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

For OpEdNews: earl ofari hutchinson – Writer

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 Angeles.
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter:

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally acclaimed author and political analyst. He has authored ten books; his articles are published in newspapers and magazines nationally in the United States. Three of his books have been published in other languages. He is also a social and political analyst and he appears on such TV programs as CNN, MSBC, NPR, The O’Reilly Show, American Urban Radio Network, and local Los Angeles television and radio stations as well. He is an associate editor at New America Media and a regular contributor to Black,, BlackAmericaWeb.Com and the Huffington Post. He does a weekly commentary on KJLH Radio in Los Angeles.

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on October 25, 2010, With Reads Filed under Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


  1. Equalizer  October 31, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    best to lay low and stay out of their sights.

  2. Ken Rechtstein  October 28, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Definitely the US Judiciairy System needs to undergo a thorough Reform: It’s not representative of the people nor defends the interests of the people. Besides, it’s illogical from all points of vue to have Justice imposed upon the PEOPLE for life. The Supreme Court should have be organized/divided in CHAMBERS, of which each specialize in a specific branch of the LAW: 1)Constitucional; 2)Administrative; 3)Civil/Commercial; and 4)Criminal Chamber. The Justices number should be at least 5 in each Chamber. ==>

  3. Gary Walker  October 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Ammo of course, because you have no arguments. Any moron can fire a gun.


    • Texas Vet  October 28, 2010 at 4:48 pm

      Yeah, Infidel. But only a few of us can shoot fast and straight.



    • wolf  October 29, 2010 at 12:49 am

      good come back!

    • Equalizer  October 29, 2010 at 6:46 pm

      Gary, ever heard the ‘ol adage ’bout bringing a knife to a gunfight? Or, in your case, an argument. Are you from that special little country in the middle east whose national pastime is arguing?

  4. B2B_snake  October 27, 2010 at 4:39 am

    What do conservatives conserve ?

    • Equalizer  October 27, 2010 at 12:13 pm


    • B2B_snake  October 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm

      Now that’s change I can believe in

  5. Chas Nemo  October 27, 2010 at 1:46 am

    More left-wing attempts at attacking conservatives.

  6. David A. White  October 26, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Let me see now! Gordon , you want to hang Bush, Cheney, and all the Republicans that were in office from 93 to 01. You want the supreme Court rid of Thomas and you want Democrats back in office. I think after next Tuesday, that we are going to have a hellva lot more to worry about than a lying justice.

    • Gordon Duff  October 26, 2010 at 10:47 pm

      The only reason Obama was elected was to get us out of war and protect us from…the criminal gang that had destroyed our future.
      This gang of monsters are the people you admire.
      Why is that?

    • Equalizer  October 27, 2010 at 12:11 pm

      g, “There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties”: quote from Alabama Governor George Wallace, Presidential candidate 1968.

      The “ganster government” is an equal-opportunity employer.

    • Equalizer  October 27, 2010 at 12:12 pm


    • Gordon Duff  October 27, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      We left the Clinton years with peace and a surplus. We left Bush with martial law, 2 wars and bankruptcy.
      As bad as democrats are, republicans are pure criminality.

    • Tom Dillman  October 27, 2010 at 7:10 pm

      G, I bet you never lived so well until the Dems won control of the Congress and Sentate in Nov. 2006, starting in January 2007. That’s when everything started going to shit.

      I’m not a Repulican lover either, but the Dems ought to own up their own crap — like pushing little O into office.(The NBA’s Oscar Robertson will always be Big O to me). The Dems and little O have made fools out of you. What a shame.


    • wolf  October 28, 2010 at 2:21 am

      We also left the Clinton years with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the passage of both NAFTA nad GATT which essentially slit the economic throat of the US economy and let’s not forget Waco and Ruby Ridge which happened on his watch.

      Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton certainly did his fair share and then some to further the agenda of the oligarchical NWO.

    • wolf  October 28, 2010 at 2:27 am

      …and I forgot to mention Oklahoma City…the major false flag which demonized the militia movement.

      Repubs and Dems…two wings of the same evil bird.

  7. john  October 26, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Good, I hear no rebutal to my last comments. Maybe tbere is some actual shame amonst you, but I’m. !not betting o. It!!!!

  8. john  October 26, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    To all non veterans who think they are going to turn this website into a politically correct impotent voice of opinion, you will be in for an unpleasant ride!!!

  9. john  October 26, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    To Ron and Gene are you really veterans or politically correct no brainers.

  10. Equalizer  October 26, 2010 at 6:03 pm

    I agree with john, the SCOTUS, the White House and the Congress ALL QUALIFY as a bonifide freak show.

