• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

yes, i started it........but didn't participate in it. and i didn't title it.

No. But you said it was about "racism" being alive and well. But that's not what actually happened, which you would have known had you read the story . . . as was hashed out in the thread.


and i hardly call "becoming irritated" with his jurisprudence as well as his victimhood "in opposition" of him.

Why? Because in doing so you would make it clear that you didn't read the story, and her opposition is in fact stated in the story?


if she were truly "in opposition".......she would have come forward during the hearings.

If it had truly happened as she now says, she would have come forward during the hearings.
 

you are correct.......i said that. and? does that mean i rarely read my links? and no, i explained what i meant about the thomas story......she's not running for office, i don't see that she is working for anyone's campaign, and i don't see her as in "opposition". irritated doesn't mean in opposition.
 

What I think is mindless is denying that McEwen lends even more credibility to Anita Hill's story. As if there was any doubt before, now there is even less doubt. I don't think it's wrong to poke holes in their stories if there are any, Clarence Thomas should have his day in court like anybody else. Unfortunately he'll probably never be brought to justice because of politics.

What Virginia Thomas has to do with this is because she reopened the old wound of the Anita Hill scandal. Apparently she's is some pretty deep denial about the whole thing, and it all speaks to Clarence Thomas's character, not just as a womanizer but as somebody who is able lie to his own wife for so long.

And I'll say this, because Clinton and Gore have been bandied about in this thread, that I would apply the same standard to anybody. I still feel that Clinton should have been removed from office for perjuring himself. But at least Clinton stood trial.
 
Last edited:
you are correct.......i said that. and?

And anyone can read the rest of the thread (as well as the story) and see how badly you pooched it, and how obvious it is that you didn't read the story. Or, if you did, how badly you MISread it -- but if I were you, I'd be more comfortable with simply not having read it.


does that mean i rarely read my links?

It was but one example.

and no, i explained what i meant about the thomas story......she's not running for office, i don't see that she is working for anyone's campaign,

No one said she was -- only that she's pushing for a book deal and opposes Thomas politically. Both of which are perfectly well borne out in the story. Simply reading it would have clarified it for you.


and i don't see her as in "opposition". irritated doesn't mean in opposition.

Right, beacause people doing things you agree with tends to irritate the average person. Please.
 

How does a new "witness" whose story isn't credible lend "even more credibility" to Anita Hill's story?

As for "day in court," even if what Hill said was true, there was no crime, so that's pretty silly.


This McEwen thing was going to hit whether Virginia Thomas did that or not. VT's phone message had nothing to do with it.

"Deep denial," eh? I guess you've made up your own mind unshakeably.



And Anita Hill aired her entire story during Thomas's confirmation hearings.

If she wished to sue civilly, she could have done so.

There were no criminal charges to press.
 
As for "day in court," even if what Hill said was true, there was no crime, so that's pretty silly.

See what I mean about the mindless support? You don't need a crime to impeach a SCOTUS Justice, they serve during "good behavior." I'd say this qualifies as bad behavior.

This McEwen thing was going to hit whether Virginia Thomas did that or not. VT's phone message had nothing to do with it.

I'm just taking McEwen at her word that she was motivated by the phone. Either way the phone call was a reopening of the Anita Hill scandal by a member of the Thomas family. The fact is that the Anita Hill and Virginia Thomas interaction is central to this issue, and you're just using it as a distraction from the fact that you have no legitimate reason to defend Thomas.

"Deep denial," eh? I guess you've made up your own mind unshakeably.

I've made up my mind, but not unshakably. If I see evidence to the contrary then maybe I'll reconsider.

But the evidence is pretty damning against Thomas. It's unfortunate that some people will let their political position dictate what is true rather than the actual evidence. Thomas is a right winger, therefore he gets shielded no matter what. Clinton, on the other hand, gets nailed to the wall at the earliest opportunity. Real principled of you guys :lol:
 
See what I mean about the mindless support? You don't need a crime to impeach a SCOTUS Justice, they serve during "good behavior." I'd say this qualifies as bad behavior.

A) That has nothing to do with a "day in court."

B) Anything Anita Hill alleged happend 1) before Thomas was on the Court and 2) wasn't a crime. "Good behavior" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.



I'm just taking McEwen at her word that she was motivated by the phone.

Right, and she didn't have a book to push.


How am I using it as a "distraction"?

I have no legitimate reason to IMPUGN Thomas.


What, the testimony of a single person whose story broke apart during the hearings? That's your standard of evidence?
 



YOU want him out so Barry can appoint a relacement - Right(???)
 
A) That has nothing to do with a "day in court."

B) Anything Anita Hill alleged happend 1) before Thomas was on the Court and 2) wasn't a crime. "Good behavior" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
:rofl
I think it doesn't mean what *you* think it means. It's the equivalent of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. I'm not just talking about the pubic hair incident, mind you, but the fact that Thomas actually perjured himself during his confirmation hearings. This is precisely analogous to the Clinton impeachment issue. Am I correct to assume you supported the impeachment of Clinton? If so you are logically compelled to apply the same principle to Thomas's perjury.



