Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Clarence Thomas sexually harass Anita Hill?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:50 PM
Original message
Did Clarence Thomas sexually harass Anita Hill?
Did Clarence Thomas describe porn videos and talk about pubic hairs on coke cans to his employee, Anita Hill? Were Clarence Thomas's denials at least as evasive as those of Representative Weiner's? Is it as obvious to most people that Clarence Thomas was as guilty of sexually harassing an employee as Weiner is guilty of sexting random citizens - several of whom responded with enthusiastic consent?

Clarence Thomas's wife Ginny sat behind him during the hearing and cried at her husband's "high tech lynching." Or was she crying because she knew that every word was true?

The Democrats on the Senate Committee - including Joe Biden - approved Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court. They threw Anita Hill out like trash and allowed her name to be dragged through the mud.

And Clarence Thomas's record on the Supreme Court speaks for itself, as does his wife's record. And Anthony Weiner, who was the very first Democrat to ever really take on the Thomases for their illegal behavior, well.....

It's all just a little ironic, ain't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. YES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks for responding. We need some perspective on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. In 1983 I was researching/writing a paper on the effectiveness of the EEOC.
Edited on Mon Jun-06-11 06:15 PM by DURHAM D
Over and over again I was told by various female professors (mostly law professors) that the head of the EEOC was the biggest, most active, serial, sexual harasser in the country. I was in the southwest - not exactly inside the beltway but yet every female attorney and educator knew about him. They were livid and adamant that he was the worst person in the world to fill that position.

The head of the EEOC was, of course, Clarence Thomas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
39. And yet he still sits on the bench, pathetic and telling all at the same time
As to where this country is headed if we do not stop them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. Not only is he still sitting on the bench, but this whole
effort to tank Weiner is because of him. Shows you just how important he is to them. He's intouchable. Also explains why he votes the way he does. He's completely owned and completely comfortable being owned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. You'd think that the world was NOT going to hell in a handbasket, helped along by Breitbart.
Edited on Mon Jun-06-11 05:55 PM by yardwork
One would think that politics was a football game and our side just got called for clipping.

edited for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. he chose public life. no one made him. he had a responsibility to not play to that juvenile ego...
he failed.

and it matters

it matters because his voice cannot be as loud. it cannot be on that high road. and we all lose. and it matters cause it gives that creep bart whatever validity.

so as much as you may hate the sanctimonious bullshit, i have the juvenile behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
34. Why is asking for some common sense from our "leaders"
sanctimonious bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrmpa Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. Yep, read the transcript of Anita Hill's testimony in front of the
Senate Judicial Committee. There is no question that he sexually harassed Anita Hill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue neen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. It is VERY ironic.
I've been thinking the same thing all day.

Ol' Clarence and Ginny's backers have an awful lot to lose if Thomas gets impeached during Obama's presidency, don't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yes. And what's that I hear about the Thomas' tax returns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue neen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. There's some very interesting information in this article:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 08:16 PM
Original message
Everybody should read that.
All the while, Thomas collected large, undisclosed contributions from secret donors, some of whom, conceivably, may have had business before the Supreme Court. (Clarence Thomas was required to report her income on his financial disclosure forms, but for several years, for reasons that remain unclear, he chose not to.)

....

Dave Weigel added, "So you can hire Ginni Thomas to help determine whether a bill will pass constitutional muster if it comes before, you know, her husband."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Everybody should read that.
All the while, Thomas collected large, undisclosed contributions from secret donors, some of whom, conceivably, may have had business before the Supreme Court. (Clarence Thomas was required to report her income on his financial disclosure forms, but for several years, for reasons that remain unclear, he chose not to.)

....

Dave Weigel added, "So you can hire Ginni Thomas to help determine whether a bill will pass constitutional muster if it comes before, you know, her husband."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Of course.
Thomas is the corporatists' choice. He gave them "personhood."

He's protected...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thomas and Hill are the only ones who know the answer to that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I beg to differ. Millions of us know the answer. It was obvious during the hearings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I agree. No one who heard those hearings with an open
mind would trust Clarence Thomas' word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_Adams Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Well, I know very little about this (I was 15), but google says that the Democrats
controlled the Senate at that time.

(I must be missing something)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Senator Biden controlled the Thomas hearings.
He acted like a idiot and I blame him 100% for the fact Thomas made it to the bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I will NEVER forgive Joe Biden for giving us C. Thomas on the SC.
What an asshole he was at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Some Democrats are sexist too--and many more were in 1991. Many didn't "get" harassment
Edited on Mon Jun-06-11 06:38 PM by spooky3
then, and some still don't "get it."

Considerably more evidence existed that was not allowed into the hearing. And, Doonesbury had a great cartoon at the time:

"Over a decade later, I still recall Gary Trudeau's Doonesbury strips on the confirmation of Thomas as having one of the most striking points about the entire debate over Hill's credibility. In the last strip in the series, a character makes this point:

'There are only two ways of looking at Thomas and Hill. Either Hill was telling the truth and Clarence Thomas is a garden-variety liar with a smokescreen of righteous indignation, or Thomas was telling the truth, and Anita Hill is a delusional sociopath of such stunning inventiveness that she should be studied and entered into the textbooks. A syndrome should be named in her honor- "Hill's Complex."'"

http://www.someguywithawebsite.com/blogarchive/week_200...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
35. Yes you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. you are 1000% wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOHICA12 Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
13. My apologies to Jesse Jackson .....
.... When you Digitize you Legitimize! At least leave yourself that ever evasive "Plausible Deni-ability" and keep the camera in your pocket!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
14. All I can say
Anita Hill appeared very credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Exactly - but Biden wouldn't allow any supporting witnesses at his circus. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. Yes... unfortunately, the Media doesn't feel it's sensationalistic enough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
19. I really like Weiner, but you gotta come to court with clean hands.
Dems know by now that the rules are different for pugs and dems. Yeah, they're exposing him, but he shouldn't have done something so stupid. He had everything going for him, including a gorgeous, popular wife and dems that loved him. I still like him, but I am very disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #19
42. Of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
21. Reminds me of Teddy sitting on the Senate panel at the time
Couldn't say a word because of the rape allegations in his compound surrounding his nephew.

I figure this will take a little wind out of Weiners sails too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #21
41. I remember that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
24. Not recently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Mrs. Clarence Thomas was harassing Anita Hill just a few months ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. Yes but it wasn't sexual. (At least not in the conventional meaning of 'sexual')
Though who knows.
Maybe Mrs. Thomas got off on it.

Who knows what secrets lurk in the dead, withered hearts of Republicans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #32
47. I'd forgotten about that drunk dialing shenanigan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. Of course he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
29. It will remain technically an unproven charge...no matter what any or all of us think.
Edited on Mon Jun-06-11 07:21 PM by ProgressiveProfessor
Ironic does not begin to cover it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrary1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
30. And he's still not man enough to admit it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
31. yes...and he`s still a supreme court judge and will be till he retires
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-06-11 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
36. Hey, it's not as though that woman was some lawyer or teacher or, ha, professor ....
Oh, ... crap. Never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
40. more than a little ironic.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
43. Sorry, but Weiner handed it to them
on a silver platter. Sent pictures to a social networking site? Really???? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
44. I've been stewing about this for two days!
Well said. Clarence Thomas got the old "well despite OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary, Hill's probably lying or embellishing her story," She wasn't. I watched the entire hearing and it was clear she told the truth, in detail. The hearing also had a "boys will be boys" feel to it as well. SOB.

So Weiner exposes him for what, tax fraud and conflict of interest, and the next thing we know they've been hacking his accounts for ages and use the illegally obtained info to try and destroy him. This is SOOOOOOOOOOO frustrating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
45. Clarence Thomas is the REAL winner in Weinergate
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Control-Z Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
46. Yes.
There is no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
48. yes Only the men in the room excuse inexcusable behavior
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-11 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Lots of women excuse inexcusable behavior. Lots of women blame victims of rape
and cover up for men and other women in all kinds of ways. Plenty of women are equally at fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
49. Yes!
Rec'd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
51. Of course he did.....
why even ask. And yes, da boyz stick together. It's a fucking patriarchy....what do you expect?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC