They haven’t found a cure for his guilty conscience.
Put the bottle down Joe.
Has nothing to do with his confirmation. I still believe that was a dishonest Democratic ambush of a black man who didn’t identify as a Democrat. As a Democrat at the time it went on my list of things that led me to leave the Democratic Party.
I was talking about knowing that his wife was suborning treason on January 6.
Clearly being a head case as a result of politics is a common thing.
I don’t really know what her deal was, but it was clear there was no factual support for the accusations. It should never have been in the hearings. As a Democrat at the time I was thinking we can’t attack black people just because they aren’t Democrats and that is exactly what it looked like to me.
It should be clear by now that I believe people are presumed innocent. I seriously felt at the time that he was being attacked because he was a black man nominated by a Republican President. I was embarrassed by that as a Democrat. As a Republican now, it’s what I expect.
Shouldn’t Anita Hill be presumed innocent of lying?It should be clear by now that I believe people are presumed innocent. I seriously felt at the time that he was being attacked because he was a black man nominated by a Republican President. I was embarrassed by that as a Democrat. As a Republican now, it’s what I expect.
I just don’t understand why a successful, professional woman ( both Hill and Blasie Ford) would put their entire reputation on the line to lie about something like that. Neither were desperate for money or had anything at all in their background to lead someone to believe they would lie like that. Let alone the stigma they would have for the rest of their lives.
Simple. She wouldn’t and didn’t. Nothing else to understand here.
That was the sly, duplicitous victim card Clarence Thomas played at the time. And he played it well. Both you and Biden fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Definitely a bad look that Clarence was the one dissent to releasing documents. I'd like to be a fly in the wall when this news broke.
'Sure seems like a conflict of interest'.....
You absolutely do not know that.
Or you know, we could discuss the Trumps who didn’t divest when they were supposed to, used Daddy’s influence to get contracts, and were actually part of his administration. So yeah, let’s talk.....
I don’t think it’s in the same vein. You have to look at the individual woman making the claim. Those claiming voter fraud are not being grilled on national tv about their sex lives and their names will not be remember for eternity. I’m not one who says believe all women, because I know, just like men, some women will do things for money or revenge. These two had no background of hyperpartision behavior, no background of false accusations, were professionals and well respected. They had everything to lose.
The ambush take is an interesting observation.
Aloha, note I haven’t made any claims about her telling the truth. Not a single one. I have asserted that she had no reason to lie. That’s my presumption of her innocence. Clarence Thomas also deserved a presumption of innocence. You didn’t grant that to her. Your presumption is that her claim is dubious. That is not a presumption of innocence in terms of the charge of lying.
Really? We can now propagandize based on the views of spouses? I guess this also makes sons and daughters open books?
Methinks you’re missing the point. General Petraeus got into deep Doodoo because of his intimate relationship. Wife, no. Wife surrogate, evidently.
Trump’s original impetus was to give pubic hair a voice.The pubic hair abstained in voting
It should be clear by now that I believe people are presumed innocent. I seriously felt at the time that he was being attacked because he was a black man nominated by a Republican President. I was embarrassed by that as a Democrat. As a Republican now, it’s what I expect.
Neither of those making the allegations were up for confirmation. They're not investigated and vetted like the nominees are. In the end, neither of them made allegations that would stand up to scrutiny.
There was plenty of time to investigate it when she submitted her allegations to Feinstein and another Democrat (can't remember the name). The Democrats chose not to investigate it. Maybe they didn't think it had merit or deserved investigation. They decided to spring the news late and Republicans were rightly PO'd about it (and Republicans have done much that I disagree with during the Trump years) and decided to limit it. They could have investigated it for weeks and they would have never found anything to prove it. Partisan organizations, investigative reporters, interested parties have all had plenty of time to investigate it since. Heard anything? I haven't either. The allegation was entirely unprovable and unless proven they should never have been publicized.
I find some of them embarrassing too and it's never all right to unfairly attack a nominee. I think every Republican should vote to confirm her even though she'd not be my choice. When Presidents nominate a USSC Justice they deserve confirmation unless there is truly something egregious about them that makes them either not qualified or not worthy of being confirmed. I'm actually not big on many of the Republicans in the House (especially) or in the Senate these days.
