It would be easy to lob the charge of hypocrisy at Eric Schneiderman and make that the focus of any discussion about him.
But something deeper and more rotten is what's really going on:
That's the key to what this is really all about right there. It's the same motivation that Madam Bleachbit had when she sought out Juanita Broderick at a Democrat fundraiser in Arkansas shortly after her husband had raped Broderick, put her hand on Broderick's forearm, looked her right in the eye and said, "Bill and I want you to know how much we appreciate everything you've done for us. Do you understand? Everything."In one of the most disturbing passages in a story full of disturbing passages, [New Yorker writer Ronan] Farrow writes of how one of the women sought advice from her friends about how to handle Schneiderman’s abuse after their break-up. “After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose.”
These people talk a good game about equality and fairness, an end to bigotry, unfettered sexual-identity expression and a clean planet, but what they really want is power. They hate basic human freedom and have found this insidious way to work their designs.
It's a level below hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not why we should point up the carbon footprints they leave by jetting off to climate conferences. The whole point of their project is totalitarian control over you and me. Control over what we eat, what pronouns we use, and what temperature we set our thermostats at. Since they also hate God, Christian wedding-service providers will be made to violate their faith.
And when one of them wants a go at our crotches, we're expected to acquiesce.
Ain't gonna happen.
Yet you refuse to respect Anita Hill, Angela Wright, and the others who leveled sexual harrasment accusations at Clarence Thomas. It isn't surprising that you find hypocrisy to be least bothersome.
ReplyDeleteThat's true. I don't respect her or believe her.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailywire.com/news/5185/6-pieces-evidence-anita-hill-was-lying-amanda-prestigiacomo
. A witness said she was told details about the supposed sexual harassment while the two were living in Washington, except this witness was not living in Washington when Hill worked for Thomas.
The witness supposedly corroborating Hills’ allegations had moved out of Washington before Hill even began working for Thomas. How could she have possibly been told about the harassment before it happened?
2. Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job.
Hill claimed that she feared losing her government job if she did not follow Thomas from job to job. As Brookings Institute senior fellow Stuart Taylor Jr. points out, Hill was an employee of the federal government, known for its incredible job security.
3. Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.
Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.
Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.
4. Hill initially asked to be kept anonymous when her accusations were presented to Thomas. But if her accusations were true, then Thomas would know that the accusations were launched by Hill, so why ask for anonymity?
Sowell elaborates: “The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.
“Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present,” adds Sowell. “If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.”
5. Hill lied five times about being told something from a Democratic staffer, which she later admitted to under oath.
The Federalist highlights that Hill admitted, under oath, that although she previously denied being told something by a Democratic staffer, she actually was. This of course reeks of a political motive for the allegations and, again, a lack of credibility of the accuser.
6. A dozen females who worked with Thomas and Hill gave favorable testimony about Thomas and refuted the claims by Hill of Thomas’ inappropriate behavior.
As noted in the Wall Street Journal, “a dozen” women came out in support of Thomas, giving glowing testimony of his behavior, lending contradiction to Hills’ accusations.
Who said "woe unto he hypocrites?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying hypocrites get a pass spiritually speaking. Per what the Lord says, they have a particular kind of challenge in working out their salvation.
ReplyDeleteBut reread my point: Hypocrisy tells us nothing about whether the principle the hypocrite is espousing is good, right and true, or a load of crap.
Thank you for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteTo say that the term "evidence" is used loosely in your attempted justification is woefully inadequate. Most are unremarkable and number six is downright laughable given the scores of women at the relevant time that would have provided just as favorable and admiring "testimony" to Bill's character.
ReplyDeleteNo. Anita Hill is the more believable character in this saga for two over-riding reasons: First, motivation, to which I will return; and, second, and this is why I also believe Broderick, the very number of accusers and supporting witnesses.
Anita Hill was not alone and all of the accusers spoke to others about the incidents and, in terms of actual evidence given weight by experienced prosecutors, they did so contemporaneously.
Either Clarence Thomas alone committed perjury or Anita Hill did, as did several other accusers and witnesses who supported her version or their own versions in sworn statements. Which brings us back to the issue of motivation.
Thomas' motive for treating the law with complete disdain was to secure a lifetime appointment to one of the nation's most powerful positions. What was Anita Hill's? or Wright's? Or Smith's? Or the four other staffers either prepared to testify against Thomas at the Judiciary Committee hearings or were willing to if subpoenaed?
Many of these folk were, and still are, respected lawyers well aware of the disbarment and other penalties facing them if their testimonies were false. For your view to prevail, ALL of them were so opposed to Thomas they would ALL be willing to lose their livelihoods and possibly their freedom.
Why? How is that even plausible? True, Thomas faced the same possible fate, but for him, the payoff was enormous.
There's more to be said. A lot more. But I will stop there for now and conclude with this:
Anita Hill (and the other women - at the time and since) were telling the truth and Clarence Thomas perjured himself to ascend to the highest court in the land. I am not enthusiastic about an impeachment that puts Mike "NoCakesForGays" Pence in the Oval Office, but the evidence -- real evidence, not supposition or opinion or wishful thinking -- is overwhelming that Clarence Thomas is deserving of long overdue impeachment and removal from an office he criminally obtained and for which he is unfit to serve.