Clarence Thomas's Wife Asks Anita Hill for Apology

Oct 19, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: New York Times

WASHINGTON Virginia Thomas , the wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas , left a message last weekend on the voicemail of Anita Hill , who accused her husband of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings, a spokeswoman for Ms.

Comments
1 - 20 of 69 Comments Last updated Oct 27, 2010
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Lance Winslow

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Virginia Thomas must be feeling very insecure.
Go Rangers

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 19, 2010
 
Lance Winslow wrote:
Virginia Thomas must be feeling very insecure.
lol
lily boca raton fl

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ginni Thomas has issues. I hope her taking of corporate contributions to her foundation becomes a conflict of interst that causes Clarence Thomas to step down from the bench. Both are a disgrace.

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Let me get this straight: Anita Hill testifies under oath before Congress, and almost 20 years later Clarence Thomas trots his wife out to solicit an apology?

For what? Ms Hill testified her former boss was a lecherous, sexual harassing lowlife. If he has evidence she perjured herself, he has failed to produce it.

More likely, Justice Thomas should apologize to Ms Hill for forcing her to work in a hostile environment, for subjecting her to his unwanted sexual advances, and for his reprehensible behavior.

Sadly, in 20 years Clarence Thomas has shown no sign of remorse. For him, justice will not come in this life. But one day he will face a Judge who will require he answer for his actions...
PooPoo Platter

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

4

3

3

acorn obama wrote:
it is about time she gets an apology from the liberal dumbocrat idiot that lied about her husband - and was paid off by clinton, odumba, and the soros dimwitcrats!
Are you out of your mind?

Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings took place in 1991, the year President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School. President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Most likely, George Soros would take a phone call from neither of them.

Anita Hill stood up to her lecherous former boss all by herself. She was
courageous to speak truth to Bush 41 and to the Republicans in the Senate, Clarence Thomas's enablers.
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

PooPoo Platter wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you out of your mind?
Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings took place in 1991, the year President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School. President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Most likely, George Soros would take a phone call from neither of them.
Anita Hill stood up to her lecherous former boss all by herself. She was
courageous to speak truth to Bush 41 and to the Republicans in the Senate, Clarence Thomas's enablers.
Please provide evidence .... real evidence .... that she
spoke the truth.

Its a classic case of "He said, she said."

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide evidence .... real evidence .... that she
spoke the truth.
Its a classic case of "He said, she said."
Not at all. Clarence Thomas trotted out his wife to call for an apology. The apology and explanation Judge Thomas demands implies Anita Hill lied and that she wronged her boss by telling her story.

Ms Hill didn't tell her story on the Maury Show, she testified before the Senate Judiciary committee, under oath. If Judge Thomas wants to imply she perjured herself, the burden of proof is on him.

Senate Republicans in 1991 wanted no part of investigating Hill's story, they wanted to push the confirmation through, and they succeeded. Hill's testimony was ignored, not refuted. 20 years have gone by, and Judge Thomas neither discredited Hill's testimony or expressed any remorse. Now, the Thomas' want to victimize the victim all over again? How despicable!

If they have proof she committed perjury and Judge Thomas deserves an apology, they have to prove it. Otherwise they are engaging in a cruel and cynical stunt, victimizing Anita Hill anew. Maybe out of megalomania, or arrogance. But unless they have proof, their behavior is breathtakingly evil.
Awake

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Her point is that he said and did those same vulgar, low class things to her to win her over and she(trash bag, pig in heat)liked it. And she still just doesn't understand why Anita Hill(classy lady)was so offended.
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

PooPoo Platter wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Clarence Thomas trotted out his wife to call for an apology. The apology and explanation Judge Thomas demands implies Anita Hill lied and that she wronged her boss by telling her story.
Ms Hill didn't tell her story on the Maury Show, she testified before the Senate Judiciary committee, under oath. If Judge Thomas wants to imply she perjured herself, the burden of proof is on him.
Senate Republicans in 1991 wanted no part of investigating Hill's story, they wanted to push the confirmation through, and they succeeded. Hill's testimony was ignored, not refuted. 20 years have gone by, and Judge Thomas neither discredited Hill's testimony or expressed any remorse. Now, the Thomas' want to victimize the victim all over again? How despicable!
If they have proof she committed perjury and Judge Thomas deserves an apology, they have to prove it. Otherwise they are engaging in a cruel and cynical stunt, victimizing Anita Hill anew. Maybe out of megalomania, or arrogance. But unless they have proof, their behavior is breathtakingly evil.
Wow, if you don't believe people lie under oath hundreds of
times every day you are a fool. People commit perjury on the
stand without any thought or even a sense of wrongdoing.


As for your argument, you can't prove a negative, particularly
in the case of what was alleged to have occurred with no one
else was in the room to overhear.

