A (Republican) Perjurer on the US Supreme Court By Robert Parry

[YankeeLeft7x]

A Perjurer on the US Supreme Court
By Robert Parry
October 23, 2010
Consortiumnews

“…In late 1998, when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying under oath about a sexual affair, many on the Right insisted that the issue wasn’t the sex but the perjury. They are now confronted with a parallel case in which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas quite clearly perjured himself to get his seat on the bench….On Friday, former federal prosecutor Lillian McEwen, one of Thomas’s girlfriends in the 1980s, broke a long silence and confirmed that Thomas did engage in sexual harassment of women at work and did discuss pornography in the way that Anita Hill and other women described to the Senate during Thomas’s confirmation hearings in 1991….During those hearings, Thomas angrily denied the allegations, calling them “a high-tech lynching.” Simultaneously, his right-wing allies mounted an aggressive campaign to destroy the credibility of Hill and other accusers….The tactics worked. Thomas narrowly won Senate confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he has remained a reliable vote for every right-wing position that the justices consider….However, it is now obvious that Thomas committed perjury as a necessary element of gaining his seat as one of nine justices on the Supreme Court – and only its second African-American. Though perjury before Congress is a felony, the Right appears to have suddenly lost its enthusiasm for demanding impeachment as the proper remedy for high officials caught lying under oath….”

Read the Entire Article @:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/102310.html

[Jackpine Radical]

1. This story is about a week old.

Important nonetheless.

Somehow, I just can't imagine impeachment proceedings against Thomas in the current political climate.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Use your imagination. The RW always does. nt

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

3. Can you actually narrow down what exactly he said...

vs. the reality?

Surely it can be narrowed down to one or more statements? I would like to see exactly what he lied about.

Thanks.