cause.
Ginni Thomas earned more than $686,000 from the conservative Heritage Foundation from 2003 until 2007, according to the nonprofit’s tax forms. Clarence Thomas checked a box labeled “none” for his wife’s income during that period. He had done the same in 2008 and 2009 when she worked for conservative Hillsdale College.




Thomas acknowledged the error when he amended those filings in 2011. He wrote that the information had been “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”
In some years before those omissions, however, Thomas had correctly reported his wife’s employment.
Thomas failed to report the sale of the three Georgia properties to Crow in 2014, and he also continued to report that he owned a share of those properties as late as 2015, his disclosure forms show. In addition, beginning in 2010, his disclosures described the properties as being located in Liberty County, Ga., even though they were actually located in Chatham County.

Thomas also did not report reimbursement for transportation, meals and lodging while teaching at the universities of Kansas and Georgia in 2018. After the omission was flagged by the nonprofit Fix the Court, Thomas amended his filing for that year. He also amended his 2017 filing, on which he had left off similar reimbursements while teaching at Creighton Law School, his wife’s alma mater.

Simply amazing that the "lock her up" crowd, the ones who claim every judge who has been even involved in a case for Trump is "unfair", that they can't wrap their heads around real facts and that someone they support could have done something wrong or underhanded or even shady.

Wait...not that's not amazing at all.  It is totally expected.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-14-2023, 05:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: My point was in response to the implication that if something presented to the court were biased something would be said. It's just so commonplace that it is an accepted reality that bias is present in those filings.

So then by your own words, these reports submitted are not even that big of a deal.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2023, 09:12 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So then by your own words, these reports submitted are not even that big of a deal.

That's not at all what I said. I mean, if you remove all context and make my comments more broadly applied to the conversation in a way that is showing you aren't arguing in good faith, sure. Otherwise, no.

[*pally*]

All I know is that Crow has been subsidizing the income of Clarence Thomas millions of dollars over the past 25 years. For a judge the appearance of corruption is equal to corruption. We don’t know how he would have voted without Crow’s influence because he never has voted without it.

If this was George Soros doing the same thing for a “liberal” Justice we would see heads exploding on the right..

Until Thomas is off the court, any vote from him is suspect

[GMDino]

Oh.

though there is no official code of ethics to punish Thomas. Meanwhile, new reports have revealed that Justice Neil Gorsuch sold property to a law partner with frequent business before the Court and never reported it. pic.twitter.com/KqZWk4I25C

— Mo.bare. Michael. sta.ve. m.j r.b c.p .Jhn (@Maxamdbar88888) April 27, 2023

 


https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/04/24/supreme-court-did-review-case-involving-harlan-crow-contradicting-clarence-thomass-claim/?sh=45dc36576c74