I just read a comment there underneath, i had forgotten all about Ted Cruz’s roommate.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59b7cff4e4b031cc65cc995d/amp
ohh the level of seethe there bando. your deterioration continues apace.
Imagine how well this witness would hold up in court. “I didn’t witness the alleged incident but I’m convinced Kavanaugh could have done it”. Actually no prosecution would ever call him as s witness.
All we have so far are two women making allegations from 35 years ago, one a vague memory with most of the key details missing and the other based on a “recovered” memory after six days prompting by reporters and attorneys. Not one witness to collaborate the stories, all those named by the accusers have denied being there.
The evidence to back up the accusations is based on hearsay and speculation which wouldn’t be allowed in a court. Based on what we know so far, it’s going to come down to she said, he said, similar to Thomas/Hill.
It’s interesting to review the Anita Hill case now, after 27 years. After the hearing the majority of the American public believed Thomas, now sentiment has reversed and most believe Hill. What is this based on? Essentially a media campaign that ignores the facts of the case, invents new facts, and focuses solely on Anita Hill as a victim.
The two most significant sources of trying to rewrite history are a book by Jane Mayer called Stragnge Justice (coincidentally he same Jane Mayer who today helped to break the Ramirez story) and the HBO documentary Confirmed. Both are highly dishonest where key evidence is either left out entirely or distorted.
-
The narrative is that another witness Angela Wright who would have collaborated Hill’s story was not allowed to testify. This is simply a lie, Wright was asked to testify and declined. She had good reason to do so. Wright had already been fired for incompetence from several jobs before she went to work for Thomas. She accused a former boss of racial discrimination which was dismissed, and later unsuccessfully testified to the Senate to try and stop her former supervisor being promoted. Thomas fired her after she was heard calling a gay man a “faggot”, something that was witnessed by other employees. There were witnesses who were willing to testify she talked about getting back at Thomas. She would not have been a credible witness, the opposite in fact.
-
Hill had no collaborating witnesses who worked with or for Thomas, in fact all witnesses that testified were highly supportive of Thomas.
-
The FBI investigated Hill’s claims (it was a federal case) and found her claims totally unsubstantiated, something the book and movie ignored. It’s notable that Hill refused to testify to the FBI and only relented at the last minute. Hill gave the FBI two names who she said would back her story, both denied it and one testified on behalf of Thomas. Witnesses that she claimed she told of her allegations were very weak, especially the one who was told before she went to work for Thomas.
-
Democrats tried to portray Hill as a Republican, she is a lifelong Democrat.
-
Maybe most damning is the perjury regarding what she was led to believe would happen by Democratic operatives. This of course is left out of the book and TV show as well. Hill was questioned by Sen Specter regarding whether she was told Thomas would withdraw if she made an anonymous charge. She denied this repeatedly in a morning session. Obviously someone spoke to her during lunch as in the afternoon she confirmed it was true and gave the name of the Democrat who assured her she would never have to testify.
Anita Hill was a reluctant accuser who never wanted to testify but was thrust into the public spotlight by Democrats determined to stop the Thomas nomination. All of the facts support Thomas, including a dozen other women who worked for him, some of whom had been victims of harrassment, and all supported him.
But, @Sidney believes her, believes Thomas was guilty and should be impeached.
Are you giving us all the relevant facts here or are you withholding crucial details, in your usual fashion.
Fire up the facts I have missed.
He was definitely playing fast and loose with his first two words of the post.
I’ve just asked the question. Is this a candid account or is it your usual spin?
So you have nothing. Another bluffer.
I’m not providing an exhaustive commentary on the hearing, I’m demonstrating how dishonest and inaccurate liberal reporting since then has changed public opinion. Contradict anything I have posted or kindly fuck off.
I’m just wondering whether I should go to the trouble of reading what you posted. But seeing as you are not prepared to stand over it I won’t bother.
Yeah but you’re a raving looney who nobody with a remotely functioning brain takes seriously, mate.
It’s well researched and highly credible. I can understand why your attention span isn’t great, so just focus on the Angela Wright claim that she was denied the ability to testify. That’s the claim you hear most often from the modern “experts”.
Do you believe Angela Wright was refused the opportunity to testify at the Anita Hill hearing?
While you’re at it, outline the evidence you have to demonstrate Thomas’ guilt, which you are convinced of.
What were your research methods?
Read the Mayer book, watched the documentary, and read various contemporary and recent articles that contradict both.
I’ve fixed that for you, mate.
Who wrote the contradictory articles?
Please provide the evidence for your claim that Thomas is a sex harasser.
People interested in facts rather than spin. I’m at work I’ll get back to you later.