Bizarre mix of fact and fiction

It was very disconcerting to me to see the scenes between Clarence Thomas and his wife, which were completely fictional, put on an even keel with the scenes from the hearings, which were verbatim from the actual testimony. How in the world do the writers know Thomas denied everything to his wife? Obviously, her statements are completely unreliable, as she had a lot of prestige at stake in him becoming a Supreme Court justice, not to mention money. She has made her living working with conservative groups, several of which have had issues pending before the Supreme court -- yes, while her husband was sitting as a justice. But this movie presented those scenes, at which only the two of them were present, exactly the same way it presented the scenes for which transcriptions are available, or for which there are numerous witnesses to corroborate what was said or how people acted. This is the worst case of this mixing of fact and fiction that I have seen in one of these semi-documentaries.