Anita Hill was telling the truth. Clarence Thomas was protected by the old boys network that considers women’s claims as hysteria.

Thomas.

It’s possible they were both telling the truth as they recall it. Sexual harassment is a judgement call. It depends on how the person receives it rather than how it was intended. Ten years between the event and the accusation can inflate the incident in one person and minimize it in another. The lie detector test carries little weight for me especially since it is judgment call about a judgement call. Personally if I was asked to take a lie detector test about almost anything, I would refuse.

I don’t remember the details. But if he refused to take a lie detector test, that indicates guilt to me.

@ETpro, did anything in particular make you think of this case?

@Jaxk and I are in agreement, it seems. I know! What a shock!
Both were compelling under oath. I think the events testified to by Anita Hill are correct, but I also think Clarence Thomas felt he was testifying truthfully, to his knowledge. Incidents like this can become exaggerated in the mind of one person, while they become muted to another.

Just look at Bob Woodward’s recent claim that he was “threatened” by a member of the Obama administration, and then read the actual email .

Thomas lied. Hill had nothing to gain by lying, and Thomas had everything to lose by lying.

I’ve never understood why she went with him from the Dept. of Education to the EEOC if the things she accused him of were true. I agree there are three sides to every story: his side, her side and the truth.

Thomas lied. What woman would want to be on national television and claim that Thomas said , “who put that pubic hair on my Coke?” And when she was done, Thomas acted overly insulted as if he were a religious figure with a bad temper. And if she had never said that he was still guilty. I watched the entire thing.
You have to have witnesses or just give it up. You can’t fight City Hall.

I believe that Thomas lied about some things, but I don’t know that he was guilty.

I agree with @Aster – if you’re trying to fight someone that high up, you better have some strong evidence and other people to back up your story. Little people get let go for sexual harassment, upper management get “training.”

We’ll never know for sure unless Thomas admits he was lying. But as he appears never to say much of anything, that’s sky-highly an impossibility. That said, I believed at the time he was lying and still do. I’ll add that whatever regard I once had for “the highest court in the land” has long-since vanished, and his being appointed was just the first of many reasons, the most recent being its posiion on campaign financing.

I believe Thomas lied. What did Anita Hill have to gain by coming forward?

@Pachyderm_in_The_Room And where they seem to be heading on the Voting Rights Act?

@janbb… indeed!

Clarence Thomas lied.

I think he thought he was being funny. She took it the wrong way or chose to interpret it the wrong way. Hard to know anything for sure about the situation without having been there. By the way, I am definitely NOT a Thomas fan and have not agreed with any of his decisions that I’m aware of.

Thomas lied big time. Anita Hill knew that embarrassing testimony was going to be on TV for the world to see. That took a lot of guts to air that out. Why go through all that torture to push a big lie?

I believe that Thomas lied. And let’s not forget that there were witnesses who were prepared to testify until a back room deal was reached to keep them silent.

@zenvelo Certainly seems so to me.

@gailcalled Thanks.

@Jaxk It’s not possible they both told the truth about the sequence of events. Anita Hill gave some glaringly specific examples of things she said Thomas had done. The pubic hair on the coke bottle comment. The frequent references to the massive size of his equipment. The references to what he had seen in porno movies. He said she was lying and he had never done those things. The question was not Did Thomas commit sexual harassment? it was Who lied?. And since their testimony was about specific events and they were in direct conflict in their claims, one of them DID LIE.

@Dutchess_III His refusing the test and her taking it and passing nailed it for me. He knew he could indignantly refuse to take the test and, as @zenvelo says, the old boy network would shrug it off.

@bookish1 Yes, the Alito outburst about voting rights for blacks being an entitlement reminded me of how much respect I have lost for the Supreme court over the last few years.

@filmfann See my answer above to @Jaxk.

@elbanditoroso I think you meant Thomas had everything to lose by not lying but yeah.

@bkcunningham Anita Hill explained why she moved to the EEOC with Thomas. She had always wanted to work in Civil Rights enforcement. What she alleged Thomas was doing would certainly be unwelcome to most women, but not necessarily so odious that they would turn down their dream job to avoid it. So I don’t buy that.

@Aster Absolutely. The blame the victim culture is still alive and well in sexual matters. Look no further than the “Legitimate rape” garbage of this past election cycle.

@Gabby101 There were witnesses willing to testify. The senators cut a backroom deal to exclude them.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room That constantly sagging respect for the impartiality of our judiciary is exactly what led me to ask this question. It’s time Americans take stock of what’s happening to our form of government.

@janbb Absolutely. After an election where voting suppression schemes were attempted in 31 states, we appear poised for all the appointees of the party trying to rig the vote to decide that the real teeth of the Voting Rights Act are no longer needed. Why? Because they get in the way of winning by undemocratic means.

@SuperMouse Thanks.

@Sunny2 Again, the question was not what Clarence Thomas thought. None of us can climb inside his head and discern that. As noted in response to @Jaxk above, Anita Hill made very specific claims made about Clarence Thomas’ behavior. Thomas said those things never happened. The question is not how Thomas felt about what he did or did not do, it is which one was lying. Under the circumstances, one of them had to be lying.

@woodcutter Thanks. Agreed.

@SavoirFaire That’s true.

Was that ever really in doubt?

@Dr_Lawrence Judging from the answers above, it was among those with a partisan motive to doubt, and they were able to sway those who fall easily prey to the false equivalency fallacy and other convenient non-sequiturs.