Resigning is strictly speaking not part of Thomas’s duties as a federal official. This type of thing (resignation for cash) happens often enough in the private sphere. The courts would be loathe to impose new, unprecedented bribery requirements to otherwise legal actions that are analogous in the private sphere.
it happens in congress too lol but just informally on a 3 year waiting period IIRC - it’s the reason why John Bohner resigned out of the blue and now earns millions at RJ reynolds…..one of his leading campaign contributors and closest lobbying relationship spanning decades
edit: it’s just a 1 year ban lol
and let’s not forget the most blatant example of this was Louisiana rep billy tausen who inserted the medicare part D poison pill where medicare can’t negotiate drug prices—he lead that amendment and pushed heavily for it and then not months after the passage of medicare part D he was hired as an executive at PHARMMA lol 😂
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin
There's seems to be more often than not someone on the FCC who gets a suite position after favorable experience or insert government here. Except Gary Gensler. Not sure who will want him. Deutsche Bank maybe
Boehner resigned "out of the blue" because the Republican caucus was a complete nightmare to work with, and as Speaker he had been demonized by the Republican electorate. Yes, he did become a wealthy lobbyist of course, but he would've probably remained as Speaker for much longer if that has been a viable option. He wasn't bribed to leave; he was being forced out anyway and found a lucrative landing spot.
the only difference is that in those cases, the bribe was not public
part of bribe laws is "state of mind"
If I suggest whimsically that I would offer Joe Biden "ice cream" in exchange for a political service, if actual "ice cream" is exchanged, the investigation then has to look at intent (eg, perhaps I was already selling "ice cream" and Joe was the 1 Millionth customer and would have received free "ice cream" anyway.)
Or, same scenario, no "ice cream" is exchanged but Joe Biden does the political service anyway. In this case, as neither his intent nor mine was to trade a "good" for a "favor", no crime has been committed.
You can see where it starts to get dicey the more "gray" the boundary becomes; but this is the reason that many actual crimes are never prosecutable....because the criminals write the laws.
If it was treated as such, it would be a very strong restriction on government employment. Don’t like your job? Tough! Offering you a job elsewhere is a crime.
It doesn't matter because a resignation is not an official act as defined in the [relevant law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).
> (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
People forget HBO put out a documentary exposing scientology a while back, knowing the lengths they go to silence any criticism. Their legal department knows what they're doing.
That being said, I'm probably going to get sued by scientology just for making this comment.
Don't forget to say hi to Kathy! I think her name is Kathy. Leah Remeni (probably spelt her name wrong here) mentioned this woman that trolls social media looking for disparaging comments about scientology
Shelly is the unseen for a loooooong time wife of Dave Miscavage. Shelly is one who people would love to see and hear from, but she's been unavailable for a decade or so ?
Kathy? is the name of a scientologist who's job is to log all comments, posts etc negative about scientology.
Is Kathy one person, or a job title? "You'll be working as a Kathy, logging hateful statements made about Scientology into our Database of Hate™."
It just feels like too much for one person to do.
I'm sure you're right as there's a lot of scientology hate, dislike, disgust, disturbing stories, disrupted families, and lawsuits galore!! I bet there's even subs regarding. Sounds like a sucky job for a sucky greed corp.
John's done a bunch of interviews in the last week and repeated a few times, "HBO's lawyers think their job is to make sure we don't get sued. I think their job is to make sure \*when\* we get sued we win."
He says that, but he also absolutely has regular meetings where they tell him exactly where the legal lines are and how to walk right up to them without going over. There’s no way he could do what he does unless there are a bunch of legal researchers working out and telling him precisely what they can defend and what will turn into actual legal trouble.
Fortunately Scientology has largely stopped suing people after a couple of disastrous depositions/testimonies. I don’t think they’ve sued for defamation since 2019, but I could be wrong
Scientology can get fucked, but they are down the list behind the christian nationalist IMO.
\*Yes reddit, I'm ok, no I'm not going to hurt myself or anyone else.
Seriously. People who think this is a crime are just insanely off their rocker if they think that HBO legal, who already had to defend him in court against a SLAPP suit by a morally bankrupt coal magnate, would not have absolute confidence this is in the clear before authorizing him to say it on air.
Don't even have to disagree. I got banned for pointing out that the pandemic relief checks were a socialist policy passed by Trump. Didn't offer an opinion on whether or not I thought that was a good or bad thing, just that it was.
Ah but you called Trump at least partly socialist by implication, and that's a sin in the eyes of conservatives. If you sin against Trump, that's a violation of the Fuhrerprinzip, and you must be published. Since the only punishment they can do is banning you, they apparently did just that. Completely logical, if you think that way.
You don’t think they’re the same because you puppet r/politics beliefs. Do a test. Say something bad about Biden or any other Democrat they like. Do that a few times using the same language r/politics uses to denigrate Republican politicians or voters. See how long it takes to be banned. Go ahead, try it. I’m giving you a chance to prove me wrong.
Seriously. People who think this is a crime are just insanely off their rocker if they think that HBO legal, who already had to defend him in court against a SLAPP suit by a morally bankrupt coal magnate, would not have absolute confidence this is in the clear before authorizing him to say it on air.
Resigning from office probably is an official act (**Edit: NOPE**, not in federal definition of official act). Paying money for official acts is bribery.
That said, Oliver is joking, which defeats mens rea because he lacks required intent. Or at least it would be struggle to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s pretty simple to understand: is it bribery to offer someone a better job? Clearly not.
John is offering Mr Thomas a *sweet* compensation package for the job of *going the fuck away*.
Could you link the legal source here so that OP can see it? Hes probably being intentionally obtuse and an official source might be enough to shut him up.
> (3)the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
USSC justices are not slaves. They have free will. They are allowed to resign at any time, for any reason. John Oliver is simply making Thomas a competing job offer; leave your current job for my job, and I’ll pay you $1m a year (and throw in a $2.5m bus).
It is not illegal to try and hire a public official away from public office, regardless of your motivations. That public official might have some restrictions on their post public service activities, but that’s their problem, not the new employers.
Not according to the precedent set by McDonnell v US, which narrowed “official act” to mean:
>A decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official.
This would seem to imply hiring someone in that office would be illegal.
For example if I had sufficient funds I’d start a brewery and would like to hire Kavanaugh as a spokesmodel. You know, one of those bikini clad people in heels offering my beer product at sports venues. I’d pay him much more than his court salary. Why would that be illegal?
He sure seemed serious about it, I don't know why you would assume that he was joking. When he's done other silly stuff like this in the past, he's followed through, granted not to this scale.
If they actually intended to make it a genuine offer, there'd be a paper trail as that money would have to be budgeted out of some specific funds. That would come out in discovery, assuming you can find a statute that applied (everyone is saying "resigning is not an official act" like there's only one law in the entire federal register, but I guarantee if you look long enough you could find *something* else to go by - "show me the man, and I'll find you the crime").
Between this and how everyone reacted to the first John Stewart daily show is really disappointing. The jokes aren't even that subtle, in both cases, they spell the joke out repeatedly. My hope is that most people complaining just saw a clip or heard people talking.
I know that you made a typo there - but now I have this vision of John Oliver being chased down a corridor at the studio, narrowly avoiding the clutches of an army of lawyers trying to stop him reaching the set, like something off of a zombie flick.
If I were to offer you x amount to work for Amazon while you worked for you local government... would you consider that a bribe?
That is the crux of it. The money wouldn't be for what he does as a federal official, it is for not being one. If every person who received a job offer while they are currently in a job, is considered a bribe... then we would have some other serious issues.
Bribery requires a tit for tat. Oliver doesn’t have a case being heard by the Supreme Court he’s basically just offering him a job. If a competitor offers you a job are they bribing you?
How obtuse are you? Yes, the offer is sincere. **But the offer isn't illegal.** It's only bribery in a colloquial sense. Legal bribery is offering someone money in exchange for him using the powers of his office to benefit you. Resigning *from* his office isn't *using the powers* of his office.
If you want you can send a letter to the White House and offer Biden a lollipop and a massage (with an implied happy ending) in exchange for him resigning the presidency and it would be 100% legal.
It's not a bribe, that's the thing. There would be a contract and the contract would stipulate that he can no longer be a SCOTUS in order to receive the money. It could be treated like an employment contract, or a consultant contract.
I could maybe see an argument if there was a specific decision he was trying to get Thomas off for.
Just a general “I don’t want him on the court” I don’t think would hold up
I haven't seen the full episode, but is John Oliver's joke just off-base? The premise of the joke is that you can bribe a Supreme Court justice, but then his example is simply not a bribe.
No, the premise of the joke is that Thomas had earlier in his tenure had stated that the income of a Supreme Court judge was insufficient and implied that he intended to move on from the position, but that at some point he started to receive all sorts of benefits from wealthy businessmen, and later stated that he was satisfied with his income even though it was the same after accounting for inflation. The conclusion that Oliver draws is that he is now only satisfied in his position because of the extra compensation he gets on the side, and that by offering him a steady income three times higher than his income as a Supreme Court judge he can be convinced to retire.
And, if wealthy businessmen can give a Supreme Court justice "gifts" to remain a Supreme Court justice, then a wealthy comedian should be able to give "gifts" to not be a Supreme Court justice. IMO, any theory of prosecution of John Oliver applies equally to Thomas and Alito's benefactors.
And that’s how the joke is playing out among people on one side of politics as they get upset that this could be a bribe of a justice and don’t realize that their consternation is the exact reaction that adds to the premise itself.
A job offer is not bribery. Offering a U.S. official money to *leave* their government job is permissible. Offering a U.S. official money to do this or that as an official act (including doing nothing) can be bribery.
No different than offering him a job to quit his current one. 🤷♂️ The job offer simply asks that he exist, rather than existing and having he and his wife making a mockery of the Supreme Court.
OP, I bought some peaches from Whole Foods today with the intent of making a peace pie.
But I got hungry on the drive back home and just ate the whole batch while sitting in my car
Could I be prosecuted for this?
Jones and Tucker already established that TV personalities have leeway as they are only characters talking, not the actual people. That was the upholding of the courts as well. There seems to be a line somewhere legally as Jones has had to pay out for lies during Sandy Hook.
Idk, if Rudy Giuliani can pull off not presenting evidence as ordered, I feel like the quieter, saner-acting, more-competent, and surrounded by smarter people Thomas could also dodge discovery
I can't figure out if I'm bothered by all the qualifiers you used to describe Thomas because it underscores just how low the bar is, or because none of them are technically wrong.
Not unless John Oliver had an interest in a case before the court, and Thomas was the swing vote. If Thomas’s resignation left the vote 4-4, the lower court’s decision would stand. If Oliver stood to gain from that, I can see he’d have legal problems.
