At Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearing who do you think lied? Clarence or Anita Hill?

Question

I think that Anita Hill was telling the truth and the law makers were over compensating for a black man hoping to show that they were not prejudiced by confirming him.

Answer 1

One thing that isn't often reported about the case is that Anita Hill didn't *want* to testify or come forward with her story.
That makes me feel that she is the more truthful. She had no vested interest in testifying, and was reluctant to do so. People who charge that she was "out to get" Thomas are incorrect.

Why would she make this up?

If there is one thing the last 6 years showed is the Republicans' ability to lie and justify their own sexual scandals while condemning others (check out the stories about Foley, Haggard, Craig, Allen, Murphy, Gingrich, and so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ansell/List_of_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States)

Edit - I disagree with those who say this isn't relevant. Remember that Thomas has been all over TV the last few days pushing his book. He has been 'explaining' his side of the story to anyone who would listen. While there is little we can do about THomas being on the court, we can make sure the truth about him isn't obscured.

Answer 2

Thomas was lying!

Nobody could be so psycho that they were willing to subject themselves to the kind of press that Anita Hill got as a result of stepping forward. She wasn't just clerical help; she was a law school professor.

This was a case of sheer pandering. Justice Marshall retired, and if President George H.W. Bush had failed to nominate another Black he'd have been vilified.

I note that the ABA was split between "qualified" and "not qualified" on Justice Thomas when asked for an opinion. Surely in a land of over a quarter million people, the President of the United States could dig up a nominee whose qualifications were unquestioned.

Remember, his confirmation was 52 to 48. 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm. 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against.

Let's review: The Republican president got this nomination through a Democrat-controlled Senate. Too bad they didn't hold.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/102/senate/1/votes/220/

Answer 3

Here's what we know- Whether or not Anita Hill was lying or not, she still let the most liberal, pathetic Justice get into the Supreme Court. But at least Cheif Justice John Roberts will keep him in check from now on!

God Bless America!

Answer 4

I believe Clarence Thomas lied!
So often in a world still so much ruled by the male gender, a woman telling the truth is not going to convince a party of NOT her peers about her innocence.
For most people protect and aid their own!

Answer 5

I agree. That picture of Thomas smoking a big ole stogie after his confirmation, said it all.

He hasn't had any intelligent ideas since he's been there.
.

Answer 6

I think Thomas lied.

This was also under HW Bush, and they really wanted Thomas on the court. He's proven to be the most conservative member there, so they got their way.

Answer 7

I would say Anita from the stories I have heard on it. Even when it was suppose to happen, I thought she was lieing.

Answer 8

Why would you take her word over his? She followed him to another job after he supposedly "harassed" her. Now does that sound like anything really happened. It was a smear campaign trying to ruin a good man's reputation.

Answer 9

The man is always right but we know better. You could tell by her expressions she was not lying. Poor woman keeps getting hurt .

Answer 10

Which of Hill's contradictory versions of events do you believe?

I guess I just don't understand how one "believes" someone who says X, then not X but Y, then not Y but Z, about key facts, all within the space of 48 hours.

I guess I just don't understand how they worked with dozens of people yet nobody else heard him say or saw him do the things alleged - and all she could produce was one person whom he'd fired to say "oh, he would have said those things" - if she's telling the truth. Keep in mind some of her allegations were of things he was supposed to have said in front of other people. How come nobody else backed her up? I know, he's powerful - but this was the EEOC, a liberal haven (I interned for my state's CAD when a Republican was governor, believe me, discrimination commissions, no matter which party is in office, are leftist havens), and he's a conservative - - - - yet NOBODY backed her up........

I guess I also just don't understand how she produced one fresh complaint witness who placed the fresh complaint six months BEFORE she'd even started to WORK for Thomas - - but who then, after a break, changed her testimony - - - yet we're supposed to believe.....

......what are we supposed to believe????

And then there's the phone calls, every time she was in DC....

First she didn't make them.

Then she made them but she was only responding to his calls (which would make him clairvoyant since she was staying at one of the dozens of hotels in the DC metro area).

THEN she admitted, yeah, I called him, he was my long-time boss, it was good for my career to keep in touch and even go and see him, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No, it doesn't - but the fact that she lied about it, then lied about it again, THEN admitted it, THAT means a LOT - given the fact that all we have to go on is her word.

George Will said it best - to believe Anita Hill told the truth means to believe that dozens of people with no apparent motive to lie did so.

I was a liberal Democrat at the time the hearings were going on. I couldn't believe how any rational person could believe her given the above. It seemed like pandering - all these politicians trying to keep "the women's vote" or avoid having to run against a female candidate, by saying that they believed something they had to know wasn't true.

I left the Democrats over this - still considered myself a liberal, still hadn't researched the issues on economics / incomes - so I had zero axe to grind.

This was character assassination pure and simple.

And even the academic world knows it - why do you think the only job a former law professor can get is in the "women's studies" program at Brandeis in eastern MA, the bluest part of the bluest state?

And no, she DIDN'T "want" to testify - because she just wanted to tell her version to the FBI who was doing a background check so that Bush wouldn't even nominate him. She didn't actually want to get called on what she said.

Oh, but wait, mommiedearest says "look at her facial expressions."

THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY!!!!! Too many people see her in a blue suit and say "oh, she LOOKS credible" - - - WTF does that mean?

See, what I do, is I READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT THEY SAID. And guess what? If one of them says X, and then not X but Y, and then not Y but Z, in the space of a few paragraphs, and then asserts that the other party did something in front of the whole office - but nobody else in the office corroborates it - - - - I have a big problem believing that witness!!!!!!

It has nothing to DO with their color or gender, or whether they "look" credible - whatever that means.

When the objective evidence is inconclusive, fine, I understand you go to body language etc.., at least if you HAVE to make a determination - - but when the objective evidence is CLEAR, WHICH IT IS IN THIS CASE, I don't understand the notion of trying to read it in his or her face.

This is why we believed the finger-wagging, it's why we believed the "checkers" speech......... Because you people "believe" based on what you see rather than an objective, rational analysis.

If you say X, then you say not X but Y, then you say not Y but Z, and the topic is your own past actions, guess what - YOU LIED AT LEAST TWICE!!!! BY DEFINITION!!!!