Confirmation: the Anita Hill story

[Milk N Cookies]

Who here remembers when Anita Hill exposed Suprme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for sexual harrassment? Well most should have at least heard about it & know some details on it.

HBO has made a movie about it starring Kerry (Olivia Pope)Washington as Anita Hill & Wendell (Bunk)Pierce as Clarence Thomas. The movie has also casted billed: Jennifer (Effie White) Hudson, Jeffery (Peebles)Wright, Greg Kineer as , & Treat Williams (the Substitute 3, if anyone beyond me has seen it before).

The movie covers a huge topic on political scandals & how gender roles, race, class plays heavy into it. Check it out. And when you do, talk about it here.

 

[KravenMorehead™]

Subs

 

[Knights89]

Going to make time to watch this in a next couple of days

 

[the cac mamba]

decent

"long dong silver"

 

[flo]

In my queue.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

There was a very good documentary of this on Netflix. I don't know if it's still on there or not

 

[re'up]

I watched it late last night, and rewatching now.....I think it's competently made, if not compellingly directed or scripted, some good performances and portrayals, particularly Hill and Thomas, but also Biden, Hatch, Ted Kennedy. (Treat Williams ) It is a pretty disgusting affair.....I don't think the film scathing enough, but, I believe Thomas is certainly guilty of all the alleged behavior..I have no compassion for him, nor his wife, nor his soapbox, manipulative bullshyt about a "high tech lynching". Aggressive, awkward ass predator. Biden also comes off pretty loathsome, if less overt in his damning behavior then Thomas and his allies.

Jeffery Wright and Martha were very good too....

The coke can line.... and the porn renting (which was confirmed later, according to what I have read)

 

[pickles]

I watched it late last night, and rewatching now.....I think it's competently made, if not compellingly directed or scripted, some good performances and portrayals, particularly Hill and Thomas, but also Biden, Hatch, Ted Kennedy. (Treat Williams ) It is a pretty disgusting affair.....I don't think the film scathing enough, but, I believe Thomas is certainly guilty of all the alleged behavior..I have no compassion for him, nor his wife, nor his soapbox, manipulative bullshyt about a "high tech lynching". Aggressive, awkward ass predator. Biden also comes off pretty loathsome, if less overt in his damning behavior then Thomas and his allies.

Jeffery Wright and Martha were very good too....

The coke can line.... and the porn renting (which was confirmed later, according to what I have read)

Clarence Thomas really eating now with all that online porn.

Or maybe he completely desensitized

If you had VHS tapes of bestiality in the 90s (which I assume is hard to get) you a god damn deviant.

 

[Milk N Cookies]

There was a very good documentary of this on Netflix. I don't know if it's still on there or not

They have two on Amazon Prime; Sex & Justice and Anita. Good looking out for the mention

 

[Tasha And]

Clarence Thomas really eating now with all that online porn.

Or maybe he completely desensitized

If you had VHS tapes of bestiality in the 90s (which I assume is hard to get) you a god damn deviant.

It was actually in the 70s or early 80s because the allegations were supposedly 10 years before the 91 hearing.

Beastiality porn in 1991

Beastiality porn in 1981

 

[AJaRuleStan]

I believe Thomas is certainly guilty of all the alleged behavior..

>Anita claimed Clarence harassed her when she worked for him at the Department of Education(1981).
>Despite that she followed Clarence to the (EEOC) Equal Opportunity Employment Commission in 1982.
>When asked to explain this odd behavior, she claimed she didn't have tenure at the DOE.
>Facts where presented proving that she did, She claimed that she was never told this.
>More evidence surfaced proving that every new employee was told if they had tenure
>Clarence's successor at the DOE even came out and claimed that Anita enthusiastically declined staying at the DOE to follow Clarence
> Another employee, Diane ****, claimed that Hill and her went to work for Thomas because both of them wanted to work for him
>Clarence said that Anita called him numerous times after she had left the EEOC. She said that was false. Phone logs prove Clarence was right.
>Anita backtracked and said she was trying to talk to her friend Diane **** who was Clarence's secretary during that time period.
>Diane claimed if Anita wanted to talk to her specifically, the calls would not have been logged.
>Sometime after her leaving the agency, Hill drove Thomas to the airport after he gave a speech at the college she was working for.
>When questioned why she would drive her alleged harasser, she said the dean of the school asked her.
>The dean claimed that Hill was proud of her new car and wanted to show Thomas by driving him to the airport.
> During the filing of the harassment charge, Hill wanted to do so anonymously and stay anonymous
>Think about this: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only these people were present.
>If the accusations were true, Clarence would automatically know who originated them.
>Meaning Anita's request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.

There is quite a bit more of evidence I can cite, but I think this should be sufficient to prove that Anita is a liar. The only thing to be taken from the confirmation hearing is that being a black conservative comes with a hefty cost.

 

[pickles]

>Anita claimed Clarence harassed her when she worked for him at the Department of Education(1981).
>Despite that she followed Clarence to the (EEOC) Equal Opportunity Employment Commission in 1982.
>When asked to explain this odd behavior, she claimed she didn't have tenure at the DOE.
>Facts where presented proving that she did, She claimed that she was never told this.
>More evidence surfaced proving that every new employee was told if they had tenure
>Clarence's successor at the DOE even came out and claimed that Anita enthusiastically declined staying at the DOE to follow Clarence
> Another employee, Diane ****, claimed that Hill and her went to work for Thomas because both of them wanted to work for him
>Clarence said that Anita called him numerous times after she had left the EEOC. She said that was false. Phone logs prove Clarence was right.
>Anita backtracked and said she was trying to talk to her friend Diane **** who was Clarence's secretary during that time period.
>Diane claimed if Anita wanted to talk to her specifically, the calls would not have been logged.
>Sometime after her leaving the agency, Hill drove Thomas to the airport after he gave a speech at the college she was working for.
>When questioned why she would drive her alleged harasser, she said the dean of the school asked her.
>The dean claimed that Hill was proud of her new car and wanted to show Thomas by driving him to the airport.
> During the filing of the harassment charge, Hill wanted to so anonymously and stay anonymous
>Think about this: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only these people were present.
>If the accusations were true, Clarence would automatically know who originated them.
>Meaning Anita's request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.

There is quite a bit more of evidence I can cite, but I think this should be sufficient to prove that Anita is a liar. The only thing to be taken from the confirmation hearing is that being a black conservative comes with a hefty cost.

Cite your sources for all this information.

 

[BXKingPin82]

damn i forgot all about this

*adds to watch list

 

[Rekkapryde]

>Anita claimed Clarence harassed her when she worked for him at the Department of Education(1981).
>Despite that she followed Clarence to the (EEOC) Equal Opportunity Employment Commission in 1982.
>When asked to explain this odd behavior, she claimed she didn't have tenure at the DOE.
>Facts where presented proving that she did, She claimed that she was never told this.
>More evidence surfaced proving that every new employee was told if they had tenure
>Clarence's successor at the DOE even came out and claimed that Anita enthusiastically declined staying at the DOE to follow Clarence
> Another employee, Diane ****, claimed that Hill and her went to work for Thomas because both of them wanted to work for him
>Clarence said that Anita called him numerous times after she had left the EEOC. She said that was false. Phone logs prove Clarence was right.
>Anita backtracked and said she was trying to talk to her friend Diane **** who was Clarence's secretary during that time period.
>Diane claimed if Anita wanted to talk to her specifically, the calls would not have been logged.
>Sometime after her leaving the agency, Hill drove Thomas to the airport after he gave a speech at the college she was working for.
>When questioned why she would drive her alleged harasser, she said the dean of the school asked her.
>The dean claimed that Hill was proud of her new car and wanted to show Thomas by driving him to the airport.
> During the filing of the harassment charge, Hill wanted to do so anonymously and stay anonymous
>Think about this: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only these people were present.
>If the accusations were true, Clarence would automatically know who originated them.
>Meaning Anita's request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.

There is quite a bit more of evidence I can cite, but I think this should be sufficient to prove that Anita is a liar. The only thing to be taken from the confirmation hearing is that being a black conservative comes with a hefty cost.

Well

Not much sympathy for trying to shyt on a dirtbag nikka when you KNOW he was a dirtbag.

 

[the cac mamba]

lets be honest, this kinda sucked its def not a must see

it just isnt a compelling story. like yeah, he allegedly said this shyt. accusations happened. and then...it gets withdrawn. thats it

looking forward to the LBJ one, this shouldnt be too high on anyones queu