A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Cain denies sexual harrassment allegations. Whoops.


Posted: Oct 30, 2011

Oh, Herm, say it ain't so. 

(CBS/AP)  WASHINGTON - Republican candidate Herman Cain is denying a report claiming he was repeatedly accused of sexual harassment.

In a statement Sunday night, Cain's campaign said a media report that Cain was accused of sexual harassment at least twice during his tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association isn't true and represents unfair attacks.

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said the political press was "dredging up thinly sourced allegations" from Cain's tenure leading the trade group in the 1990s. Gordon said the report includes "unsubstantiated personal attacks" and said the press is "casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts."

Asked if Cain's campaign was denying the report, Gordon said, "Yes."

The allegations were first reported by the website Politico.  In its report, Politico writes that two women at the National Restaurant Association "complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, (Politico's) sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures."

The Cain campaign denial claimed the report was produced by "Inside the Beltway media." The statement, issued by Gordon, never directly denies the allegations.

"Since Washington establishment critics haven't had much luck in attacking Mr. Cain's ideas to fix a bad economy and create jobs, they are trying to attack him in any way they can," the statement continues. 

The report and the Cain campaign's allegation of a Washington conspiracy against him comes on the eve of a week that the surging GOP contender planned to spend in the nation's capital. His schedule suggests he is hoping to win over some of the city's establishment. On Monday morning, he is scheduled to speak at the American Enterprise Institute, followed by a midday speech at the National Press Club. On Wednesday, Cain is planning to meet with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Cain himself did not directly confront the allegations when confronted Sunday by Politico reporter Jonathan Martin outside the CBS Washington bureau, where Cain had just appeared on Face the Nation.

"I'm not gonna comment about two people that you won't tell me who they are. That's like negotiating -- ," Cain said, abruptly stopping himself mid-sentence. "I am not gonna comment on that, because you know, I think that that is one of those kinds of things that, until you look --," he said, again stopping himself mid-sentence. After being asked several times by Martin if he has ever been accused of sexual harassment Cain ended the exchange with a question of his own: "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?"

Most former board members of the National Restaurant Association told Politico they remembered his tenure there fondly, and claim he left on good terms.

Perhaps those board members were men who keep their glass ceiling intact. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-20127678/herman-cain-denies-sexual-harassment-claims/

;

Make that harassment with one R. Here's a link to - a more detailed 4-page account....

[ In Reply To ..]
Interesting stuff. How could Cain "not know" whether or not he has ever been charged with sexual harassment? I mean, really....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

So funny. He is just beginning to "remember?" - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I remember when my dad was sued about property 35 years ago. (Proven innocent--no settlement). I remember when I was assused of cheating on a test about 30 years ago (proven innocent--no settlement). He can't remember being accused of sexual harrassment and paid a settlement? That is so absolutely riduculous.

Here we go again, lefties put your bibs on - don't want you to drool all over

[ In Reply To ..]
The left wingnuts are in full palinize mode. Should be exciting.

Romney, Bachmann, Paul, Newt, Perry having the best time - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

NO! NO! NO! He believes in taking responibility! - Blame Yourself! nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Yes, and the left wingnuts are continuing to destroy - a once proud nation. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

another high tech lying of a "N" - shorty

[ In Reply To ..]
to quote Judge Thomas. When all else fails liberals lie. They have no shame.

Aint that the truth - people need to research more - Seek the truth - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
There was no sexual harassment.

Jenna Lee: Let’s start with the truth. that’s always the best place to start. What is the truth about these allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct? Have you ever been accused at any time of either?

Herman Cain: Yes. I have never sexually harassed anyone, let’s say that. Secondly, I’ve never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say falsely, because it turned out, after the investigation, to be baseless. The people mentioned in that article were the ones who would be aware of any misdoings, and they have attested to my integrity and my character. It is totally baseless, and totally false, never have I committed any sort of sexual harassment. - Article below

I guess that's what the liberals are best at - repeating lies, not searching out the truth, and making false accusations. Guess they can't stand the fact that a black man is pulling ahead, because now all their future claims of racism will be null.

Before they dig up dirt on someone they better get the fact right. If they are going to be spreading lies, which they know are lies, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

But then again it's what they do best.

Oh yes, those two women who falsely accused him better think twice. They signed an agreement they would take their payoff, but they also signed agreements that they would stop talking about this because it was bogus. I do think there is a law against that. I hope they will be held responsible for their wrong doings too.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/31/cain_on_sexual_harassment_charge_totally_baseless_and_totally_false.html

Yup, a lie. Now there are 3 accusers, not 2. - Researcher

[ In Reply To ..]
...and a witness to the harassment who works for Perry. - Keeps getting better and better.
[ In Reply To ..]
His name is Chris Wilson. Menwhile, Marlboro Man Mark Block is indignantly demanding an apology from Perry, who in turn is pointing fingers at the Romney camp. This anybody-but-Romney primary is evolving from a 3-ring circus into a complete shambles. The GOP appears to be bent on choosing loser after loser after loser, a trend they seem unlikely to be able to reverse between now and next November.

Correct. Liberals lie so much they think its the truth.nm - +-+

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Wouldn't Republicans benefit the most from Cain humiliation? - Think about it.

[ In Reply To ..]
Obama would love to run against Cain. He would get 70 percent of the vote.

Karl Rove has been pretty perturbed that his man (Romney) has been ignored.

So which one of Squirmin’ Herman’s versions - do you buy into?

[ In Reply To ..]
1) The "I don't remember" flop series?
a) “I was falsely accused. The charges were found to be baseless, but problem is I don’t recall who found the charges baseless”?
b) “I don’t remember having a private conversation with her. It could have been, but I do not recollect”?
c) “I am unaware of any settlement” or the subsequent agreement-versus-settlement parse?
d) “She and her lawyers were demanding a huge financial settlement, but I don’t remember the number”?
e) The “If I did, and I don’t think I did, but if I did, I don’t even remember signing it (the settlement) but it was minimal….I don’t recall signing it. The fact that I DON’T recall signing it, doesn’t mean I didn’t sign it, it just means I don’t recall if I signed it” stumble and stutter?

2) The 5-figure termination settlement defense, supposedly equivalent to 3 months pay…the good news is we didn’t pay all the money that was being demanded!”?
3) The “poor job performance” explanation/severance pay approach? What astute businessman pays $35,000 for poor job performance?
4) The "I have never sexually harassed anyone!" declaration…of course, a totally subjective and suspect assessment of what constitutes sexual harassment by the accused rather than the accuser, ala the Clarence Thomas precedent?
5) Taking full blame-the-victim advantage of his accuser's binding “silence-is-golden" settlement clause she is currently abiding by but seeking to rescind and which, of course, Cain didn't remember but might remember by now?
6) The "I have to check the contract's legal implications" dodge in the Fox Q&A that did not seem to prevent him from disclosing one-sided details in his numerous interviews during his whirlwind national media tour?
7) His coy wink-and-a-nod "wandering eye" response to VanSustern?
8) Or my personal favorite, the humiliating baritone musical response, “Amazing grace will always be my form of praise…He looked beyond all my faults and saw my need” the he belted out loud at the National Press Club conference?

By no means is this list complete. In fact, it is expanding and evolving as we speak.

How do you know the accusers were libs? - mthead

[ In Reply To ..]
They could have been of any political stripe.

Embraced as Thomas, or rejected as Anthony W? - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Thomas was never embraced. He was excused, - Typical of GOP sex scandal management.

[ In Reply To ..]
These GOP history rewrites sure get tiresome.

CT didn't have the integrity to withdraw from the SC nomination. His wife even had the balls to ask Hill to apologize, a gesture she characterized as an "olive branch." Uh-huh. RIIGGHHTT. Hill did not instigate action against CT at the time the harassment occured, but instead was called years later to testify in Senate confirmation hearings after a private FBI interview with her was leaked to the press...hardly the behavior of a woman with an ax to grind.

