New York magazine has assembled “The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas.” The author is the longtime anti-Thomas journalist Jill Abramson. For more than 4,000 words, Abramson labors to re-litigate Anita Hill’s dramatic loss in the court of public opinion. In the polls, 58 percent believed Thomas; only 24 percent believed Hill. Again the argument falls on its face.


Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson is going on another Nineties Revisionism Tour of the Hill-Thomas debates in New York magazine, calling for Clarence Thomas to be impeached over unproven sexual harassment allegations. Here's how you may quickly evaluate whether Abramson is in any way qualified to judge the character of public officials, as opposed to just carrying water for the Left: A Nexis search of The New York Times over the last 20 years for "Jill Abramson" and "Juanita Broaddrick" turned up ZERO entries.


Even with their industry embroiled in numerous sexual harassment scandals, the CEOs of major media companies still stuck to their liberal agenda as they announced on Saturday that a new Sexual Harassment Commission would be chaired by discredited Clarence Thomas accuser Anita Hill.


ABC’s make-believe Republican Matthew Dowd went completely off the rails Sunday during his appearance on This Week. During the panel discussion of the latest sexual harassment allegations around the country, Dowd went off the deep end and claimed Republicans “empowered” Bill Clinton’s sexually predatory behavior and “gave up their values” by putting “tainted” Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.


The New York Times “gender editor” Jessica Bennett made her debut on Tuesday’s front page taking on the sexual harassment allegations against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein in “How Weinstein Scandal Became the Final Straw.” Bennett drew out the history of sexual harassment by political figures coming into the media spotlight (predictably skipping liberal Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy). She conveniently dated the sexual harassment “tsunami” to the allegations by Anita Hill against conservative Judge Clarence Thomas, publicized in an attempt to sink his Supreme Court nomination. An enormous picture of Hill testifying during the hearings dominated the top of the online version, with 293 words devoted to her, not including the text box and two photo captions. Bennett also included 153 words related to Donald Trump, and let a source call him an “accused sexual predator.”


On Sunday's NBC Nightly News, on display was the latest example of liberal journalists conspicuously ignoring accusations of sexual assault against President Bill Clinton even while going all the way back 26 years to include sexual harassment charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.


It seems like wherever Anita Hill came up in this week’s conversations about Harvey Weinstein, the liberal media kept up that annoying tactic of skipping from Hill’s 1991 allegations directly to Donald Trump’s Access Hollywood remarks, dug up weeks before the 2016 election. Allegations against Bill Clinton don’t come up. Only allegations against Republicans are admitted in their fake-news history lesson. 


“Do We Believe Women? Nation Takes Fresh Look At Sexual Harassment,” was the headline and the question posed by reporter Clyde Haberman in Wednesday’s New York Times . But that promised “look” at harassment in business and politics focused only on one side of the political aisle. The print version included an archive photo of Anita Hill from the 1991 U.S. Senate hearings regarding then-Supreme Court conservative nominee Clarence Thomas. Haberman cynically skipped from Republican-nominated Judge Thomas to the late Fox News Channel chairman Roger Ailes, with President Trump and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes also mentioned. President Bill Clinton and his scandalous sex history was utterly ignored.


The long essay-cover story of Newsweek’s September 15 issue by journalist David Friend looked intriguing: Before Trump Was President, Online Sex Videos, Bill Clinton and the Naughty '90s Changed America.” Yet Friend's real targets weren't the Clintons themselves, but the Clintons’ awful right-wing enemies, the embarrassing people who dared accuse him of sexual harassment, and of course, Donald Trump. Anita Hill’s bizarre, unsubstantiated allegations against Clarence Thomas were passed over. Other villains of the piece included Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge.


Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern hyped in a Wednesday item for Slate that "hard right" Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's "fingerprints are all over" the Trump administration, due to the fact that many of his former clerks now hold "high places" there. Litchwick and Sterm played up that Thomas's "once-fringy ideas are suddenly flourishing," and touted that he is "close buddies with Rush Limbaugh...[and] fringe radio dogmatist Mark Levin."


Clarence Thomas is known for speaking not softly, but rarely, when the Supreme Court holds oral arguments. Nonetheless, he carries a big stick in terms of influence on both the courts and the presidency, warn Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern. Thomas, who in Lithwick and Stern’s words had “spent his career teetering off the right edge of the federal bench,” now “finds himself at the center of the table.” As Lithwick and Stern tell it, the major difference between the president and the justice is that Trump is “far too witless to grasp, let alone implement, [Thomas’s] complex theories of law.”


On Tuesday's New Day on CNN, as host Chris Cuomo and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin discussed recent and upcoming Supreme Court cases Toobin ended up noting that Justice Neil Gorsuch has had a "very conservative" voting record -- always voting with Justice Clarence Thomas. Cuomo then seemed to suggest that Democrats may have had a point when they warned that Gorsuch might seem "genial," but that his personality might be inconsistent with how he would be as a justice.