Political pundits have savaged a New York magazine article re-litigating the case for Supreme Court associate justice Clarence Thomas' impeachment, which purportedly cites new evidence Thomas lied under oath about Anita Hill during his confirmation hearing.

The National Review published a five-part series Monday in response to former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson's piece in New York on Sunday.

The series, written by Carrie Severino, breaks down Abramson's so-called proof that Hill, an ex-employee of Thomas, was telling the truth when she detailed sexual harassment accusations against Thomas before the controversial Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991.

"Her obsessive quest to try and destroy Clarence Thomas [and pull her career out of free fall] has resulted in another 4,200 words of warmed-over, long-ago debunked, and perjurious allegations," Severino writes of Abramson.

Read more at WashingtonExaminer.com