[akramachamarei]

Sure, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence that happened. And I think I would have heard about it if the journalists were able to mention it.

The correct metaphor is if you had an interest in a case, gave Clarence Thomas $10 and said get yourself a nice froyo.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I didn't say it happened, I asked why you think it matters that the bribe wasn't given by someone involved in the case.

It is possible that a bribe was given by someone who is not party to the case and the comment I replied to was explaining that someone who is not party to the case was not giving a bribe, by virtue of the fact they weren't party to the case. I was hoping you could explain your perspective in the context I described but it seems I stumped you, hence the distraction about froyo and no substance in the reply.

[akramachamarei]

I think we need to review what is being discussed. The comment to which I replied said:

> They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor.

I was pointing out that, despite the implication, those gift givers were not involved in SC cases, to cast doubt on the notion that these gifts were bribes. You countered with the example of a gift giver who has an interest in a case and expresses an interest in a case being ruled a certain way. Sure, that could be a bribe. But my response emphasized that your example doesn't accurately describe what we know about the gifts from Crow.

If you read that CNBC article you will find no mention of bribery, influence peddling, or any cases that Harlan Crow had an interest in. I even took the trouble to find some case Harlan Crow might have an interest in and found this article: https://truthout.org/articles/report-harlan-crow-has-a-stake... The links were pretty tenuous to me.

To summarize, what the CNBC article identifies is lots of gift giving. We have no evidence the giver conditioned these gifts on an understanding of ruling a certain way on particular cases. Furthermore (IIRC from reading scotusblog) the decision record on the potentially sketchy cases (Loper Bright, CFPB, Acheson Hotels, & Moore) does not reflect a significant change in Thomas' behavior in some cases, nor a diversion from the unanimous decision of the court in others.

In other words, we've not reached the question of who can be a bribe giver, because we haven't identified a bribe, as far as I can tell. But I would agree that a gift given by a nonparty can be a bribe if conditioned properly. I apologize if my initial comment gave the impression otherwise, so as to induce a kind of goalpost-moving which might be happening now. I wasn't as familiar with the details until now when I could make a stronger statement, so I began with something basic.