US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has gotten ahead of a hit piece in Soros-funded ProPublica, which emailed Alito a list of questions about recusals and allegedly unreported gifts (which, as Alito explains, were not actually gifts).
“ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid,” Alito writes in the Wall Street Journal‘s Opinion page, the latter referring to a private flight he took to Alaska on Singer’s private jet 15 years ago.
Alito claims he had “no obligation to recuse” in any of the cases cited by ProPublica.
First, even if I had been aware of Mr. Singer’s connection to the entities involved in those cases, recusal would not have been required or appropriate. ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect.
…
No such person would think that my relationship with Mr. Singer meets that standard. My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court. On two occasions, he introduced me before I gave a speech—as have dozens of other people. -Samuel Alito
Alito also says he reviewed the cases in question to determine whether recusal was appropriate, and says he had no idea that Singer was involved.
As far as reporting gifts, Alito says that the instructions for Justices on their Financial Disclosure Report, up until a few months ago, indicated that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” and that “hospitality” was defined to include “hospitality extended for a non-business purpose by one, not a corporation or organization, . . . on property or facilities owned by [a] person . . .”
As Alito further explains, the term “facilities” was not defined, but that it can include means of transportation. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “facilities” may mean “everything necessary for the convenience of passengers.”
When I joined the Court and until the recent amendment of the filing instructions, justices commonly interpreted this discussion of “hospitality” to mean that accommodations and transportation for social events were not reportable gifts. The flight to Alaska was the only occasion when I have accepted transportation for a purely social event, and in doing so I followed what I understood to be standard practice.
For these reasons, I did not include on my Financial Disclosure Report for 2008 either the accommodations provided by the owner of the King Salmon Lodge, who, to my knowledge, has never been involved in any matter before the Court, or the seat on the flight to Alaska. -Samuel Alito
Alito notes that during the trip 15 years ago, he stayed for three nights in a ‘modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge,’ which he described as a ‘comfortable but rustic facility’ with ‘homestyle’ meals.
“I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000. Since my visit 15 years ago, the lodge has been sold and, I believe, renovated, but an examination of the photos and information on the lodge’s website shows that ProPublica’s portrayal is misleading,” Alito continued.
In closing the Justice writes that “as for the flight,” Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska, while Alito was invited “shortly before the event,” and offered a seat on Singer’s plane that would have “otherwise been vacant.” Alito argues that this “would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer,” vs. a commercial flight, which would have imposed a “substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me.”
Is it any coincidence that ProPublica‘s top donors also bankroll activist groups which target conservative Justice Clarence Thomas?
Not weird at all. ProPublica are hacktivists so better to prebutt in a widely circulated publication than have to constantly respond to their breathless nothingburgers.
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) June 20, 2023
