• Hillary Received Memo From David Brock About How to Impeach Clarence Thomas

Katie Pavlich |
Sep 01, 2015

David Brock is a longtime Clinton ally, self-described liar and the paranoid founder of Media Matters. Some background on him:

David Brock was smoking a cigarette on the roof of his Washington, D.C. office one day in the late fall of 2010 when his assistant and two bodyguards suddenly appeared and whisked him and his colleague Eric Burns down the stairs.

Brock, the head of the liberal nonprofit Media Matters for America, had told friends and co-workers that he feared he was in imminent danger from right-wing assassins and needed a security team to keep him safe.

The threat he faced while smoking on his roof? “Snipers,” a former co-worker recalled.

“He had more security than a Third World dictator,” one employee said, explaining that Brock’s bodyguards would rarely leave his side, even accompanying him to his home in an affluent Washington neighborhood each night where they “stood post” to protect him. “What movement leader has a detail?” asked someone who saw it.

Extensive interviews with a number of Brock’s current and former colleagues at Media Matters, as well as with leaders from across the spectrum of Democratic politics, reveal an organization roiled by its leader’s volatile and erratic behavior and struggles with mental illness, and an office where Brock’s executive assistant carried a handgun to public events in order to defend his boss from unseen threats.

Five years ago, Brock came up with an extensive plan to impeach conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He sent a memo in October 2010 to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her personal email address detailing his plan and salacious "evidence" justifying his argument for impeachment. The memo was revealed late last night as part of the State Department's obligation to turn over thousands of Clinton's emails as ordered by a federal judge.

Brock Memo - Impeach Thomas

Published by Katie Pavlich
David Brock sent a memo to HRC in October 2010 about how to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
See more

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F 2014 20439 Doc No. C05775406 Date: 08/31/2015

I called Mark Paoletta (a close Thomas friend and former associate White Housecounsel under Bush) at his Washington law office and discussed the Savage matterwith him. Mark had been helping me on all other aspects of (my) review (of StrangeJustice for The American Spectator) and we developed a plan for dealing withSavage. I needed to find out quickly who she was and what negative informationmight exist about her before confronting her and trying to force her into backing offthe story she had told the Strange Justice authors. I was intent on doing to Savagewhat had been done to Anita Hill and Angela Wright during the Thomas hearings.Mark said he would call Clarence Thomas (then a sitting Justice) and see what he
could find out.
Within an hour or so that morning Mark phoned me back. He said he had posed myquestion about how to discredit Savage to Thomas, who knew I was at work on areview of the Mayer and Abramson book. (Personal note: I had personally toldThomas this when I met him at a Paoletta family event only days prior). Mark toldme that Thomas had, in fact, some derogatory information on his former friend
Savage; he passed it along to Mark so that Mark could give it to me. Quoting Thomas
directly, Mark told me of unverified embarrassing personal information aboutSavage that Thomas claimed had been raised against her in a sealed court record ofa divorce and child custody battle more than a decade ago. Thomas also told Markwhere Savage worked after Mark related that I was eager to hunt her down as soonas possible. Surely skirting the bounds of judicial propriety to intimidate and smearyet another witness against him, Thomas was playing dirty and so was I.
After an excerpt of Blinded featuring the Savage story was published in TALK
magazine in 2001, The NYT reported (6-27-01): Reached at home in Washington
last night, Ms. Savage said that Mr. Brock had tried to intimidate her but that he hadnot told her the source of the negative information. `I didn't think to ask,' she said.But she said that she had shared the information about her divorce with few people
and that Justice Thomas and Ms. Hill were `primarily' those to whom she had
confided. 'He either got it from Clarence or he got it from Anita, Ms. Savage said. 'and
Anita's my friend.(Personal note: Though I confronted Savage with the information in an effort to gether to recant, she never did, although I made it appear otherwise by journalisticsleight-of-hand involving a written statement Savage had given me under duressabout her interviews with Mayer and Abramson in my Spectator review).
Frank Rich, NYT (12-29-94): This time Mr. Brock's partisan desperation has led
him to a tactic that is beyond the pale of even tabloid journalism and that wouldmake any citizen think twice before speaking freely to any journalist: He tried to
bully a source in Strange Justice, a one-time Hill and Thomas associate named Kaye
Savage, to get her to sign a statement denying her own contribution to the book.
Jamin Raskin, a law professor and associate dean at American University inWashington, received a call seeking advice from Ms. Savage after her encounter with