"Breathtakingly evil?" Geez, get a grip on yourself.
Joe Bob

Redondo Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

an apology will be placed on her coke can
PooPooPlatter

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, if you don't believe people lie under oath hundreds of
times every day you are a fool. People commit perjury on the
stand without any thought or even a sense of wrongdoing.
As for your argument, you can't prove a negative, particularly
in the case of what was alleged to have occurred with no one
else was in the room to overhear.
"Breathtakingly evil?" Geez, get a grip on yourself.
1) If Anita Hill lied under oath, the time to prove it was during or immediately following the confirmation hearings. The Republican majority and Bush 41 failed to do that. Today, it's Thomas who dredged the matter up, with no proof Anita Hill is guilty of anything.

2) Why should she prove anything now? If Thomas is correct, and is owed an apology, that means she would be admitting she wronged him, she committed perjury before the Senate, and owes him an explanation for her testimony. A competent Jurist would know if he's making accusations, the burden of proof is on him.

3) Yes, the Thomas' behavior is breathtakingly evil. If it's really "he said she said", he got what he wanted, his robe. She was dismissed by the White House and the Senate. He "won", he's been on the Court almost 20 years. Absent any proof she perjured herself, humiliating the victim again is an exercise in hubris, arrogance by a man who has expressed no remorse, but was content to walk away from when he was challenged two decades ago.

He wants an apology? Let him prove he deserves one.
adaylate

Pulaski, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

A person who actually needs an apology is a mentally and emotionally weak person because if they were in control they wouldn't have the emotional need for an apology.

Forgiveness removes any mental or emotional need or desire for an apology.

Clarance, it's been 20 years, get over it already.
Disraeli

Ladson, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

PooPoo Platter wrote:
Let me get this straight: Anita Hill testifies under oath before Congress, and almost 20 years later ...
Didn't Clarence Thomas also testify under oath during these same proceedings?

Did Anita Hill ever provide "proof" of her allegations?

Yes, the burden of proof is on the accuser, but it sure seems like you are willing to accept her charges without any.

It wouldn't have anything to do with Thomas' political leanings, would it?
PooPoo Platter

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Disraeli wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't Clarence Thomas also testify under oath during these same proceedings?
Did Anita Hill ever provide "proof" of her allegations?
Yes, the burden of proof is on the accuser, but it sure seems like you are willing to accept her charges without any.
It wouldn't have anything to do with Thomas' political leanings, would it?
Had Ms Hill's charges been investigated right then and there, the matter could be settled. She'd be vindicated or discredited. Somebody perjured himself or herself, and if Judge Thomas was libeled, and knew it, wouldn't he or his attorneys work hard to clear the matter?

Neither he nor the Republican majority demanded a resolution. No investigation, no lawsuit for slander. Only perfunctory denials and mostly silence for 20 years.

Nobody thought about the incident until HE (through his wife) demanded an apology and an explanation after all this time. The story is being told, the hearings are on TV, it's all out there because HE wants an apology. Now, the burden is on him to show why he deserves what he wants.

What was in it for her to tell the story? To lash out at a cad? Would it change her life if she derailed his nomination? Couldn't she have parlayed what happened, awkward as it was, into fame & fortune? She never acted like that's what she wanted, to this day. Hell, in the next 8 years Bill Clinton won two elections and survived impeachment, and was regarded as a statesman by most Americans. Anita Hill couldn't get a book deal, or be a TV legal expert?

She never acted like she had dark or ulterior motives. He, on the other hand, has stonewalled scrutiny and now puts himself on display, long after he won his seat, his confirmation, and the love of the Fox News audience.
Disraeli

Ladson, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

PooPoo Platter wrote:
<quoted text>
Had Ms Hill's charges been investigated right then and there, the matter could be settled. She'd be vindicated or discredited. Somebody perjured himself or herself, and if Judge Thomas was libeled, and knew it, wouldn't he or his attorneys work hard to clear the matter?
Neither he nor the Republican majority demanded a resolution. No investigation, no lawsuit for slander. Only perfunctory denials and mostly silence for 20 years.
Nobody thought about the incident until HE (through his wife) demanded an apology and an explanation after all this time. The story is being told, the hearings are on TV, it's all out there because HE wants an apology. Now, the burden is on him to show why he deserves what he wants.
What was in it for her to tell the story? To lash out at a cad? Would it change her life if she derailed his nomination? Couldn't she have parlayed what happened, awkward as it was, into fame & fortune? She never acted like that's what she wanted, to this day. Hell, in the next 8 years Bill Clinton won two elections and survived impeachment, and was regarded as a statesman by most Americans. Anita Hill couldn't get a book deal, or be a TV legal expert?
She never acted like she had dark or ulterior motives. He, on the other hand, has stonewalled scrutiny and now puts himself on display, long after he won his seat, his confirmation, and the love of the Fox News audience.
So, to sum up your long winded answer, there is no proof of her allegations.

Nor of your allegations that Mrs. Thomas was acting of behalf of her husband.

“Fear-Mongers are Fraidy Cats!”

Since: Jun 08

Fear only Fear Mongers

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Imagine that! The right-leaning SCOTUS Judges' wife, the Founder of a Tea-Party Lobbyist group hassling Anita Hill! And....

DID VIRGINIA THOMAS HAVE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT's RULING REGARDING THE REVERSAL OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN JANUARY 2010 ???

ACCORDING TO THE LA TIMES STORY BELOW, SHE CREATED HER TEA-PARTY GROUP "LIBERTY CENTRAL, INC." IN ***** JANUARY 2010 *****(ANTICIPATING THIS RULING ??)

http://art­­icles.lat­i­mes.co m/­20­10/mar/­14/­nation­/la-­ na-th­omas1­4-20­10mar1­4

FROM THAT LA TIMES ARTICLE:

... In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.

The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and "BE INVOLVED IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION," though Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

NOW, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT VIRGINIA THOMAS' WEBSITE: LIBERTY CENTRAL, INC.

FROM THE LIBERTY CENTRAL, INC. WEBSITE, WE SEE THE DATE OF INCEPTION OF HER CONSERVATIVE TEA-PARTY-LOBBYIST GROUP AS BEING ***** NOVEMBER 2009 *****

http://www­­.libertyc­e­ntral. or­g/­about

Investigation, anyone? Did Virginia Thomas have prior knowledge BEFORE the January 2010 ruling?
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 20, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

PooPooPlatter wrote:
<quoted text>
1) If Anita Hill lied under oath, the time to prove it was during or immediately following the confirmation hearings. The Republican majority and Bush 41 failed to do that. Today, it's Thomas who dredged the matter up, with no proof Anita Hill is guilty of anything.
2) Why should she prove anything now? If Thomas is correct, and is owed an apology, that means she would be admitting she wronged him, she committed perjury before the Senate, and owes him an explanation for her testimony. A competent Jurist would know if he's making accusations, the burden of proof is on him.
3) Yes, the Thomas' behavior is breathtakingly evil. If it's really "he said she said", he got what he wanted, his robe. She was dismissed by the White House and the Senate. He "won", he's been on the Court almost 20 years. Absent any proof she perjured herself, humiliating the victim again is an exercise in hubris, arrogance by a man who has expressed no remorse, but was content to walk away from when he was challenged two decades ago.
He wants an apology? Let him prove he deserves one.
I really didn't think you were completely dense, but I apparently
overestimated you.

It wasn't a trial, dumbass. It was a confirmation hearing and
after being confirmed he became a Supreme Court justice who's
first order of business is to serve on that Court, not demean
himself by pursuing a private matter after confirmation.

Clarence Thomas' wife is not a member of the Supreme Court and
is free to say what she wishes and share her opinions in any
manner she wishes.
PooPoo Platter

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 21, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
I really didn't think you were completely dense, but I apparently
overestimated you.
It wasn't a trial, dumbass. It was a confirmation hearing and
after being confirmed he became a Supreme Court justice who's
first order of business is to serve on that Court, not demean
himself by pursuing a private matter after confirmation.
Clarence Thomas' wife is not a member of the Supreme Court and
is free to say what she wishes and share her opinions in any
manner she wishes.
Who said it was a trial? Where did you get the idea it was? It won't help if you cannot stay based in reality.

Judge Thomas's first order of business is to serve? Why then is his wife resurrecting this distracting episode of his, 20 years after he sailed past Ms Hill's testimony and won his confirmation?

Surely he has better things to do, right? Now, we're all here talking about it.

He thinks he's owed an apology and an explanation. OK Judge Thomas, tell us why you deserve that?

He's a lawyer, surely he can make his case...

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 21, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PooPoo Platter wrote:
Let me get this straight: Anita Hill testifies under oath before Congress, and almost 20 years later Clarence Thomas trots his wife out to solicit an apology?
For what? Ms Hill testified her former boss was a lecherous, sexual harassing lowlife. If he has evidence she perjured herself, he has failed to produce it.
More likely, Justice Thomas should apologize to Ms Hill for forcing her to work in a hostile environment, for subjecting her to his unwanted sexual advances, and for his reprehensible behavior.
Sadly, in 20 years Clarence Thomas has shown no sign of remorse. For him, justice will not come in this life. But one day he will face a Judge who will require he answer for his actions...
Poo Poo, for once, I (partially) agree with you. What in the hell is his wife thinking?

But then you sink into your typical liberal bias by taking Ms. Hills word without any evidence of Justice Thomas' guilt.
Bill R

Long Beach, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Oct 21, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

dragoon70056 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poo Poo, for once, I (partially) agree with you. What in the hell is his wife thinking?
But then you sink into your typical liberal bias by taking Ms. Hills word without any evidence of Justice Thomas' guilt.
The decision by the Senate to confirm is indicative of the point
you've made: they did not believe Hill's allegations or testimony
under oath were credible enough to prevent his confirmation.
The burden of proof did not rest with Clarence Thomas.

Pee Pee also seems to have overlooked the fact that it was
Clarence Thomas' wife, not Clarence Thomas himself, that sent a
voicemail message to Anita Hill. The decision to make this
public belongs to Anita Hill herself, so playing the victim role
is nonsense. She was the one who decided to bring up this
whole matter again in a public forum.

That's what is evil. I presume she feels a need for some
attention and maybe, just maybe, an invitation to go on the
talk show trail.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••