Comments on: Anita Hill speaks out

By: mikeirwin

mikeirwin — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:31:31 +0000

Roach is doing the famous right-wing game of “forget about my guy, it’s Bill Clinton’s fault”. It’s the most transparent change of subject tactic, especially in light of post #28 reminding us of the others who were harrassed but couldn’t or wouldn’t testify. Nice try Roach.

By: Coldorderful

Coldorderful — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:56:22 +0000

According to the Amazon reviews of the book, “A number of named friends and colleagues of Thomas, both male and female, confirm for the record that he had a prior history of private and public behavior entirely consistent with Ms. Hill’s complaints” “Witnesses to Thomas’s office behavior whose testimony might have been exceedingly damaging were never allowed to speak publicly until interviewed for “Strange Justice.”"Thomas liked to taunt another member of the office, who was prim and painfully shy, by making outrageous, gross, and at times off-color remarks. ‘The target of Thomas’s taunting was John C. Ashcroft. Another co-worker interviewed by the authors who also remembered such episodes described Ashcroft as “easily flustered by Thomas.” Ashcroft’s discomfort “apparently encouraged Thomas to goad him further,” the co-worker noted.”

So it sounds like my recollections are correct, however you still have the “OMG David Brock interviewed some students who made racist jokes–maybe Hill really WAS as nutty as the racist jokes would indicate” plus “I knew a guy who knew Thomas and he thought he was perfectly normal” arguments.

By: Coldorderful

Coldorderful — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:12:42 +0000

Uh, didn’t other women who were harassed by Thomas come forward? It’s been a while since I read Abramson’s book, and I might be confusing all of the people Hill confided in at the time of the harassment that they detailed with other victims, but I think I remember other victims as well. Also, way to go Clarence, “mediocre” is real nice racial coding for the base.

By: zuzu

zuzu — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:43:49 +0000

Willey acknowledged she was lying, and the Independent Counsel decided not to prosecute her for providing false testimony (she gave two contradictory versions of her story under oath). Even Linda Tripp didn't believe that she was raped. Broaddrick's claim to Dateline that Clinton had raped her contradicted her sworn statement a year earlier, given to Jones's lawyers, that Clinton had never assaulted her. She recanted that affidavit, but it remains the only sworn testimony she's given on the matter. The FBI found her statements inconclusive.

Hill was subpoenad and had no contact with NOW and other groups before her testimony.

She was, in fact, under subpoena to the Judiciary Committee. Any involvement by anyone else prior to her testimony had more to do with information leaked to Nina Totenberg and Timothy Phelps than any sort of conspiracy.

By: Roach

Roach — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:09:07 +0000

Yeah, you’re right, Hill was subpoenad and had no contact with NOW and other groups before her testimony. Right. And Kathleen Willey was lying too.

By: The Clarence Thomas Roundup » The Moderate Voice

The Clarence Thomas Roundup » The Moderate Voice — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:36:28 +0000

[...] Feministe comments on Anita Hill’s defense of her character against Thomas’ renewed attack, contextualizing it within the broader procedures used to silence folks complaining about sexual harassment. [...]

By: zuzu

zuzu — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:35:26 +0000

Believe what you want. Anything’s possible. But if it’s “he said, she said” you have to look beyond the testimony which cancels itself out. I mean, it’s not like you all believed Paula Jones or Juanita Broderick who accused Bill Clinton of groping and raping respectively. And it’s not like there was not a heck of a lot more context and reinforcing parallel behavior in those cases.

Well, unlike Hill, Jones and Broaddrick were put forth and financed by people actively engaged in trying to bring Clinton down, which rather diminishes their credibility somewhat. Hill testified reluctantly after having been subpoenaed, IIRC.

And what buggle said: who the hell else *would* make a complaint against Thomas after what happened to Hill?

By: The Debate Link

The Debate Link — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:35:24 +0000

The Clarence Thomas Roundup…

The release of Clarence Thomas’ new book has led to a spurt of interesting blogging on the quietest and most conservative Supreme Court Justice. No comments from me, just a round-up of the variety of posts out there….

By: buggle

buggle — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:42:24 +0000

If any of his other victims watched Anita Hill, and what she went through-why the hell would they want to come forward? They would just be putting themselves out there to get insulted, attacked, harassed, etc. That doesn’t mean there weren’t/aren’t other victims.

Roach, what are you, Clarence’s best friend? You really think that you can speak to who he did or did not harass? Are you psychic? No? Then how would you know what he did or didn’t do? You don’t.

By: Roach

Roach — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:36:25 +0000

Where are the legions of harassment victims after Hill left? They did not exist. It’s not dispositive that she’s an outlier, but the evidence is contextual and circumstantial. Do you think the idea that he did this once and only once unlike every harasser I’ve known and seen in the workplace–that’s my source, btw, Bruce, real life experience?

Believe what you want. Anything’s possible. But if it’s “he said, she said” you have to look beyond the testimony which cancels itself out. I mean, it’s not like you all believed Paula Jones or Juanita Broderick who accused Bill Clinton of groping and raping respectively. And it’s not like there was not a heck of a lot more context and reinforcing parallel behavior in those cases.