Absolutely yes
100% they are not above the law and need to know it. Impeach the traitors
This article is a debate-style where they asked people to argue each side.
The person defending Clarence Thomas really stretches in that defense, relying on the fact that he sort of knew him in law school and he was “sweet”.
He furthermore relies on it being “travel expenses” with “a close friend” who has no “pending” cases. Those words in quotes do a shitload of heavy lifting.
Thomas didn’t just get travel expenses paid. Somebody bought him an RV. This billionaire didn’t become “a close friend” until Thomas complained about his pay publicly and acted like he would resign. And for an oligarch, many cases are of interest.
It was a weak argument and the guy obviously knew it. He did his best, but Thomas’s actions are really basically indefensible.
I hate that they’re trying to turn into a “both sides are valid!” debate in the first place. It’s framing like this that gives platforms the chance to keep skewing. What’s their next debate topic? Should murder be legal?
Yes, and also “fucking duh”
Yes. How is this even debatable??
For once, the answer to a clickbait headline is “YES.”
The supreme court prefers they be called “Gratuities” or “tips”
“Gifts” or “bribes”?
Do fish fuck in water? Do bears shit in the woods? Does the Pope wear a frock?
Betteridge absolutely shredded by these shite headlines anymore…
Also, “Yes, you dumbass”.
Yes, but only if the “tip” is provided before services rendered. \s
This question is more rhetorical than you think it is.
