• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

TurtleDude said:
1) you don't appear to have the education in the law to actually define perjury
Click to expand...

I don't claim to have an education in the law, but I know what perjury is, and I know that Clarence Thomas committed it if he lied under oath about Anita Hill at his sworn Senate confirmation hearing.
TurtleDude said:
2) you don't have the ability to create enough probable cause to merit an indictment for it
Click to expand...
Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice, I'm talking about an impeachment. It's a totally different standard. The Clinton impeachment is a precisely analogous situation.

TurtleDude said:
3) insulting me proves you have lost the argument
Click to expand...
Well if that's true, you must have lost the argument already when you insulted me first. Plus, you're totally whining dude.

TurtleDude said:
4) you appear rather bitter-making a mountain over some greedy twit's molehill to try to impeach someone over stuff that has long expired in terms of legitimate inquiry is pathetic
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge that we're talking about impeachment and not criminal proceedings, yet you still got the standard wrong! Looks like that legal education did wonders for you, TD :roll:
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Clarence Thomas was head of the EEOC, precisely the organization that should protect women from the kinds of abuse that Thomas alleged committed according to Anita Hill and other witnesses. Unlike Clinton, Thomas denied all under oath. It now seems abundantly clear Thomas broke that oath.
Click to expand...

nope what is clear is that the libs hate Thomas and are mad they couldn't lynch him 20 something years ago. Hill, as an EEOC attorney was a liar when she claimed she didn't know she had been "harassed" at the time and that is why she asked him out to dinner after the "alleged act of discrimination" took place

since she never contacted an EEO counselor within 45 days of the alleged act of harassment, no competent court would ever have any jurisdiction over her claims anyway
 
Guy Incognito said:
I don't claim to have an education in the law, but I know what perjury is, and I know that Clarence Thomas committed it if he lied under oath about Anita Hill at his sworn Senate confirmation hearing.

Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice, I'm talking about an impeachment. It's a totally different standard. The Clinton impeachment is a precisely analogous situation.


Well if that's true, you must have lost the argument already when you insulted me first. Plus, you're totally whining dude.



So you acknowledge that we're talking about impeachment and not criminal proceedings! Looks like that legal education did wonders for you, TD :roll:
Click to expand...

do you realize how frantic you sound? impeach a guy for what?

I find it amazing how much credibility you assign an obvious media whore who waited 19 years to bring non material alleged facts up in the first place
 
apdst said:
Clinton didn't deny that he ****ed Monica, under oath? I believe he did, actually.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with you there. Clinton absolutely did lie under oath, even if he tried to weasel out of it.

The real difference between Clinton and Thomas is that Clinton stood trial.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yeah, I agree with you there. Clinton absolutely did lie under oath, even if he tried to weasel out of it.

The real difference between Clinton and Thomas is that Clinton stood trial.
Click to expand...

wrong-19 years and there was an active lawsuit against clinton at the time

Are you upset that clinton stood trial and want some revenge?
 
scourge99 said:
Please quote or paraphrase what lie Clarence Thomas told on the stand.
Click to expand...

I can paraphrase easily enough. At his confirmation hearing he denied that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill. There is mounting evidence that he did sexually harass Anita Hill. Ergo, he perjured himself.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I can paraphrase easily enough. At his confirmation hearing he denied that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill. There is mounting evidence that he did sexually harass Anita Hill. Ergo, he perjured himself.
Click to expand...
Like I said already, even if McEwen's assertions are proven, they don't contradict anything that Thomas said 19 years ago. He didn't say that he doesn't like women or doesn't like porn.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I can paraphrase easily enough. At his confirmation hearing he denied that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill. There is mounting evidence that he did sexually harass Anita Hill. Ergo, he perjured himself.
Click to expand...

Even if her statements weren't incredibly dubious, and even if you're and hazl's arguments were not as worthlessly devoid of real logic as they are, and we foolishly went along with believing this woman as absolute truth...

It still wouldn't means you could charge him with perjury.

USC Title 18 Sec. 3282 sets the statute of limitations on perjury at a federal level at 5 years, which this would be WAY outside that 5 year mark.

So even your suggested end game is ignorantly devoid of facts.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I can paraphrase easily enough. At his confirmation hearing he denied that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill. There is mounting evidence that he did sexually harass Anita Hill. Ergo, he perjured himself.
Click to expand...

Making sexual advances toward another person is NOT necessarilly sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment is : "intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors."

How exactly does Thomas' supposed actions fall under harassment?
 
scourge99 said:
Making sexual advances toward another person is NOT necessarilly sexual harassment.Sexual harassment is : "intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors."

How exactly does Thomas' supposed actions fall under harassment?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You culled the first line in Wiki for your definition.
If you look at the EEOC guidelines, exchange of sexual favors for employment security is only one condition. Sexual harassment also includes acts which "unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment".

