An Alaska lawyer said Justice Clarence Thomas groped her at a dinner party in 1999, a claim that Thomas said is “preposterous,” the National Law Journal reported Thursday.
The publication said Moira Smith posted on Facebook about the alleged incident Oct. 7, the night of the disclosure of Republican presidential nominee’ Donald Trump’s taped boasts about grabbing women.
The NLJ report said Smith, at the time a 23-year-old Truman Foundation scholar, said that the incident occurred at the Falls Church, Va., home of her boss. She said Thomas grabbed and squeezed her buttocks several times.
“He groped me while I was setting the table, suggesting I should sit ‘right next to him,’ ” Smith wrote, according to the NLJ report...
Thomas, in a statement through the Supreme Court’s press office, denied Smith’s allegations.
“This claim is preposterous and it never happened,” Thomas said.
Now, IIRC, Congress spent quite a bit of time and money investigating a certain president accused of having a consensual relationship with a woman. It seems to me that if a sitting Supreme Court Justice, a person who can only be removed from office via impeachment, is accused of sexual assault, shouldn't the Congress put together an investigative committee to determine if the accusation is credible or not? Think that will happen? Because IOKIYAR, I seriously doubt that will happen.
GINGRICH: Well, look. The next two weeks are a contest of two parallel universes. I just listened to that report. First of all, I used to hang out with Charlie Cook when he would explain that Donald Trump was hopeless and would not get the nomination. I like Charlie. That doesn't mean he's infallible. But let's take the report we just got. Republicans are actually outvoting Democrats in Florida, they're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania, that's unprecedented. They've cut the Democratic leads --
KELLY: You predict a win in Pennsylvania.
GINGRICH: I think they might.
KELLY: Really? You think Trump is going to win Pennsylvania?
GINGRICH: Look, all I can report you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting which is also true in Florida which is unprecedented.
OK, so Newt says Republicans are outvoting Democrats in early voting in Pennsylvania? That's rather interesting, as Pennsylvania doesn't even HAVE early voting. While you can cast an absentee ballot, Pennsylvania's rules are rather draconian on who is allowed to cast one. You essentially have to prove that you will not be in the state on election day, and they won't give you a ballot if you're out of your precinct voluntarily, such as on a vacation. So if Newt thinks Republicans are out polling Democrats in early voting in Pennsylvania, well, then he really is living in a parallel universe, or perhaps a bizarro one.
Just what the 2016 election needed: a bit of last-minute political drama. This time, it’s thanks to the state Republican Party, which has filed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn state rules governing Election Day poll watchers.
In Pennsylvania, poll watchers must be registered voters within the county in which they plan to poll watch. Republicans don't like this, because they cannot find enough poll watchers in some counties (so they say) to cover all the precincts, so they want to ship in watchers from other counties. Do you think Trump was talking out his ass when he told people to flood "certain areas" come election day. And why the lawsuit? Well, its because the Republicans haven't been able to change the law in Harrisburg, despite Rick Saccone introducing a bill to do just that.
For what its worth, Saccone isn't the most embarrassing member of the legislature in Pennsylvania simply due to the fact that Daryl Metcalfe is still in office.
The speech was a laundry list of familiar promises on the economy, national security, immigration and other issues, though the candidate’s message was muddled by his assertions of coming lawsuits against the women accusing him of sexual misconduct and his pledges to break up media companies that he said are trying to deny him the presidency.
So, win or lose, he's going to throw a temper tantrum and lash out at perceived enemies.
The LA County Coroner said her death, while accidental, was caused by “vertebral artery dissection” – a tear in one of the major arteries that carries blood to the brain, caused by the chiropractic treatment.
“This is actually more common than people think -- that people get over-adjusted and there’s a tear and it causes a stroke and death,” said Ronald Richards, Katie May estate’s lawyer.
It was what's left of Trump's campaign crashing and burning. I was unable to stay up for the whole thing, so I missed the statement of the night, where Trump refused to say if he'd accept the results of the election should he lose. That is rightly the headline in all the papers today, and it has in my opinion destroyed any chance, slim as it was to turn things around. I read an interesting piece today, which I cannot find now, that Trump is running his campaign as if he's still running in the primaries, and is doing nothing to try and appeal to any voter who isn't already part of his base.
While it is always foolish to take anything for granted, I expect the questions now are how wide of a margin will Clinton's win be, and how long are her coattails?
Hey, remember when Republicans wouldn't let President Obama appoint a justice to take Fat Tony Scalia's seat, because they wanted it subject to the "will of the voters" (even though Obama was elected twice)?
The current court has been operating with just eight members since last February when Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly. Republicans have refused since then to confirm President Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, on grounds that filling the slot should be left to the next president.
In his comments on WPHT, McCain seems to have upped the ante, suggesting that if Hillary Clinton is elected, Republicans would block any Supreme Court nomination she would make.
These people aren't interested in government, only getting their way, and if they can't get that, they revert to political vandalism.