Pure speculation. The most logical conclusion is ,as she said, about doing the right thing for the country. She felt the pols should know what the guy they were pushing for Supreme Court was really like. He was a porn loving harasser . He maltreated the women he worked with. She was trying to do the right thing. She did not make a cent off her testimony.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/22/clarence_thomas_anita_hill So when does Anita Hill get an apology from Thomas and the pols that called her a liar? She has corroboration. Thomas has nothing.
She has no corroboration and Thomas has numerous character witnesses .
So do you believe that Virginia Thomas comported herself well, or do you think she should have framed her statement with an implicit recognition that Thomas might have behaved badly. Was it appropriate to leave a telephone message that assumed the recipient was lying, or was it at least somewhat rude? Do you believe that Mrs. Thomas’ behavior was prudent?
I’m not sure I know precisely what “Tone deaf” means here. Based on the olive branch characterization, I’m willing to say that Mrs. Thomas acted neither appropriately nor prudently. I tend to extend forgiveness however. It’s not like she robbed a bank.
Anyway there are some distinctions here, which those of sharp legal intellect might be inclined to advance.
Oh, fine! So, the rest of us are just so much chopped liver! I see how it is…
I have my doubts that someone crazy enough to commit perjury (before the Senate no less) out of spite could maintain a career as low-key and (by many accounts I’ve read) professional in the decades that follow.
Now, if Hill had shown some erratic behaviour, I might be inclined to give your hypothesis some consideration. Until such time said behaviour is brought to my attention, I see no reason to.
I don’t get the need to pass along the incident to anyone authority wise. Shirley, she didn’t imagine she was under some threat? Or did she?
“Shit, that rhinoceros size white bitch coming to kick my ass, and I quit the Tae-Bo after the third video!”
This is all so Jerry Springer meets Washington Week. None of this should have happened, its not worthy of our attention. Even if we had absolute, rock solid proof that everything she said was true, it wouldn’t matter, we’re stuck with him.
It’s kind of creepy that somebody would perjure themselves in order to sit on the highest court of the land.
Yes she does, as has been pointed out. The new book will be lots of fun when it comes out.
Nobody gave me love for my statement, so I will ask again, what is he doing with a white wife? Is he “too good” for a wife of his own race? Does this ever upset anyone in the black community, especially black women?
Frankly, I’m just glad two twits found one another. I don’t see the relevance of their races.
You were most likely ignored because your statement is inherently racist.
And yet *every *recent nominee claims, straightfacedly, to have no prejudged opinion on abortion, or any other political hot potato topic.
Yes, it changes from reality to just another of your childish “hypothetical” gotchas.
Helluva point to make in public.
It takes a special kind of mind to post a question like that.
Well, he probably had a special education.
This is revolting and disgusting even for a goal post shifter like you, Bricker. Christ on a pony.
Hypothetical. “Let’s assume”. He even offers both main hypothetical, though one gets about six words and the other fifty. But the trap door is built in, and he can look you right in the face, bat big brown innocent eyes, and say, correctly, hypothetical.
Arguing with The Counselor is like trying to pick up an earthworm out of a vat of motor oil with chopsticks.
Her evidence—supported by several other women, witnesses, and Thomas’ own acquaintances—was held to be not credible by a bunch of white guys who leered at her, trotted out every sexist stereotype of women there was, and finally came down on the side of the man. Thomas is, despite what apologists on this thread say, a mediocrity whose most notable characteristic is his boundless rage and complete lack of compassion. What he did to his sister, for example, was striking—and horrifying.
Finally, arguing the case out of context is ludicrous. The inquisitors at the hearings subjected Hill to extraordinary sexist tropes—‘a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty’ says more about them and their perceptions than it does about her.
David Brock, one of her chief accusers, has since recanted when the lies he told wore him down. A book by a pair of Wall Street Journal reporters—not exactly a bastion of liberal feminism—found that it was likely that Hill’s allegations were true, especially as they were supported by other allegations and supporting testimony, again, from Thomas’ own friends.
There’s no excuse, at this late date, to be as ignorant about this case as some people have displayed themselves to be. Hill’s written an excellent book on the case and maintained her silence since then.
Right. But somehow I doubt whether Virginia Thomas has read any of those works. So from her perspective, it is plausible (and subjectively likely) that her husband is telling the truth. After all, spouses are lousy judges of their beloved’s character, though they believe otherwise. (I can’t find the cite, which involved lie detection and had a different focus.)
Nonetheless, phone machine messages that assume lying recipients are rude and bad form when you are aware that the evidence is in fact mixed. Which Mrs. Thomas knows. AFAIK, Bricker did not address this possibility on pages 1-3 or 10-11 of this thread.
Ok, but factual perjury is different than sworn disingenuous. It’s true that judges can’t predict how they will rule on abortion without reviewing the facts of the particular case, right? And should detailed facts be provided… well, I’m not going to debate hypotheticals, Senator.