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

  • rjc@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 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.

  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 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.

  • orangeNgreen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

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