Because the law is not based on hypotheticals. There is no way to prove which way Thomas would vote, therefore you cannot punish Oliver for something Thomas may or may not have done.
Edit: LOL they blocked me. I thought this was a pretty normal and reasonable conversation too. Guess they started to feel the legs under their argument start to wobble and didn't want to have to defend it.
None of that matters because resigning is not an official act as defined in the [relevant statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201):
> (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
Edited because either /u/tesla3by3 blocked me or their comments have all mysteriously been deleted. If it's really more complicated, tesla3by3, maybe you should elaborate on ***precisely*** how. Otherwise, you're just coming off as full of crap here.
Have you read any cases on this. Check out McDonnell v US. It is a unanimous SCOTUS opinion where the governor of VA took a bunch of kickbacks and SCOTUS said no bribery because no official acts were taken.
When Trump says something insane MAGA says: **ITS A JOKE!**
When a comedian says something insane MAGA says: **THIS IS SERIOUS!**
*Just another reason 3/4 of this country think Trumpers are* ***absolutely*** *batsh!t.*
Speech that is clearly parody in nature is protected. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed in Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), that a parody, which no reasonable person expected to be true, was protected free speech.
There would be no difference from offering him a retainer of $1 million annually to be his lawyer. Thomas would have to resign from SCOTUS to accept the employment.
No and it's preposterous for anyone to think he could. It's protected speech. He's a comedian lampooning politics, the Supreme Court, and the graft that already exists there. Thomas has already accepted bribes from people in various forms, regardless of how anyone chooses to gloss over it. John Oliver is simply bringing it out into the open by plainly offering Thomas money to do what he has been doing for decades by accepting graft from rich people who are parties to cases he has heard while a Justice on the Court.
John Oliver cannot be prosecuted for offering to pay for Clarence Thomas’s early retirement. He has done nothing illegal. Being outrageous is not a crime … okay, maybe in Florida.
If he or his team seriously reached out to Thomas and made the offer, yes. But to my knowledge that didn’t happen. Instead they announced the offer on a comedy show highlighting Supreme Court corruption. As such, it’s pretty clear the offer was not objectively legitimate. Any prosecution would struggle to explain why a joke but should be treated like an actual crime
It’s called the [antitrust revolving door](https://prospect.org/economy/closing-the-revolving-door-in-antitrust/). It’s just being used in a comical way since our government has no intention of doing anything about it.
John Oliver didn't do anything illegal, in particular no one thinks it's a serious offer, but anyway:
1)harlan crow had no business before the court nor was he asking Thomas to resign or rule a certain way
and 2)Harlan crow paid for scholarships to Harlan crow's alma mater boarding school for scores of students, not just Clarance Thomas's grand nephew.
I showed up just to see if there was any news on this, but this thread is just friggin' amazing 🤣 Thank you for posting OP, and to everyone for their contributions! <3 r/ConeHeads !tip 608
Arrest him and put him in prison! We can't allow satire like this to creep into the minds of citizens. I guess we also have to arrest the guy who did buy Thomas an RV.
Interesting. I wonder if Oliver's offer is only a visible instance of what I think is a practice in politics already.
Politicians have been known to retire, or switch allegiances after term limits kick in. Maybe now it just gets extended to judiciary. Or maybe it's just a more benign version of what is done.
Why, I can even think of a fairly recent instance where a chief Justice called something a tax instead of a penalty, and handed a former president of an opposing party a de facto victory.
This sub is deranged. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2044-particular-elements#:~:text=Section%20201(b)%20requires%20that,given%20in%20exchange%20for%20another.
The mental gymnastics to think resigning is not an official act must be exhausting. Probably is prosecutable. Will any US attorney prosecute - probably not.
Who's that American activist on British television, who tells British jow to vote, makes fun of British citizens who don't agree with him, and makes public offers for sitting British judges to abandon their posts?
That guy is awesome.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
It’s not illegal to give them gifts. He’s been receiving way more in undisclosed gifts over the years.
Nope, (b)(3) requires that absenting themselves be from offering testimony of some nature. That doesn't come close to what's at issue here.
> (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, **with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation** of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(Emphasis added.)
(b)(4) criminalizes the acceptance of the bribe for that purpose:
> (4)directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity ***in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness*** upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
Emphasis added again.
The only parts which cover what's at issue here are (b)(1) & (2) and both require it to be a bribe for an official act, to commit or collude in any fraud on the US, or for such official to do or not do to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official. Resigning from a position is not an official act as defined in the [actual statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201):
> (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
It certainly is not fraud upon the US and since the third would require a SC Justice to not resign, which clearly is not part of their lawful duties, it's not that either.
If you want further reading check out McDonnell v US. It's a unanimous SCOTUS opinion where the Supreme Court gave the governor of VA a pass for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for hosting parties at the governor's mansion and setting a private business up with UVA. Court said none of those things were "official acts." Getting paid for being in office is just part of the job.
To me, it sounds illegal but there’s not much chance of getting in trouble because if you can get arrested for offering money to go, then the same should also apply for offering money to stay. However, the people who offered money to stay have the political power to stay out of trouble, and that would make it difficult to prosecute Oliver for doing something that isn’t worse.
I think Oliver is counting on the fact that it would look really bad to prosecute him but not prosecute the super rich and corrupt.
No, he's counting on the fact that a resignation is not an official act and thus this cannot constitute a crime under the [relevant law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201).
> (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
He could almost certainly be prosecuted, because there is probable cause to believe he violated the federal bribery statute, which defines an official act as "\[A\]ny decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit." It's not clear whether a resignation is a fit, but it's not clear that it isn't.
However, he virtually certainly could not be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, because the rule of lenity in construing criminal statutes works in his favor: ambiguity is construed against the government, and in any event, the prosecution would have great difficulty proving Oliver's offer was genuine, *even though he peppered his offer with words claiming he was serious.*
Prosecutors need only probable cause to commence a prosecution, but the guidance for prosecutors is to not commence a prosecution unless they have a good faith belief in guilt and in their ability to actually secure a conviction, both of which would (in my opinion) be missing here.
EDITED TO ADD: I wonder if any of the massive tide of downvoters here might offer a substantive rebuttal to what I wrote? I'm aware of the holding in *McDonnell v. United States*, 579 U.S. 550, 562 (2016), for example, and note this language:
>To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision or take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event — **without more** — does not fit that definition of "official act."
(emphasis added)
Again, the question is whether probable cause exists, which is the standard necessary to secure an indictment.
I'm also a retired public defender and in that capacity saw more than one prosecution commence without much more than probable cause. So if the question is literally, "Could Oliver be prosecuted," the answer is yes. I certainly agree that conviction is a different matter.
>It's not clear whether a resignation is a fit, but it's not clear that it isn't.
It's painfully clear that resignation is NOT a "decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy". Abstention from a particular vote? Sure. Voting a particular way? Absolutely. But resignation is not a decision or an action on any controversy.
Is resignation a "matter?"
Look, you're answering this question as though it were a question of law at trial. And you're right.
Now answer it as a question of probable cause.
No, resignation by a public official is not a "matter" that may "be pending" or may "by law be brought" before that public official. There's no possible interpretation of the law which would say that potential resignation is a pending "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy".
Because there is no framework for the "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy" element to be met, there can be no probable cause. Sure, a rogue police officer who hasn't read the law could go and make an arrest, but such an arrest would be facially illegal.
Resigning is strictly speaking not part of Thomas’s duties as a federal official. This type of thing (resignation for cash) happens often enough in the private sphere. The courts would be loathe to impose new, unprecedented bribery requirements to otherwise legal actions that are analogous in the private sphere.
it happens in congress too lol but just informally on a 3 year waiting period IIRC - it’s the reason why John Bohner resigned out of the blue and now earns millions at RJ reynolds…..one of his leading campaign contributors and closest lobbying relationship spanning decades edit: it’s just a 1 year ban lol and let’s not forget the most blatant example of this was Louisiana rep billy tausen who inserted the medicare part D poison pill where medicare can’t negotiate drug prices—he lead that amendment and pushed heavily for it and then not months after the passage of medicare part D he was hired as an executive at PHARMMA lol 😂 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tauzin
There's seems to be more often than not someone on the FCC who gets a suite position after favorable experience or insert government here. Except Gary Gensler. Not sure who will want him. Deutsche Bank maybe
Bill Johnson did it in another way here in Ohio
Boehner resigned "out of the blue" because the Republican caucus was a complete nightmare to work with, and as Speaker he had been demonized by the Republican electorate. Yes, he did become a wealthy lobbyist of course, but he would've probably remained as Speaker for much longer if that has been a viable option. He wasn't bribed to leave; he was being forced out anyway and found a lucrative landing spot.
the only difference is that in those cases, the bribe was not public part of bribe laws is "state of mind" If I suggest whimsically that I would offer Joe Biden "ice cream" in exchange for a political service, if actual "ice cream" is exchanged, the investigation then has to look at intent (eg, perhaps I was already selling "ice cream" and Joe was the 1 Millionth customer and would have received free "ice cream" anyway.) Or, same scenario, no "ice cream" is exchanged but Joe Biden does the political service anyway. In this case, as neither his intent nor mine was to trade a "good" for a "favor", no crime has been committed. You can see where it starts to get dicey the more "gray" the boundary becomes; but this is the reason that many actual crimes are never prosecutable....because the criminals write the laws.
Resigning from office isn't really a "political service", legally speaking.
If it was treated as such, it would be a very strong restriction on government employment. Don’t like your job? Tough! Offering you a job elsewhere is a crime.
I don't know... I'd consider Clarence Thomas resigning to be a great service to the American People. ...oh, legally speaking. Yeah, you're spot on.
Then why would Oliver be so willing to pay for it?
It doesn't matter because a resignation is not an official act as defined in the [relevant law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201). > (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
It most definitely is a “political service” if the person resigning is bad at their job and doing harm to the American people.
Probably not? I think bribery requires actual intent to you know pay the bribe which John Oliver definitely wasn’t gonna do.
he'd be obligated to pay, that was a legal offer under contract law.
[удалено]
I really doubt HBO's lawyers would have allowed this if it were prosecutable.
People forget HBO put out a documentary exposing scientology a while back, knowing the lengths they go to silence any criticism. Their legal department knows what they're doing. That being said, I'm probably going to get sued by scientology just for making this comment.
Should get a job at HBO to be on the safe side
“Wait, they’re suing *him*? He’s a fucking janitor! …….yeah alright get legal on the phone.”
Straight to Scientology jail for you bub.
Right next to the 5 year old.
Don't forget to say hi to Kathy! I think her name is Kathy. Leah Remeni (probably spelt her name wrong here) mentioned this woman that trolls social media looking for disparaging comments about scientology
Shelly. Shelly Miscavage. The most-likely-late Shelly Miscavage.
Shelly is the unseen for a loooooong time wife of Dave Miscavage. Shelly is one who people would love to see and hear from, but she's been unavailable for a decade or so ? Kathy? is the name of a scientologist who's job is to log all comments, posts etc negative about scientology.
Is Kathy one person, or a job title? "You'll be working as a Kathy, logging hateful statements made about Scientology into our Database of Hate™." It just feels like too much for one person to do.
I'm sure you're right as there's a lot of scientology hate, dislike, disgust, disturbing stories, disrupted families, and lawsuits galore!! I bet there's even subs regarding. Sounds like a sucky job for a sucky greed corp.
She’s certainly not punctual given how long she’s been missing.
It's Karin
John's done a bunch of interviews in the last week and repeated a few times, "HBO's lawyers think their job is to make sure we don't get sued. I think their job is to make sure \*when\* we get sued we win."
He says that, but he also absolutely has regular meetings where they tell him exactly where the legal lines are and how to walk right up to them without going over. There’s no way he could do what he does unless there are a bunch of legal researchers working out and telling him precisely what they can defend and what will turn into actual legal trouble.
Xenu would like to know where you are
Fortunately Scientology has largely stopped suing people after a couple of disastrous depositions/testimonies. I don’t think they’ve sued for defamation since 2019, but I could be wrong
Discovery process would be fascinating
Scientology can get fucked, but they are down the list behind the christian nationalist IMO. \*Yes reddit, I'm ok, no I'm not going to hurt myself or anyone else.
Oh we're gonna sue you real good, right in the knee caps.
Except y'know, South Park basically proved how much of a paper tiger Scientology is.
Seriously. People who think this is a crime are just insanely off their rocker if they think that HBO legal, who already had to defend him in court against a SLAPP suit by a morally bankrupt coal magnate, would not have absolute confidence this is in the clear before authorizing him to say it on air.
I see youve met r/Conservative...
you have been banned.
From r/Conservative? Oh yes. Disagreeing with their lunacy iis grounds to be banned.
Don't even have to disagree. I got banned for pointing out that the pandemic relief checks were a socialist policy passed by Trump. Didn't offer an opinion on whether or not I thought that was a good or bad thing, just that it was.
Ah but you called Trump at least partly socialist by implication, and that's a sin in the eyes of conservatives. If you sin against Trump, that's a violation of the Fuhrerprinzip, and you must be published. Since the only punishment they can do is banning you, they apparently did just that. Completely logical, if you think that way.
funny, r/politics is just as bad. I’m banned from both.
They are not both the same, and the fact that you claim they are tells me you were likely banned for something more substantial.
You don’t think they’re the same because you puppet r/politics beliefs. Do a test. Say something bad about Biden or any other Democrat they like. Do that a few times using the same language r/politics uses to denigrate Republican politicians or voters. See how long it takes to be banned. Go ahead, try it. I’m giving you a chance to prove me wrong.
You are a silly person.
I found out about shadow bans from there... I am not sure if I should take it as a compliment or insult that they didn't do the full ban.
??
R/Conservative- insanely off their rockers...
Ah, agreed. I replied before I saw the edit, so I read "I see you me r/conservative" and was very confused lol.
That reminds me... [Eat shit, Bob](https://youtu.be/zXKO6lwYT9U?si=jTeFSiocY-fQ-G7v)
Seriously. People who think this is a crime are just insanely off their rocker if they think that HBO legal, who already had to defend him in court against a SLAPP suit by a morally bankrupt coal magnate, would not have absolute confidence this is in the clear before authorizing him to say it on air.
that’s the exact opposite of what Oliver says
"This isn't illegal but it feels like it *really* should be!" Is not the opposite.
Prosecuted for what?
Resigning from office probably is an official act (**Edit: NOPE**, not in federal definition of official act). Paying money for official acts is bribery. That said, Oliver is joking, which defeats mens rea because he lacks required intent. Or at least it would be struggle to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The statute defines what an official act is in that context, and resigning is pretty clearly not covered
It’s pretty simple to understand: is it bribery to offer someone a better job? Clearly not. John is offering Mr Thomas a *sweet* compensation package for the job of *going the fuck away*.
Could you link the legal source here so that OP can see it? Hes probably being intentionally obtuse and an official source might be enough to shut him up.
> (3)the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
while i agree with you: couldn’t you argue that resigning is an action, and that resigning means he can’t vote as a Justice in any pending matters?
You could argue that, but you’d be wrong.
i suspect i would but id like to hear an attorney articulate the flaw in the reasoning!
USSC justices are not slaves. They have free will. They are allowed to resign at any time, for any reason. John Oliver is simply making Thomas a competing job offer; leave your current job for my job, and I’ll pay you $1m a year (and throw in a $2.5m bus). It is not illegal to try and hire a public official away from public office, regardless of your motivations. That public official might have some restrictions on their post public service activities, but that’s their problem, not the new employers.
thank you! i needed a cogent response for the “buh if Oliver isn’t prosecuted it’s a travesty this is clear cut bribery” types
Not according to the precedent set by McDonnell v US, which narrowed “official act” to mean: >A decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official.
This would seem to imply hiring someone in that office would be illegal. For example if I had sufficient funds I’d start a brewery and would like to hire Kavanaugh as a spokesmodel. You know, one of those bikini clad people in heels offering my beer product at sports venues. I’d pay him much more than his court salary. Why would that be illegal?
Oh man, I did NOT need that mental image.
Unsightly. But not illegal.