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F 2014 20439 Doc No. C05775406 Date: 08/31/2015

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F 2014 20439 Doc No. C05775406 Date: 08/31/2015
Mr. Brock a few weeks ago: She was distraught and said Brock was threatening to
reveal damaging information about her from a divorce situation unless she agreedto retract everything she had said to the authors of Strange Justice, he said in an
interview. 'I told her this is a clear violation of journalistic ethics and might beblackmail and that she shouldn't give in to it. She was beside herself because she had
told the truth.
Blinded by the Right:
I next set out to blow away the Mayer and Abramson story that Thomas had been afrequent customer of an X-rated video store near Dupont Circle, called Graffiti,
where in the early 1980s he was alleged to have rented X-rated videos of the typethat Hill claimed he had discussed with her in graphic terms. In the hearings Thomashad pointedly refused to answer questions about his personal use of pornography,other than to categorically deny that he had ever talked about porn with Hill (orwith anyone in the workplace). The Graffiti story was another theretofore unknown
piece of evidence for Hill's case...
Now that Mark had opened up a channel directly to Thomas, I asked him to find out
for me whether Thomas had owned the video equipment needed to view movies athome in the early 1980s...Mark came back with a straightforward answer: Thomasnot only had the video equipment in his apartment, but he also habitually rented
pornographic movies from Graffiti during the years Anita Hill worked for him. Here
was the proof that Senate investigators and reporters had been searching for duringthe hearings.
(Lillian McEwen) said he kept a stack of pornographic magazines, frequenteda store on Dupont Circle that catered to his needs.
Partial Transcript of CNN's Crossfire, 6-28-2001, after TALK published the excerpt
from Blinded on Kaye Savage:
Eleanor Smeal, President of Feminist Majority Foundation: I think there should be ahearing. Not only do I think there should be a hearing, I think that we can get to thebottom of it. There's other people now involved. There's Kaye Savage, who was, in
fact, discredited by Brock. There are other authors who have written and werediscredited by Brock. There is - essentially what Brock is saying they're very seriouscharges, they're not light charges. They are charges that he was fed information, and
being fed this information, they discredited people wrongfully and knowingly. And
this is serious.6
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F 2014 20439 Doc No. C05775406 Date: 08/31/2015

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F 2014 20439 Doc No. C05775406 Date: 08/31/2015
And let's face it, the Supreme Court these are life-time appointments. We are sittinghere with a Supreme Court that elected this president by a five to four decision, buta Supreme Court that could reverse Roe v Wade and many many serious thingsaffecting women...Let's get right to - let's just get right to this, the problem with Clarence Thomas.There was a book that came out by two reputable reporters, Jill Abramson and JaneMayer. And it collaborated - it confirmed a lot of what Anita Hill said. And we now
know - of course we don't know this - it's alleged by Brock that he knew when he
attacked that book and attacked it systematically that he was saying a lie. And so
basically that is a reputable account that substantiates what she said...
Why don't you just bring it before a Senate judiciary committee and have Paoletta
there, and not only that, why don't you investigate? I mean in fact there were - it'snot just one person's word against another. He said that he was a regular
participator in buying videos from a certain store. I mean why can't...Robert Novak: Who said that? Who said that?Smeal: Paoletta. Paoletta said it to Brock but what I'm saying is you can check it. I
mean you don't have to...
Novak: He (Paoletta) denies it.
Smeal: 'But that's a person's word. Is there no such thing as investigations? Is there
no such thing as a hearing? I mean and why can't it be bipartisan? If in fact it's truethat this man is just a liar, then you clear the name. But if it isn't we get at somethingalso very serious. So - it's a serious allegation.
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F 2014 20439 Doc No. C05775406 Date: 08/31/2015

Brock accuses Thomas of engaging in multiple affairs, watching pornography at the work place, intimidating witnesses and more.

Brock has been at the forefront of defending Hillary Clinton since allegations of trading political favors at the State Department for donations to the Clinton Foundation emerged earlier this year. He went after Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, after he exposed the practice.

Brock's specialty is character assassination at all costs, with zero proof to sustain his allegations. His attack on Thomas is unsurprising.