While the initial awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace focused on job security being used as a weapon to curry sexual favors, the sexual harassment definition goes beyond that and did so at the time of Anita Hill's testimony.
 
Dulcinea said:
Incorrect. You culled the first line in Wiki for your definition.
If you look at the EEOC guidelines, exchange of sexual favors for employment security is only one condition. Sexual harassment also includes acts which "unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment".

While the initial awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace focused on job security being used as a weapon to curry sexual favors, the sexual harassment definition goes beyond that and did so at the time of Anita Hill's testimony.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your definition.

Making sexual advances is NOT necessarily sexual harassment. Do you understand that?

Now please demonstrate that Thomas indisputably sexual harassed someone.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I can paraphrase easily enough. At his confirmation hearing he denied that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill. There is mounting evidence that he did sexually harass Anita Hill. Ergo, he perjured himself.
Click to expand...

Guy, do you believe that the accusation is enough to remove someone from a post held within the government?

j-mac
 
conservatives own the court, and it's going to stay like that. No judge is going to be impeached(Hell, how many have been impeached for the last 200 years?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
conservatives own the court, and it's going to stay like that. No judge is going to be impeached(Hell, how many have been impeached for the last 200 years?
Click to expand...

alcee hastings-a far left black dem who then was promptly elected to congress because in his district, being impeached "by the man" was a badge of honor
 
DarkWizard12 said:
conservatives own the court, and it's going to stay like that. No judge is going to be impeached(Hell, how many have been impeached for the last 200 years?
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that he ought to be impeached.

I wonder if you'd be so complacent if this were Sotomayor instead of Thomas...
 
scourge99 said:
I don't disagree with your definition.

Making sexual advances is NOT necessarily sexual harassment. Do you understand that?

Now please demonstrate that Thomas indisputably sexual harassed someone.
Click to expand...

Just a little note - I don't like being talked down to. I have already said that the EEOC guidelines do not limit sexual harassment to threats of job security in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual advances, if welcomed by the recipient, obviously wouldn't fall under sexual harassment guidelines, so that statement is not germane to the Hill issue.

Sexual advances are deemed harassment when they are reasonably shown to cause distress and harm to the recipient. If Anita Hill felt that his statements were harassment, then she had every right to express that view. Whether what he did falls under EEOC guidelines would have been up to the commission set up to interpret the law. Neither Hill nor Thomas can determine the outcome if her allegations had been tried by either a commission, such as the one set up in Massachusetts, or by a civil court as established in other states.
 
I think all that nonsense establishes is that Clarence Thomas is a human male. I dislike his politics, I think his penchant for pursuing women is...ordinary.
Do women really not believe the statistics with regards to how many times a day guys think about sex?
Or is it that they still think we need to be punished and humiliated for it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Dulcinea said:
Neither Hill nor Thomas can determine the outcome if her allegations had been tried by either a commission, such as the one set up in Massachusetts, or by a civil court as established in other states.
Click to expand...

Then you would AGREE that Thomas is fully correct in claiming his INNOCENCE until a trial finds him guilty, correct?
 
Guy Incognito said:
That doesn't change the fact that he ought to be impeached.
Click to expand...
No, he doesn't.
I wonder if you'd be so complacent if this were Sotomayor instead of Thomas...
Click to expand...
impeachement is the nuclear weapon of government, so no, i would be "complacent". I have never called for the impeachement of another official, for i have yet to see a politician worth impeaching.
 
Dulcinea said:
Just a little note - I don't like being talked down to. I have already said that the EEOC guidelines do not limit sexual harassment to threats of job security in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual advances, if welcomed by the recipient, obviously wouldn't fall under sexual harassment guidelines, so that statement is not germane to the Hill issue.

Sexual advances are deemed harassment when they are reasonably shown to cause distress and harm to the recipient. If Anita Hill felt that his statements were harassment, then she had every right to express that view. Whether what he did falls under EEOC guidelines would have been up to the commission set up to interpret the law. Neither Hill nor Thomas can determine the outcome if her allegations had been tried by either a commission, such as the one set up in Massachusetts, or by a civil court as established in other states.
Click to expand...

I have handled over 75 Federal cases on Title VII. What Thomas did does not rise to a hostile work environment claim (it is clearly not a quid pro quo claim) because his comments were not severe and pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. Plus her actions after the alleged harassment establish that his alleged conduct was not "unwelcome". Since she was a federal employee, she was required to contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the last act that she claimed constituted a "hostile work environment" and she did not. Thus a court would have no jurisdiction to entertain her claims.
 
scourge99 said:
Then you would AGREE that Thomas is fully correct in claiming his INNOCENCE until a trial finds him guilty, correct?
Click to expand...

Nope, there is not enough probable cause for him to even be indicted let alone convicted and the federal statute of limitations on perjury are about 15 years passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom