Clarence Thomas Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill

[glenn1]

<< glenn1 - The accusation against Thomas, if true, is not some private matter. >>



Think whatever you like. The Dems used up all their political chits in choosing to defend Clinton, so now they will have no ammo left with which to try to pressure for the removal of Thomas.

 

[jjm]

glenn1 - More concerned about politics than whether or not Thomas actually did those things?

 

[Phokus]

Yawn, face it Russ, your position in this argument is weak. Twist it anyway you like (like a good little far rigthwinger that you are), this still does NOT look good for conservatives, and it certainly doesn't look good for CT. Were you questioning him back in '91? That's what i thought.

Please take a seat and don't get back up.

BTW, is 67gt500 your love child by any chance?

 

[Phokus]

<< glenn1 - More concerned about politics than whether or not Thomas actually did those things? >>



Glenn1 is using a rather weak defense because he knows he has no point. Don't worry, public scrutiny should take care of CT, if there really is such as justice.

 

[Thump553]

I have a question-did anyone honestly believe Thomas' version over Anita Hill's? Noone I ever spoke to personally about this ever confessed to actually believing Thomas' version, it was more like they were willing to overlook the entire incident, viewing it as some kind of setup that was extraneous to the real issues at hand.

BTW, AaronP, if you think ANY of the current members of the Court are &quot;liberals,&quot; then you are either hopelessly out of touch or unfamiliar with their actual positions and rulings. There has not been a liberal appointed to the Court since Nixon's inaguration over thirty years ago. Fortunately some of the appointments in the last thirty years have been intellectually honest conservatives as opposed to knee-jerk right-wingers. I think your comment points out the confusion most right-wingers have about true conservative thought. A conservative is concerned about individual freedoms, and if that means shooting down a bad criminal law practice (such as abusive interrogation techniques) then that is an unfortunate minor price we have to pay. Anti-abortion positions and blind favoritism towards business has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism, although these traits are often central tenants to those who (wrongfully) profess to be conservative.

 

[glenn1]

<< Don't worry, public scrutiny should take care of CT, if there really is such as justice. >>



Justice Thomas isn't going anywhere. He has a lifetime appointment to the bench, and he's not getting impeached. To believe otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking.

That so-called 'weak defense' you speak of is the exact same dynamic which was in play for President Clinton. The American people didn't care enough then to demand Clinton's resignation then, and they're not going to care enough to ask for Thomas's now.

 

[jjm]

It is interesting to see Thomas defended by comparing him to Slick. I guess muck is still muck, regardless of political stripe.

 

[Phokus]

<<

<< Don't worry, public scrutiny should take care of CT, if there really is such as justice. >>



Justice Thomas isn't going anywhere. He has a lifetime appointment to the bench, and he's not getting impeached. To believe otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking.

That so-called 'weak defense' you speak of is the exact same dynamic which was in play for President Clinton. The American people didn't care enough then to demand Clinton's resignation then, and they're not going to care enough to ask for Thomas's now. >>



Stop dodging the issue. I'm sure you used that argument whenever the issue of Clinton's extramarital affairs have been brought up on these forums by 'outraged conservatives' (yeah right). If you're just going to noodle around with weak statements, it's probably better if you don't reply at all.

 

[Russ]

<< Okay, Russ, so since both stories are opposites, what's the truth about Thomas? >>



I don't know, and neither do you or any of the other liberals here. But, I do know this. I never read anything Brock wrote, or anything written by the Thomas lynch mob.

Instead, I watched the hearings and made up my own mind. Clarence Thomas possessed far more credibility then Anita Hill. Every claim she made sounded scripted and handed to her, and many were so outrageous that only somebody blinded by hatred of Thomas, and what he stands for, could possibly be foolish enough to believe it.



<< Certainly one of them is. >>



Really? It is far more likely that the answer lies somewhere in between. It invariably does in these matters.

