The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

[LordBrownTrout]

Abramson? I just started laughing. Another radical loon fringe leftist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It wasn't a crime.

 

[gipper]

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.

It wasn't a crime.

Yeah...lying under oath is only NOT a crime, if one is wealthy and connected. Right?

 

[miketx]

You're insane if you buy any of this.

Given the topics they routinely comment on, that's a given.

 

[fncceo]

“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.

Racist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It wasn't a crime.

Yeah...lying under oath is only NOT a crime, if one is wealthy and connected. Right?

Lying under oath is only criminal if it meets the requirements to be criminal.

The judge Clinton lied to cited him for CIVIL contempt of court. Civil violations and criminal violations are two different things.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“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.

He can be impeached for incompetence alone.

 

[eagle7_31]

“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.

In plain English liberals HATE black conservatives. So stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

[NightFox]

You'd think that after 27 years the dingbats would have moved past their anger at the uppity negro Clarence Thomas for escaping the left wing plantation, apparently not.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left are growing more bat shit crazy by the day

 

[jknowgood]

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.

You didn't care when bill Clinton lied under oath. You have no credibility.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

It wasn't a crime.

Yeah...lying under oath is only NOT a crime, if one is wealthy and connected. Right?

Lying under oath is only criminal if it meets the requirements to be criminal.

The judge Clinton lied to cited him for CIVIL contempt of court. Civil violations and criminal violations are two different things.

Lying under oath is against the law, no matter what. Well unless you're a Clinton.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Related older article - Impeach Clarence Thomas?
`

 

[Votto]

When does Mueller start the investigation to impeach Thomas?

 

[gipper]

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.

It wasn't a crime.

Yeah...lying under oath is only NOT a crime, if one is wealthy and connected. Right?

Lying under oath is only criminal if it meets the requirements to be criminal.

The judge Clinton lied to cited him for CIVIL contempt of court. Civil violations and criminal violations are two different things.

True enough. For this he was impeached and should have been removed.

 

[martybegan]

“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.

He can be impeached for incompetence alone.

Actually he can't, and the fact you don't know that just shows most of your posts are all typing, no content.

Impeachment is for high crimes.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

When does Mueller start the investigation to impeach Thomas?

Never... this is utter nonsense. Even if true, let's assume it is for the sake of the loons, the statute of limitations is three years. Squanto is a whackaloon.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Nah....this thread is just another case for why ALL good Americans should invest heavily in AR-15's while they can.......

Many like the OP feel anyone and even any thoughts that oppose their agenda should be extinguished.

The time is approaching rapidly where they may need them to protect their 2nd Amendment rights as well as the entire Constitution and the rule of Law at large.

The Communist Left is determined to convert the USA into the next Venezuela.

 

[NightFox]

When does Mueller start the investigation to impeach Thomas?

He's got to figure out a way to connect Justice Thomas to Russia first...

 

[Dragonlady]

Call us when you have proof he lied.

They already have the proof. This POS should never have been confirmed.