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

[Tripleshot]

tagej

Figures.

You would never entertain the thought that Thomas lied in denying the allegations leveled at him at the hearing,would you? Republicans don't lie,do they? Only liberal democrats lie. All Republicans are saints, huh?

If he didn't do what is alledged and now refuted by Brock,why hasn't he issued a statement? It's his ass on the line. If he is innocent,don't you think he would be piissed and issue a challenge to this? Even a little challenge?

Stay tuned, rube. You will see more of this. The Dems haven't forgot the arrogance of the republican parties bashing of the Clinton's at every juncture. You will see more of your ilk exposed for their true motives.

You seem like a nice person. Too bad you got sucked into this mindset.
The truth will prevail. Be on the side of truth and you can't go wrong.

 

[snakesnfrogs]

<< If he didn't do what is alledged and now refuted by Brock,why hasn't he issued a statement? It's his ass on the line. If he is innocent,don't you think he would be piissed and issue a challenge to this? Even a little challenge? >>




why would he bother? Brock obviously has no credibility.

 

[jjm]

Wow, this one really provoked a response. The strong protestations from conservatives sure look overdone for something that they say is so meaningless.

 

[etech]

Some points to remember,
There was never any evidence, only Hill's testimony on events that had happened ten years earlier.
The FBI investigated Hill's charges and cleared Thomas' nomination for Senate action.
Hill stayed in contact with Thomas long after the events she accused him of doing.
Hill went on a series of high-paid lectures before returning to her post as a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. She was the symbol of sexual harassment for some women's groups.

David Brock does not offer any new evidence to prove Hill's allegations.

 

[Pennstate]

Hmm... It seems like Russ is suffering from a serious case of cerebral atrophy. I used to think he was a smart guy and a critical thinker. After the election, he seemed to have become a pompous donkey-hole. And after seeing his recent writings, he's now just a dumb piece of...........macaroni.

Eight years of Clinton Whitehouse must really have taken toll on his frontal lobe. Of course, denouncing Clinton didn't take much thought; especially when frontal-lobe-substitutes like Newmax, foxnews, and Rush were available for FREE!

I think it's time for Russ to give himself some badly-needed Hardware upgrades? How about dual Palominos???.............what??? your head doesn't support it??

 

[Pennstate]

Some points to remember,
There was never any evidence, only Hill's testimony on events that had happened ten years earlier.

Awwww....Why should the burden of proof be on the accuser? I mean we knew Clinton sold Nukes to China and had Ron Brown &amp; Vincent Foster assasinated.

 

[67gt500]

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;



Well this is a spectacle, Nova. Conservatives lean on liberals and you call them trolls, you lean on conservatives and call it substance...enlightening.


While we are standing on party lines lets talk about broderick. Remember her? She offered a sworn statement in front of a federal investigator (who found her statement to be entirely credible in later reports) that president clinton raped her.

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.

At least a dozen women made claims against president clinton ranging from brief sexual harassment to rape.



you have to conclude that Thomas was lying during the senate hearings.

Thomas has more integrity and dignity in his little pinky than you or any other sweaty perpetrator of emotional storytelling could ever dream of having.

 

[supadupapunky]

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisies of the Republican party. American politics has a way of bringing out the worst in both parties, Republican and Democrat. At the worst the whole Thomas-Hill fiasco shows one would be ridiculous to assume that the republicans are morally superior, at best incredibly naive to assume such things.

 

[Kindjal]

Clarence Thomas = The Weakest Link

 

[Double Trouble]

Tripleshot, <<You would never entertain the thought that Thomas lied in denying the allegations leveled at him at the hearing,would you? Republicans don't lie,do they? Only liberal democrats lie. All Republicans are saints, huh?>>

First, I've said this many times before, I am neither a democrat or a republican. I don't blindly follow any party. Certainly neither group is above lying and cheating to get what they want. On some issues I agree with the dems, on some I agree with the repubs.

I certainly can, and did entertain the thought that Clarence Thomas might have lied. But in listening to Hill and seeing the details emerge, it became clear to me that her story simply didn't wash, and that while we'll never know what did or did not happen, there is no evidence (zero, zilch) that Thomas was guilty of any wrongdoing.

As to why Thomas is not issuing some sort of challenge or statement, you might have noted over the past oh.... 50 or so years that supremes rarely make any kind of public statement with regard to current news events. Since they are appointed for life, they basically stay out of day to day squabbles. Why would you think Thomas would come forth to make a statement based on the words of an admitted liar?

 

[67gt500]

tagej,

the same reason that he won't come out and make a statement about those ahole aclu members in hawaii..

his integrity and respect for this country is far above name calling and slander.

sad ifyou think about it... the same people that call him a liar, a hitler, satan, whatever.. he has sworn to protect as a US supreme court justice.

just appalling. so sick and tired of the garbage being thrown. Disagree with his ideologies.. leave the hatred and bigotry somewhere else.

 

[WordSmith2000]

<< While we are standing on party lines lets talk about broderick. Remember her? She offered a sworn statement in front of a federal investigator (who found her statement to be entirely credible in later reports) that president clinton raped her.

