The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2011
152,802
64,401
2,330
Native America
DWXPp4sWkAEnWzS.jpg


“The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal.”

New York Magazine is laying out a case for the possible impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The cover story, penned by former executive editor of The New York Times Jill Abramson, described Thomas’ rise to power and his apparent immunity to scrutiny during the height of the #MeToo movement. Citing conversations with three women who worked with Thomas, Abramson also detailed a history of lies told by the judge, beginning during his confirmation hearing.

His dishonesty, not the allegations of impropriety, “raise the possibility of impeachment.”

“Lying is, for lawyers, a cardinal sin. State disciplinary committees regularly institute proceedings against lawyers for knowingly lying in court, with punishments that can include disbarment. Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached and forced from office for charges that include lying. The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal,” Abramson wrote.

Abramson is the co-author of “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas,” a 1994 book about his controversial confirmation hearing. During the1991 hearing, former employee Anita Hill accused him of sexually harassing her. Hill alleged that Thomas talked about pornography in the workplace and regularly commented on the bodies of female coworkers.

Thomas claimed he never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

The hearing quickly turned into the epitome of a he-said, she-said, and despite the allegations, Thomas was later confirmed by a vote of 52-48. Since then, more women have come forward with similar claims about his behavior.

Read the full story at New York magazine.

More: New York Magazine Makes A Case For Impeaching Clarence Thomas

I watched his confirmation hearing live. He should never have been confirmed. The evidence against him was overwhelming. There were more women waiting to testify against Thomas, but his "high-tech" lynching comment scared the shit out of Biden and Kennedy. So the remaining women were never called. However, Anita Hill's testimony alone should have been enough to end his ascension to SCOTUS. She was extremely credible.

quote-of-the-contentious-hearings-for-his-nomination-as-a-supreme-court-justice-this-is-a-circus-it-s-clarence-thomas-311143.jpg


 
Last edited:
That grotesque, like 90 year old Jewish creature really should be removed for attacking our democracy.
 
Good God Injun, wtf is wrong with you?

If you remove lawyers who lie, you’d have to remove all politicians even your beloved Dems.

Partisans are so silly.
 
Good God Injun, wtf is wrong with you?

If you remove lawyers who lie, you’d have to remove all politicians even your beloved Dems.

Partisans are so silly.

Lying under oath for SCOTUS confirmation is a crime.
Bubba lied under oath but you were fine with it.

For SCOTUS? Can't you NaziCon assholes find another thread to flame?
Abramson is a Left wing hack. She even wrote of criminal Hillary, she is "fundamentally honest and trustworthy." During the 2016 campaign.
 
Do You Believe Her Now?
I surely do. I did then.

No, I don't believe her now and I didn't believe her then.

There's a big problem with her story.

They both started at the Department of Education, Civil Rights Division. That's where she claimed he started harassing her. Supposedly.

Then the happy day comes when he gets transferred to EEOC, and instead of doing a happy dance on her desk, she decides to transfer with him.

Sorry, if he was truly making her work experience miserable, she wouldn't transfer to another department with him.
 
I watched his confirmation hearing live. He should never have been confirmed. The evidence against him was overwhelming. There were more women waiting to testify against Thomas, but his "high-tech" lynching comment scared the shit out of Biden and Kennedy. So the remaining women were never called. However, Anita Hill's testimony alone should have been enough to end his ascension to SCOTUS. She was extremely credible.

No, she wasn't. He story had big credibility issues in it, and Arlen Specter took her apart.

Then the Democrats looked at their next witness, Angela Wright, and realized that she had even less credibility.
 
Do You Believe Her Now?
I surely do. I did then.

No, I don't believe her now and I didn't believe her then.

There's a big problem with her story.

They both started at the Department of Education, Civil Rights Division. That's where she claimed he started harassing her. Supposedly.

Then the happy day comes when he gets transferred to EEOC, and instead of doing a happy dance on her desk, she decides to transfer with him.

Sorry, if he was truly making her work experience miserable, she wouldn't transfer to another department with him.
Wow Joe! I may have reconsider my opinion of you.

In all my years here, have I after given you a 'winner?'
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top