Justice Thomas' wife asks Anita Hill for apology

You're kidding, right? Someone please tell me that's now how the law really works?

It's interesting how Eminence thinks these hearings were more important in showing the nation how the new rules worked than how an innocent man was used as a political punching bag only because his sponsor had the wrong letter ("R") behind his name.

After all, by his own definitions, Thomas wasn't convicted or even charged. He must be at least as innocent as Clinton, right?

You are assuming that Ms. Hill was lying in the first place. Since I do not believe you were a witness to the alleged events that occurred between Ms. Hill and Justice Thomas, is that not an unwarranted assumption?

Mrs. Thomas should've taken the classy route--sent Anita Hill a Coke with a pubic hair on it.

it was demonstrated to my satisfaction back then - ye though I am not remotely interested in digging for said evidence now - that Thomas was indeed being mistreated.

That aside...

What we can be reasonably certain of is that Ginni believes him to be innocent whether he was or not and that's all we need to know in order to discuss the question "why did she do this?"

In that context, i think the writer here does a very good job in demonstrating that it doesn't take a stalker or a nutbar to have done this, and it is at least as questionable why Hill would have made an issue of it as why the call was made in the first place.

Allowing that the writer and I disagree on the likelihood of Thomas' guilt on the original charges, i think this column is pretty much a slam dunk discussion ender within the context of what she believes to be true.

It's pretty much a non-story.

that produces an interesting train of thought -

however guilty Thomas might have been, we have much clearer evidence and much more serious charges against Bill Clinton.

So

If Barak Obama nominated Clinton to the next opening on the Supreme Court, how many - if any - of those who argued the charges against Thomas disqualified him would come out in opposition to Clinton on the same grounds?

It is for the most part, although granted, I don't diligently keep up with the details of how the law is enforced.

The best example of this is in fact the Paula Jones' lawsuit. While there were no eyewitnesses to back up Jones's account of Bill Clinton's alleged sexual harassment, Paula Jones was able to bring legal action against Bill Clinton despite the fact that she had no witness.

Now, as I said before, in order to successfully purse a sexual harassment lawsuit, you have to prove your allegation is credible, and sure enough, that's why Paula Jones' lawsuit failed and was thus dismissed by the trial judge.

It's kinda ironic in that sense actually -- without the new rules on how sexual harassment charges can be argued following the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill sexual harassment allegations, the Republicans pushing the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky matter wouldn't have even been able to bring about a case.

Where does Ruth Marcus say that Anita Hill's actions are at least as questionable as Ginni Thomas'?

She characterizes Anita Hill as maybe overreacting, but she characterizes Ginni Thomas' actions as out of line.

Now, AFAIK, it's one thing to be an attention whore, but it's a whole other thing to be out of line. I can't be sure, but my guess is out of line is the harsher of the two statements.

On what basis are you asserting this?

In terms of evidence, there has been no formal process of discovery in the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill matter, no lawsuit, no subpoenas compelling people to testify, etc. So we don't know what the full evidence might be.

In fact, as we just recently learned, one of Thomas' ex-girlfriends because of Ginni Thomas' phone call decided to speak up and confirm that Thomas' previous behavior fits Anita Hill's account. New evidence, even after all these years. So there may be even more evidence that we don't know about, and for all we know, Clarence Thomas may have gotten away with something because the evidence was incomplete. Sometimes that happens, just look at how OJ Simpson got away with murder because the evidence was incomplete/not successfully argued.

Notice also how this is directly opposite to what happened with Bill Clinton -- where instead, because there was a lawsuit, every rock and stone was examined for evidence. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on the matter then, one can't claim the same exhaustive investigative process has occurred with Clarence Thomas because no lawsuit (and its subsequent evidence vetting processes) was brought. If anything, the evidence in the Clarence Thomas matter should be considered incomplete; and thus it is rather speculative to compare the evidence in both matters, when the evidence in one is at best incomplete.

As for your second matter about much more serious charges, they were both accused of sexual harassment. Yes, one was made out to be a much bigger deal than the other, but that has nothing to do with the actual seriousness of the charge, only the issue made about it. The charges themselves though are still the same.

Now, if you are talking about the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, yes they are felonious, but of course, Bill Clinton was found not guilty of both. As for what he was found guilty of, civil contempt of court, that's not even a crime. So one could hardly argue that the only thing of which Bill Clinton was guilty, is somehow much more serious than sexual harassment, something of which both men have been accused. Well actually, in the case of Bill Clinton, it's in the past tense, as he already went through the trial. Clarence Thomas though, on the other hand, I guess we'll never know.

