Must discount the students' version of events. Her own head hair may have been confused with pubic hairs, since both are curly - what was their proof? And they must have known about her previous allegations, so what was to stop them from making wild accusations with dramatic overtones?
Amd yes, black women as a group, particularly church ladies, are spiritually and socially powerful, and I count myself blessed to be in prayer group with only one white person, who is learning from the other prayer warriors. But the comparison between that kind of power and the inherently white Anglo Saxon male way things were done in Washington at that time, among lawyers and persons of international influence, cannot be underestimated. As you point out, once the ball got rolling, the system crushed any spine she might have had, and the Dem players were out for blood. We agree on that.
And now, good night! Hope to FReep with you again soon!
She may be "culturally frail," she may have felt oppressed by the culture in D.C. (no longer the "white Anglo Saxon male culture of work"?), she may be a weak person who got caught up in a snowballing lie, or she may be a jealous woman who set out to "get" Justice Thomas.
But her motivations, in the end, have no bearing on whether she told the truth. And the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that she lied.
I'm curious -- did you see that moment Lancey refers to, when Ms. Hill's corroborating witness was caught with the inconsistent date on the message slip, left the room, and changed her story? We're both referring to the same incident, and Lancey is right -- everybody in the room knew it was the "oh, $#!*" moment. The media papered over it as best they could, but that was it for most folks who have some courtroom experience. The two ladies had to choose between "the cause" and the truth . . . and they chose the cause. Typical Democrats.