Posted on 04/28/2019 7:47:03 AM PDT by DeweyCA
Anita Hill made her claim to fame by accusing Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearing back in 1991. The Left painted Thomas as a misogynistic monster despite the glaring contradictions, lies and lack of evidence to support such a narrative. The U.S. House and Senate dismissed the baseless accusations presented by Hill, confirmed Thomas to the court, and the public largely viewed Hill as discredited.
Despite all this, the Left, through HBO, continues to smear Thomas for the irredeemable sin of being conservative while being black. On April 16 a slanderous film called Confirmation, a “fictionalized look” at the drama of the Thomas confirmation hearing, was released. The star of the film was none other than Hillary Clinton surrogate actress Kerry Washington.
Here are 6 pieces of evidence that Hill was lying:
1. A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.
The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?
2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.
Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.
3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.
Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.
Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.
4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?
Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.
“Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”
5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.
The Federalist highlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.
6. A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.
As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behavior, lending contradiction to Hills’ accusations.
And Gropin’ Joe is now rewriting history, claiming the lying b*tch was somehow mistreated
Her career in victimhood has been very good to Anita Hill.
Why are we still talking about Anita Hill?
Does anybody ever talk about Mary Jo Kopechne or Juanita Broaderick?
David Brock detailed a lot of this nicely in “The Real Anita Hill” before his unnatural inclinations drove him to the dark side.
The rats can get away with crucifying a black man if he is a conservative.
The question I’ve always wondered is who paid her and how much was she paid.
“And Gropin’ Joe is now rewriting history, claiming the lying b*tch was somehow mistreated”
That must be some kind of olive branch to the feminazi’s to either get them on board with the campaign, or to get them to leave him alone.
Creepy Joe is trying to “get behind” her now. Yuk let me rephrase. Joe is trying to make her out the poor victim of the bad conservative. Joe is just another fraud like the rest of the Rats.
I will never forget what Biden said during the time of the Thomas confirmation hearings. He said something like, “I don’t care if a woman is walking down the street naked! She should be free from harassing comments, or looks, or catcalls.”
I don’t think that passes a reasonable person standard, nor even the “reasonable woman” standard that Joe the panderer proposed. He has been a creeper about women’s bodies for a very long time. He is a pervert, plain and simple.
It was Hill’s friends who brought the “harassment” to the attention of the committee.
IMO, Hill had been BSing her friends about her close, working relationship with Thomas. Sort of “hometown girl makes good” story. Following Thomas to new job bolsters this BS. Then when Thomas moved on without her, the friends asked, “’Sup wid dat?” To end all the BSing, Hill says “He harassed me” thinking that would end it all.
But then, Thomas gets nominated to SCOTUS, friends ask Hill to say something, she refuses and now the friends go to the committee with the lie she told to cover her “little white lie.”
All the rest is history.
She was rewarded with a university professorship of social policy, law, and women’s studies at Brandeis University and a faculty membership of the university’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management.On December 16, 2017, the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace was formed, selecting Hill to lead its charge against sexual harassment in the entertainment industry. All easy no show or accountability type jobs. That was her reward.
‘Her career in victimhood has been very good to Anita Hill.’
the most favored group of people in the history of the Western world will be, if not already, black females...life is good indeed for the favored...
IMHO if it happened today with the same Senate numbers there is 0 chance Thomas would be confirmed. Conservative cancels Black now.
“Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?”
This was Teddy Kennedy’s doing if I recall correctly. He promised anonymity to Hill in exchange for her testimony. But when that turned out to be insufficient to stop Clarence Thomas, they threw her out into the limelight. They’ve taken care of her career ever since by maintaining her story through Media allies.
This entire tactical situation was repeated during the Kavanaugh hearings. The only difference were the players. DiFi was pushing the pieces around the chessboard this time.
Sooner or later the Senate has to kick somebody out for pulling crap like this. They didn’t punish Kennedy, so sooner or later the tactic gets repeated when the stakes are sufficiently high.
Bkmk
I read and I still own that book. David Brock (even after going to the dark side) said he stood behind every word of that book.
Or Kathleen Willey?
The Committee -- and Biden in particular -- was very surprised by this. Obviously, if a guy is going to pressure a woman for sex, that's when he'd do it. But she had never even told the Committee she'd invited him to her home, much less that he'd acted improperly. Biden openly mused "I wonder why she never mentioned that", and Thomas said "You'd have to ask her."
So, the Committee asked her to come back the next day so she'd get a chance to rebut his testimony, and she refused.
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.