JoeB131
Diamond Member
You just can't stop yourself from lying, no wonder you think you are enough of a pathological liar to beat a lie detector.
You have no proof she got paid a dime! And only one Dem, Biden, was against admitting the polygraph, and he was the HEAD of the committee.
Hill is a very strong woman, and put Long Dong in his place and he stopped harassing her, which is why she stayed.
Except, of course NOBODY at that office (in either department they worked in) said they had any knowledge of the harrassment.
Because she apparently didnt' tell anyone at the time.
At least at work.
Sorry, man, that's next to unbelievable.
On the other hand, some of those people had some pretty unflattering things to say about Anita Hill.
Anita Hill's Tangled Web - The Daily Beast
Telephone logs show that after she moved to Oklahoma she called Thomas many times. First she said the logs were "garbage." Then she said she was only returning calls from him. Then she conceded initiating some. She said one was "following up" another professor's letter inviting Thomas to lecture. But that "follow up" call was made three months before the letter was sent. She testified that a law dean asked her to drive Thomas to the Tulsa airport. The dean said Hill called the night before to ask if she could drive Thomas so she could show him her new car.
At the EEOC she irritated co-workers by trying to assert a special relationship with Thomas. Brock presents much evidence that she left the EEOC, and Washington, bitter with Thomas because of increasing hostility to his conservatism and because she was not given an appointment for which Thomas did not consider her competent. At the University of Oklahoma, Brock reports, she has been prominent in the shrill but conventional campus leftism of racial and sexual politics. Reporters rummaged in Thomas's garbage in search of damaging information; scrutiny of Hill was and has been less searching. The New York Times reported that even "her closest friends" know little of her political views. The Washington Post reported those views to be essentially like Thomas's. Accurate reports of her political and personal conflicts with Thomas would have suggested a motive for mendacity.
To believe that Hill told the truth you must believe that dozens of people, with no common or even apparent motive to lie, did so. Brock's book will be persuasive to minds not sealed by the caulking of ideology. If Hill is a "victim," it is not of sexual harassment or (in language she has used from a lecture podium) "the powerlessness of women" in "our misogynist society." Rather, she may be a victim of the system of racial preferences that put her on a track too fast for her abilities, that taught her to think of herself as a victim and made her fluent in the rhetoric of victimization.
Thomas's ordeal was a manifestation of the politics of character assassination, whereby political differences become occasions for moral assault. It worked against Bork. It almost worked against Thomas. Perhaps the unmasking of Hill will give the practitioners of such politics pause..