GOP donor paid private school tuition of Thomas’s grandnephew, report says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
GOP donor paid private school tuition of Thomas’s grandnephew, report says
The same Texas billionaire who treated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to lavish vacations paid private boarding school tuition for Thomas’s grandnephew, a boy the justice has said he raised as a son, according to a new report which said Thomas did not disclose the payments.
ProPublica reported that Harlan Crow, a prominent Republican donor, paid tuition at Hidden Lake Academy, a boarding school in Georgia, as well as at Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia, for Mark Martin, for whom Thomas had legal custody.
The publication cited a bank statement that showed Crow paid $6,200 in monthly tuition at Hidden Lake Academy in July 2009 and quoted Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school, as saying that Crow “picked up the tab” for the entire time Martin was a student there, about a year. Grimwood also told ProPublica that Crow told him that he paid tuition as well for Martin at Randolph-Macon Academy, which Martin attended both before and after his time at Hidden Lake Academy.
ProPublica said the exact total Crow paid for Martin’s education remains unclear. But if he paid for all four years at the two schools, the cost could have exceeded $150,000, based on public records of tuition rates at the schools, the publication reported.
ProPublica said Thomas did not respond to questions about the tuition arrangement. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday from The Washington Post. Neither Thomas nor the court’s public information office have responded to previous questions about Crow’s spending.
In a previous statement following a ProPublica report on Crow paying for his vacations , Thomas said he and his wife considered Crow and his wife to be “among our dearest friends” and that he had been advised he didn’t have to disclose the couple’s hospitality, which included travel on a private jet and yacht.
In a statement Thursday, Mark Paoletta, a friend of Thomas, said that Crow’s assistance had been limited to two years, one at Randolph Macon, Crow’s alma mater, and one at Hidden Lake Academy.
Paoletta said the funds went directly to the school and that Thomas was not required to disclose them because the definition of a “dependent child” in the Ethics in Government Act does not include a great nephew.
“Justice Thomas and his wife devoted twelve years of their lives to taking in and caring for a beloved child — who was not their own — just as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him,” Paoletta said. “They made many personal and financial sacrifices to do this. And along the way, their friends joined them in doing everything possible to give this child a future.”
Crow’s office issued a statement in which it did not dispute that Crow paid for Martin’s education.
“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth," the statement said. “As part of his desire to perpetuate the American dream for all, and believing education is the great equalizer, he and his wife have supported many young Americans through scholarship and other programs at a variety of schools."
“It’s disappointing that those with partisan political interests would try to turn helping at-risk youth with tuition assistance into something nefarious or political,” the statement said.
The latest revelations come as Democrats are pushing for greater transparency from the Supreme Court and calling on the justices to set stronger rules for reporting and acting on potential conflicts of interest.
Federal ethics law requires top officials from all three branches of government, including Supreme Court justices, to file annual financial disclosure forms listing outside income and investments. A separate judicial code of conduct directs lower court judges to avoid “the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” In addition, a federal law allows for the filing and investigating of misconduct complaints against lower-court judges.
The nine justices do not have such a code, though court transparency advocates and some lawmakers have long pressed the high court to adopt one. The justices have discussed but failed to reach consensus on a binding policy , The Washington Post reported this year, despite talks dating to at least 2019.
In addition to Crow paying for vacations for Thomas, ProPublica has previously reported that he purchased three properties in Savannah, Ga., from Thomas in 2014, including the single-story house where Thomas’s mother was living and two vacant lots nearby.
Thomas did not disclose the $133,363 real estate transaction on his financial disclosure forms. Crow told ProPublica that he wanted to preserve the first property as a museum dedicated to Thomas in the future, and said he had spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements to the house “to preserve its long-term viability.”
Thomas has not spoken publicly about the purchase.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch has also come under scrutiny following a Politico report that he did not disclose that the chairman of a major law firm in 2017 bought a Colorado property in which the justice held an interest.
The latest report comes just days after a Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics in which even some Republican senators suggested the justices should be paying attention to public calls for a more robust and clear code of conduct.
Tags
Who is online
387 visitors
Thomas' reputation is shot. He took money from a conservative donor who undoubtedly wanted conservative outcomes from Supreme Court cases Thomas was voting on.
And I guarantee Thomas doesn’t give a fuck what liberals care about his reputation.
That may be the most racist comment i have read here.
Racism hurts everyone and it is never the truth.
hat may be the most racist comment i have read here.
Anytime Thomas is brought up, it doesn't take long for the racists to start doing their thing.
Two racist terms in an 11 word comment has to be good for a record
Yes, and the truth is you keep saying racist things.
At least they aren't saying that he is too stupid to get an ID to vote simply based on skin color. so maybe there is still hope?
Name calling is all some people have.
No, she has posted far worse.
That and P, D and D
Thomas' reputation was always that of a right wing tag along. He does what he's told, nothing more. That's why he never asked any questions while a justice, he'd already been told what his decision would be.
Thank you for exposing how little you know about Thomas . Stay away from trying to learn from racist memes, it make look you bad.
And thank you for once again showing how hyper partisan you are.
Good luck with that...
Who cares? Crowe is a private citizen and anything Thomas did or received was not illegal. The left just needs to deal with it and let it go. They should take closer looks at some other their own.
Thomas follows the rules as they are written and the left whines like little bitches. must be a day that ends in Y.
The whole country should. If George Soros was spending hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of dollars on gifts for a liberal justice, I think you’d probably care a great deal.
That changes things how, exactly?
From everything we have heard so far, Thomas may well be guilty of activity that would constitute unacceptable violations of ethics for every judge in the country not sitting in the Supreme Court.
I know I would. I'd be calling for heads to roll
I bet republican DAs get funding from the Koch boys
While I agree I must admit it is pretty amusing watching them get their panties in a bunch because they can't get the vast majority of Americans to share in their outrage.
If the panties fit...........
How does it feel to be so easily manipulated? You should wonder who is funding all these hit coordinated hit pieces on conservative justices that are nothing but loud noises to anyone who looks into them.
A leftist billionaire is funding 100% of E Jean Carrolls lawsuit, but nothing to see here.
I don't care who the justices are, they should not be accepting monetary gifts from rich ideologues.
Imagine if the mayor of a city accepted money from an individual to pay his kids school tuition. Everyone would be calling that mayor corrupt, but Supreme Court justices are supposed to be immune from scrutiny? LOL
It wasn't his kid, you know that right?
Thomas did nothing wrong. This is manufactured (literally) outrage because Thomas didn’t report something he was under no obligation to report. All part of the progressives’ partisan attempt to undermine the Supreme Court
All this kids Progressives claiming outrage because a justice followed the law and not their feelings.
meanwhile, the same corruption crowd is silent over sotomayor. It’s all partisan hypocrisy. Nothing more.
Exactly!
Do you understand that neither Thomas nor Crow deny that these gifts were given and received? They also don’t deny that they weren’t reported. How does reporting those facts constitute a hit piece?
It's too much truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't understand how deliberately manipulating an audience to create a false perception constitutes a hit piece?
He did nothing wrong, yet this reporting and the other similar similar stories about conservative justices that have released the last few weeks, insinuate they did, causing dummies to think there's some sort of ethical crises requiring Congressional action.
hey also don’t deny that they weren’t reported
The horror! He didn't report what wasn't required.
Unethical is still wrong even if it is legal...
What's unethical about what he did?
Sotomayor took millions from Random House and sat in judgment on a case they were a defendant. Where's your outrage? Where's the coordinated hit pieces about her "ethics", which include other debatable actions?
The same place as outrage over Jerred Kushner taking billions from the Saudis!
The same outrage as Ivanka and Don Jr getting marketing deal with the Chinese!
What is legal for Trump's lazy kids and the wives of our Supreme Court Justices is equally legal for Hunter! Unethical is not necessarily illegal, for the privileged!
Lol. They support their kids and don't survive on handouts from liberal mega-donors, but they are "lazy" and Hunter is not.
Is it unethical for Joe Biden to allow his son to take millions from a mega donor? Somehow its unethical for a billionaire with no business before the Court help Clarence Thomas support an underprivileged kid attend school, but you are okay with a liberal donor giving millions to Joe Biden's actual son?
equally legal for Hunter!
Except Hunter is being investigated for breaking the law, not being "unethical". do you not understand that?
Problem is no one cares. They should, but they don’t. Congress will do nothing.
And the hits just keep on coming!
John Wagner is obviously a racist who is only attacking Thomas because he is a black conservative.
Huh?
White writer attacking a black Supreme Court Justice.
Whitey needs to stay in his lane!
Don't like leftist racist dog whistling tactics being used by those on the right?
Oh, the hypocrisy.
Huh?
Amen.
It's amazing the reaction when the mirror is held up.
Writer is white.
Thomas is black.
Writer is racist.
End of story.
I suppose you think you are being clever.
Lets all yawn at you in unison.
And has nothing to do with the rapidly growing amount of evidence showing his corruption?
That was a dumb thing to say
not you...the one you were replying to
Feinstein had a chinese communist spy as her driver for years.......The lefts response......
Swalwell slept with a chinese spy and allowed her to put aides in his office.....The lefts response.........
The Thomas's take in a child and a friend helps them by paying for the childs education........the lefts response is, this is criminal, he should be impeached, he has no credibility!!!!!
He followed the rules exactly as they are written.
Can the mainstream left be bigger hypocrites?
So what? The spy learned where her favorite Starbucks is.
Did he know she was a spy? No? So what?
Is that ALL his friend did? Did he pay more? Did he buy Thomas' mother's house and allow her to continue to live there, rent free, while investing thousands of dollars in Thomas' mother's house? Did he spend millions of dollars on the Thomas's?
And if that all was okay with you, why did Thomas neglect to document and notify people about it as he was required to do? And why didn't Thomas recuse himself when his "friend" had business before SCOTUS?
Are you now claiming that Thomas properly reported those millions of dollars of gifts that he was given by someone who had business in front of SCOTUS? THOSE were part of the rules.
All he learned driving her around for years is where her favorite starbucks is? I would ask if you really believe that but i'm afraid that you do based on your comments.
There were multiple benefit to Swalwell. please describe what Thomas provided to Crow, which cases did Crow have before the court,
Democrats = defense for Chinese spys. amazing.
Hypocrisy?
If he learned more, please provide the evidence for such.
Supreme Court Did Review Case Involving Harlan Crow—Contradicting Clarence Thomas’s Claim
Clarence Thomas’s Billionaire Friend Did Have Business Before the Supreme Court
Company with ties to GOP megadonor and longtime friend of Justice Thomas had business before Supreme Court
5 seconds on Google would have answered your question without me having to hold your hand.
Because the SCOTUS concerns have been shown as facts, whereas the Biden influence peddling consists of another right winger's wet dream. Just like Benghazi and anything related to the Durham investigation, among others.
Thanks for proving my point beyond a doubt.
It appears i need to hold your hand.
In 2004, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by an architecture firm that claimed a company that was part of Crow’s real estate portfolio allowed other architects to use its copyrighted drawings, according to Bloomberg.
In January 2005, the Supreme Court declined to hear Womack+Hampton Architects v. Metric Holdings Limited
Do you know what declined means? it means Thomas didn't hear a case involving his friend, Just more bullshit by those who lack honesty and driving an agenda.
And thanks for failing to prove your point.
Who declined to hear it? Oh yeah, the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas chose to decline it. Who won since they declined? Could it have been Crow's architectural firm?
Guess how much sotomayor took in from random house while failing to recuse from their cases? Start with nine figures and keep going….
and progressives pretend to be upset by this, where Thomas did nothing wrong .
Either way, there was nothing they did that was illegal, unethical, or against the rules.
The point was that most of the Justices have had book deals, since it seems that Sotomayor was brought up without the additional info that many of the others did the same.
The second part of that is that when the Justices received ''gifts'' they reported them, Justice Thomas had a 20 memory lapse on a great many ''gifts''.
He forgot? Maybe he should be screened for Alzheimer's
So you didn't get the point. She took the millions and did not recuse herself when Random House was involved.
That's a much more direct conflict of interest than anything Thomas allegedly did.
It is impossible to get your point when nothing that I posted neither supported nor condemned Sotomayor or any of the other justices mentioned and that included Thomas. It simply pointed out that a number of justices have had books and reaped the rewards from them.
What I did say separate from that is that for 20 years Thomas did not report some gifts that he received.
How many of them had book deals with companies that they sat on cases for like Sotomayer?
He doesn't have too. PERIOD!!!! he did not receive them.
None that I'm aware of.
Perhaps you could research that and let us know your findings.
Chief Justice Roberts believes that justices should not recuse themselves from cases because they cannot be replaced by another justice to hear the case, but many have recused themselves and many haven't.
Here is a list of the last 10 or so years of justices that heard cases that they had an involvement in.
https://fixthecourt.com/2023/05/recent-times-justice-failed-recuse-despite-clear-conflict-interest/#:~:text=11.,the%20petition%20by%20the%20appellant.
Maybe he should get in line right behind Biden
As far as I am aware, and I could be wrong, the rules regarding Justice Thomas's gifts were changed this year after said gifts and vacation were given or occurred. So, ethically or legally, he did nothing wrong.
You are wrong on that and it's complicated and this article spells it out quite clearly.
My thanks for the correction.
To be clear on my position, I want a ''code of ethics'' for SCOTUS and I want each justice to abide by it regardless of political party. I am against Sotomayor and Gorsuch and all other justices that do not recuse themselves when they have an interest in the case.
I cannot see SCOTUS being free of any type of oversite or rules, it is, IMO bizarre as hell. We are talking about the highest court in the land and they can pretty much make up their own rules is pure bullshit.
Hmm, Gorsuch, Roberts and Thomas. Interesting that the only justices undergoing such scrutiny are conservative leaning ones. While I agree with a more robust and clear code of conduct for the justices I am positive trashing them with bogus shit is the best way to have them be part of drafting anything. Especially since all these committee members seem to like to hear themselves talk to get a sound bite. All this going after justices is only going to make the justices close ranks since I am sure they all know eventually they will all have a turn getting trashed eventually. In fact it seems that all 9 have closed ranks in the response from Roberts to the latest clown show committee.
I guess since packing the court seems not to be the next thing is to try and remove a justice or 2 in order to bend the court to your liking.
didn't trmp pack the court? He appointed 3 judges in his 4 years
The total number of justices did not change. Democrats suggested changing the total number to 13 so Joe could choose enough justices to shift the balance. That is what court packing is.
[deleted]
hmmm....Kavanaugh did, Barrett did...I'm not sure about Gorsuch
Where there's smoke, there's fire.