What, the testimony of a single person whose story broke apart during the hearings? That's your standard of evidence?

Coupled with McEwen's testimony to lend credibility, I'd say you've got a pretty good case. I wonder what interesting things a special prosecutor would turn up on Clarence Thomas's computer?
 
YOU want him out so Barry can appoint a relacement - Right(???)

Nah, that's irrelevant. It's a simple application of a minimal standard of conduct for people serving in our highest offices. It's a shame that people will let politics trump principle.
 
Do people on this site ever tire of the politics of personal destruction. It was crazy when it was against Clinton just as it is crazy now!
 

Ummm . . .

You're saying that simply by denying the charges made against him, he committed "perjury"? Really?

I don't think you should assume anything concerning things about which I have said nothing.





Coupled with McEwen's testimony to lend credibility, I'd say you've got a pretty good case.

I'd say twice nothing is still nothing.

Hill's testimony broke down. And McEwen wouldn't last five minutes on cross-examination.


I wonder what interesting things a special prosecutor would turn up on Clarence Thomas's computer?

Nope, you haven't made up your mind unshakeably about anything. Nope.
 
Do people on this site ever tire of the politics of personal destruction. It was crazy when it was against Clinton just as it is crazy now!

I disagree. Clinton tarnished the dignity of the presidency. Not by his liaisons but his perjury and misleading the American people. I don't subscribe to the idea that politicians should be able to do as they please and rely on their partisans to exculpate them. That's the politics of societal destruction.
 
That thought had crossed my mind reading your posts.

Indeed, maybe you'll reevaluate your partisan hackery then and join the call to bring Thomas to justice.

By the way, you still haven't mentioned your stance on the Clinton impeachment. Can't say I blame you... who would want their hypocrisy to be exposed?
 
Even IF Every allegation against Thomas was True, there is No evidence that since he took his seat on the Court that he's been unethical or lied. Clinton even after assuming office carried on with Females like he did since he was a Teenager. He saw no difference between most Women.

This distinction Liberals cannot perceive.
 

It's not surprising because there is no distinction. It doesn't matter how they comported themselves after they committed the perjury, except that they never made any effort to tell the truth. It's perjury that is the the issue. Ya know, lying under oath. I expect a Justice of the highest court in the land be trustworthy. There is mounting evidence that he perjured himself at his confirmation. End of discussion.

Or is it? That's where the partisan hacks come it, and start obfuscating the issue. The hypocrisy and corruption here would be laughable if it wasn't so despicable.
 
Indeed, maybe you'll reevaluate your partisan hackery then and join the call to bring Thomas to justice.

You give me credible evidence, and then I'll be happy to.


By the way, you still haven't mentioned your stance on the Clinton impeachment. Can't say I blame you... who would want their hypocrisy to be exposed?

I didn't, because it's got nothing to do with this.

But as you've asked, I thought it was stupid. The perjury charge, anyway. The obstruction of justice charge wasn't.
 

So, for you, merely denying Anita Hill's charge makes him a "perjurer." It is as I thought.

If you're going to accuse others of "partisan hackery" . . .
 
You give me credible evidence, and then I'll be happy to.
There is enough evidence between Hill and McEwen's testimony to support an investigation. Once there is a proper investigation we can talking about what evidence has been yielded and proceed from there.

Sounds like you're less interested in the truth and more interested in protecting your partisan on the Supreme Court. How cynical.
 
But as you've asked, I thought it was stupid. The perjury charge, anyway. The obstruction of justice charge wasn't.

Are you serious? The obstruction charge was a result of the perjury! So you admit that you're a hypocrite!
 

Uh, no. You're the one who's made up his mind entirely.

I heard what Anita Hill said in 1991. It broke down. It was inconsistent. And it changed along the way. It was not credible, and I have this quirky need for credible evidence before I believe something.

Now, I see someone who's been quiet for 19 years, who says she's irritated by his conservative jurisprudence, and who has a book to push. Like I said, that would last five minutes (or less) in cross-examination.

It's you who are utterly convinced of an accusation for which there is no credible evidence.

At the very least, you make no allowance whatsoever that anyone could conclude that Hill's testimony and McEwen's statements are dubious WITHOUT being partisan hacks, and thus no reasonable person could look at it and conclude it's dubious. That, my friend, is a shining example of the very hackery which you have the nerve to decry.
 
Are you serious? The obstruction charge was a result of the perjury! So you admit that you're a hypocrite!

No, it was not. There was much more to it than that. I suggest you brush up.
 
No, it was not. There was much more to it than that. I suggest you brush up.

I suggest you brush up before you make a fool of yourself. I like you too much to want you to sound so ignorant. The charges of perjury and obstruction were based on the same incident of lying under oath. This is well-known.

 
Last edited:
I suggest you brush up before you make a fool of yourself. I like you too much to want you to sound so ignorant. The charges of perjury, obstruction were all based on the same incident of lying under oath. This is well-known.

Ummm . . .

This was the charge.


(You "like me too much." Riiiiiiiight. Why should I take anything you say seriously?)
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…