@MSNBC (parroting @ProPublica) can't #Shake Off @TheDemocrats' Need to "Leave Out Key Pieces of the Truth" (like @ChrisRock says) about @SCOTUS_Clarence

This came up when I saw Alex Walker 'tattle' on S.C. Justice Clarence Thomas, but first ...

The word “|Shake|” is built on ancient words that mean "to Shift, Turn, Veer; |Agitate, Churn, |Stir about, Leap, |Bound." 

 #Shook #Shaking #Shaken #Shakes #Handshake #ShakeHands #ShakeALeg #ShakeAHeel (dance) #ShakeMyElbow (gamble at dice) #MoreTHINGSthanYouCanShakeAStickAt #ShakingMyHead #SMH #FairShake #TheShakes #MilkShake #NoGreatShakes #ShakeDown #Shakeout #Shaker #ShakeUp #Shaky #Unshakable


SUBSCRIBE FREE below:
Follow


MSNBC's Alex Walker cites ProPublica's claim that SCJ Clarence Thomas took gifts worth hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from a wealthy friend. (They hurry to tack on all sorts of 'allegations' about the friend, but ... one mud-volley at a time, thank you 😑)

They say that Justice Thomas 'took these gifts & did not disclose them to the proper record-keepers---only just-now learning about them through newly obtained documents & interviews.'


I can get into the technicality of "receiving" something that you do not then 'have to keep,' but first I want to address the definition of "gift." You see, they say Supreme Court Justices are supposed to "disclose" received-gifts that are worth over 'some dollar-amount' (I think it's an amount between $400 & $500).

But it's my understanding that 'a gift' is 'something one person FREELY chooses to give to another person.' If I have to report the cost (whether I'm giving or receiving), it is not a gift---it is a payment of interest on our friendship.

On the multi-hundred-thousand-dollar cruises, there was no cost. See, "it's FREE once you own it"; and I'm imagining (because Alex didn't say otherwise) that the friend OWNS the cruise-ship & EMPLOYS the staff on the ships & probably didn't BURDEN Justice Thomas with worry about 'the cost of owning & running such things.'

Comments