No more unwarranted I think than assuming Justice Thomas is guilty of what he was accused of doing.

A grown woman waiting as long as she did to come forward begs the question of why the wait?

how so - she said, of Thomas's call "I get it" and described in detail why it was perfectly understandable.

she said of Hill that it was an over-reaction. Seems like a pretty equivilznt situation to me - in fact, not speaking for Marcus but for myself, I think Hill's choice was considerably less understandable than Thomas' was.

But I don't necessarily consider "out of line" to be a grave charge. All sorts of things are "out of line"

That's why i said we have a better case - i made no claim about whether or not there was a lot of undisclosed evidence regarding Thomas - but that which is not discovered is not that which "we have"

Clinton has been accused of actual rape. He was also accused by Jones of exposing himself which is arguably more serious than verbal harassment, which both were accused of.

Further, Clinton had actual physical interaction with Lewensky, who was his subordinate and little more than a minor which is beyond verbal harassment on pretty much every level, even with it being consensual. (at least, as i understand Federal policies on workplace sexual harassment)

I wasn't - but if he was acquitted of both, why was his license suspended for a charge he was found innocent of?

Because there was no merit to the allegations. Anyone can make allegations.

So in other words, when it is a Republican nominated justice, fishing exhibitions are advisable.

I don't think the law works that way.

The charges maybe similar, but the actions of the accused are quite different. Based off of what we know of both situations, Justice Thomas did not hold press conferences denying ever had sex with someone, he also never lied to a federal grand jury while under oath.

You might not think that is a significant difference, but it is in face a significant one.

So in your opinion, Bill Clinton was unfairly disbarred since the Senate falling along political ideologies chose not to vote in favor of not convicting President Clinton?

Ruth Marcus also states that she "doesn't get it", and describes in even more detail why she doesn't.

Well if it's your opinion, that's one thing, but it seemed initially that maybe you were saying this is what Marcus wrote.

I don't think anyone is saying that out of line is tantamount to murder or anything; just that "out of line" is, in just about every instance, worse than attention whore.

The two statements themselves are very different; one is descriptive but doesn't necessarily make a judgment as being outside the norm; whereas saying something is "out of line" on the other hand carries the implication that the preceding action is problematic.

Well, given the wording of her call.."what you did with my husband" opens up an interesting possibility.

It could just simply be Mrs Thomas was cleaning the closets or something and found evidence that Anita and Clarence had a relationship back then. If it broke up badly, it could have been punishment for Anita to accuse him of sexual harassment and try and deny him confirmation.

That "with" is weird...it should be to if she was referring to the harassment allegation.

And if she just found out about it...well, that would be why she "waited". :tamarsearch:

But again, that evidence has been examined, and Bill Clinton was found not guilty. He's already passed the test, which is vastly different than what happened with Clarence Thomas. It also renders your comment about considering that evidence should he be nominated for the Supreme Court moot. Why would the evidence need to be reexamined, when it has already been, resulting in Bill Clinton being cleared for lying, for a Supreme Court nomination? Barring a compelling reason, you don't retry a matter once it's already been done.

So what would be the reason for doing this in a Supreme Court nomination, when everyone has already looked at the evidence?

Context my friend.

The part she "doesn't get" is because she (Marcus) believes CT is guilty. BUT the CONTEXT of Ginni's call is that SHE (Ginni) thinks CT is innocent.

So it's perfectly understandable that Marcus would say "as an offended wife i understand" and also say "as a journalist who thinks the dude is guilty, i don't buy it"

the two are not mutually exclusive. All of this i made note of in my initial reply.

I said that once you lay aside that marcus thinks he's guilty and Ginnin - nor I - agree...then what is left is Marcus saying "I understand why the call was made, however inadvisable, and i don't understand why Hill thought it was worth reporting"

OF COURSE the fact that Marcus thinks he's guilty means she has to qualify the position - but Ginni doesn't think he's guilty and so from HER point of view, what she did was at least understandable.

Attention whoring isn't out of line?

You are trying my patience.

when i said "we have more evidence re Clinton than re Thomas" it's a very cut and dried claim that turns on the phrase "WE HAVE"

i made no claim about any evidence which might exist that we DON'T have, nor did i make any claim about what should be re-examined or any other such distraction.

What we have IN HAND regarding Clinton v. what we HAVE IN HAND re Thomas.

Period.

You've got to be kidding here. Juanita Broadderick not only recanted her claims in her official testimony (of course, later reinstating it), she can't even remember the day that she was raped. Anita Hill on the other hand remembers every minute detail.

Well Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment, not verbal harassment. It not like it isn't considered sexual harassment just because no body parts are exposed -- it just has to be harassment of a sexual nature -- but I think you know that. Two, Thomas was also accused of bragging to Anita Hill of how good he was in bed. Contrast that with Jones' accusation, and well, both were of a sexual nature, but I guess it just so happens one only had words, the other ponied up and showed it. But both remain of a sexual nature.

Whoa. Monica Lewinsky never accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. Why are we going there (I mean, is it really all just about sex outside of a marriage after all?). Also, it bears pointing out that Anita Hill was also Clarence Thomas' subordinate.

That is an interesting angle. I did not take that into consideration.

But you also said:

That's exactly my point here -- it shouldn't matter in regards to a Bill Clinton nomination to the Supreme Court because the evidence has already been examined. So why would it have to be dredged up again? There is simply no need to on these grounds in this hypothetical nomination once the evidence has already been vetted and found to be meritless.

That is vastly different than the circumstances that surrounded Thomas' nomination, when the evidence had not been fully discovered. It was reasonable to inquire then, because it had not been done so before, so I can see how one might have been opposed to it then, while the information was being gathered (and even till today, not fully) but also not have a problem on these grounds with a hypothetical BC SC nomination, specifically because those grounds have already been considered.

There simply is no correlation between the two. That's the point here.

See, this is where I have to disagree. If Ginni Thomas was really interested in extending an olive branch, she would not have approached the matter in the way that she did. First, she did it early AM on a Saturday....a bit bothered, don't you think? I know for me personally there are far more important things to do on a Saturday morning, like sleep.

Second, demanding an apology on a voicemail is hardly an olive branch. An olive branch would be to either through channels, or even through herself, send a request to Anita Hill to talk. That's an olive branch, an invitation to "hey let's talk, let's work it out." But to demand an apology from the gate, on a voicemail, set your terms before a conversation had even taken place?

No, no way is that an olive branch. So Ginni Thomas' subsequent explanation doesn't wash.

It does if she learned of a fresh outrage that isn't public knowledge and caused her fresh trauma but was part of those past events....like my possible relationship scenario.

I think our disagreement is rooted in this claim - i don't think many outside the Clinton-apologist crowd would remotely agree the charges were meritless.

And I'm fully convinced we'll not reconcile out views on that point no matter how many replies we post.

I sincerely hope you're wrong because what you're saying is, essentially, I can get you convicted of anything if only I can make the accusation sound sufficienly convincing. No more in dubio pro reo, no more innocent until proven guilty - if only you read enough psych literature and don't blink during testimonials, you can get pretty much anyone convinced.

Dunno, but I guess my whole attitude of "I'd rather see a 1,000 guilty men walk free than see one innoncent man go to jail" is going out of fashion worse than ever.

And let's face it. It's only sexual harassment if the chick doesn't dig you.

Really? Who's surprised by this? How many times is a woman not automagically believed over a man when she accuses him of something with no tangible proof to substantiate either her allegation or his denial?

Which, when you think about it, is a situation that's sexist toward women, not toward men. It's an, "awwww, here you go, sweetheart" pat on the head win for women, because they're not expected to be capable of backing up what they say. Of course, they'll take it, because feminist "equality" has nothing to do with genuine equality and everything to do with achieving any advantage, no matter how low, how base or how cheap it might be, over men, with whom women cannot compete in earnest.

Well, that and if you continue to make advances after she said no.


.. also .., when men want to blame their shortcomings on your bodily functions ... I just about ripped a guy a new asshole one time.

I put in for a 4 day pass, but the LT told me 'fine, but come in for PT friday morning to drive the van behind the runners to pick up the fall outs'.

So, I come in Friday morning and this other guy takes the keys from me and says he's driving the van. and I'm like, "no. the only reason I'm even here this morning is because LT told me I had to drive the van this morning."

as he's walking out, the LT was walking in and he asks "what's going on"

and this mother fucker shrugs and says "that time of the month".

I came unglued.