Crow, Harlan

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares63 Views

    Justice Thomas Denounces ‘the Nastiness and the Lies’ Faced by His Family

    by

    The statement was among the few public remarks he has made since revelations that he had failed to report lavish gifts and travel from wealthy conservatives.Justice Clarence Thomas denounced on Friday “the nastiness and the lies” that have shadowed him in recent years as public scrutiny has mounted over his wife’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election and luxury gifts he has accepted from billionaire friends.It amounted to some of the most extensive public remarks he has made since revelations that he failed to disclose years of lavish trips from wealthy conservatives, like the Texas real estate magnate Harlan Crow, including on private jets and a superyacht.“My wife and I, the last two or three years, just the nastiness and the lies,” said Justice Thomas, who did not specify what he was referring to in addressing a full ballroom of lawyers and judges gathered for a judicial conference in Alabama. “There’s certainly been a lot of negativity in our lives, my wife and I, over the last few years, but we choose not to focus on it.”The justice faced calls for recusal after text messages and emails showed that his wife, Virginia Thomas, known as Ginni, sought to overturn the election, appealing to administration officials and lawmakers. Justice Thomas has continued to participate in a number of cases related to the 2020 election, including three about Jan. 6 on the docket this term.The remarks were part of a wide-ranging conversation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference held at a luxury resort on the waters of Mobile Bay, a shallow inlet of the Gulf of Mexico.Interviewed by a former clerk, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, now a federal judge in Florida best known for overturning the Biden administration’s mask mandate, Justice Thomas reminisced about past years on the court, when he said it would have been impossible to imagine anyone leaking opinions. That appeared to be a reference to the 2022 leak of the draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminating the constitutional right to abortion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      GOP Candidates Are Pleading Their Case to Donors to Take on Trump

      by

      Rivals to Donald J. Trump and their strategists told financiers that time is running out to build up a viable alternative to the former president.With less than 100 days until the Iowa caucuses, Donald J. Trump’s leading rivals continue to engage in a pitched battle with one another as much as with him, igniting fears that internal divisions were threatening to doom efforts to find a fresh face for the Republican Party in 2024.From Dallas to Park City, Utah, top Republican donors gathered behind closed doors this week as talk intensified about the need to cull the G.O.P. field. In private remarks to donors in Utah, Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a blunt message that it was time to pick sides and invest if there was any chance to prevent another Trump nomination.“Get in the game,” Ms. Haley urged them, according to two people who were present at the event.But given Mr. Trump’s durable lead, some political financiers are considering staying on the sidelines. For those donors who aren’t, the choice has increasingly narrowed to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Ms. Haley, whose fortunes have been lifted by her performance in the first two debates. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina is a factor as well, given the $25 million his super PAC has remaining in television ad reservations in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in the next three months.On Friday, teams of advisers to Mr. DeSantis, Ms. Haley and Mr. Scott descended on Dallas for separate presentations to an exclusive gathering of some of the most influential Republican donors in the nation, a group known as the American Opportunity Alliance. They met at a property owned by the billionaire Republican financier Harlan Crow, who has gained attention and scrutiny for his close relationship with Justice Clarence Thomas.The crowd included some of the party’s biggest contributors or their top representatives, megadonors like Paul Singer and Ken Griffin who can spend tens of millions of dollars. And the stakes produced pointed presentations, according to more than a half-dozen people who were in the room or had been briefed on the remarks.The DeSantis team argued that any effort to push him out of the race would backfire for the anti-Trump cause. Three top DeSantis campaign strategists — James Uthmeier, David Polyansky and Ryan Tyson — presented internal polls showing that 90 percent of his supporters would drift to Mr. Trump if Mr. DeSantis were to exit the race. Ms. Haley’s supporters, they said in contrast, would flow to Mr. DeSantis if she departed.The DeSantis team suggested that Mr. Trump had to be stopped in Iowa, and that Mr. DeSantis was the only one positioned to do so. And they acknowledged Mr. DeSantis’s past struggles, describing themselves as having fought back to a stronger position.Gov. Ron DeSantis in Nashua, N.H., on Friday. His team has told donors that any effort to push him out of the race would backfire on the anti-Trump cause.John Tully for The New York TimesMs. Haley’s advisers, Betsy Ankeny and Jon Lerner, showed their own internal surveys, which placed Ms. Haley ahead of Mr. DeSantis in New Hampshire and South Carolina and had the two of them tied in Iowa. Mr. DeSantis had stalled, they argued, and she was rising.In a sign of the threat Ms. Haley poses to Mr. DeSantis, Never Back Down — the leading pro-DeSantis super PAC — is readying an anti-Haley ad campaign and has tested several attacks, including her ties to China, according to a person familiar with the matter. Such a move would be a watershed moment, as DeSantis advisers have long insisted the primary is a two-man contest between the governor and Mr. Trump.Mr. Scott, whose team had not initially been invited to Dallas, was represented by Jennifer DeCasper, Zac Moffatt and Erik Iverson. They revealed that Mr. Scott would enter October with $11.6 million cash on hand for the primary — more than either Mr. DeSantis or Ms. Haley.Ms. DeCasper pitched Mr. Scott’s toughness and his willingness to stand up to Mr. Trump. She invoked when he confronted Mr. Trump for the former president’s equivocations after the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Va.“We’ve never flown to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, to ask permission for anything,” she said.The dueling presentations underscored the degree to which the race to be the main alternative to Mr. Trump is playing out in donor meetings as much as on the ground in the early states.Ms. Haley, campaigning in New Hampshire on Friday, made explicit the power of wealthy donors to narrow the field. “I think it’s up to the voters, and I think it’s up to the donors to decide which candidates should get off the stage,” Ms. Haley said as she filed to appear on the ballot in the state.For months, donors have had private discussions not just about the possibility of collectively backing a single alternative to Mr. Trump, but whether wealthy backers of low-polling candidates could encourage those candidates to drop out to consolidate anti-Trump support.In recent days, Ms. Haley and Mr. DeSantis have made a series of announcements pitching political insiders on their respective momentum. Mr. DeSantis on Thursday announced his first ad reservation of the race, saying he would spend $2 million in Iowa. That came a week after he started shifting one-third of his staff from Tallahassee to Iowa to bolster his operation in the state.Ms. Haley rolled out her fund-raising haul, revealing she had more cash on hand for the primary than Mr. DeSantis, $9.1 million to $5 million. She also announced the opening of her first office in Iowa and the addition of two staff members in the state, bringing her total to four.For veterans of the 2016 primary, the obsessive focus on the race to be in second place is inflicting a serious sense of déjà vu.“In October of 2015, you had Jeb Bush machine gunning Marco Rubio and Rubio going after Ted Cruz, and nobody was really laying a hand on Trump,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist who was a top adviser to Mr. Rubio at the time.“It’s shaping up to be a repeat of 2016,” Mr. Conant added of the current contest. He said that this time, it was even worse for the Trump challengers. “Now, even if you combined everyone’s poll numbers that was on the debate stage, you’d still be under Trump.”A recent national poll from Fox News showed Mr. Trump at 59 percent, virtually unchanged from September. Mr. DeSantis was the next closest at 13 percent, with Ms. Haley in third, with 10 percent.Still, most of Mr. Trump’s rivals tread cautiously when it comes to criticizing the former president.On Monday, Mr. DeSantis made his first appearance on MSNBC, the type of network he had spent years deriding as “corporate media,” a sign of his need for political oxygen and coverage. And while he swiped at how a Trump nomination would be a distraction — citing documents found near toilets in Mar-a-Lago — he evaded a follow-up question about whether Americans should be concerned Mr. Trump was loose with the nation’s secrets, the charge at the center of the special counsel’s criminal indictment.“Well, look, I think that’s an allegation — it remains to be seen,” Mr. DeSantis began, before pivoting to a defense of Mr. Trump.Later in the week, Mr. DeSantis criticized Mr. Trump for his attack on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and on Israel’s intelligence services for missing the impending terrorist attack by Hamas. The issue is potent for a number of pro-Israel and politically conservative donors, and Mr. DeSantis’s allies and advisers see it as a Trump vulnerability.Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, said that if donors “don’t pick a candidate, Trump is going to be the nominee.”John Tully for The New York TimesSpencer Zwick, who oversaw Senator Mitt Romney’s fund-raising operation when he ran for president in 2012 and who organized the Utah conference, said Ms. Haley “was probably the strongest in making the case” that donors needed to mobilize to stop Mr. Trump from winning. Other attendees included former Vice President Mike Pence, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota and former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.“If you don’t pick a candidate, Trump is going to be the nominee,” Mr. Christie warned the donors, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by The New York Times.But the lower-polling Mr. Christie urged the donors not to focus on whom they thought could win — “Your track record shows that you don’t” know how to predict that, he said to laughter — but whom they thought would be the best president.“How about we try that one?” Mr. Christie said. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why the Supreme Court Is Blind to Its Own Corruption

