• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Hey Girlfriend, It's Ginny From the Block!

Clarence Thomas' wife asks Anita Hill for an apology

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20thomas.html

"In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.

Ms. Hill, in an interview, said she had kept the message for nearly a week trying to decide whether the caller really was Ms. Thomas or a prankster. Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "


Convey it to the FBI for what? :confused:
 
No, all you have to think is that people were willing to lie about her telling them years earlier, in order to prevent a conservative from being placed on the court.

So it's a conspiracy! A team of people all lied under oath as part of a broader conspiracy, instead of the simpler explanation that a man got sexual with a woman.
 
She thought it sounded so crazy she assumed she was being stalked by a hoaxer. I'm sure she's gotten her share of death threats, don't you?
Whether a hoaxter or the real Ginny Thomas, I would say that she is being stalked and/or harrassed by a certifiable nutbar. She has reason to be concerned for her own safety. Ginny Thomas needs to be under surveilance as a possible terrorist.
 
It's really uncharacteristically embarrassing for a Supreme Court Justice. Thomas is appointed for life. He should stay as far away from the news and politics as possible (which he usually does by being the least engaged of all the justices). I would hope he has the good sense to be ashamed of this news cycle.
 
No, all you have to think is that people were willing to lie about her telling them years earlier, in order to prevent a conservative from being placed on the court.
This may be too OT but what the hell ... I find it interesting that conservatives acknowledge - nay, endorse - having conservatives on the Supreme Court. But can you imagine if Obama nominated a real liberal and even touted his/her liberalism as an asset? The right would go gonzo.

Where does this double standard come from? How does it survive?
 
This may be too OT but what the hell ... I find it interesting that conservatives acknowledge - nay, endorse - having conservatives on the Supreme Court. But can you imagine if Obama nominated a real liberal and even touted his/her liberalism as an asset? The right would go gonzo.

Where does this double standard come from? How does it survive?

Yeah, the dean of the Yale Law School is clearly not a liberal.
:rolleyes:
 
Why would I? Why would you? Do you know of any death threats she has received (and reported them to the FBI previously)?

I read that somewhere...Google...activate!

Nope, nothing comes up. I do assume all controversial figures receive them, but I'll retract that claim for now. Either way, it's still understandable why she'd freak out if she got a bizarre call like this.

I would.
 
A normal person would have accepted that Anita Hill was a pathological liar and realized that most people have discounted her absurd claims.

Ruth Marcus, who covered the hearings as a reporter, thinks otherwise:

Does anyone besides the two of them know the full truth about what happened between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill when he was a Reagan administration official and she was a young lawyer on his staff? Perhaps not. But as I wrote when Clarence Thomas released his angry autobiography, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is on Hill's side.
 
Can you prove that her claims weren't true?


I remember one pundit said that maybe Hill was lying. Maybe Thomas didn't do anything. But we didn't have to put him on the Supreme Court. Nobody was charging him with a crime, or suggesting that he be in any way punished. The real question was whether we had to go with a nominee about whom people had any doubt. There were plenty of fine jurists who didn't have a sexual harassment complaint against them.
 
Ginny Thomas kind of reminds me of Mary Jo Buttafuoco -- denying the obvious to all the world. Stockholm Syndrome?

Naaah, she just wishes Clarence more resembled the guys he described to A. H.
 
Yes, the idea that Hill would give up her status as a liberal icon for nothing more than the opportunity to atone for a wrong she committed all those years ago is deranged. A liar like Hill would be very unlikely to recant false testimony she gave to congress.

If you actually think she was the one lying I have even less respect for you than I did previously. Damned little in the first place, but......:jaw-dropp
 
No, all you have to think is that people were willing to lie about her telling them years earlier, in order to prevent a conservative from being placed on the court.
OK, so your theory is that it was a conspiracy, that everyone is out to get you conservatives. This quality analysis and overwhelming weight of evidence (of which you have presented none) leads you to discount the multiple witness who corroborate Anita Hill's testimony, and conclude that.
A normal person would have accepted that Anita Hill was a pathological liar and realized that most people have discounted her absurd claims.
Oh, that AND an opinion poll.

Got it.

Daredelvis
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom