[lost][li]Anita Hiill wasn’t smeared if she was lying about Thomas – still a controversial subject. In my opinion, even after Brock’s sea-change, there’s still more evidence in favor of Thomas’s story than Hill’s.[/li]Even if (then) right-wing columnist David Brock smeared AH, this would not be an example of the Republican Party smearing a whistle blower. (Contrast this with the treatment of Linda Tripp. A senior official in the Clinton White House violated LT’s privacy by illegally releasing material from her personnel file. This official wasn’t prosecuted, fired, or even disciplined.)
Cut the crap, december. Earlier in this thread, you pointed to comments by Newsweek magazine as an example of Democratic demonization of a “whistle-blower.” IIRC, you have repeatedly pointed to other media attacks on Republicans as examples of demonization. As I am sure you know, neither Newsweek nor the other media outlets you refer to are owned or operated by the Democratic party, yet you call their articles Democratic “demonization”.
I know it’s way too late to ask you for consistency, but please try not to so blatantly contradict yourself.
[3. Please tell us how Newt was demonized over the House Post Office Scandal;
[/quote]
He was demonized after that scandal. As has been pointed out, a weakness in my case is that I cannot demonstrate how much of a role, if any, revenge played in Newt’s demonization. However, I may give this a try if I get time for some research later.
Yes, Republicans also demonize. However, my point is that Dems use demonization a lot more frequently and a lot more effectively than Republicans do. One reason is that it works for them.**
[/QUOTE]
Wow, I can’t believe you’re serious here, maestro. But I guess what you see depends on where you sit.
[lost][li]Anita Hiill wasn’t smeared if she was lying about Thomas – still a controversial subject. In my opinion, even after Brock’s sea-change, there’s still more evidence in favor of Thomas’s story than Hill’s.[/li][/QUOTE]
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence at all in favor of Thomas’s story, which is that the whole business was “concocted” and put into Hill’s mouth by “interest groups.” Hill’s story was confirmed in the sense that she related it contemporaneously to several people. Two people may have been lying about some stuff there, of course, but only one of them was up for the Supreme Court. Funny how attitudes towards perjury can change …
Pope Bob
Church of Never Having Debated Roe v. Wade
BI, if we’re going to get into this, we should probably start a new thread. However, I can’t resist refuting some of what you said.
Thomas never said anything about interest groups". Read his testimony. He said that the alleged conduct never occurred.
As far as evidence in his favor, he was in a difficult positon. When a former friend says something happened when the two were alone, there’s automatically no way to absolutely disprove her statement. However, there were many factors supporting Thomas’s version: [ul][li]If Hill was lying, she took no risk of a perjury conviction. There’s no way to prove that Thomas didn’t make certain comments when they were alone. OTOH if Thomas was lying, then he took the risk that people might have overheard his conversations with Hill, and then he would have been in big trouble. Personally, I expected Thomas to admit some version of Hill’s charges, but put different spin on them. I was stunned when he flatly denied them.[]A panel of 5 or so women who worked with Hill and Thomas testified that they had never seen him behave in that sort of way, and that they disbelieved Hill. []The only joint cow-orker who testified against Thomas was a woman who Thomas had fired for making homophobic remarks – not a very compelling witness. [] After the alleged sexual harassment, Hill continued to maintain telephone contact with Thomas, although she denied it under oath. Thomas’s secretary had the telephone logs to prove how many times Hill had called him.[]later,when Hill was a Professor, she invited Thomas to be a speaker. After a party in his honor, she volunteered to drive him to the airport, which put the alone together in her car. This would be odd conduct for someone who had been sexually harassed.[/ul][/li][quote]
Hill’s story was confirmed in the sense that she related it contemporaneously to several people.
[/QUOTE]
Two witnesses said that Hill had mentioned sexual harassment to them contemporaneously. Neither remembered the name of the harasser. One had no memory of the exact date. The other remembered it as having fallen in a particular time period when she had a certain relationship with Hill. During this entire period, Hill was NOT working for Thomas. Furthermore, Hill’s supervisor in that period had some sort of relevant blot on his record. (I cannot rember the details.) It’s plausible that this other supervisor was the person Hill had complained to her friends about.
I acknowledge that nobody can ever fully prove that Thomas was telling the truth. That’s an unfortunate aspect of this sort of charge.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**BI, if we’re going to get into this, we should probably start a new thread. However, I can’t resist refuting some of what you said.
Thomas never said anything about interest groups". Read his testimony. He said that the alleged conduct never occurred.
[QUOTE]
I’m afraid you are incorrect – here is a segment of the Thomas testimony:
Senator Biden: “Do you believe that interest groups went out and got Professor Hill to make up a story? Or do you believe thatProfessor Hill had a story, untrue from your perspective, that, as referred to here, groups went out and found? which do you believe?”
Clarence Thomas: “Senator, I believe that someone, interest group, I don’t care who it is, in combination, came up with this story and used this process to destroy me.”
Biden: “Got Professor Hill to make up a story?”
Thomas: “I believe that in combination this story was developed, or concocted, to destroy me.”
Thomas embraced the toxic lie put forth by his handlers, even though Biden gave him every chance to back away from that and allow that the allegations were misremembered, possibly delusional and grossly distorted. To quote Hendrik Hertzberg:
"By embracing this poisonous lie – that Hill’s story was concocted, as opposed to merely unearthed, by “interest groups” working “in combination’ – Thomas showed himself unfit for the powerful office he may well occupyinto the 2030s. The accusation is worse than unproven: there is not a hint of a shadow of a fact to support it. In making it, Thomas displayed both a coarse contmpt for the very concept of evidence and a stunning readiness to slash at the fabric of democratic trust. Tis should have been reason enough for the Senate to reject his nomination, even if it is stipulated that he was entirely innocent of Hill’s charges. But of course that cannot be stipulated. It is close to a certainty that she was telling the truth and he was not. She had no motivation to lie; he did. There is no evidence that she is a vengeful woman, a fantasist, or even a Democrat; there is considerable evidence that he “discussed pornography” with, and forced his unwanted attentions on, other women too. For Thomas’s version of their encounters to be true, Hill would have to have invented an elaborate delusional structure; for her version to be true, he would only have to have repressed (or rationalized away) a few troublesome memories. She would have to have been a psychotic; he would merely have to have been a man in a tight spot – which, manifestly, he was.”
I also refer to to EEOC enforcement guidance noting that general denials carry little weight when confronted with corroborating contemporaneous testimony (which Hill’s story had). I can pull out the cite if you really want it.
[QUOTE]
a evidence in his favor, he was in a difficult positon.
[QUOTE]
Much like Wild Bill, but then perjury standards are shifting, it seems.
[QUOTE]
However, there were many factors supporting Thomas’s version: [list][li]If Hill was lying, she took no risk of a perjury conviction. There’s no way to prove that Thomas didn’t make certain comments when they were alone. OTOH if Thomas was lying, then he took the risk that people might have overheard his conversations with Hill, and then he would have been in big trouble. [/li][QUOTE]
Wow, isthat ever a lame defense.
[QUOTE]
I was stunned when he flatly denied them.
[QUOTE}
So you thought he was lying, too.
[Quote]
After the alleged sexual harassment, Hill continued to maintain telephone contact with Thomas, although she denied it under oath.
[QUOTE]
I don’t recall her denying that, but it’s pretty explainable given that he was a powerful (unjustly) man who was her employer for a long time.
[QUOTE]
later,when Hill was a Professor, she invited Thomas to be a speaker. After a party in his honor, she volunteered to drive him to the airport, which put the alone together in her car. This would be odd conduct for someone who had been sexually harassed.
[QUOTE]
Not necessarily, no, especially using her connection to land a plum speaker. Nobody ever said she feared he wouod rape her.
Two witnesses said that Hill had mentioned sexual harassment to them contemporaneously.
[QUOTE]
Four, I recall, all of whose testimony was unchallenged.
It is undeniable that Thomas was not telling the truth and that he is unfit for office – he also lied when asked about Roe v. Wade, although the “debated” versus “discussed” business might have spared him a perjury conviction, much like with Clinton’s “what is 'sex?” defense, although materiality was the issue with that fibbery.
BI, your statement above had three parts. One was true; two were incorrect. Yes, in the course of his testimony, CT said that he believed some interest group had concocted the story. However, he did not say that they “put it into Hill’s mouth.”
Most importantly, this statement was not “Thomas’s story”, if by that you mean his case. His case was that she was lying. He (presumably) knew she was lying, because he knew he had never done what she claimed. Note that his opinion regarding the interest group wasn’t a part of his original presentation. It was an opinion elicited by his opponent, as a means to discredit him. From CT’s POV, his long-time friend was telling malicious lies about him. Naturally he thought she was influenced by groups who actually were trying to destroy him at that time. Wouldn’t you?
Big Iron has now accused CT 's handlers of concocting a story and putting it in CT’s mouth, although BI has not a scintilla of evidence that such is the case. By Hendrik Hertzberg’s standards, BI is poisonous liar.
Yes, I already commented on this point. I was stunned when CT didn’t respond along the lines Biden suggested. It’s clear that either CT or AH committed flat-out perjury. One of them merits disbarment and prison. As I said, if she was the liar, AH took no risk of a perjury conviction, but if CT were lying, then he was taking that risk.
[quote]
To quote Hendrik Hertzberg :
"By embracing this poisonous lie – that Hill’s story was concocted, as opposed to merely unearthed, by “interest groups” working "in combination’ – Thomas showed himself unfit for the powerful office…
[quote]
Would HH find HRC equally unfit for powerful office? She claimed that her husband had no sexual scandal; that the story was concocted by a vast right wing conspiracy.
It wasn’t Thomas who brought up this topic; it was Biden. Thomas never claimed he had evidence. He was asked a question about his belief under oath and gave an honest answer.
When AH testified I believed her. She was a dynamite witness. CT’s denial was also persuasive. He handled himself incredibly well under merciless and often unfair attacks. It makes me sad to know that one of these two impressive people is a perjurer.
BI, have you ever met a woman who had been sexually harassed by her boss? I have. Sexual harassment is no joke. Escape from such a supervisor is a deliverance. The last thing such a woman would want is further contact with the man who abused her, especially alone.