Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, Moderators, protect
27,952
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 110:
Line 110: + + + + +
no edit summary
Liberals have continued to smear Thomas and uncritically believe Hill's claims.<ref>McManus, John F. (May 1, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/32174-are-there-no-defenders-of-clarence-thomas Are There No Defenders of Clarence Thomas?] ''The New American''. Retrieved May 1, 2019.</ref>
Liberals have continued to smear Thomas and uncritically believe Hill's claims.<ref>McManus, John F. (May 1, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/32174-are-there-no-defenders-of-clarence-thomas Are There No Defenders of Clarence Thomas?] ''The New American''. Retrieved May 1, 2019.</ref>
===Desperate attack===
In desperation to attack Justice Clarence Thomas, ''ProPublica'' even recycled old news about him.
'The site accuses the justice of legal violations—but he was officially cleared more than a decade ago.'
{{Cquote|The first attack in the left’s spring offensive against the U.S. Supreme Court was an April 6 ProPublica hit piece about Justice Clarence Thomas. The site quotes “ethics experts” who accuse him of violating federal law by not disclosing trips he had taken with a longtime friend. The accusation turns out to be old news that was adjudicated more than a decade ago.<ref>Mark Paoletta, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-recycles-old-clarence-thomas-news-trips-crow-judicial-conference-investigation-b9d23640?mod=opinion_lead_pos7 ''ProPublica'' Recycles Old Clarence Thomas News], ''WSJ'', June 4, 2023</ref>}}
==Views on racism==
==Views on racism==