Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson authors a controversial new cover story for New York magazine, and the headline pretty much explains all: "The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas." The lengthy piece revisits the Supreme Court justice's infamous confirmation hearings, along with the allegations of harassment made by Anita Hill and others and concludes that "it's time to raise the possibility of impeachment." Not because Thomas talked about watching porn with a female colleague or otherwise behaved crudely in the workplace, but "because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risque subject matter," writes Abramson.
Telling lies is a "cardinal sin" for lawyers, and "the idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the US remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal," writes Abramson. Read her full story here. Two notable reactions:
- No: The conservative National Review has a five-part rebuttal, the gist of which is captured in this line by Carrie Severino: Abramson's "obsessive quest to try and destroy Clarence Thomas (and pull her career out of free fall) has resulted in another 4,200 words of warmed-over, long-ago debunked, and perjurious allegations."
- Yes: At HuffPost, Angela Wright-Shannon writes that she would love to see an impeachment but considers it unlikely. The reason she's in favor? "I believed Hill because I had experienced similar behavior from him: He had repeatedly pressured me to date him and inquired about my breast size."
(More
Clarence Thomas stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