      by

      The scandal surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas has further eroded the already record-low public confidence in the Supreme Court. If Chief Justice John Roberts wonders how such a thing could have happened, he might start looking for answers within the cloistered walls of his own courtroom.Over more than two decades, the Supreme Court has gutted laws aimed at fighting corruption and at limiting the ability of the powerful to enrich public officials in a position to advance their interests. As a result, today wealthy individuals and corporations may buy political access and influence with little fear of legal consequences, either for them or for the beneficiaries of their largess.No wonder Justice Thomas apparently thought his behavior was no big deal.He has been under fire for secretly accepting, from the Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, luxury vacations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, a real estate deal (involving the home where his mother was living) and the payment of private school tuition for a grandnephew the justice was raising. Meanwhile, over the years, conservative groups with which Mr. Crow was affiliated filed amicus briefs in several matters before the Supreme Court.That sounds like the very definition of corruption. But over the years, many justices — and not just conservatives — have championed a different definition.The landmark case is the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. A five-justice majority — including Justice Thomas — struck down decades-old restrictions on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, holding that they violated the companies’ free speech rights. It rejected the argument that such laws were necessary to prevent the damage to democracy that results from unbridled corporate spending and the undue influence it can create.The government’s legitimate interest in fighting corruption, the court held, is limited to direct quid pro quo deals, in which a public official makes a specific commitment to act in exchange for something of value. The appearance of potentially improper influence or access is not enough.In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of adopting a “crabbed view of corruption” that the court itself had rejected in an earlier case. He argued that Congress has a legitimate interest in limiting the effects of corporate money on politics: “Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics.”Citizens United opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending on behalf of political candidates and to the influence that spending necessarily provides. But the decision didn’t come out of nowhere: The court has often been unanimous in its zeal for curtailing criminal corruption laws.In the 1999 case of United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, the court unanimously held, in effect, that it is not a violation of the federal gratuities statute for an individual or corporation to have a public official on private retainer. The court rejected a theory known as a “status gratuity,” where a donor showers a public official with gifts over time based on the official’s position (that is in contrast with a more common gratuity, given as a thank you for a particular act by the official). The quite reasonable rationale behind that theory was that when matters of interest to the donor arose, the past gifts (and hope for future ones) might lead the official to favor his or her benefactor.That actually sounds a lot like the Crow-Thomas relationship. But the court held that such an arrangement is not unlawful. The gratuities law, the court ruled, requires that a particular gift be linked to a particular official act. Without such a direct link, a series of gifts to a public official over time does not violate the statute, even if the goal is to curry favor with an official who could act to benefit the gift giver.In the wake of Sun-Diamond, federal prosecutors increasingly turned to a more expansive legal theory known as honest services fraud. But in Skilling v. United States, the court ruled that theory is limited to cases of bribes and kickbacks — once again, direct quid pro quo deals. Three justices, including Justice Thomas, wanted to go even further and declare the statute that prohibits honest services fraud unconstitutional.The court proceeded to limit its “crabbed view of corruption” even further. In the 2016 case McDonnell v. United States, the court held that selling government access is not unlawful. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and his wife, Maureen, accepted about $175,000 in secret gifts from the businessman Jonnie Williams, who wanted Virginia’s public universities to perform research studies on his company’s dietary supplement to assist with its F.D.A. approval. In exchange, Mr. McDonnell asked subordinates to meet with Mr. Williams about such studies and hosted a luncheon at the governor’s mansion to connect him with university health researchers.A jury convicted the McDonnells on several counts of corruption. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — hardly known as a bastion of liberalism — unanimously affirmed the convictions. But the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the things Mr. McDonnell did for Mr. Williams did not qualify as “official acts” under federal bribery law. Selling official access may be tawdry, the court held, but it is not a crime.Those who think Justice Thomas may be guilty of corruption may not realize just how difficult the court itself has made it to prove such a case. Now only the most ham-handed officials, clumsy enough to engage in a direct quid pro quo, risk prosecution.Viewed in light of this history, the Thomas scandal becomes less surprising. Its own rulings would indicate that the Supreme Court doesn’t believe what he did is corrupt. A powerful conservative with interests before the court who regularly provides a justice with vacations worth more than his annual salary is, as the court said in Citizens United, merely the “appearance” of potential corruption. In the court’s view, the public has no reason to be concerned.But the public clearly is, and should be, concerned over the ability of the rich and powerful to purchase access and influence unavailable to most citizens. Unfortunately, Citizens United is here to stay without a constitutional amendment or an overruling by the court, neither of which is very likely.But it’s still possible for the rest of the country to move past the court’s naïve and inadequate view of corruption. Congress could amend criminal corruption laws to expand their scope and overturn the results in Sun-Diamond, Skilling and McDonnell. It could increase funding for enforcement of the Ethics in Government Act and increase the penalties for filing a false financial disclosure form (or failing to file one at all). Beefed up disclosure regulations could make it more difficult for officials to hide financial interests and could make it clear there are no disclosure exceptions for enormous gifts of “personal hospitality,” contrary to what Justice Thomas claims he believed. And Congress could pass legislation like the proposed Disclose Act, to require transparency regarding who is behind political donations and spending.Congress so far has shown little interest in passing such reforms. But that’s where the remedy lies. It’s time for Congress to act.In his Citizens United dissent, Justice Stevens observed, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” That’s exactly how it now appears to the public — and that applies to Supreme Court justices as well as to politicians.Randall D. Eliason is the former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. He blogs at Sidebarsblog.com.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Clarence Thomas Decided Against the Staycation

      by

      Bret Stephens: Just for a change, Gail, let’s start with something other than Donald Trump. How about … Clarence Thomas’s junkets?Gail Collins: Absolutely! When Justice Thomas isn’t busy announcing that the Supreme Court could do to contraception what it did to abortion rights, he’s apparently been happily taking luxury yacht and jet trips with his great old friend the billionaire Republican megadonor and Nazi memorabilia collector Harlan Crow. Along with Thomas’s wife Ginni — I guess she was taking time off from trying to overturn the 2020 election.Bret: You know, every time I try and fail to overturn an election, a nice $500,000 vacation in Indonesia helps salve the disappointment.Gail: Bret, I presume the happy couple was having a great holiday weekend despite all the fresh publicity about their trips. They got to listen to all the reports of a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas blocking the sale of a drug that terminates pregnancy in the first 10 weeks.Next, I guess, Thomas will be suggesting that the only acceptable form of birth control is the rhythm method. Much about him, from his judicial goals to his behavior, is a scandal. Let’s not forget that he’s the one who was confirmed despite the compelling testimony of Anita Hill about his wretched comments.Any chance of getting him tossed off the court, huh? Huh?Bret: Sorry, but the only scandal I see here is that the luxury trips don’t square with Justice Thomas’s self-portrait as a guy who likes to drive his R.V. around the country, spending nights in Walmart parking lots. Until last month, there was no rule requiring justices to disclose this kind of information about vacations with wealthy friends, assuming those friends didn’t have business before the court. Which makes the idea of trying to toss him off the court a nonstarter, not to mention a bad precedent lest some liberal justices turn out to have rich and generous friends, too.Of course, I say all this as someone who’s generally a fan of Justice Thomas, even if I’m not as conservative as he is. If people want to criticize him, it should be for his votes, not his vacations.Gail: I admit my call for a Thomas-toss was probably rhetorical. But intensely felt. I’ve been bitter ever since Mitch McConnell sat on that Supreme Court opening to keep Barack Obama from having a chance to fill it.Bret: Totally agree. I’d sooner toss out McConnell than Thomas.Gail: And while we can’t punish Thomas for his spouse’s misbehavior, Ginni Thomas’s very, very public attempts to get the last presidential election overturned are themselves quite a scandal.Bret: Agree again. But dubious taste in spouses is not an impeachable offense.Gail: So let’s go to Thomas’s opinions, especially that one on abortion.When the court overturned Roe v. Wade, Thomas urged his colleagues to go further and take on issues like the right to contraception. Presuming you weren’t on board with that one?Tasos Katopodis and Michael M. Santiago for Getty ImagesBret: As the father of three kids as opposed to, say, a dozen: no. And definitely not on board with the ruling in Texas on the abortion pill.Gail: So what is it about Thomas you find so … terrif?Bret: Ideology aside, I read his memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” I’d recommend it to anyone who hates him, particularly the chapters about his dirt-poor childhood in the Jim Crow South. Few public officials in America today have pulled themselves up as far as he has or against greater odds. Also, I agree with a lot of his jurisprudence, particularly when it comes to issues like eminent domain and affirmative action.But of course I part company on abortion and contraception — no small questions, especially now.Gail: I’ll say.Bret: Speaking of which, you must have been pleased to see a liberal judge in Wisconsin win her election to the state Supreme Court in a landslide, largely on the strength of her pro-choice views. As I predicted last year — and I was not alone — the Dobbs decision is going to hang around Republican necks like a millstone.Gail: Didn’t Trump blame the anti-abortion crowd for all those Republican defeats last fall? He might have been right — although his lousy choice in candidates certainly didn’t help.Bret: Sometimes even Trump has a point. And his opposition to abortion always struck me as being about as sincere as most of his other moral convictions.Gail: Back during his first presidential foray, when he was still speaking to the Times Opinion folk, I remember him telling us how amazed he was to discover you could get a conservative audience wildly excited just by saying something bad about abortion. That is exactly how Trump became anti-choice.Speaking of Trump stuff, I had the strangest experience when he went to court last week. Former president facing 34 felony counts. Nothing like that in all American history.And I found myself feeling … bored. What’s wrong with me?Bret: Nothing is wrong with you. It’s a normal reaction because none of it is news: We’ve known about the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels for years, and we’ve been discussing this indictment for weeks.On the other hand, it reminds me of what Orson Welles supposedly said about flying — something to the effect that the only two emotions one can possibly have on an airplane are boredom and terror. Watching Trump’s speech in Mar-a-Lago later that night was the terror part for me, because he is very likely to ride this misbegotten indictment all the way to the Republican nomination, not to mention an eventual acquittal on appeal — if it even gets to an appeal.Gail: Listening to the post-indictment speech, I was sorta surprised it was pretty much just … his speech. No sense that this crisis was going to turn anything around. That goes to your point that all this is just another piece of equipment for his re-election tour.Bret: I hate to say this, but in Trump’s lizardly way his speech was masterful. His pitch has always been that he’s fighting a corrupt system — even if what he’s really doing is corrupting the system. And in the progressive district attorney, Alvin Bragg, he’s got a perfect foil. It’s why I hate the fact that this particular case is the one they’re throwing against him. The case in Georgia is so much stronger.Gail: Hey, New York gets the proverbial ball rolling. But trying to overturn the results of a presidential election — really overturn them — is a tad more serious. Once we move on to Georgia, we really move on.Bret: Assuming Trump isn’t president again by the time we get there.I also hate the fact that this case allows him to suck up all of the available political oxygen. All of us in the news media are like moths to the flame, or lambs to the slaughter, or lemmings to the cliff, or, well, pick your cliché.Gail: Hamsters to the wheel? I’d like something more … nonviolent.Speaking of elections, what did you think about the mayoral contest in Chicago? Deep liberal versus conservative Democrat, right? And guess who won.Bret: Seemed to me like a choice between a sane moderate, Paul Vallas, versus a not-so-sane progressive, Brandon Johnson. I wish Johnson well, because I love Chicago and always root for the White Sox except when they play the Yankees. But I’m fearful for its future as a city where people will want to work, invest and build. The No. 1 issue in the city is public safety, and I don’t think that Johnson’s the guy to restore it, even if he no longer supports defunding the police the way he once did.Gail: Pretty hard to combat crime in a city like Chicago unless the law-abiding folks in high-crime neighborhoods have confidence in you.Bret: Sure. Also hard to get cops to do their jobs when they feel their mayor doesn’t have their backs.Gail: Of course, the best thing anybody could do to curb crime in Chicago would be to get guns off the street. The city has very tough gun control laws, but they don’t mean a heck of a lot as long as there’s a massive flow of illegal weapons coming in from outside.Bret: Sorta demonstrating the futility of Chicago gun control …Gail: Bret, we’ve been talking about abortion rights becoming such a powerhouse election issue. Any chance we’ll ever see the same thing happen with guns?Bret: Well, you saw what happened with the state legislators in Tennessee, two of whom got expelled after they held a protest in the legislative chamber. A lot of political theater. Not a lot of legislative accomplishment.Gail: Sigh.Bret: Gail, this week’s conversation has been too depressing. So, if you haven’t already, be sure to read our colleague Esau McCaulley’s beautiful, profound meditation on the meaning of Easter. It’s not my holiday, religiously speaking, but I couldn’t help but be moved by two paragraphs in particular.First, Esau asks: “Isn’t it easier to believe that everyone who loves us has some secret agenda? That racism will forever block the creation of what Martin Luther King Jr. called the beloved community? That the gun lobby will always overwhelm every attempt at reform? That poverty is a fact of human existence? Despair allows us to give up our resistance and rest awhile.”And then: “That indestructibility of hope might be the central and most radical claim of Easter — that three days after Jesus was killed, he returned to his disciples physically and that made all the difference. Easter, then, is not a metaphor for new beginnings; it is about encountering the person who, despite every disappointment we experience with ourselves and with the world, gives us a reason to carry on.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More