Posted on 04/13/2016 10:25:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
On Saturday, HBO will air it's much promoted new film Confirmation, a dramatic and biased account of Justice Clarence Thomas' 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings. As many recall, law professor Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment in an effort to derail the hearings and made a career out of making a number of dubious claims. HBO of course, is happy to promote them. HBO and the producers claim the film is an accurate and well researched portrayal of history. Many who were there strongly disagree:
A group of former politicians and their aides are bracing themselves for a new HBO movie that dramatizes the 1991 confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and claims of sexual harassment made by Anita Hill, with some suggesting the possibility of legal action.
The film, titled “Confirmation”, is set to debut in April, but former Sens. Al Simpson and Jack Danforth, as well as at least one former lawyer on Thomas' team, now are going public with their dismay at early versions of the film script they were given for their input, saying it is a biased portrayal.
"Obviously, they were going to go forward with [the film], and obviously there are going to be some repercussions because they’ve opened a hornet's nest,” said Simpson, who called the script he saw a "seriously distorted" version of the actual confirmation hearings.
Simpson and Danforth both brought up the possibility of legal action if the script they saw is the same one used in the movie when it airs in April, though Simpson acknowledged that as a public figure, it would be a hard case to win. And Mark Paoletta, the former White House lawyer who worked on Thomas’ confirmation, wrote a letter to HBO threatening legal action if certain parts of the script he had seen remained in the film.
HBO is often no friend to conservatives or the truth, and this time is no different. Confirmation's leading actress and executive producer, liberal Hollywood It Girl Kerry Washington, is a long-time Democrat activist who spoke at the 2012 DNC convention. She of course plays Hill and is portrayed in the film as a victim and lionized for her bravery.
When you make your way further down the Confirmation production list you'll find writer and producer Susannah Grant, producer Michael London and actor Wendall Pierce, who plays Justice Thomas. Grant, London and Pierce are all big time donors to the Democrat Party and Wendell Pierce, like Washington, was an active participant and community organizer for the 2012 DNC convention. Pierce was also a bundler for President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.
But it wouldn't be a liberal Hollywood hit job without hypocrisy and double standards. While Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment, she later excused behavior of President Bill Clinton, which of course was also excused by current Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Confirmation is a liberal hit job produced by DNC operatives, not an accurate portrayal of history. The film will smear Justice Clarence Thomas all over again and as he said himself more than two decades ago, will be a rehashing of a "high tech lynching."
Two words: Bill Clinton.
I have cancelled HBO. Its all crap on there anyway.
HBO has been a leftist $hithole since it’s inception.
I'm curious what he would call the treatment they gave Robert Bork.
When his character witnesses spoke there was one woman, a black woman, told what she observed when he would be standing with other men in a hall and a buxomy woman walked by. Clarence Thomas would look down at his shoes until he knew the woman had passed.
That is the mark of a man who had made a habit of protecting his modesty.
A man with habits like that do not make off-handed sex jokes.
You won't find that very important detail in this HBO lie-fest.
Step 2 in the communist left’s objective to totally liberalize SCOTUS. Kill the leader and trivialize the rest.
Just in time for the “Women’s Vote”
How convenient
As I remember it, it was friends of Hill from Texas that brought the “harassment” charges to the attention of the judiciary committee, not Hill herself.
I’ve always felt that this started as a self aggrandizing fabrication by Hill to her friends back home that snowballed out of control.
Interest in movies starring Long Dong Silver is sure to increase.
Wasn’t it proven that Anita Hill made this stuff up a the bequest of others to further her career? Which it did. False but true narrative of the left as always.
I saw that woman interviewed on PBS the other night. (Yeah I know...)
She is still playing the perfect victim.
I think you might be right. I have noticed that a lot of people will make claims they think will never be checked to be important at the moment. the claims are the type that usually make interesting conversation at the moment and make the person feel special berceuse they claim to have a piece of info that no one has on something that is socially current. unfortunately she said it to a political operative in front of people that would ruin her career if he she backed down on the claim.
the things that make me think you are right is that no one else came forward to back her claim saying he had made the same sort of sleazy remarks. if you look at assholes that behave the way that Anita hill claims that Justice Thomas behaved there is always more then one person they harass.
That had already entered the lexicon as a “Borking” or “being Borked”; a word play on the term “porking” or “getting porked”, which is (of course) a slang term for coitus.
Just as the president who will appoint the next few Supreme Court justices is being selected. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
The purpose of this HBO show and others like it, is to indoctrinate future viewers.
The purpose is not to tell the truth about such a subject, but to make sure the Left’s version becomes documented in film.
I know. My point was Thomas played the race card when in fact white Bork got worse treatment.
I do not think this was any grand conspiracy.
My .02
Hill had been telling friends back home that she was Thomas’ gal Friday. Thomas changed positions and brought her along along with him, “proving” they were a “team” at work. Later, Thomas changed positions again, but left her behind. How better to explain this break-up than to tell her friends, “He harassed me, I didn’t want to follow him.” Later still, Thomas gets nominated to SCOTUS and her friends wrote to the committee (Kennedy?) complaining about the “harassment.”
IIRC, Hill was initially reported to be an unwilling witness before the closed door committee. Things then just mushroomed out to what we saw during the TV part of the hearings.
IMO, a simple “I’m doing GREAT” fabrication in a letter to those back home is what started the whole mess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.