politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Washington — A pair of Senate Democrats have asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to look into whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated any federal tax or ethics laws when he accepted travel and lodging from wealthy benefactors.
Senate Democrats have been investigating ethics practices at the Supreme Court in the wake of news articles detailing travel Thomas accepted from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, which he did not disclose on his financial reports.
The conservative justice has maintained that he did not believe he was required to report the trips under rules regarding personal hospitality, but pledged to comply with new disclosure guidelines from the Judicial Conference issued last March.
Thomas formally reported two trips he took with Crow in July 2019 — to Bali, Indonesia, and a private club in Monte Rio, California — on his latest financial disclosure filed in May.
The justice's lawyer told Wyden and Whitehouse in a letter in January that the Thomas and his wife "made all payments to Mr. Welters on a regular basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the panel's chairman, attempted last month to unanimously pass legislation that would require the Supreme Court to adopt binding ethics rules, but it was blocked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.
The original article contains 836 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!