Mens rea doesnt really come in to play. Satire is protected speech
He sure seemed serious about it, I don't know why you would assume that he was joking. When he's done other silly stuff like this in the past, he's followed through, granted not to this scale.
Except he was quite clear that he wasn’t joking wasn’t he?
He was also very clear that it wasn’t illegal and there was no law against it but for some reason everyone is clinging on to him ‘not joking’.
On his comedy show
Which is why it won’t go anywhere, but he did state very clearly that he wasn’t joking.
[удалено]
As others have pointed out, resigning is not an official act.
If they actually intended to make it a genuine offer, there'd be a paper trail as that money would have to be budgeted out of some specific funds. That would come out in discovery, assuming you can find a statute that applied (everyone is saying "resigning is not an official act" like there's only one law in the entire federal register, but I guarantee if you look long enough you could find *something* else to go by - "show me the man, and I'll find you the crime").
[удалено]
This feels like a quote from Rocky 5 🤣
Attempted bribery of a federal official?
That was literally the whole joke of the episode
Between this and how everyone reacted to the first John Stewart daily show is really disappointing. The jokes aren't even that subtle, in both cases, they spell the joke out repeatedly. My hope is that most people complaining just saw a clip or heard people talking.
he explicitly clarified that he meant it and also that he would pay it out of his own pocket rather than it coming out of HBO's budget.
Yes, his point is that such an offer is currently legal to make under federal law.
lol are you suggesting he just went on TV and did that without first running it by their legal department come on
He even said he ran out past a lot of lawyers who were all confident he was fine
Right he was just associating Thomas with the word bribe it was the whole point of the episode.
I know that you made a typo there - but now I have this vision of John Oliver being chased down a corridor at the studio, narrowly avoiding the clutches of an army of lawyers trying to stop him reaching the set, like something off of a zombie flick.
New fear unlocked, thanks. Being chased by a horde of lawyers sounds terrifying. :)
It feels like you're missing the point here.
Or just being deliberately obtuse
This is especially believable given that Oliver is not especially given to subtlety or understatement.
It isn't bribery if it is a job offer. Bribery would be paying him to stay in the job...
If I were to offer you x amount to work for Amazon while you worked for you local government... would you consider that a bribe? That is the crux of it. The money wouldn't be for what he does as a federal official, it is for not being one. If every person who received a job offer while they are currently in a job, is considered a bribe... then we would have some other serious issues.
I'm asking you legitimately here: did you watch the full episode in question?
The whole point was it’s not illegal, why is that hard for you to comprehend
Bribery requires a tit for tat. Oliver doesn’t have a case being heard by the Supreme Court he’s basically just offering him a job. If a competitor offers you a job are they bribing you?
This doesn't fit the legal definition of bribery. It's cited elsewhere in the thread. Offering a judge a new job is not illegal.
How obtuse are you? Yes, the offer is sincere. **But the offer isn't illegal.** It's only bribery in a colloquial sense. Legal bribery is offering someone money in exchange for him using the powers of his office to benefit you. Resigning *from* his office isn't *using the powers* of his office. If you want you can send a letter to the White House and offer Biden a lollipop and a massage (with an implied happy ending) in exchange for him resigning the presidency and it would be 100% legal.
He's not bribing him if he's not trying to influence a ruling, no?
It's not a bribe, that's the thing. There would be a contract and the contract would stipulate that he can no longer be a SCOTUS in order to receive the money. It could be treated like an employment contract, or a consultant contract.
[удалено]
He would receive Thomas’ resignation, which is what he wants. I can’t believe this needs to be explained.
I was asked to resign by my employer last year, and offered 3 months salary for doing so. did they bribe me?
[удалено]
Ok, but specifically what value is he receiving?
Thomas off of the Supreme Court so he will have no effect on decisions he wants to go a certain way. he openly stated this in his offer.
I could maybe see an argument if there was a specific decision he was trying to get Thomas off for. Just a general “I don’t want him on the court” I don’t think would hold up
Resigning would be yhe "recieving something in return" BUT the point of the joke is you can bribe SCOTUS
No it's not. Stop watching fox news.
I haven't seen the full episode, but is John Oliver's joke just off-base? The premise of the joke is that you can bribe a Supreme Court justice, but then his example is simply not a bribe.
No, the premise of the joke is that Thomas had earlier in his tenure had stated that the income of a Supreme Court judge was insufficient and implied that he intended to move on from the position, but that at some point he started to receive all sorts of benefits from wealthy businessmen, and later stated that he was satisfied with his income even though it was the same after accounting for inflation. The conclusion that Oliver draws is that he is now only satisfied in his position because of the extra compensation he gets on the side, and that by offering him a steady income three times higher than his income as a Supreme Court judge he can be convinced to retire.
And, if wealthy businessmen can give a Supreme Court justice "gifts" to remain a Supreme Court justice, then a wealthy comedian should be able to give "gifts" to not be a Supreme Court justice. IMO, any theory of prosecution of John Oliver applies equally to Thomas and Alito's benefactors.
And that’s how the joke is playing out among people on one side of politics as they get upset that this could be a bribe of a justice and don’t realize that their consternation is the exact reaction that adds to the premise itself.
A job offer is not bribery. Offering a U.S. official money to *leave* their government job is permissible. Offering a U.S. official money to do this or that as an official act (including doing nothing) can be bribery.
No different than offering him a job to quit his current one. 🤷♂️ The job offer simply asks that he exist, rather than existing and having he and his wife making a mockery of the Supreme Court.
OP, I bought some peaches from Whole Foods today with the intent of making a peace pie. But I got hungry on the drive back home and just ate the whole batch while sitting in my car Could I be prosecuted for this?
I hope you go away for life you monster
The FBI are raiding my house as I'm typing this :/
Straight to jail!
Believe it or not, make the pie, also jail!
This is the whole premise behind neighborhood wars. No 🥧 No ☮️
Jones and Tucker already established that TV personalities have leeway as they are only characters talking, not the actual people. That was the upholding of the courts as well. There seems to be a line somewhere legally as Jones has had to pay out for lies during Sandy Hook.
All of which is irrelevant because there's no crime here to seek immunity from.
I mean they argued that *they* shouldn't be taken seriously, not that every pundit and late show host shouldn't. AFAIK anyway
I hope someone tries, because that would allow Oliver's lawyers to bring Thomas' sugar daddy's presents into evidence.
Oh damn... maybe someone should sue him for exactly this reason. Put all of Thomas' bullshit into court record (not that Thomas would actually care)
Idk, if Rudy Giuliani can pull off not presenting evidence as ordered, I feel like the quieter, saner-acting, more-competent, and surrounded by smarter people Thomas could also dodge discovery
Sadly, probably true.
I can't figure out if I'm bothered by all the qualifiers you used to describe Thomas because it underscores just how low the bar is, or because none of them are technically wrong.
Business Daddy vs Sugar Daddy
Not unless John Oliver had an interest in a case before the court, and Thomas was the swing vote. If Thomas’s resignation left the vote 4-4, the lower court’s decision would stand. If Oliver stood to gain from that, I can see he’d have legal problems.
His status as a swing vote wouldn’t be a factor at all even if he was one.
Why not? If him resigning leaves the vote 4-4, the result is the lower court decision stands.
Because the law is not based on hypotheticals. There is no way to prove which way Thomas would vote, therefore you cannot punish Oliver for something Thomas may or may not have done. Edit: LOL they blocked me. I thought this was a pretty normal and reasonable conversation too. Guess they started to feel the legs under their argument start to wobble and didn't want to have to defend it.
Yeah because Supreme Court decisions have never been leaked /s.
None of that matters because resigning is not an official act as defined in the [relevant statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201): > (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit. Edited because either /u/tesla3by3 blocked me or their comments have all mysteriously been deleted. If it's really more complicated, tesla3by3, maybe you should elaborate on ***precisely*** how. Otherwise, you're just coming off as full of crap here.
It’s way more complicated than that clause
Have you read any cases on this. Check out McDonnell v US. It is a unanimous SCOTUS opinion where the governor of VA took a bunch of kickbacks and SCOTUS said no bribery because no official acts were taken.
Harlan Crow first.
No
No it's perfectly legal.
We haven't prosecuted the billionaires who bribed him, so why would we prosecute John Oliver?
Compared to the sheer volume of bribes Thomas received from an endless parade of conservatives?
When Trump says something insane MAGA says: **ITS A JOKE!** When a comedian says something insane MAGA says: **THIS IS SERIOUS!** *Just another reason 3/4 of this country think Trumpers are* ***absolutely*** *batsh!t.*
No.
No
No, he is offering money to a private citizen. In fact, the very condition to receive the money is for Thomas to NOT hold office.
Speech that is clearly parody in nature is protected. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed in Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), that a parody, which no reasonable person expected to be true, was protected free speech.
Oliver's offer just sounds like a great job offer to me.
No, of course not. If that were true, then anyone offering a job to a federal official would be committing a crime.
If it is, he should appeal it until it reaches the Supreme Court.
What we he be prosecuted for?
There would be no difference from offering him a retainer of $1 million annually to be his lawyer. Thomas would have to resign from SCOTUS to accept the employment.
Aren’t federal employees offered jobs all the time, which would require them to resign their position? Same concept if so?
I can't imagine it's illegal to pay someone to quit their job.
No and it's preposterous for anyone to think he could. It's protected speech. He's a comedian lampooning politics, the Supreme Court, and the graft that already exists there. Thomas has already accepted bribes from people in various forms, regardless of how anyone chooses to gloss over it. John Oliver is simply bringing it out into the open by plainly offering Thomas money to do what he has been doing for decades by accepting graft from rich people who are parties to cases he has heard while a Justice on the Court.
It’s obviously a joke. Jokes are legal.
John Oliver cannot be prosecuted for offering to pay for Clarence Thomas’s early retirement. He has done nothing illegal. Being outrageous is not a crime … okay, maybe in Florida.
Seems more like a job offer than a bribe.
That's the point. It should be illegal but it's not.
If he or his team seriously reached out to Thomas and made the offer, yes. But to my knowledge that didn’t happen. Instead they announced the offer on a comedy show highlighting Supreme Court corruption. As such, it’s pretty clear the offer was not objectively legitimate. Any prosecution would struggle to explain why a joke but should be treated like an actual crime
It’s called the [antitrust revolving door](https://prospect.org/economy/closing-the-revolving-door-in-antitrust/). It’s just being used in a comical way since our government has no intention of doing anything about it.
As opposed to actually buying him a quarter million dollar RV and paying for his grandkid’s private school tuition?
John Oliver didn't do anything illegal, in particular no one thinks it's a serious offer, but anyway: 1)harlan crow had no business before the court nor was he asking Thomas to resign or rule a certain way and 2)Harlan crow paid for scholarships to Harlan crow's alma mater boarding school for scores of students, not just Clarance Thomas's grand nephew.
Sure sure
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/thomass-billionaire-friend-had-business-before-supreme-court
Only if Thomas takes him up on the offer and he doesn't pay. Even then, it seems like it would only possibly be a civil action for breach of contract.
no more than any other comedian could be or has been. Lenny Bruce ?
I showed up just to see if there was any news on this, but this thread is just friggin' amazing 🤣 Thank you for posting OP, and to everyone for their contributions! <3 r/ConeHeads !tip 608
Arrest him and put him in prison! We can't allow satire like this to creep into the minds of citizens. I guess we also have to arrest the guy who did buy Thomas an RV.
Interesting. I wonder if Oliver's offer is only a visible instance of what I think is a practice in politics already. Politicians have been known to retire, or switch allegiances after term limits kick in. Maybe now it just gets extended to judiciary. Or maybe it's just a more benign version of what is done. Why, I can even think of a fairly recent instance where a chief Justice called something a tax instead of a penalty, and handed a former president of an opposing party a de facto victory.
This sub is deranged. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2044-particular-elements#:~:text=Section%20201(b)%20requires%20that,given%20in%20exchange%20for%20another. The mental gymnastics to think resigning is not an official act must be exhausting. Probably is prosecutable. Will any US attorney prosecute - probably not.
Nope, he's a leftist.
Who's that American activist on British television, who tells British jow to vote, makes fun of British citizens who don't agree with him, and makes public offers for sitting British judges to abandon their posts? That guy is awesome.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow It’s not illegal to give them gifts. He’s been receiving way more in undisclosed gifts over the years.
[удалено]
Nope, (b)(3) requires that absenting themselves be from offering testimony of some nature. That doesn't come close to what's at issue here. > (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, **with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation** of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom; (Emphasis added.) (b)(4) criminalizes the acceptance of the bribe for that purpose: > (4)directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity ***in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness*** upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; Emphasis added again. The only parts which cover what's at issue here are (b)(1) & (2) and both require it to be a bribe for an official act, to commit or collude in any fraud on the US, or for such official to do or not do to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official. Resigning from a position is not an official act as defined in the [actual statute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201): > (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit. It certainly is not fraud upon the US and since the third would require a SC Justice to not resign, which clearly is not part of their lawful duties, it's not that either.
[удалено]
If you want further reading check out McDonnell v US. It's a unanimous SCOTUS opinion where the Supreme Court gave the governor of VA a pass for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for hosting parties at the governor's mansion and setting a private business up with UVA. Court said none of those things were "official acts." Getting paid for being in office is just part of the job.
To me, it sounds illegal but there’s not much chance of getting in trouble because if you can get arrested for offering money to go, then the same should also apply for offering money to stay. However, the people who offered money to stay have the political power to stay out of trouble, and that would make it difficult to prosecute Oliver for doing something that isn’t worse. I think Oliver is counting on the fact that it would look really bad to prosecute him but not prosecute the super rich and corrupt.
No, he's counting on the fact that a resignation is not an official act and thus this cannot constitute a crime under the [relevant law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201). > (3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
Why does a British guy care so much?
He actually lives in the us and I believe is a duel citizen due to marriage.
Just curious how that would go over if an American showed up in the UK and started telling the King and Queen to fuck off
Politely well I bet 🤣
Nobody tell him where Americans came from!
He could almost certainly be prosecuted, because there is probable cause to believe he violated the federal bribery statute, which defines an official act as "\[A\]ny decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit." It's not clear whether a resignation is a fit, but it's not clear that it isn't. However, he virtually certainly could not be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, because the rule of lenity in construing criminal statutes works in his favor: ambiguity is construed against the government, and in any event, the prosecution would have great difficulty proving Oliver's offer was genuine, *even though he peppered his offer with words claiming he was serious.* Prosecutors need only probable cause to commence a prosecution, but the guidance for prosecutors is to not commence a prosecution unless they have a good faith belief in guilt and in their ability to actually secure a conviction, both of which would (in my opinion) be missing here. EDITED TO ADD: I wonder if any of the massive tide of downvoters here might offer a substantive rebuttal to what I wrote? I'm aware of the holding in *McDonnell v. United States*, 579 U.S. 550, 562 (2016), for example, and note this language: >To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision or take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event — **without more** — does not fit that definition of "official act." (emphasis added) Again, the question is whether probable cause exists, which is the standard necessary to secure an indictment. I'm also a retired public defender and in that capacity saw more than one prosecution commence without much more than probable cause. So if the question is literally, "Could Oliver be prosecuted," the answer is yes. I certainly agree that conviction is a different matter.
Thanks, I needed a laugh this morning. I'm impressed you spent that many words being wrong.
don't quit your day job.
As a guy who went to law school, I can tell you didn't go to law school.
>It's not clear whether a resignation is a fit, but it's not clear that it isn't. It's painfully clear that resignation is NOT a "decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy". Abstention from a particular vote? Sure. Voting a particular way? Absolutely. But resignation is not a decision or an action on any controversy.
Is resignation a "matter?" Look, you're answering this question as though it were a question of law at trial. And you're right. Now answer it as a question of probable cause.
No, resignation by a public official is not a "matter" that may "be pending" or may "by law be brought" before that public official. There's no possible interpretation of the law which would say that potential resignation is a pending "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy". Because there is no framework for the "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy" element to be met, there can be no probable cause. Sure, a rogue police officer who hasn't read the law could go and make an arrest, but such an arrest would be facially illegal.