• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user

Former girlfriend says Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker, porn user - CNN.com


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a binge drinker who had a pornography habit or fetish in the 1980s, then changed radically when he stopped drinking alcohol, his former girlfriend told CNN on Monday.

Lillian McEwen, who dated Thomas for several years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1991, provided CNN's "Larry King Live" program with a harsh depiction of Thomas. She said when they first met, he might have been a "raving alcoholic" who used pornography to help fulfill sexual fantasies, but then gave up drinking and transformed into an angry, obsessive man who bullied his son.




WTF, is this news? I sense a ploy to smear the right in order to syphon votes, or for them at most, get Thomas to resign.


Shame on them
 

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
WTF, is this news? I sense a ploy to smear the right in order to syphon votes, or for them at most, get Thomas to resign.


Shame on them

Shame? You must have missed this:

The Hutchinson Political Report: The House is duty-bound to Bring Articles of Impeachment against Clarence Thomas


The House is duty-bound to Bring Articles of Impeachment against Clarence Thomas




Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas can and should be impeached. The case and the grounds for impeachment proceedings against him are virtually iron-clad. The evidence is compelling that Thomas perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his court confirmation hearings in 1991. The evidence is equally compelling that this constituted lying under oath to Congress during the hearings.

The impeachment case against Thomas is not based on personal or political disagreement over his views, decisions, opinions and rulings on the bench, his penchant for pornographic material, or for sexual harassment. It is based on clear legal and constitutional grounds, precedents, and Congressional mandates. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that a Supreme Court Justice that "lacks good behavior" can be impeached. This is not an ambiguous, subjective term. It has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness as the 'high crimes and misdemeanors" clause that unequivocally mandates that the House of Representatives initiate impeachment proceedings against any public official, or federal judge in violation of that provision.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk shows on Pacifica and KTYM Radio Los Angel


How you doin', by the way? Long time no see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Right, it's a witch hunt. To bad this black man ain't a liberal, eh?

Not a witchhunt...you're confusing this with Christine O'Donnell. No, this is to right a wrong from 20 + years ago. If he had been a liberal, he would have been lynched, and "deep-fried", and we wouldn't even be discussing it. You know how zealous you guys on the right can be. LOL.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Shame? You must have missed this:

The Hutchinson Political Report: The House is duty-bound to Bring Articles of Impeachment against Clarence Thomas


The House is duty-bound to Bring Articles of Impeachment against Clarence Thomas




Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas can and should be impeached. The case and the grounds for impeachment proceedings against him are virtually iron-clad. The evidence is compelling that Thomas perjured himself in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his court confirmation hearings in 1991. The evidence is equally compelling that this constituted lying under oath to Congress during the hearings.

The impeachment case against Thomas is not based on personal or political disagreement over his views, decisions, opinions and rulings on the bench, his penchant for pornographic material, or for sexual harassment. It is based on clear legal and constitutional grounds, precedents, and Congressional mandates. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that a Supreme Court Justice that "lacks good behavior" can be impeached. This is not an ambiguous, subjective term. It has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness as the 'high crimes and misdemeanors" clause that unequivocally mandates that the House of Representatives initiate impeachment proceedings against any public official, or federal judge in violation of that provision.
The Constitutional precept is the first legal ground for impeachment proceedings against Thomas. The second is Title 18 of the U.S. Code. It states that any official of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry can be impeached. In other words lying to Congress is not only an impeachable offense. It's also illegal.

It's also clearly established that a public official whether the president, presidential appointees, or judges can be punished for giving false information and that's any false information of any nature to the House or Senate.
The Nixon impeachment debates and Clinton impeachment hearings were ample proof that the constitutional phrase of "good behavior" embraces not only indictable crimes but "conduct ... grossly incompatible with the office held and subversive of that office and of our constitutional system of government."

Thomas was asked directly by Utah senator Orin Hatch during his confirmation hearings about Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct and whether he used sexually suggestive language. Thomas answered: "I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her. "

Thomas was emphatic, "If I used that kind of grotesque language with one person, it would seem to me that there would be traces of it throughout the employees who worked closely with me, or the other individuals who heard bits and pieces of it or various levels of it." This was stated under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Thomas's sworn testimony was clearly contradicted even then in public statements by witnesses. The witnesses were not called to testify. The one witness that contradicted Thomas's sworn testimony, Angela Wright, did testify. She worked with Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and was emphatic that Thomas sexually harassed her and used explicit and graphic sexual language. Her story was corroborated by a former EEOC speechwriter who told investigators about Thomas' penchant for improper sexual talk. Letters to the committee from other women who worked with Thomas confirmed that he was a serial sexual harasser and had a penchant for sexually perverse talk. The Senate panel had other sources to corroborate the Hill-Wright charge that Thomas engaged in sexual harassment and obsessive interest in sexual smut. These sources were ignored too.

Two decades later Thomas's apparent perjured testimony to Congress is now squarely back on the legal table. Lillian McEwen put it there. Her legal credentials are impressive. She is a former assistant U.S. attorney and Senate Judiciary Committee counsel. She also dated Thomas. In interviews, she again confirmed that Hill and the other women's allegations that Thomas engaged in sexual harassment, was addicted to pornography, and talked incessantly and graphically about it and women were truthful.

Thomas's personal warped sexual predilections and perversions are not the issue as personally reprehensible as some may find them. The issue is his apparent perjured testimony to a congressional body about his words and conduct. There is no statute of limitations on bringing impeachment proceedings against officials who lie to Congress. The U.S. Code and the Constitution clearly spell out that when there's evidence a Supreme Court justice may have lied under oath the House must bring articles of impeachment to determine guilt or innocence.

The ball is now squarely in the court of House judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers Jr. He is legally bound to do his and the House's legal and Constitutional duty and begin impeachment proceedings immediately against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk shows on Pacifica and KTYM Radio Los Angel

Well, hey, if some Blogspot sage says so . . .
 

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well, hey, if some Blogspot sage says so . . .

The truth emanates from myriad places....even blogs and spots. And, obviously, you have no idea who Earl Ofari Hutchison is...he's no "blogspot sage", but a respected journalist and writer (not that you would give that any creedance)
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now all she needs is a blue dress.....
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The truth emanates from myriad places....even blogs and spots. And, obviously, you have no idea who Earl Ofari Hutchison is...he's no "blogspot sage", but a respected journalist and writer (not that you would give that any creedance)

I'm well-aware of who he is. I guess it flew over your head, but you had to go to a Blogspot to find this particular bit of babbling lunacy, because no one who wants to keep any kind of journalistic reputation would carry it.

Same was true of the nutjob (and Carter Attorney General) Ramsey Clark and his wacky "articles of impeachment" for Bush, which charged him with not being a socialist.

But I'm also well-aware that for you, Thomas is a race-traitor, so you'll glom onto anything that defames him.
 
Last edited:

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'm well-aware of who he is. I guess it flew over your head, but you had to go to a Blogspot to find this particular bit of babbling lunacy, because no one who wants to keep any kind of journalistic reputation would carry it.

Same was true of the nutjob (and Carter Attorney General) Ramsey Clark and his wacky "articles of impeachment" for Bush, which charged him with not being a socialist.

But I'm also well-aware that for you, Thomas is a race-traitor, so you'll glom onto anything that defames him.

Excuse me, but I could have easily found it at the Hutchinson Report, of which I subscribe to. It's only lunacy to you.
And yes, I sided with Anita Hill, lo, those 20 + years ago. I saw Thomas for what he was.....OJ Simpson, clamoring for a Judge's robe. And now, the veil has been lifted, and, no doubt, an investigation may, indeed, ensue, and we'll have a rehashed "Watergate"....just in time for 2012. I'm popping popcorn. You?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hardly the point. Who else is carrying this screed?

And yeah. You're going to be waiting a long, long time for that.

"But . . . but . . . THE VEIL HAS BEEN LIFTED!!!!! WHERE'S THE INVESTIGATION???? COME ON, GUYS!!!"

:screwy
 

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
If you know aaronsongs screeches of everything is racist, you would get the sarcasm. :shrug:

Funny, I get that a lot at the other forum I hang at...what has bitten many butts is, I was just made a mod...and oh, the gnashing of teeth, you would not believe.
No, rather, it's racists tending to call my activism "racist", which baffles me, to this very day. All of the white liberals are my friends, and I only catch fire from the racist conservatives. Go figure.
 

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hardly the point. Who else is carrying this screed?

And yeah. You're going to be waiting a long, long time for that.

"But . . . but . . . THE VEIL HAS BEEN LIFTED!!!!! WHERE'S THE INVESTIGATION???? COME ON, GUYS!!!"

:screwy

Cool your jets...all in due time...all in due time. You remind me of Rumsfeld talking about WMD...."we're gonna find 'em"...they keep movin' em". LOL
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Funny, I get that a lot at the other forum I hang at...what has bitten many butts is, I was just made a mod...and oh, the gnashing of teeth, you would not believe.
No, rather, it's racists tending to call my activism "racist", which baffles me, to this very day. All of the white liberals are my friends, and I only catch fire from the racist conservatives. Go figure.



So you were made a mod, I'd love to see that bucket of fail. :lol:
 

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Sarcasm was lost on you. :shrug:



Tell me what lengths will you go to tear down a republican?

Oh, there is no restriction on the lengths to which "I" would go. In this climate of hating on Obama???????????? Please. I have voodoo dolls at the ready.
 

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
So you were made a mod, I'd love to see that bucket of fail. :lol:

Baiting, are we? I fell for it once. I know you have clout here, so I'll tread lightly.
sticks and stones. Would that be jealousy...eh?
 
Last edited:

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Baiting, are we? I fell for it once. I know you have clout here, so I'll tread lightly.
sticks and stones. Would that be jealousy...eh?



nah not really, see here at DP, we have intelligent conversation, and I have the best job. Come down and read in my domain for some laughs. :thumbs:
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Oh, there is no restriction on the lengths to which "I" would go. In this climate of hating on Obama???????????? Please. I have voodoo dolls at the ready.



Obama is a slightly bad to horrible president in my book, not a good leader, and not someone who would implement my positions. this is not hate, guy seems like a personable guy. I dislike his statist policies. :shrug:
 

aaronssongs

Banned
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
495
Reaction score
53
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Obama is a slightly bad to horrible president in my book, not a good leader, and not someone who would implement my positions. this is not hate, guy seems like a personable guy. I dislike his statist policies. :shrug:

LOLOLOL. That's code for you hate the guy for his race. It's not about his policies. We gave you that, in the beginning. But now, with Mitch McConnell saying that the most important thing for Republicans is to ensure that Obama is a one term president, revealed the truth. White folks have lost their minds, behind the fact that a black man is soiling the Oval Office. I get it. I get the code also. No matter what you think of Obama....George Bush is already in the history books as the dumbest and worst president in American History...and not even Obama can take that label away from him. But carry on.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
All of the white liberals are my friends, and I only catch fire from the racist conservatives. Go figure.

It's okay man, they fear muslims in planes here, I've been 'mistaken' for black then called a wigger, called an arab as well. :shrug:
 
Top Bottom