Posted on 02/21/2018 1:51:03 PM PST by Kaslin
Of all the desperate and futile attempts at revisionist history, few are as careless as the attempt to destroy the reputation of one of the finest Supreme Court justices this country has ever produced. Now comes another volley. New York magazine has assembled "The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas." The author is longtime anti-Thomas journalist Jill Abramson. For more than 4,000 words, Abramson labors to relitigate Thomas accuser Anita Hill's dramatic loss in the court of public opinion. According to one poll at the time, 58 percent believed Thomas; only 24 percent believed Hill.
Again the argument falls on its face.
Justice Thomas has been a distinguished member of the Supreme Court for more than 26 years now. In the years since, Abramson has assembled ... well, nothing. Meanwhile, the case against Hill's unproven charges has grown only stronger, and Abramson's record of objectivity -- if there ever was one -- is evermore tattered. Liberals like her think you should impeach someone for allegedly lying under oath -- but not if the person's name is Bill Clinton -- and then lean heavily on "alleged" for protection.
Abramson's newest attraction is attorney Moira Smith, who claims she was groped by Thomas at a 1999 dinner party. Her accusation, delivered in the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign, flopped so badly that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN never touched it.
The rationale for attacking Thomas all over again was the Harvey Weinstein expose. But just since then, Abramson has managed to hurt her own cause again. She has no credibility in this discussion. Indeed, she's on the wrong side of it. In October, the Washington Post reported that as executive editor of The New York Times and deputy to Michael Oreskes, she did nothing to stop Oreskes from allegedly sexually harassing a female news aide in the Washington bureau.
"If I had to do it again, I would have told him to knock it off," she said. "I think I should have raised this with (the Times' human resources department). ... Maybe confronting him would have somehow stopped him from doing it to another woman."
In November, she wrote an editorial for the leftist British newspaper The Guardian that explicitly argued that feminist politicians shouldn't be ruined by sexual-harassment allegations. It said: "Casting out Al Franken, who has been a passionate, zealous defender of women's rights in a Senate grown ever more hostile to them, could remove an important weapon in the embattled Democratic arsenal.
"A reassessment of Bill Clinton's behavior era could have the same counter-productive effect."
That passage underlines that Abramson isn't really interested in stopping sexual harassment. She's interested in using sexual harassment against opponents of "women's rights," especially abortion on demand.
In fact, Abramson's tolerance for former President Clinton's sexual misconduct is this dramatic: A Nexis search of The New York Times for the terms "Jill Abramson" and "Juanita Broaddrick" brings up zero stories. When she finally acknowledged Broaddrick's existence in October 2016, she dismissed Broaddrick (and other Clinton accusers Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey) as part of a "Soviet show trial" before the second presidential debate.
Abramson's "new" case against Thomas is so unconvincing that the liberal media passed right over it. Oh, she still has a few die-hard friends on the left. Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan touted the New York magazine piece and lauded Abramson as a "badass" with "unparalleled expertise on the subject." They think alike. Last October, Sullivan also trashed Broaddrick & Co. as "a twisted version of 'The Last Supper.'"
Clarence Thomas has been recognized as a forceful legal mind on the Supreme Court, and he has staunchly argued against liberal barbarism like partial-birth abortion. It's obvious why liberal journalists with no real core principles on sexual harassment wished they had prevented his confirmation, and why Americans would have been denied an impressive justice.
Character assassination means never having to say you're sorry.
There is no limit to the depravity of a progressive.
However, there are clearly demonstrable limits to their intellect.
All of this will not end well, since those with little ability who imagine that they have much ability are aggressive in defending their pitiful selves.
Anita Hill lied under oath. She should’ve gone to prison.
Justice Thomas is a great American story and has been an asset to his/our country. I pray that there are a few more out there like him. Thank you for posting.
Justice Thomas is hated by liberal fascists.
Why?
1) He’s black and married white
2) He is an American, not a black power nationalist
wishing to divide the country so it can be reconstructed into a minority and ethnic Utopia with out freedom.
3) He will never take a knee
4) He knows liberal fascism when he sees it
5) He likes Chick Fil A.
Thanks Kaslin.
The author is longtime anti-Thomas journalist Jill Abramson. For more than 4,000 words, Abramson labors to relitigate Thomas accuser Anita Hill's dramatic loss in the court of public opinion. According to one poll at the time, 58 percent believed Thomas; only 24 percent believed Hill. Again the argument falls on its face. Justice Thomas has been a distinguished member of the Supreme Court for more than 26 years now. In the years since, Abramson has assembled ... well, nothing. Meanwhile, the case against Hill's unproven charges has grown only stronger, and Abramson's record of objectivity -- if there ever was one -- is evermore tattered. Liberals like her think you should impeach someone for allegedly lying under oath -- but not if the person's name is Bill Clinton -- and then lean heavily on "alleged" for protection... Abramson's newest attraction is attorney Moira Smith, who claims she was groped by Thomas at a 1999 dinner party. Her accusation, delivered in the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign, flopped so badly that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN never touched it... She has no credibility in this discussion. Indeed, she's on the wrong side of it. In October, the Washington Post reported that as executive editor of The New York Times and deputy to Michael Oreskes, she did nothing to stop Oreskes from allegedly sexually harassing a female news aide in the Washington bureau... In November, she wrote an editorial for the leftist British newspaper The Guardian that explicitly argued that feminist politicians shouldn't be ruined by sexual-harassment allegations. It said: "Casting out Al Franken, who has been a passionate, zealous defender of women's rights in a Senate grown ever more hostile to them, could remove an important weapon in the embattled Democratic arsenal. A reassessment of Bill Clinton's behavior era could have the same counter-productive effect." ...A Nexis search of The New York Times for the terms "Jill Abramson" and "Juanita Broaddrick" brings up zero stories. When she finally acknowledged Broaddrick's existence in October 2016, she dismissed Broaddrick (and other Clinton accusers Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey) as part of a "Soviet show trial" before the second presidential debate.
I don’t believe Anita Hill. And it’s not because Thomas is a great Supreme Court Justice (he is). Nor is it because Hill is a moonbat (she is). It’s because it’s her word against his and there is a presumption of innocence in the absence of strong evidence. In this case it’s just not there. Normally (and I concede there are exceptions) when a man is a sex addict or engages in the kind of behavior that we would label as sexual harassment, it is a pattern of behavior. It is very rarely limited to one victim and there is almost always corroborating evidence in the form of other victims or witnesses. None of that exists here. Further if that was in his character he would not have been able to suppress it all these years he has been on the High Court. This would have come up again. But it hasn’t.
And just so as not to be accused of hypocrisy, I try to follow the same standards neutrally as much as possible which sometimes has been inconvenient as a Conservative. The same standard of proof lead me to the unhappy conclusion that Roy Moore probably was guilty of at least some inappropriate behavior. Way too many corroborating witnesses. I could never buy the conspiracy claims of his defenders.
I don't believe there were any "corroborating witnesses" at all -- at least for the most serious allegations. A person who supports another person's story but didn't actually see anything isn't even a witness at all -- let alone a "corroborating" one.
To better understand "THE MASTER KEY" to stealing elections with computers, watch: 
Bennie Smith, a Memphis computer programmer, discovered HOW this is done through a
I wouldn’t even refer to these nut-jobs as “progressives.”
They are nothing but lying, violent, communist pieces of *hit, unworthy to even polish the shoes of Clarence Thomas.
You’re mistaken ... and Bennie Smith, a Memphis computer programmer, discovered HOW this is done in Memphis TN.
There is no limit to the depravity of the Washington Post.
“5) He likes Chick Fil A.” LOL!
6)He’s a Black that left the progressive plantation.
Been paying attention to politics since was a kid. Really start paying attention during these hearings. I always believed him. The rats and press hated him supposedly for his treatment of women
Later it came out that every time he changed jobs, she would follow him. Yeah, that’s what I would do if I was sexually harassed./s
Later the bent one came along doing things 100 times worse. And the rats and the press who were so hysterical over Thomas, just yawned over Billy-Bob escapades.
PIAPS on the Today show....”It’s a right-wing conspiracy.”
Right after that I started getting involved with my local Republican party.
The only thing Roy Moore is guilty of is being an incompetent political candidate.
He may be a wonderful this & a wonderful that but if he can’t sell his “wonderfulness” in a manner that inspires people to COME OUT AND VOTE FOR HIM OVER AN ABORTION LOVING GUNGRABBER - Jones. That screams political incompetence!
The case for lynching an uppity Black Man.
Forward the article to both left and right sources. Change the title to the above.
Democrats hate a strong, free-thinking, black man in a position of such influence. Thomas is a good man, and they can’t control them. Enraged the left like almost nothing else.
There’s a reason the guy never won — or maybe even ran for — anything other than a judicial post. He should have worked for a Federal judicial appointment because that would have suited his skills and personality perfectly. Charles Manson probably would have been a more capable legislator.
I’m sure she did, but was there proof of that? That is the problem with these cases. There is no way to refute spurious accusations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
