MovieChat Forums > Confirmation (2016) Discussion > He probably did it

He probably did it

posted 8 years ago by VFBundy
34 replies | jump to latest

Anita Hill passed a lie detector test. They are around 98% accurate, so either: A) she's one of the 2% who tricked it, or B) she's delusional and believed something happened that really didn't happen. If you are to put bias aside and just look at it logically, you would have to assume the likelihood of either of these things occurring is very slim. Is either impossible? No, but maybe a 5% chance, and that's probably stretching it.

Also, back in the day, this is just something many men did because they didn't believe they were doing anything wrong. In 2016, most men wouldn't try it because they know they'd get nailed. Back in the early 80s when this supposedly occurred, there simply wasn't the fear or awareness.

[–] Toodles50 8 years ago

I always thought she was telling the truth.

[–] douglasscruggs 8 years ago

I always believed she was lying... and still do. Pathological liars can pass polygraph exams. I'm sure the Clinton's could both pass one too.

[–] superhet 8 years ago

Have you any other evidence that Anita Hill is a pathological liar? Besides, Thomas has already been exposed as having done the same things she accused him of with other women.

Or are you just makin' stuff up. Pathological liars often have a habit of doing that. Just sayin'...

[–] baileythedog 8 years ago

So how do you explain Bill Clinton getting a BJ in the Oval Office from a college intern? Did he get away with it? He inserted a cigar in her vagina and smoked it and blew cum on her dress.

What do you mean how do you explain it? Monica Lewinsky was never claiming sexual harassment. To this day she's never claimed that. She contends they had a consensual relationship.

You can certainly argue that a relationship that has a power differential in the middle of it is never a good one, but Clinton didn't get away with anything because ML didn't feel as though she'd been harassed.

Anita said Thomas never touched her which makes me think Hillary is a self serving whore.

What does one have to do with the other?

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

Nothing. He's a right wing nut who uses any chance to bash the potential president of the USA

If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list

[–] douglasscruggs 8 years ago

I guess it would take a left-wing nut to recognize a right-wing nut.

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

No such thing.

If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list

[–] kay_rock 8 years ago

Accusing someone of slut shaming and then calling them a whore invalidates anything you have to say.

Ever.

Movies are IQ tests; the IMDB boards are how people broadcast their score.

[–] dave4248185 8 years ago

///slut shaming/// putting a label on a girl that's meant to humiliate her which she can't defend herself against.

You mean like accusing someone of being a deviated sex pervert, doing things witnessed by NO ONE ELSE and he has no way to disprove it. That kinda shaming?

[–] aldiboronti 8 years ago

Lie detectors are completely unscientific. There's a good reason that they're not accepted in courts of law. And even if they were accurate it simply means that the woman believed what she was saying was the truth. That doesn't mean it was the truth, just her version of it.

From first to last this whole thing was politically motivated. The Democrats were determined to stop Thomas' nomination in whatever way they could. They couldn't care less about Anita Hill herself.

No, Thomas has not been a brilliant justice but that's not the point. It would have been totally wrong to block his nomination on the unsupported testimony of one woman. Right prevailed in the end. Of course HBO does everything it can to besmirch Thomas in retrospect, with Hill portrayed as virtue personified, but I'm sure we all expected that.

[–] public-online 8 years ago

At least 4 other women who were unrelated to Anita Hill came forward. This isn't mentioned in the movie, but is well documented.
If anything, the Democrats failed to do their job when they chose to not call those witnesses.
So even if you don't believe the lie detector test, there's really very little doubt about the accuracy of the events w.r.t. Clarence Thomas' behavior.

[–] la-bandida 8 years ago

Even if he didn't do it,he had a lot of people on his side.

David Brock, the author of the book, ''The Real Anita Hill'' (Free Press, 1993), has also suggested, in a magazine article to be published this week, that Justice Thomas used an intermediary to provide Mr. Brock with damaging information about a woman who had come forward to provide support for Ms. Hill's accusations of harassment by Justice Thomas. Ms. Hill's accusations became the focus of Senate hearings into Justice Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991.

Mr. Brock reported that he then used the information to force the woman to retract her statements about Justice Thomas. The article, in the August issue of Talk magazine, is excerpted from Mr. Brock's new book, ''Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex Conservative'' (Crown Publishers), which is scheduled to be published in September.

Describing an article he wrote for The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, in 1992, which became the basis for his book on Ms. Hill, he said he did everything he could to ''ruin Hill's credibility,'' using ''virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation I had collected on Hill into the vituperative mix.''

''I demonized Democratic senators, their staffs, and Hill's feminist supporters without ever interviewing any of them,'' he continued.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/us/book-author-says-he-lied-his-attacks-anita-hill-bid-aid-justice-thomas.html

[–] starduss_ala 8 years ago

Wait a min, Bill stuck what in Monica?!?!

[–] LiteraryLegend 8 years ago

LOL. That's old news. You must be too young to remember. The cigar thing was discussed in graphic details 20 plus years ago.

Actors are useless without the power of a good writer's imagination

[–] tramlaw301 8 years ago

Of course he did it. That's not even the point of her testimony. The fact that people think it has anything to do with whether he did it or not means that her purpose for being there was defeated.
There are a lot of A-holes in powerful positions. A lot of them are good at their jobs. The question is how much of an A-hole can you be and still be allowed to have a job like being on the Supreme Court.
They still voted him on.

[–] LiteraryLegend 8 years ago

He did it. It was obvious then and even more so now. It disgusts me this pig sits on the Supreme Court. The film was well done, but it reminded me how much I can't stand Thomas.

Actors are useless without the power of a good writer's imagination

[–] starduss_ala 8 years ago

Oh my. I assumed that poster was kidding. I looked up the case and read about it. I knew nothing about that. Ick.

[–] Kariann1 8 years ago

Sexual harassment is nothing to kid about. His filthy talk would be offensive to me. Call it political theater - he still shouldn't have be confirmed!

This gives me an idea of why Joe Biden didn't run for President. He knew this might come up and show some weakness on his part.

[–] baileythedog 8 years ago

This gives me an idea of why Joe Biden didn't run for President. He knew this might come up and show some weakness on his part.

You realize that Biden has run for president in the past, correct?

[–] Kariann1 8 years ago

Oops, thanks for the reminder. I just hate the fact that the Democrats were so weak instead of going after this jerk (Thomas).

[–] kayeinspire 8 years ago

Literary legend

I echo your sentiments! Just saw the movie so late reply :-)

I believed her and imo feel it was pretty obvious he said those things...just seemed this way to me.

[–] amilesse 8 years ago

The question is "What, exactly did he do, and in what context?"

I remember thinking at the time that if that was as bad as she could spin it, then the truth was far too minor to keep him off the SCOTUS, much less destroy his reputation.

It didn't stop them from stretching it as far as they could, and never will.

[–] tabbycat 8 years ago

Um, genius:

What did he do: lie repeatedly
In what context: under oath before the United States Congress

Just the ticket for a lifetime position to the land's highest court.

I seem to recall another case around the same time involving someone of high office lying about sexual conduct. But that time, of course, the truth was not "far too minor."

[–] public-online 8 years ago

I agree with your post, but wanted to point out that the hearings took place in 1991 (not in the early 80s).
Women have come a long way in 25 years, but there's still a long way to go!

[–] jannikitty 8 years ago

The incidents took place in the 80's. I think that is what the poster was talking about.