Thanks DeweyCA.
How to spot a liar | Pamela Meyer | TED Talk
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.
Actually, I think he has since disavowed it. Doesn’t make it any less true, though.
Even during the hearings decades ago, I alway felt she was lying. Just like the stupid MeToo movement - just a bunch of people lying for $ or personal publicity.
Look what they just did to Ben Carson.
Ironically the best defense of Thomas came from David Brock of Media Matters in his book the Real Anita Hill. The points you make are thoroughly documented in his book. Then David Brock converted to a radical leftist liar
You have done a great job of condensing the principle points
Joe Biden was the committee chairman and comes off very well, IMHO.
ML/NJ
My mom worked with one of her witnesses. My mom knew Ms. Hill wasn’t telling the truth.
Bump for later.
Anita Hill was the first real attempt by the democrats to smear a conservative appointee. She was such a miserable failure that everybody ignored her. She is now trying to climb out from under it by stating that Joe Biden’s apology is not enough. From most of the people who heard her back then, comes the feeling that she lied then and is disingenuous now.
The first of many many many liars that the Democrats and put forth to try to slander Republican nominees
The last one ball Z Ford really kind of blew up in their faces though
There was one @sshole who was a key player in BOTH episodes: Ricki Seidman. She was the leftist hack who led the opposition to both nominees, and who (in my opinion) was the source of the media leaks of confidential materials in both cases.
He did, however, give Biden credit for one thing. Anita Hill and her handlers wanted her allegation to be made anonymously, and Biden adamantly refused to let any allegations into the Senate confirmation process that did not have the name of the accuser included in the record.
The most obvious lie that Anita Hill told was following Clarence Thomas from job to job because was afraid she would lose her career. Anita Hill was an African-American female with a Yale law degree - her meal ticket had been punched. She could find a new job in a couple of hours.
It's been a long time since I read MGS and maybe my memory isn't as good as yours, so I don't remember what Thomas may have said there about Biden. My comment about Biden was based solely upon what I saw and heard in the video I linked to. But generally I think Biden is a schmuck.
ML/NJ
I watched some of that at the time. I always thought she had that “crazy look” about her.
p
If there was a pubic hair on a coke can or not is NOT the issue...
Anita Hill was NOT a powerless women, she was a powerful civil rights attorney... Compare that to Juanita Broaddrick - a powerless woman who was RAPED by Bill Clinton. I’m sure Juanita wished the worst of her nightmare was a hair on a coke can.
How did the vile press treat these two women? Anita Hill was one bookend of early contempt for the American Press... that Juanita completed...
We’re sick of the double standard - - how liberal women vs conservative women are treated. I don’t give a damn if there was a hair on the coke can or not.
7. Her testimony about Thomas making a comment to her about finding a stray a pubic hair in a drink of Coca Cola was taken almost verbatim from the 1976 movie “The Exorcist” and were spoken in the movie by the rude, drunken movie director, Burke Dennings, in the settee scene early in the movie when Burke drunkenly claims “There seems to be an alien pubic hair in my gin.” She may not have realized she was channeling the movie she saw, but it’s highly unlikely that Thomas would have spoken such a line to her and others in the office (none of whom corroborated her story) by saying, “Who put this pubic hair in my Coke?”
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.
