Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Democrats vs. Democrat: Anita Hill Claims Joe Biden Was Part of the Problem

Democrats vs. Democrat: Anita Hill Claims Joe Biden Was Part of the Problem

Biden has yet to take “ownership of his role in what happened.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/anita-hill-and-her-1991-congressional-defenders-to-joe-biden-you-were-part-of-the-problem/2017/11/21/2303ba8a-ce69-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.20e00d4d6e66

In 1991, Anita Hill claimed Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while she was in her 20s. She testified at Thomas’ confirmation hearings before five white, male Senators. At the time former Vice President Joe Biden served as the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman.

As decades-old sexual misdoing allegations surface in every facet of public life, Hill’s story has been met with renewed interest. To her, Biden has yet to take “ownership of his role in what happened.”

The Washington Post has the story:

On Nov. 16, Anita Hill sat down at The Washington Post offices with five current and former Democratic lawmakers: Nita M. Lowey (N.Y.), Barbara A. Mikulski (Md.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Pat Schroeder (Colo.) and Louise M. Slaughter (N.Y.) — all allies of Hill during her historic appearance at the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991. Hill, now a professor of legal history and public policy at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, alleged at the time that Thomas had sexually harassed her when she was in her mid-20s and worked for him at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The five female lawmakers were part of a larger group of members of Congress who prevailed on their colleagues — including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) — to allow Hill to testify. Millions of Americans watched on television as the all-white, all-male panel questioned Hill with prosecutorial zeal. Thomas denied the allegations and called the proceedings “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.” He was confirmed 52-48.

Now, in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein sexual-assault scandal, Biden has faced renewed scrutiny over Hill’s treatment during the 1991 hearings. At an event hosted by Glamour magazine on Nov. 13, he said he was “so sorry” for what she went through. A few days later, at our gathering — which was set up for a forthcoming issue of The Washington Post Magazine, in which we’re asking a number of political and cultural figures to revisit their roles in seminal Washington moments — Hill said “some part of” Biden’s recent remarks was a real apology, “but I still don’t think it takes ownership of his role in what happened.” (In June, when we began setting up the meeting, we invited Biden, but he declined. On Nov. 20, he declined to comment on Hill’s statement. Thomas declined to comment as well.)

Last year, HBO created a largely fictionalized version of the hearings called ‘Confirmation’.

Parts of Hill’s testimony didn’t add up, as fact checkers noted, but that’s not really our focus here.

Thus far, Democrats have unilaterally circled the wagons to protect Franken in the midst of his own sexual harassment allegations. Hill’s willingness to openly criticize Biden for being part of the problem, may very well be the first crack in the dam. Especially when Biden’s pet project is sexual assault awareness.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So let me get this straight … Biden was supposed to let Hill testify but not let any mean Republicans question her?

Got it.

How easy it is to forget that Hill was a fake. Not only did other staffers including the head secretary and effective personnel director refute Hill’s testimony and say she had not heard or logged a single complaint, but that Hill was “hardly a shrinking violet” ( I believe that was the phrase), but that Hill frequently called the office for 9 years after she had left and brought the telephone logs to prove it. In fact 4 office staffers testified that Hill was lying. One, a male, was willing to testify but was not called. He stated that none of this occurred and Hill was seeking a name for herself by turning on her old friend and mentor, Thomas.

    Mission Accomplished. Now she’s a tenured professor; she’ll suck that public teat until the day she dies. And turning young minds to mush all the while.

      Anchovy in reply to Paul. | November 22, 2017 at 10:58 pm

      And after that, the year of the woman, Patti Murray got elected to the Senate, thereby providing representation for all bovine-Americans.

      dunce1239 in reply to Paul. | November 24, 2017 at 1:32 am

      She got her 15 minutes of fame and now has a job corrupting young minds for the rest of her life.

“On Nov. 16, Anita Hill sat down at The Washington Post offices with five current and former Democratic lawmakers”

For no valid news-related reason at all. How does they stay in business?

In Anita Hill Chatter, Networks Keep Skipping Over Bill Clinton, Going from Thomas to Trump:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2017/10/21/anita-hill-chatter-networks-keep-skipping-over-bill-clinton-going

Give these people any credence or attention and you empower them.

Treat them like the fascists they are, and you live you life happily and safely.

When is their a statue of limitations? Out west here we ask, “how often do you shoot a dead horse”? When do we move on? This late of time is only taking the scab off an old wound. Never heals because the victim does not get verdict they want. So they keep seeking revenge, as a victim. In lifes reality, often. We have to accept injustice done and move on. Leave it in the creators hand to judge. All these old accusations and I’m sure some are true, need to be forgotten.

The ‘documentary’ they made was a steaming pile of Grade-A bullshit, just like the crap they did trying to turn Dan Rather and Mary Mapes into intrepid truth seekers instead of slimy partisan hacks that ran a story they had been explicitly told was verifiably false.

Anita Hill is a proven liar that shamelessly tried to prevent a CONSERVATIVE black man from being on the Supreme Court.

Her lies were exposed for the partisan hack job they were, and Clarence Thomas has been an outstanding justice for decades now.

On a side note, please stop linking to the Washington Post. It’s a wretched liberal hive of scum and villainy to begin with, and now they have all their stories behind a paywall so you can’t actually read anything you link.

Quotes from the story are a great read but the link gives them completely unearned traffic.

    Valerie in reply to Olinser. | November 23, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    An alternative is, with the browser open to the article, then go to https://archive.is. I have archive.is on my browser toolbar. The website will check for older archives, or make an archive copy. When it is done, copy the address at the top of the page.

    This preserves the article.

If members of Congress want to know what you have to say about something, you can literally phone that in. If you’re called or volunteer to testify in front of a committee, expect to be grilled. That’s the whole point of the exercise – to put you under stress, ask hard questions, and see how well you and your story hold up. It’s not supposed to be a love-fest.

Anita Hill was an opportunist. She should have made her allegations years prior to the Thomas confirmation hearings. Thomas’s “harassment” amounted to office bawdiness. Nothing more. Perhaps unwise but certainly not criminal nor disqualifying from public office. If his actions were unwanted she should have emphatically told him so. This is something restaurant wait staff effectively do daily. Perhaps colleges need a feminist course on how to handle unwanted advances.

    Edward in reply to kjon. | November 23, 2017 at 8:59 am

    There were many people who didn’t believe any of her allegations. Apparently you aren’t among that group.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend