Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    A speech from the past: Clarence Thomas responds to Anita Hill

    A speech from the past: Clarence Thomas responds to Anita Hill

    An eloquent defense at another hearing

    I”m going to let this video clip stand on its own without much further commentary from me. But I think it’s very important to look back at this piece of history from twenty-seven years ago. It was both powerful and prescient:

    [Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.]

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     1
    kenoshamarge | September 25, 2018 at 11:04 am

    Then as now I believed Clarence Thomas was a man of honesty and integrity and that Anita Hill was a lying skank.

    I would apply the same words to Ford and all of her ilk and to Judge Kavanaugh.


       
       0 
       
       0
      PersonofInterests in reply to kenoshamarge. | September 25, 2018 at 12:33 pm

      I suspect that Anita Hill was paid well for her attempt; perhaps by a scumbag like George Soros. She got book deals and others to cover the payments. That’s how it’s done: A Book Signing Deal is made public noting a large sum of money, e.g., https://nypost.com/2017/03/28/why-the-obamas-got-big-bucks-for-their-book-deal/
      But whether a book is written or not, they get the money and I’d bet that some billionaire liberal anarchist would front the money via an investment in the Publishers stock to make sure they get the money that unless concealed as a legitimate business deal, may draw unwanted attention. Can we imagine the Gift Taxes to be paid on a $65 Million Gift to the Obamas from somebody like Soros?

      The Clintons supposedly left the White House broke, but got a book signing deal and then after being in the Obama Administration and in position to sell favors, they are all of a sudden rich while using a Charitable Foundation as a repository.

    This is what Sen. Grassley should have said last week, along with a clear and affirming statement that such a circus will never be permitted on his watch and that the committee vote will proceed as planned – and staring daggers at Sen. Flake while he said it.

    You pull weeds out by the roots, before they can grow.


     
     0 
     
     0
    PersonofInterests | September 25, 2018 at 12:23 pm

    If only Justice Thomas had sued Anita Hill for defamation and slander, then this latest despicable attempt may have proven to be too painful to attempt.

    President Trump is correct: Our Defamation and Slander Laws need to be updated because awful people like Chrissy Ford and Anita Hill escape with impunity their claims without the accused getting Due Process and being Innocent Until Proven Guilty WITH EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN A COURT OF LAW. Pain Promotes Change and until these people feel the sting of being a fraudulent accuser, it will continue to happen again.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to PersonofInterests. | September 26, 2018 at 3:19 am

      If Thomas had sued Hill he would have lost, badly. And he would have supported that verdict.

      To prevail in a defamation suit he’d have to prove Hill was lying. The moment he becomes the accuser and she the accused, the burden of proof shifts. Instead of the onus being on her to prove her accusations, it’s on him to disprove them, and that’s almost impossible.

      And our defamation laws are the way they are because we have a first amendment, so “updating” them would probably require a constitutional amendment.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend