David Brock believed in Clarence Thomas. Now he wants him impeached.

Twelve years ago, I wrote a four-page memo outlining the case for the removal of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. My note was for...



Twelve years ago, I wrote a four-page memo outlining the case for the removal of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. My note was forwarded to the senator at the time. Hillary Clinton by a mutual friend and went public in 2015 when Clinton’s emails were released after the Russian hack.

As far as I know, the memo was read and, of course, shelved. But it is worth reviewing now that public confidence in the high court, already at the bottomis at issue after the court stripped the constitutional right to abortion of tens of millions of American women.

I have a long history of studying Clarence Thomas. When Thomas’ law professor and former employee, Anita Hill, came forward and testified before the Senate that he sexually harassed her, I attacked Hill’s credibility and protected Thomas’ reputation in order to please to my right-wing tribe in a subsequent article and book written with the full cooperation of Thomas’s allies. Years later, after Thomas’ own close friends confided in me that they never believed him and that he did indeed have a penchant for raunchy pornography ― a key part of the Hill case ― I retracted my reporting, concluded that Thomas was guilty of the charge and publicly apologized to Hill.

The hook for my 2010 memo was new interviews, in The New York Times and other outlets, of Lillian McEwen, a romantic partner of Thomas during the time Hill worked for him. McEwen had informed the committee that she had relevant information about Thomas, but she was never called to testify. (The Judiciary Committee Chairman at the time, Joe Biden, allowed the testimony of three other female corroborating witnesses for Hill to be similarly suppressed).

McEwen, a former prosecutor and judge, revealed that “pornography was only part of [Thomas’] personality structure”, and that he “visited a store in Dupont Circle that suited his needs. Additionally, and more detrimentally, McEwen said Thomas made talk about sex in the workplace. She said Thomas spotted women he worked with as sex partners and, in one instance, at work, told her he had asked about a woman’s bra size. And yet, when questioned by Democratic Senator Pat Leahy during the hearing, Thomas flatly denied discussing sexuality in the workplace with any woman, including Hill. It was an outright lie.

Like presidents, justices and justices can be impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and convicted by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. In my view, the McEwen interviews were compelling evidence that Thomas had perjured himself to gain Senate confirmation and should therefore face impeachment, even if the effort failed to remove him from office.

That was then. If Democrats had the courage now, they would agree to impeachment in light of recent revelations that Thomas’s wife, Ginni, was an active participant in former President Donald Trump’s anti-democratic and likely criminal pressure campaign to overturn the 2020 election results. Too often Democrats don’t know how to fight and won’t do what it takes to win. In this case, impeachment isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s good policy for Democrats right now. Future terms will be won by motivating and energizing the Democratic base, which rightly despises Clarence Thomas, and influencing Democratic-leaning independent women in the suburbs, who overwhelmingly support the right that the Thomas de facto court has just suppressed. The electorate running this year is already very partisan; polarizing it further will only help the Democrats.

So Democrats should immediately open impeachment hearings on Thomas — complete with dramatic televised hearings — and then vote to remove him from office, even if it’s a party vote. The effort will fail in the Senate, but devastating political points will have been scored and Republicans will have been put on defense just weeks before the November ballot. President Biden, whose poll numbers are well under water with the party’s left flank, is expected to endorse the impeachment campaign, signaling to the Democratic base that he regrets misjudging the politics of the Thomas hearings in 1991 Like in 1992, when a backlash against the Thomas-Hill hearings ushered in a record number of women in power, Democrats should make 2022 “the year of the woman” again by attempting to correct the grave error of confirm Thomas in the first place.

As a former right-winger turned Democrat, I often wonder what my former allies would do strategically if given a political opportunity. If the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans wouldn’t hesitate to impeach a vulnerable figure like Thomas; not only to punish him for past sins, but also to discredit with the public a host of spurious decisions that will undoubtedly come in the future from this radical 5-4 MAGA majority.

The facts are there. Recently Text messages and emails appeared show that Ginni Thomas was in communication with the White House chief of staff and Arizona lawmakers, falsely claiming the election was stolen and pleading with them to take unwarranted action to overturn it. Ginni Thomas also corresponded with attorney John Eastman, the architect of the plot to overturn the election. In one communication, she mentioned talking to her “friend” about the election, a likely reference to her husband. In another, she wrote, “Make a plan…and save us from the left that would destroy America.” At the time, Ginni Thomas was on the board of a right-wing group called CNP Action, the political advocacy arm of the Council for National Policy, which urged Republicans to try to keep Trump in power.

In January of this year, after Ginni Thomas sent him zealous emails, Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter in an 8-1 court ruling requiring the National Archives to release Trump’s White House records to the House committee. investigating January 6. 2021, uprising. Given Ginni Thomas’ active involvement in the events leading up to Jan. 6―and especially since the 29-text exchange she had with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in the weeks prior, it appears to have been covered by the House’s request for documents ― Thomas should have recused himself from the case to avoid the appearance of impropriety. In other words, it looks like he was covering for his wife.

Federal law states that judges and judges must recuse themselves in cases where a spouse has “an interest that could be materially affected by the outcome” and where their “impartiality could be reasonably questioned.” In the Archives case, Laurence Tribe, Harvard law professor concluded that Thomas violated this law.

The issue of Thomas and his inability to recuse himself in regards to his wife’s political advocacy has come up before. In 2011, 74 House Democrats said Thomas was required by federal law to recuse himself from any appeals involving the Affordable Care Act, since Ginni Thomas was a highly paid lobbyist working for clients seeking to overturn the law. Thomas ignored the letter and, in a later instance, joined the minority that would have struck down the law. Thomas also failed to recuse himself from the court’s 2018 Muslim travel ban, although, according to in New YorkersGinni Thomas was paid $200,000 in 2017 and 2018 by the Center for Security Policy, which submitted an amicus brief supporting the ban.

By the same logic, Thomas, the fifth critical vote to unseat Roe, should also have recused himself from the Dobbs case. Ginni’s Thomas’ strong anti-abortion advocacy is well documented. Documents discovered by the New York Times showed that while working with CNP and its affiliates, Ginni Thomas co-hosted a panel titled “The Pro-Life Movement on Offense.” Thomas is also a key player in a secretive group called Groundswell, a right-wing coalition dedicated to a “30-front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation”, according to documents obtained by Mother Jones. Groundswell “focuses on contentious issues before the High Court, including suffrage, abortion and same-sex marriage”, the magazine found. The Eagle Forum, which opposes abortion rights, honored Ginni Thomas with an award, and Clarence Thomas twice headlined the group’s annual conference.

At the end of last week, a new analysis of Advance Democracy Inc.a nonpartisan research group, found that 51% of parties who filed amicus briefs — written legal arguments used to pressure judges — calling for an end to federal abortion rights have political ties with Ginny Thomas.

During his Senate confirmation hearing in 1991, Thomas said he supported the right to privacy, which underpins Roe, and that he had no personal bias in approaching the issue of privacy. ‘abortion. Thomas testified: “I believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason to prejudge or predispose to rule one way or the other on abortion, which is a difficult issue. Given his and his wife’s longstanding ties to the anti-abortion movement, this sworn testimony was dishonest at best. (Thomas’s indictment is also a useful way to highlight to the public that Judges Brett Kavanaugh ― who has denied under oath credible charges of sexual assault ― and Amy Comey Barrett also misled the committee in their sworn testimony about Roe).

Thomas also broke the law when he failed to disclose the $686,000 his wife earned at the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007. Instead, he ticked boxes that Ginni Thomas had no non-investment income during those years. the new yorker reported that in 2017 and 2018, Thomas again failed to mention payments to his wife from the Center for Security Policy. The Ethics in Government Act requires all senior federal officials to file annual financial disclosure statements for themselves and their spouses, signed under penalty of perjury, to protect against conflicts of interest. It’s hard to believe that Thomas’ multiple disclosure failures were simply unintentional accounting errors. Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, called the heritage omissions “criminal.”

Clarence Thomas is an outlaw and a liar. He not only misled the Senate, but more importantly the public. Legal scholars have noted that the authority and legitimacy of the judiciary, which is immune to the whims of voters, depends on its perception of fairness, impartiality and integrity. On all three points, Thomas fails the test. He should go.

Chief Justice John Roberts worries about the court’s reputation, but it’s not really his court. This is Thomas’ court. Until this reality is recognized, it cannot be properly addressed. Would he be seen as a supporter of dismissing Thomas? Of course it would. But there is a higher reason, which is to show that the constitutional rule of law can and will be upheld and that government in all its branches can be fixed.



Source link

COMMENTS

Name

Africa,973,Americas,4395,Art & Culture,16280,Arts,6830,Arts & Design,1939,Asia,3622,Automobile,586,Baseball,857,Basketball,701,Books,4252,Business,5737,Celebrity,2631,Cricket,648,Crime,158,Cryptocurrency,2268,Dance,735,Defense,836,Diplomatic Relations,2496,Economy,1419,Editorial,260,Education,1532,Elections,308,Energy & Environment,3213,Entertainment,23744,Environment,4004,Europe,4589,Faith & Religion,234,Family & Life,817,Fashion & Style,3703,Finance,22161,Food & Drink,4180,Football,1326,Games,97,Gossip,10283,Health & Fitness,4530,Health Care,979,Hockey,288,Home & Garden,917,Humour,994,Latin America,49,Lifestyle,18703,Media,527,Middle East,1777,Movies,2069,Music,3008,Opinion,4232,Other,13378,Other Sports,5515,Political News,11322,Political Protests,2324,Politics,18950,Real Estate,2378,Relationship,106,Retail,3115,Science,3000,Science & Tech,11299,Soccer,395,Space & Cosmos,467,Sponsored,4,Sports,13726,Technology,3828,Tennis,751,Theater,1994,Transportation,313,Travel,2880,TV,4034,US,1648,US Sports,1481,Video News,3531,War & Conflict,1069,Weird News,996,World,18367,
ltr
item
Newsrust - US Top News: David Brock believed in Clarence Thomas. Now he wants him impeached.
David Brock believed in Clarence Thomas. Now he wants him impeached.
https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/632494d1220000600011e34d.jpeg?cache=MhtRa7Bxlr&ops=1200_630%20
Newsrust - US Top News
https://www.newsrust.com/2022/09/david-brock-believed-in-clarence-thomas.html
https://www.newsrust.com/
https://www.newsrust.com/
https://www.newsrust.com/2022/09/david-brock-believed-in-clarence-thomas.html
true
732247599994189300
UTF-8
Loaded All Posts Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS PREMIUM CONTENT IS LOCKED STEP 1: Share to a social network STEP 2: Click the link on your social network Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy Table of Content