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.

At least a dozen women made claims against president clinton ranging from brief sexual harassment to rape.



you have to conclude that Thomas was lying during the senate hearings.

Thomas has more integrity and dignity in his little pinky than you or any other sweaty perpetrator of emotional storytelling could ever dream of having.
>>



Well jesus, let's throw Clinton out of office, since he did all of those things!

Psst: wanna know a secret? Washington owned slaves!!! maybe we should talk about him instead of Thomas!

gTROLL, the subject is not Clinton here. The subject is Clarence Thomas. Can you keep that straight in your tiny little right-wing mind? No?

Then please go start another thread, and you can bash Clinton all you want. Just don't expect anyone else with a brain to participate. Clinton is old news. Clarence Thomas is a LIFETIME member of the Supreme Court. Even someone as stupid as yourself should be able to tell the difference.

 

[Double Trouble]

<<Even someone as stupid as yourself should be able to tell the difference. >>

Yes, the difference is that unlike Clinton, who was proven to be a liar, adulterer and a lot of other things, Thomas was not proven to have done ANYTHING either illegal or unethical. He was accused of such by someone who's credibility is highly suspect, and now by someone who's an admitted liar. This is just another sad attempt to change the balance of the court.

 

[Pennstate]

I think the conservatives want their OWN horny companion in Washington. I mean Bob Dole is just not selling enough viagra prescriptions.

 

[Double Trouble]

hehehehe ... I heard Viagra sales are up 20% since Thomas moved to town

Besides, even if they guy watched pron and wacked off all day long, so what? That would make him a hypocrit (at worst), but so long as he hasn't comitted any illegal acts, it still doesn't mean anything.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Besides, even if they guy watched pron and wacked off all day long, so what? >>

Really? Most Ultra Conservatives are Wankers anyway.

 

[WordSmith2000]

Quite frankly, I could not care less if CT did those things either. What I do care about is the lying, character assasination and coverups that followed. The illegal acts he may have committed are lying to Congress about them.

If Clinton lies to Congress, he should be thrown out of office, right?

I would think that you would hold the same standards for Clarence Thomas.

(BTW, I think that Clinton should have been removed for lying about Monica. I do NOT think he should have been removed for having sex with her. If you think Clinton is the first and only president to consumate an affair in the oval office, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. But that, as I have said before, has no bearing on Clarence Thomas.)

 

[Pennstate]

<<Besides, even if they guy watched pron and wacked off all day long, so what? >>


Maybe this is why he rarely utter a word during a hearing. He's too busy

 

[snakesnfrogs]

<< Quite frankly, I could not care less if CT did those things either. What I do care about is the lying, character assasination and coverups that followed. The illegal acts he may have committed are lying to Congress about them.


If Clinton lies to Congress, he should be thrown out of office, right?

I would think that you would hold the same standards for Clarence Thomas.

(BTW, I think that Clinton should have been removed for lying about Monica. I do NOT think he should have been removed for having sex with her. If you think Clinton is the first and only president to consumate an affair in the oval office, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. But that, as I have said before, has no bearing on Clarence Thomas.) >>





there is no PROOF that CT lied about anything or committed any illegal acts(unlike Clinton). As for Clinton not being removed for having sex w/ Monica---in the military, adultery can get you court martialed---he was the Commander in Chief, wasn't he?

 

[Tripleshot]

>>>Why would you think Thomas would come forth to make a statement based on the words of an admitted liar?<<<

To clear his name? Dosn't this revelation by Brock suggest thatthere could be truth in what Anita Hill accused Thomas of? And if it is true what Anita Hill said, do you really want someone like that,who lied to congress, representing the moral integrety of the US judicial system?

I think not.

 

[jjm]

Snake, you are showing complete ignorance of the military and its control in the US. The commander-in-chief is specifically a civilian. He is not in the military, nor is he permitted to be. The intent is to avoid having the US run by military leaders. Posting stuff that shows a complete lack of understanding will not win you any points.

Separately, I am still amazed how many on the right feel the need to argue this thing out. I thought it was meaningless! Just the level of attention it's getting implies strongly that there is probably some truth to it.

 

[Double Trouble]

<<If Clinton lies to Congress, he should be thrown out of office, right?

I would think that you would hold the same standards for Clarence Thomas. >>

Yep, if there is any PROOF (not just accusations) that he lied under oath or lied in an official congressional hearing, he should indeed be booted off the supreme court. I'm not blinded by ideology in thinking that everything someone does or says is ok as long as he's on the 'right team'.

<<To clear his name? Dosn't this revelation by Brock suggest thatthere could be truth in what Anita Hill accused Thomas of?>>

See my earlier post -- Supremes do NOT make public statements with regard to things of this nature or political squabbles. When was the last time you heard one of the Supremes make a statement about a story? In other words, if he's done something illegal and there's proof of it, appropriate action will be taken. Neither Thomas nor any other Supreme has to defend their decisions or 'name'.