> Definitely has nothing to do with SCOTUS's retirement accounts, no sir.
Who needs retirement accounts when you can just accept gifts-do-not-call-them-bribes?
* https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Nondisclosure_...
It's just a gratiuty, not a bribe if payment comes after the act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States