Always Believe Them?

6 Responses to Always Believe Them?

1. Libby says:

   Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 5:04 pm

   Photos lie? Franken thought it was funny. Lots of folk thought it was funny. But the woman accosted, she did not. And I’m with her.

   You, plainly, are not.

   Some total sleaze of a Chief Justice of the United States Court of Appeals behaves like a total prick, with total impunity, for thirty years … Tina … take your misogyny and shove it.

   Franken may well rate as collateral damage, but this war will rage for some little while yet,

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 11:36 pm

     Libby take your assumptions about what I believe and don’t believe and shove that.

     Chief Justice of the Supreme Court if you please.

     Anita Hill and her little band accusers, egged on by Janet Napolitano and Joe Biden, were lying through their teeth which was demonstrated handily with inconvenient facts during and after their carnival sideshow performance was over. The Pravda style media coverage was a disgraceful display of partisan political showbiz and the entire thing a racist lynching as Thomas himself averred.

     Daily Wire, “6 Pieces Of Evidence Anita 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.

     Hill was interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press in 1998 and she admitted there was a double standard when it came to Bill Clinton and that “bigger issues,” a political agenda, was behind it. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline recalls and comments:

     Hill responded that women should focus on the “bigger issues” before casting judgment on Clinton for sexual harassment allegations:

     I think what Ms. Steinem also says that we have to look at the totality of the presidency and how has he been on women’s issues generally? Is he our best bet, not withstanding some behavior that we might dislike, and I don’t think that most women have come to the point where we have said, ‘Well, this is so bad that even if he is better on the bigger issues, we can’t have him as President. (see video) …

     … Russert then asked Hill whether there is a “double standard for a liberal as opposed to a conservative” who are accused of sexual misconduct. Hill admitted there is. She said:

     Well, I think it is a reality that we have to live with. We live in a political world and the reality is that we want—there are larger issues, larger issues other than just individual behavior [note: i.e., larger than sexual harassment].

     Sexual harassment allegations, then, are a means to an ends — the end being political power. Did considerations of political power motivate Hill’s accusations against Clarence Thomas when he was about to be confirmed for a place on the U.S. Supreme Court?

     Later, in the show, Hill defended Clinton against Paula Jones’ allegations this way:

     Paula Jones’ case is peculiar in a number of ways. . . . one of the things that seems to be missing from what I’ve read about the case is the discrimination element. . . . . I have a hard time finding any adverse ramifications for her, in terms of her employment based on the alleged incident in the hotel room.

     Here, Hill displays not just her willingness to sell-out feminism, but also her staggering ignorance of sexual harassment law (this from a law professor and former EEOC lawyer). Hill seems to have no problem with a governor propositioning a female state employee, and whipping out his penis, as long as the female doesn’t suffer adverse employment consequences.

     As everyone dimly conversant with sexual harassment law (not to mention basic decency) knows, there is a “discrimination element” when an employee is subjected to a sexually hostile work environment, regardless of whether the employee experiences adverse employment consequences. To say that Slick Willie Clinton made Paula Jones’ work environment hostile is an understatement.

     Clinton and his lawyers knew this. That’s why the president paid Paula Jones nearly one million dollars to settle her sex discrimination claim.

     Hill’s statement is all the more staggering because she never experienced adverse employment consequences due to Clarence Thomas’ alleged sex-related comments to her. This didn’t stop her accusing him, many years after the fact, of sexually harassing her.

     Hill’s willingness to apologize for gross sexual misconduct didn’t end with the Paula Jones case. When it came to Monica Lewinsky, Hill tried to play down the scandal as “an office affair.” In a New York Times op-ed, Hill claimed that even comparing the allegations against Clinton to those against Clarence Thomas (or former Senator Bob Packwood) was “at best misguided, and at worst dangerous.”

     The substance of sex-related accusations against President Clinton differs dramatically from those raised against Justice Thomas or Mr. Packwood. . .In the case of Mr. Packwood and Mr. Thomas, the accusations involved sexual harassment. To equate those allegations with an office affair is to trivialize issues of sexual predation that women face in the workplace and on the street. Nor are the situations morally equivalent.

     Readers can decide which is more “predatory” — talking about pornography with a subordinate (Hill’s core allegation, never corroborated, against Thomas) or receiving oral sex from a 22 year-old intern.

     Hill seems to have rethought her pitiful defense of Clinton’s behavior towards Lewinsky. Last year, she told Time Magazine:

     Even if [the oral sex Clinton received from Lewinsky] was consensual, that power imbalance was damaging. . .And that to me was one of the issues we miss when we say it’s two people with a power imbalance, but it was consensual. I’m not willing to let it go at that.

     (Emphasis added)

     But she was when it counted — back when Clinton was in the dock.

     Years later the entertainment industry climbed aboard the slander train to demonize the man again with an HBO hit piece. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist, “3 Major Problems With ‘Confirmation,’ HBO’s Anita Hill History Rewrite – Maliciously negligent storytelling, woefully undeserved praise of Anita Hill, and the unrelenting push to rewrite history”:

     The movie ignored how dramatically Hill’s testimony changed over the course of Thomas’ confirmation hearings, as well as her claim that FBI agents had told her that was okay. The FBI agents said they never told her that.
     It ignored the five times Hill denied being told something by a Democratic staffer that she later admitted, under oath, she’d been told.
     It didn’t mention that Hill claimed she followed Thomas from one job to another because she feared losing her job. In fact, she was a career employee in the federal government, known to her to be an incredibly secure job.
     The movie presents her claim — that she followed him from one job to the next because he briefly stopped harassing her — as plausible.
     The movie suggests that the many phone calls she made to Thomas over the years after they ceased being colleagues were just professional, despite evidence, such as a note from a secretary recounting Hill’s purpose in calling as, “Just called to say hello. Sorry she didn’t get to see you last week.”
     The movie presents an employee he’d fired for using a homophobic slur as being a credible witness. That witness is portrayed in the movie as being pressured against testifying by then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden. What the movie leaves out is that he didn’t want her to testify because multiple, former colleagues were prepared to testify that she’d specifically vowed revenge on Thomas for the firing, which would make her a laughably bad witness.
     The other “corroborating witness” claimed that Hill had told her all about the harassment she suffered in a phone call which, it turned out, took place before Hill even worked for Thomas.
     And rather than show the dozen female colleagues effusively praising Thomas with still-memorable testimony in favor of Thomas, it shows one, along with two male witnesses. (continues)

     And here’s part of what Hemingway wrote about one partisan journalist and media coverage:

     Totenberg, a Supreme Court reporter, is known for her friendships with liberal activists and judges. Her activism on the Anita Hill story won her all the awards that journalists love to bestow on one another, as well as the disrespect from those who wish the media weren’t so in the tank on abortion and other progressive causes.

     Even though the public overwhelmingly believed Thomas and his bevy of supporting witnesses over Hill, the media never got over his confirmation. The media and progressives never hid their belief that Thomas, a black man with views they don’t think black men should be allowed to have, is dangerous. Whether they even believed Hill’s claims is uncertain. What is certain is that they have used those discredited claims in their campaign to defame the man. It would simply be sad if it weren’t so damaging.

     Read the Thomas Sowell article referenced above at National Review.

     Reply
     • Libby says:

       Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 4:45 pm

       Tina, the bubble hinders you. Biden apologized to Anita, for very good reasons.

       But even Biden would acknowledge that his presidential aspirations are not on that list.

       Clarence Thomas was, and is, a porn dog. Don’t you suppose there are reasons why he has comported himself so very, very, very quietly?

       Reply
       • Tina says:

         Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:30 pm

         I haven’t commented on Franken’s groper photo. It was typical Franken.

         Like most of the other accusations and complaints this would not have come out had Hillary won. It’s a total feminist blitz game.

         Biden apologized because he’s a nice idiot who blows with the liberal winds.

         It used to be tradition that the SC justices avoided social events. Clarence Thomas leads a quiet life in keeping with the constraints of his high office and out of respect for his position. An article in The Week describes the justices in terms of their social lives and has this to say about Thomas:

         You may spot Thomas at the occasional conservative dinner, but he’s seldom seen at other local events. What he really likes is hitting the road: Every summer, he and his wife climb into their RV and motor cross-country to sporting events and NASCAR races, where he frequently gets into long, chatty conversations with other fans who have no idea whom they’re talking to.

         “He’s very comfortable outside the box that is Washington,” explains SCOTUSblog’s Goldstein.

         Truth is, it’s not easy navigating the line between the justices’ professional and social lives.

         So much for your theory.

         Reply
2. Pie Guevara says:

   Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 7:35 pm

   I, for one, hope that Al Frankin does not step down. He has never accomplished anything in his political career except to make enemies as a vile, slur mongering jackass. If he steps down he will be replaced by a Democrat. Perhaps an effective Democrat who knows how to manipulate power.

   So, yes, I do not want Al Franken to step down. I want him to continue making a complete ass of himself and put forth more idiotic legislation that gets ignored. Besides, I doubt he can stop being a creepy, bizarre, sexism obsessed grab-ass. There are more scandals he could hatch. Lastly, I seriously doubt that any Democrat in the Senate respects this weird, narcissistic goofball. He is perfect. The perfect Democrat.

   Should all women be believed? Of course not, some are bald faced liars as has been demonstrated more than a few times. Tawanna Braley and Crystal Mangum immediately come to mind. think of the lives those two evil women put on hold if not destroyed.

   Supposedly only 2 to 10 percent of rape allegations are false. I suspect this statistic may be probable, but how the heck such a statistic could be reliably and reasonably complied I do not know, which makes me think it may be pure speculation bull**** like so many other statistics tossed about as “fact.”

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:41 pm

     The number of women who are suddenly upset and coming forward to accuse Weinstein (and others) is quite high. I’ve read a few are sorry they didn’t come forward sooner because of the others who followed them but apparently it wouldn’t have done any good. It was standard practice to accept the behavior and it was standard practice to pay them off…and they took the money/work and stood by the guy for promotional and social photos. Not to mention the fact that for at least twenty some years liberals said sex was private and men like BC were okay with them…as long as they voted for abortion/women’s issues.

     (Earth to feminists…you don’t speak for all women..and why are you the ones getting abused?)

     Reply