    I do remember seeing Judge Thomas interviewed a while back. What stayed in my mind was him saying, “The Constitution is a dead document, IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.”

    Now, for all those activist judges; legislating from the bench, this statement probably sticks in their craw. Tough shit.

    …”lacks good behavior”…you find me one person back there in that cesspool that exhibits “good behavior”…we’ll make ’em president.

    There are some that think the Constitution is an outdated document. Well, if you don’t like the document; then go find another country to live in. How ’bout israel. Israel doesn’t have a meddelsome ‘ol constitution to muck up your agenda. Go live there. Just don’t piss and moan when “good behavior” can’t be found.

    This is a classic case of he said, she said. Grow up boys and girls. The snakes back in the district of corruption are distracting you.

  11. Gene Thomas  October 26, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    There is no question about the need for impeachment of Clarence Thomas and the punishment he deserves for lying to the Senate. The judgments that he has helped make , playing “follow the Chief”, has made a mess of things that will have to be corrected by future Courts with a different unbiased Chief Justice.

    There should be a detailed review of all the testimony of all the witnesses provided for the hearing. Reasons for not calling witnesses that would have confirmed the testimony of Anita Hill need to be carefully examined.

    President Bush and all responsible members of his staff,involved with vetting Thomas, need to be punished for the poor incomplete vetting that was done on Thomas before he was nominated.

  12. john  October 26, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Ken, ain’t gonna happen dude! This bullshit charge of sexual harrasment holds no more water today than it did whem Sen Metzenbaum tried to derail his appointment back then.

  13. Ken  October 26, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    I absolutely support the impeachment of Thomas. A supreme court justice who committed perjury to get the job. Shame on you Clarence!!

  14. john  October 26, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Dan, excellent comment, the people who rule America now have opened the floodgates to hell. It’s open season now for any public official who holds Christian Values. And yes, there is some sick/lowelife atheist liberal waiting to take his place.

    • Gary Walker  October 26, 2010 at 12:52 pm

      “Sick/lowlife atheist.” Very christian of you, John.

      And from Tony Scalia (Opus Dei?), “Democracy obscures the divine authority of government.”
      Liar, liar, robes on fire. Scalia is the real menace to society.


    • Tom Dillman  October 27, 2010 at 2:49 am

      Infidel — Tsk, tsk. We’re going to sick Yogi X on you. 🙂

    • Tom Dillman  October 27, 2010 at 2:51 am

      Hi Gary, that was supposed to be sic rather than sick, but maybe both apply. Good to see you posting again.


    • Gary Walker  October 27, 2010 at 10:37 am

      Greetings Tom,

      Am I going to have to hide my pickanik basket again?


  15. john  October 26, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Gary, you really ought to know better by now. The only things the Catholics are in control of in America are the vegas nights in their cburches and the Knights of Colombus. If they are ruling our Supreme Court is definately not by any church doctrine.

  16. Miller  October 25, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    I can’t think of anything he’s ever said or done to distinguish himself intellectually or show any independence of thought since he got the job. All he seems to do is ditto whatever Scalia does.

    • thepoliticalcat  October 30, 2010 at 4:04 pm

      That’s all he is, Scalia’s rubber-stamp. He’s never even asked a question, in two decades.

  17. Penumbra  October 25, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    They all do, and the SCOTUS seats need to be stripped of life tenure and subject to complete public scrutiny for every decision handed down.

    If any justice diverges from Constitutional underpinning or presumes to interject his political opinion as a basis for any decision, they should be stripped of their robes and barred from any legal function, including a return to private law practice, for life.

    Life tenure only invites corruption.

  18. Dan  October 25, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    The same, unsubstantiated charges being floated again? Could any witness have been discredited more than Anita Hill, who is herself indeed sexually sick by all accounts? Just what kind of country are you thinking will come from replacing Clarence Thomas with another leftist apparatchik appointed with the purpose of undermining rather than upholding the Constitution? I’m truly saddened to see such scurrilous crap on your site.

    • Robert Sullivan  October 26, 2010 at 9:27 pm

      Don’t hide your face in the sand. This is scurrilous crap alright, but it’s due to corruption at the highest level. It is only our duty as citizens of this great nation to defend against this kind of garbage and be always vigilant in rooting out those who seek to destroy the principles our country was founded upon.

      As one example (and I suggest you educate yourself on others), I think the founding fathers would be *appalled* at the recent decision to allow corporations to be treated the same as individuals, as far as campaign contributions (not tax-wise, it seems, so their offshore banks are still safe). This has opened the door to foreign meddling in our politics, such that outsiders such as rich Arabs with terrorist ties can now fund candidates that you will vote for. Did you ever wonder why GW hugged and kissed his Saudi Royal highness when he visited the ranch? Because he knew who his daddy is – not the Texas people, not the American people, but the haji who gave him upwards of 700 million for his campaign financing. This must stop! Look at the depths of disaster our country is approaching! Wake up, sheeple!

      Therefore, you hold the constitution in high regard, so you should invest some time in understanding to your best knowledge whether “justice” Thomas does the same, or whether he was “helped” in to the position by those in power that knew he would, and would help ensure, that he votes the “right” way.

    • Equalizer  October 27, 2010 at 12:19 pm

      Robert, AIPAC. A PAC OF THIEVES…

    • sdlj  October 28, 2010 at 12:35 am

      Dear Dan, all of the claims about Hill’s seemy side were invented by David Brock when he
      worked on the right in order to discredit her: while he repudiated all of this, admitting that he simply made things because it was politically expedient and was necessary in order to cleanse Thomas, the right meme machine just keeps churning out those character assassinations, just as you did. Of course, it makes you feel more comfortable to think that Thomas wasn’t a pornographic and crude creep, since you like his ideology. There are others on the Supreme Court who share his views, but they’re not perjurious creeps. What does it say about you that
      you persist in believing disproved claims about Hill in order to preserve fantasies about Thomas.
      On the other hand, maybe I’m just wrong about you: you’re probably more consistent than I
      credit you for being, since you probably objected to impeaching Clinton on perjury charges, right? (Frankly, I doubt it – you’re probably as big a hypocrite as I imagine.)

  19. Mike Bailey  October 25, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    I have to agree with Gordon on this one Justice Thomas lied under oath about Anita Hill and others have stated that he sexually harrassed them as well. Now his wife Virginia (Ginny) is the founder of a PAC that has taken anonomous donations large donations to run TEA party candidates, surely the Justice will know who gacve his wife these funds and what happens when one of them or their companies end up in front of SCOTUS for hearings will he recuse huimself, it is doubtful since the donations were anonymous to us the voters but not to Ginny or Clarence is this appropriate behavior for a lifetime appointed Justice that his spouse can use her “fame” to solicit money for partisian political party work? I would be against it if a democratic spouse was involved as well.

    As soldiers we avoided politics we served our nation not as democrats nor as republicans but soldiers I never worried if my Brigade Commander, Battalion Commander, Company Commander or a Platoon Leader were republicans nor democrats, the mission was the only thing that mattered and the UCMJ was applied evenly to all.

    We were forbidden from political activity while in uniform but I never saw it by soldiers out of uniform either. Yes many voted by absentee ballot but no one ever asked them how they voted and no one cared I served from 73-91 so I ran the gamut from Nixon to Bush 41 I still remmember it was Nixon who gave us our greatest pay raises heck I went from 200 a month to 400 a month in 1974, because of his actions. He was still a “crook” Watergate still took place, the break in of Ellsbergs psychiatrists office still happened because he ordered it.

    Justices have a higher standard to live up to and Justice Thomas is not meeting those standards he lied to get on the court and he is allowing his wife’s activities to make Americans question the integrity of OUR Supreme Court and that is his worst activity. Impeach hell just resign……..

  20. Texas Grunt  October 25, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    First you “impeach” Juan Williams. Then you want to imprison Dr. Condoleeza Rice. Now you want to impeach (again) Clarence Thomas. Why? Because they are people with points of view that don’t agree with your liberal, bigoted slants AND they have skins with a slightly different tint. What is the matter with you people?

    Why can’t you focus on something intelligent, like creating American jobs?

    You’re disgusting.

    Texas Grunt.

    • Gordon Duff  October 25, 2010 at 3:20 pm

      You are being funny? Thomas, Williams and Rice? These are 3 of the greatest shitheads of all time.

    • Miller  October 25, 2010 at 6:37 pm

      Thank you.

    • Penumbra  October 25, 2010 at 7:28 pm

      That’s putting it mildly, g.

      Rice alone is guilty of innumerable abuses of office and a prime mover behind Bush admin crimes against Iraq and Afghanistan. She only pales slightly in comparison to Cheney and Rummy in the competition for the title Pathological Liar of the decade.

    • Ken Rechtstein  October 28, 2010 at 6:16 am

      True Gordon, Condy, Nancy P., Harman from CA ‘n Hillary C.belong 2the same league of pathological-compulsive liars. The same grounds cited for impeachement of justice Clarence Thomas in the article SHOULD APPLY for 94 % of Congress-Senate members too. The main problem in the USA is the SYSTEM ITSELF for ‘selection’ of public servants, which rotten to the chore: It is amoral-run by PRIVATE interests of powerful minorities and remotely controlled at each and all its levels by the Zion Talmudic Mafia Dons.

    • Robert Sullivan  October 26, 2010 at 9:17 pm

      The impeachment option was put in place by the founding fathers of our great country to protect against just this sort of corruption. That so many people should be impeached illustrates just how far in the depths of corruption we have come. Apparenlty “justice” thomas, besides being a liar, also apparently votes in such a manner to please his friends, and get back at his enemies. certainly not the type of person we want in the highest judicial position making decisions about the most important cases for our country. But as George Bush would say (George Sr. rushed the appointment through), “Heckuva job, Thomas!”.

    • sdlj  October 28, 2010 at 12:23 am

      No you impeach him because he perjured himself in the judiciary hearing to get his
      appointment. You’re ok with the strained arguments to impeach Clinton, but not the
      plain evidence of Thomas’ obvious perjury as attested by at least 4 independent women?
      I guess perjury and impeachment are only ok when you don’t like the target, huh?
      Imagine what it says about America’s highest court to have a perjurer as a one of its
      members. But, I imagine it’s ok with you, since you agree with his political perspective.
      I experienced your sort of opportunism when I lived in the Soviet Union: you simply
      goosestep to your most adored political heroes and ignore the law if it gets in the way.
      You can’t possibly be the sort of person the founders imagined. What a decline America
      has experienced when we see folks like you.

    • thepoliticalcat  October 30, 2010 at 4:00 pm

      Sir, if you’re going to express an opinion, kindly do your readers the courtesy to observe the common rules of common sense, as well as grammar. Impeachment is a political remedy for a particular type of offense. It is not exercised upon any individual who does not hold political office. Therefore, Juan Williams could not have been impeached. Dr. Rice is, under the same laws that we applied at Nuremberg, quite probably liable for war crimes, and unless Americans are somehow not subject to the same laws under which we tried and indicted Germans who did the same things, might well be imprisoned for her part therein. Different points of view are utterly irrelevant. The law does not prescribe punishment for “different points of view.” However, it is quite clear on the subject of war crimes. As for Clarence Thomas, America is a nation of laws. When someone breaks our laws, we apply the penalty. In Clarence Thomas’ case, he lied under oath and gave false testimony to Congress. Those are impeachable offenses.

  21. john  October 25, 2010 at 11:32 am

    The Supreme Court with its latest additions is a bonified “freak show”. The atheist element that controls the Supreme Court wants him out because he is “pro life” and does oppose the legitimacy of same sex marraige. They don’t want any justice members to have Christian Values.

    • Gary Walker  October 25, 2010 at 4:20 pm


      “Athiest element that controls the court?” There are six Catholics and three Jews on the current court. We just lost the only probable atheist that I am aware of, New Hampshire’s own, David Souter.

      Atheist court! If only that were true.

      Shepherd’s are for sheep,

    • B.A. Gilmore  October 27, 2010 at 9:04 pm

      Since when is sexual harassment “a Christian value”? If that’s your idea of Christianity, I think you should choose a new religion.

    • sdlj  October 28, 2010 at 12:59 am

      John, are you one of those Christian fascists who don’t think there should be atheists on
      the court because everyone has to share your Christian values? You’ve got a weird view of what our founding fathers wanted. They didn’t want everyone to practice what they wanted, but for no religious or non-religious to predominate: laws are created in order to permit everyone to follow their beliefs. I can’t force you to have an abortion and you can’t force me not to have one. That’s democracy because the government doesn’t superimpose beliefs on individuals and it permits us the liberty to make our own individual decisions. Everything else is a form of tyranny. You can’t impose your Christian values on me without limiting my liberty. That’s called totalitarianism and it failed in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The superimposition of a single belief on a population is what you undoubtedly abhor among Muslim fundamentalists; It is no less dangerous among Christian fundamentalist. The law frees us to act as individuals: If the law forces your beliefs on me, no matter how much you like your beliefs, you are tyrannizing me and destroying democracy. Read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (not Beck’s, but Paine’s) and the Age of Reason. It will teach you the difference between
      totalitarianism and the democratic vision that makes America great.

    • sdlj  October 28, 2010 at 1:04 am

      A mistake in the previous message to JOhn: “They wanted everyone to practice what they wanted but for no religious or non-religious views to predominate.” Sorry for the mistyping.

    • thepoliticalcat  October 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm

      That would be “bona fide,” which is Latin for “good faith,” if you would bother to look it up. As for his “Christian values,” could you remind me where exactly in the Bible we are exhorted to watch p0rn0_graphic videos, or describe them to our colleagues in the workplace?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network