Clarence Thomas was a man of unquestioned reputation and achievement. Anita Hill was a flunky who followed him from job to job, and was recruited by the radical left to try and destroy his career.

To believe her ridiculous claims against a man of his caliber is patently stupid and the act of a blind person.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Phokus]

<< Clarence Thomas was a man of unquestioned reputation and achievement. Anita Hill was a flunky who followed him from job to job, and was recruited by the radical left to try and destroy his career.

To believe her ridiculous claims against a man of his caliber is patently stupid and the act of a blind person. >>



And you know this because...? Oh thats right, you're his brother in real life, of course! If CT was a liberal, i'd bet you would be calling him the devil himself.

Another fine example of an ultra-conservatist making baseless assumptions in order to prove a point which he could never prove.



<< To believe her ridiculous claims against a man of his caliber is patently stupid and the act of a blind person. >>



HAHA, that's a pretty bold statement. Proof? Proof? You got none? Then sit down, thanks.

 

[glenn1]

<< I guess muck is still muck, regardless of political stripe. >>



That does unfortunately seem to be the case. Neither side seems to be willing to enforce a certain level of conduct in even their own members, so trying to enforce it on the other side is laughable. And until the American people demand a certain base level of acceptable conduct by its senior governmental officials, this won't change. For every indescretion commited by Thomas, i can name one by Ted Kennedy. You cite Bill Clinton, i say Bob Packwood.

Don't confuse cynicism on my part that Thomas will stay put with any belief that he is beyond reproach, or that i think the allegations against him cannot possibly be true. I'm simply recognizing the simple reality that the likelihood of him resigning are essentially zero.

 

[Double Trouble]

We don't know what really did (or did not) transpire, and I certainly will not believe the words of a man who's admitting all of a sudden to having lied about this before. Why should I believe him now??

Bottom line is, I don't know what Thomas has or hasn't done. Until someone with actual credibility and evidence steps up, Thomas will stay right where he is (probably for another 30 or so years), despite what the lefties think.

I thought it was truly shameful how all the groups that were always whining that there should be African Americans on the court did nothing to stand behind Thomas when the left sent their attack dogs after him. They all showed their true colors --- they are not trying to press for their constituents, they were simply pressing for liberals. The exact same thing is true for groups like NOW. They whine that women get no respect, and then they are the first to make fun of Catherine Harris's looks and makeup -- just pressing their hypocritical liberal agenda.

 

[jjm]

tagej - Nice off-topic post. Should we start one on the hypocritical conservative agenda too?

Russ - We don't know the real answer, and maybe we never will. But it's clear that the right wing was hell-bent on a smear campaign against Hill. That's exactly what they did with Slick too, though his morals were as bad as Thomas's. Clearly, the right, despite all its claims to reach for the high moral ground, is just as spineless and immoral as anyone in politics.

 

[AMDJunkie]

<< Abramson, now Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, said that ?the problem with Brock?s credibility? is that ?once you admit you?ve knowingly written false things, how do you know when to believe what he writes? . . . It?d be awfully convenient to now say becausewhat he?s writing is personally pleasing to me that he?s a 100 percent solid reporter. That would be a little disingenuous.? >>



<< In the Talk article, Mr. Brock said the incident involving the intermediary occurred in 1994 as he was preparing a review of a book, &quot;Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas,&quot; by two Wall Street Journal reporters, Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer, for The American Spectator. Ms. Abramson is now the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times; Ms. Mayer is a Washington correspondent for The New Yorker. >>

Well well well, you people attack Russ, saying he's attempting to defend this guy by saying he's still uncredible and here is one of the people whom Brock attacked saying that she still wouldn't trust him. Read your own sources.

<< In recent years, Brock has made a second career of denouncing his earlier work as a conservative reporter. In 1998, he expressed regrets in an Esquire article for digging into President Clinton?s sex life and said he believed his sources exaggerated the details. >>

He has a history too! Personally, I don't like either side. Who comes out of the blue and confesses for &quot;conscience&quot; sake anymore? Not is this day and age. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some truth to these &quot;confessions&quot;. Politicians would go a long way to keep their credibility, especially in such a high position as a Supreme Justice. I would be surprised if any action is taken though. This'll probably stagnate into another &quot;Conservatives are liars, Liberals are liars&quot; fight on the media and we'll move on to some other scandal in a week.

 

[DBL]

AaronP,



<< C-Thom as I like to call him is one of the few justices who still use COMMON SENSE when making decisions.[/q}

These are Supreme Court Justices. They are supposed to make decisions by interpeting the Constitution and existing laws.



<< I can't wait till one of the libs steps down, hopefully Ginsburg, she is the worst.

Heck, I wouldn't mind if O'Conner stepped down, then Bush could put a good common sense conservative on the bench, and we can get this ridiculous Roe vs Wade overturned. >>



Democrats now control the senate 50 to 49, ensuring Bush must get approval from the Democrats in order to have his choice confrimed. Roe vs. Wade is safe. What do &quot;common sense&quot; and Roe vs. Wade have to do with each other?

 

[brennan]

Russ said:



<< &quot;It is far more likely that [who's lying] lies somewhere in between&quot; >>



one sentence later:



<< &quot;Clarence Thomas was a man of unquestioned reputation and achievement. Anita Hill was a flunky who followed him from job to job, and was recruited by the radical left to try and destroy his career.

To believe her ridiculous claims against a man of his caliber is patently stupid and the act of a blind person.&quot; >>



...and this interpretation is &quot;somewhere in between&quot; how...?

 

[Phokus]

<< Russ said:



<< &quot;It is far more likely that [who's lying] lies somewhere in between&quot; >>



one sentence later:



<< &quot;Clarence Thomas was a man of unquestioned reputation and achievement. Anita Hill was a flunky who followed him from job to job, and was recruited by the radical left to try and destroy his career.

To believe her ridiculous claims against a man of his caliber is patently stupid and the act of a blind person.&quot; >>



...and this interpretation is &quot;somewhere in between&quot; how...? >>



Typical of Russ to make baseless claims then making contradictions whenever he sees fit. Poor Russ can't seem to make up his mind. Whats the matter, the conservative group think confusing you Russ?

 

[Russ]

brennan,

Note the use of the word &quot;ridiculous&quot; as a qualifier. Do I need to explain what a &quot;qualifier&quot; is? Many of her claims were ridiculous. Those I did not believe. The fact that some of you just accept them without question is a sad, sad commentary on the liberal mindset.

A pubie crawling out of a Coke can? Come one, people, are you THAT desperate? That devoid of any semblance of balance that you'd swallow even the most ludicrous of accusations simply because they are leveled at a Conservative?

In the absence of any evidence other then the wild rantings of a left-wing recruit (and there is NONE), I will believe that Justice Thomas's version was closer to the truth.

Russ, NCNE

 

[montanafan]

Personally, I believed most of what Anita Hill said, but still did not think that the things Thomas did constituted serious sexual harassment in the workplace. He was a horney guy who liked porn and dirty jokes. Gross to work for, but nothing criminal there. I don't think she ever would have said anything about those things if she had not been persuaded to by the Thomas-haters.

I did take offense to one tactic that you used Russ that I really can't stand in these Thomas/Hill and Clinton/Lewinsky,et.al arguments and that is to completely dismiss the woman as someone of no substance and no consequence because she was the subordinate in the workplace.



<< &quot;Clarence Thomas was a man of unquestioned reputation and achievement. Anita Hill was a flunky who followed him from job to job, and was recruited by the radical left to try and destroy his career. >>



She earned her law degree at Yale University and was a law professor at the University of Oklahoma.

 

[Double Trouble]

jjm <<Should we start one on the hypocritical conservative agenda too?>>

Neither side has an exclusive license to hypocrisy. That's why I don't automatically align myself to either &quot;side&quot;, but rather evaluate each issue on it's own merits.

<<We don't know the real answer, and maybe we never will. But it's clear that the right wing was hell-bent on a smear campaign against Hill.>>

Actually, lets get the sequence of events right, shall we? Thomas was nominated. Since he was a conservative, the left wing was desperate to find a way to get rid of him. Hill was their tool. Nevermind that there was no evidence whatsoever other than the word of one woman. The people standing behind Thomas counter-attacked, and things descended into the usual mud-slinging fest. So who started the smear campaign? Was it the socialists behind Hill, or was it the conservatives behind Thomas?

 

[Ferocious]

I have NOT read his book yet (not sure if I will either) but just possibly he could be lying now and not back then....Maybe he's just writing this book to make some more money.

 

[NovaTerra]

<< Since he was a conservative, the left wing was desperate to find a way to get rid of him. Hill was their tool. Nevermind that there was no evidence whatsoever other than the word of one woman. The people standing behind Thomas counter-attacked, and things descended into the usual mud-slinging fest. So who started the smear campaign? Was it the socialists behind Hill, or was it the conservatives behind Thomas? >>



Another typical Republican/conservative tactic. Tell the same lie enough times and people might accept it as fact.

Reality check: There were 8 other women who had told similar stories against Justice Thomas. When it is one person's word against another, you have balance. When you have 8 person's word against one other, you either have a conspiracy, or a damn liar at the other end of the story. Since you people state time and time again that Democrats could fvck up a wet dream, you have to conclude that Thomas was lying during the senate hearings.

If I remember correctly, Anita Hill came forward with the allegations at the urging of NOBODY. She gained a lot of support from liberals after the fact. Liberals did not like him, including myself. I still think his about-face concerning affirmative action (he was against it after he benefitted from it) belies his true character; someone with such cameleon-like values has no business on the bench. So they naturally gravitated towards the most polarizing issue they could find.

Anita Hill was the one who faced the cameras in the full light of day. It was the conservatives that moved in the shadows and did the best to ruin her life. I think that is the answer you seek concerning &quot;smear campaigns.&quot;

 

[Phokus]

<< brennan,

Note the use of the word &quot;ridiculous&quot; as a qualifier. Do I need to explain what a &quot;qualifier&quot; is? Many of her claims were ridiculous. Those I did not believe. The fact that some of you just accept them without question is a sad, sad commentary on the liberal mindset.

A pubie crawling out of a Coke can? Come one, people, are you THAT desperate? That devoid of any semblance of balance that you'd swallow even the most ludicrous of accusations simply because they are leveled at a Conservative?

In the absence of any evidence other then the wild rantings of a left-wing recruit (and there is NONE), I will believe that Justice Thomas's version was closer to the truth.

Russ, NCNE >>



Again Russ, stop noodling around the issue. Your blatant attempt to sidetrack the fact that you got called on your contradictary arguments leads me to believe you really are as bad in debates as i thought you were. Stop dancing around the issue, and address them.

 

[Tripleshot]

NovaTerra,

Starts to lend some credence to Hillary Clintons allegation of a right wing conspiricy,doesn't it?

This happens, more than likely, on both sides,when you have extremists venting the issues, rather than clear thinking representitives who value truth over partisanship.

It does not excuse the person. It sheds light on a travisty in the system. If this means those who tried to testify that Thomas was a sex pervert and used his power in office to intice underlings into sexual behavior was true testimony,than those who covered up the truth and benifit from thelie should be punished. If what was alledged by these women is true, Thomas does NOT belong on the Supreme Court. Period.

IMHO

 

[Double Trouble]

<<There were 8 other women who had told similar stories against Justice Thomas.>>

There was no documented evidence, and nothing was ever confirmed or corraborated in any way shape or form. Hence, Thomas became a Supreme Court Justice. Had there been ANY real evidence against him, he would not have made it.

Either way, that's not the point of this thread, the point is that we will never know the real details, and I'm not exactly inclined to simply take an admitted liar at his word now.