She was grilled for days by the Senate and recounted CT's graphic discussions about pornography in the workplace, referencing bestiality and a porno-film character named Long Dong Silver that depicted group sex and rape scenes, and how he boasted of his own sexual prowess. Hill said he pressured her for dates and, in the one of the hearing's more memorable episodes, suggested to her that someone had put pubic hairs on his can of Coca-Cola. Gag me. To this day, every time I see a picture of him, he gives me the creeps.

Four other women were prepared to support Hill's testimony of their own volition (Hill did not ask them for help) including one who had come to court straight from a hospital bed, but they were NEVER CALLED to do so, as a result of a stinky back-door deal between Senate republicans and democrats. Meanwhile, the GOP launched a smear campaign against Hill and nasty threats to viciously attack any supporting witness testimony. The committee did, however, hear testimony from four women supportive of CT, not what I would call fair and just, to be sure.

For years to follow, CT has demonstrated open hostility and hatred toward Hill and on more than several occasions tried to ruin her reputation and drag her name through the mud, for daring to answer questions under oath in a truthful manner. He has not succeeded and, in fact, Anita Hill's testimony ushered in a new era of awareness of and protection against sexual harassment in the work place, which BTW was sorely needed. Boomer women like myself remember all too well the many years we were forced to put up with this pathetic and disgusting behavior, status quo for as long as women have been in the workforce.

If this creep were in my party, I would not exactly be beating my chest and bragging about "embracing" him, but then again, when it comes to sex scandal management, the GOP has no shame and there is no limit to the depths to which they are willing to sink to excuse any and all actions, no matter how despicible, and sweep them all under the carpet.

Agree! All while expounding family values - Moral high ground-nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Wrong. Anita Hill ruined her own reputation. She - was the CREEP. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

What total baloney. Anita Hill was simply a liar. nm - Indy

[ In Reply To ..]
nm
Based on what? Your opinion? Please back up - this lie with valid citations.
[ In Reply To ..]
There is a truckload of information available on this and I can assure you, you will not find a shred of evidence to back your opinion up. What part of 4 corroborating witnesses never allowed to testify are you not getting? CT is a creep, plain and simple.
I agree with the poster you replied to - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
The simple truth is Anita Hill lied. There was never any evidence to prove he did what she accused him of. I remember watching and listening to the testimonies, and so called "evidence". In the beginning I believed her. However, upon listening to her and other stuff it became so obvious that she was lying.

AH is the creep in this case. Plain and simple.

Oh yeah, and what you are stating is your opinion. Based on what? Her lies. When a jury listens to a case they look at the evidence and they base their decision on their "opinion". Just because you think your opinion is right doesn't make the poster you replied to wrong.
After the stinky back door deal corroborating testimony was never heard because of - alleged time constraints....
[ In Reply To ..]
but they did manage to find the time to hear testimony supportive of CT from 4 other women. Go figure. This was a confirmation hearing, not a trial. Hill was only obliged to answer questions truthfully under oath, which she did brilliantly. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest she lied. If there were, you would be able to provide it, which you have not, and had she lied in front of a Congressional hearing, she would have been disbarred....which hs not happened. The way the proceedings were handled was clearly gender-biased as well as prejudicial.

Almost as much on the way the proceedings were handled has been written as has been on the testimony itself. Notably, there were no women on the Judiciary Committee whose members struck the deal to forego hearing sexual harassment testimony from the other 4 women but gleefully allowed supportive testimony of CT to be heard. Also, HW Bush, who nominated CT, originally had threatened to veto pending sexual harassment legislation, but after Hill’s shoddy treatment by the Committee, he reversed his position and signed a law allowing women to seek damage awards, back pay and reinstatement. Ummm, evidently HW was quite impressed with Hill, sympathetic to her plight and that of all women, which Hill was able to bring to light., and swayed by her presentation to the extent that he actually changed his mind. Fact, not opinion.

My statements are based on the extensive fund on knowledge on the subject, available at your fingertips. My citations are just the tip of the iceberg. Don’t be afraid. Dive right on in. It’s only the truth. It won't bite. Speaking of the truth, you might notice there is one reference article about how Hill passed a polygraph. What do you wanna bet they never administered the test to CT? Also, take note of those who have since confessed to lying about Hill.

PS: I would welcome any citations you might post to dispute these findings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-anita-hill-the-clarence-thomas-hearings-havent-really-ended/2011/10/05/gIQAy2b5QL_story.html

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-01-03/us/cnn25.tan.anita.hill_1_court-nominee-clarence-thomas-sexual-harassment-hill-first?_s=PM:US

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/41-124.pdf

http://www.brandeis.edu/now/2011/september/anitahill.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/08/us/the-thomas-nomination-a-law-professor-defends-integrity.html?ref=anitahill

http://www.cohenmilstein.com/attorneys.php?PeopleID=80

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/09/us/the-thomas-nomination-woman-at-center-of-furor-seeks-quiet-of-law-classes.html?ref=anitahill

http://abcnews.go.com/US/clarence-thomas-anita-hill-supreme-court-confirmation-hearing/story?id=14802217

http://books.google.com/books?id=alR-oZEbPFUC&q=clarence+thomas+qualified#v=snippet&q=clarence%20thomas%20qualified&f=false

http://www.theroot.com/views/anita-hill-ponders-her-legacy?page=0%2C0

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981809,00.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-17/news/mn-911_1_angela-wright

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new-yitna?id=UsaThom&images=images/modeng&data=/lv6/workspace/yitna&tag=public&part=24

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575562993761893962.html

This one is about a writer’s confessing to “smearing” Hill
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,167355,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/29/us/the-thomas-nomination-questions-to-those-who-corroborated-hill-account.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/22/DI2007042200950.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976770,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/08/us/thomas-nomination-senate-sexism-panel-s-handling-harassment-allegation-renews.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://ideas.time.com/2011/10/12/anita-hill-the-stories-i-carry-with-me/

http://ideas.time.com/2011/10/12/anita-hill-the-stories-i-carry-with-me/
Talk about stink - do you have any actual links to prove your point? - besides these opinion pieces - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
that you agree with. First though, you do know that anyone can pass a polygraph don't you? Have you ever heard of Aldrich Ames? In fact just a simple and quick search on the internet there are a lot of websites that teach people how to pass a polygraph. Pretty easy actually, so using the ol "but she passed a polygraph" excuse doesn't fly.

Now...to address all those wonderful and numerous links you posted as you stated you have such an "extensive fund on knowledge of the subject". However, no more than many other people like myself who watched the incident intently and did our research.

Your first link gives no credit as to whether or not she lied. But since she is the liberals icon, of course they will write good about her and how this has never ended for her.

In fact links 2-5 are also fall in the same category. Talks about the book deals she made, what her life is like then and now, etc. I did see one link that was her statement, so to be fair you should have posted his statement too.

I don't know her personally so can't say whether or not she is a nice person. I'm sure she is, but the point is whether or not she lied. Since your first 6 links do not prove if she did or not, should anyone even open the others, or are they more of the same thing talking about what a great person she is, her book deals she made over this, etc, or do you actually have a link above that proves that she did not lie, or are these all just a waste of our time and do not prove the point you were trying to make.

I too watched the hearing when it was going on. I listened to her testimony and truthfully something was not right.

Okay, I couldn't stop. Didn't want to be accused of anything, so I opened up the next 5 links and still nothing that proves she didn't lie. They are all opinion pieces, one that talks about where she is (or was) working and one about how she likes talking about it. Nothing but opinion pieces including her own. So, no need to waste my time looking at the rest. If I wanted to read about her life I would have looked her up on the internet.

So, per your request:

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/242376.php

http://minx.cc/?post=242376

I will leave it at that. Many more articles so people can research the actual hearing and decide for themselves. The testimony is out there and people can make up their own minds, i.e. form their own opinions, just like you.
You're joking, right? All 23 links are opinion pieces, but your 2 - to one unsourced article
[ In Reply To ..]
posted on a site called "rhymeswithright" and another called "minx" is unbiased? Hahahahahahahahahahha. Did you notice that both of your links are by the same blogger and are the same article, so in fact you only provided one citation from "rhymeswithright?" ROLMAO.

So polygraphs lie, HW Bush is a poor judge of character and you didn't notice that the third link provides the entire transcript of Anita Hill's verbatim testimony....hardly an opinion piece. Look, no matter how hard you try to disparage her, Anita Hill is a women's movement icon who is well respected and very much revered and appreciated for her courage to stand up to the slime ball.

Give it up. Cain's goose is cooked. His past has come back to haunt him. Victims and witnesses are popping up left and right, the media is in full feeding frenzy mode and the GOP primary contenders are locked into a relentless finger-pointing battle over who leaked the story. So much for those dirty rotten liberal media tricks and witch hunts.

Cain's creepy resemblance to his mentor is unmistakable, but he is not as fortunate as CT, since he can't mobilize a good ole boys Judiciary Committee armada to come to his rescue. In fact, I'm sure before it's all over, he will be thrown under quite a few buses. He will end up slithering off into obscurity to hawk his book to the nearest sucker willing to turn a blind eye to his more perverse side and eager to hang on his every word. Assuming he can overcome his other brewing Americans for Prosperity campaign finance scandal, he can probably skip sex offenders rehab and get a gig as a Palin stand-in on Fox. This guy couldn't get past the 2004 Georgia Senate primaries and he is doomed to face the same fate in this round as well, and he has nobody to blame but himself.

But take heart. The GOP has always been very resilient in their penchant for looking past the slime factor so Cain can probably look forward to a very rewarding future on Fox Entertainment Network as their latest political refugee charity case. In the meantime, we all should be counting our blessings. Cain doesn't even know that China has nukes and he thinks provoking a war with Iran is good policy. You should count yours, too. Had he actually been able to get the nomination, with this unfathomable depth of ignorance, he would have been handing Obama a landslide. Surely, the GOP can do better than that, or can they? Did I say I was ROFLMAO?
Not joking. Are YOU? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Hey, I could go post a ton of "opinion" pieces like you did, but you even said to the poster you replied to "Based on what? Your opinion? Please back up - this lie with valid citations." Well you just went and posted opinions (of course only the ones you agree with). What you posted was not valid citations proving whether or not she lied. All 23 links were articles talking about what a great person she is, she's sold books, where she works, what her life is like, blah, blah, blah. Not one of the articles is a valid citation you requested of the previous poster.

Basically your opinion is that she did not lie. You based that on what all these peoples opinions were. There are many of us out here who believed she lied, based on the fact that her testimony was not credible. And evidently we were right because the court voted the same way we believed.

You posted opinion pieces from liberal sources. They favor her so of course they are going to write glorious reports about her and trash anyone conservative. But to post articles about where she works and the books and what her life is like does not prove whether or not she lied. You could copy 100 websites talking about her life and what she wears to work and how she brushes her teeth, etc. It's not the proof you were asking of the previous poster. Just a couple website would have been enough but to post so many and waste everyone's time. Like I said, if I wanted to read about her life I would have looked it up on the internet, but that is not what the discussion was about. It was about whether or not she lied.

But before you start poking fun at the website Rhymes with Right you might want to read other articles because they talk about other issues. One is even titled "Another Reason Herman Cain is unfit to be President". I'm sure you'll love that one.

And like all your opinion pieces about the issue that is what I posted too.

Ahhhh, so now we get to the "meat of the matter" (as the saying goes) - "Anita Hill is a women's movement icon". Well no wonder why you believe her. Sorry to tell you though, but she did lie and I don't care how big of an icon she is to you. And how Bush and Cain's name came up I have no idea as that is not the topic at hand. But once you mentioned Bush's name I stopped there. The rest of the post is just.....zzzzzzzz's. Animosity towards anyone not a liberal just puts me to sleep.

But hey...you want to believe she's telling the truth that's okay. Just wish you would have shown some proof. For me after listening to her testimony and the other evidence I do not.

So will just have to say we disagree on this issue.
A body of 12 politicians bent on pushing a SC nomination through - is not a court.
[ In Reply To ..]
In court, both sides of a story are presented and when evidence is suppressed, the judgment is swiftly thrown out. The hearings were conducted in the chambers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not a court of law, remember? Evidently, your side was intimidated by 4 women who had similar experiences with CT or had first-hand knowledge of his harassment of Hill. Regardless of what you think of my 23 links, you cannot get around the FACT that they refused to hear that testimony, and in the process, they lost all credibility regarding any conclusions they drew.

There are many of you out there who are poised to launch a blame-the-victims attack on the 2 (or is it 3?) soon to be not-so-anonymous women who are preparing to release harassment information on Squirmin’ Herman, but that certainly doesn’t mean they made up the Long Dong Silver story or any of the rest of it. It just means that partisanship and lust for power can create mass hysteria that leads them to reject truth in the face of even the most compelling supporting evidence. I am not in the habit of arguing with brick walls, so I will leave the question of whether or not my citations are liberal opinion pieces up to those who may be reading this thread, but your rhymeswithright source betrays its own bias in it name and the appearance of its website. I did not post links to similar blogospheric rags, and there is no “proof” embedded in that ridiculous piece.

Pardon me, but the topic at hand traces back to the original post that introduces Cain's sexual harassment and poses the question, “Do we have another CT on our hands.” You may want to make this all about your personal disdain toward liberals, which has very little to do with anything, but I tend toward exploring all aspects of this comparison between the breaking story on Cain’s sexual harassment woes and the CT precedent. GOP historical rewrites add nothing to that dialog. Anita Hill is not my personal icon, she is recognized by women all over the world as a courageous frontrunner who was able to exert direct influence on US president (HW) to do a 180 on sexual harassment legislation, another indisputable FACT you cannot opine way.

So when you were listening to all that testimony, you seriously believed you were watching a court proceedings and not a Judiciary Committee hearing? Maybe you should have paid closer attention and not been so focused on attacking sworn statements made under oath by a liberal woman. After all, according to your own words, the only animosity that interests you is that which is aimed at liberals. That kind of bias is blinding and speaks for itself.
Your still not addressing the fact that - none of the 26 links
[ In Reply To ..]
prove she did not lie. I don't care about her life. How about those "valid citations" the poster requested from the one they replied to, cos he/she didn't post any his/herself.
If they are all opinion pieces, as you repeatedly have claimed, - it's best to
[ In Reply To ..]
to leave any conclusions up to whomever may reading the thread to decide which one of us has presented a more convincing picture, isn't it? I stand by my post and by my citations, which I will remind you are only the tip of the iceberg....plenty more where those came from. Trying to convince you is nothing more than a waste of my time. Like I said, I am not in the habit of arguing with brick walls. I think I've done my part by providing a couple of dozen links, all of which you are determined to attack. Ask me if I care.

BTW, you also have not addressed proof that Hill was lying with any citations (make that citation, as in the singular) that even remotely approach credibility, so we're even. That's not enough for you? Your problem, not mine.
What you provided was a look at what Anita Hill's life - is like - never addressed
[ In Reply To ..]
the proof to show she didn't lie. Maybe she didn't, maybe Thomas was guilty, but until you show some evidence I'm inclined to go with my instinct that I did back then. I believe she lied.

You stand by all your articles you posted and that's fine. Guess it will give people something to read about what she is like as a person, where she works, what she wears, what books she reads, etc, but sorry, you just didn't provide any links to prove she didn't lie.

I too feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall because you don't address what the topic was and you don't abide by the same rules you asked of the previous poster.

Not going to waste any more of my time with this. If you happen to have one of those "valid citations" you requested of the poster you really should post it. Otherwise 26 links talking about what she was like growing up, where she works, how many book deals she made from this does not prove anything.

I'm done with this. If you want to post again go ahead. Maybe other people have time to waste.
I read those articles. IMO, they present a compelling case - favorable to Anita Hill.
[ In Reply To ..]
One of the links is the complete transcript of her testimony. A couple of others are written by people who admit they lied about her during the smear campaign. I also watched the hearings from beginning to end and saw nothing to suggest she was lying about anything. I was stunned when the committee decided not to hear the other women testify and I agree with the OP. They lost all their credibility by hearing supporting testimony from one side but not the other. At the conclusion of the hearing, I thought Anita Hill not only had been sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas, but also by the Judiciary Committee.

Unsubstantiated - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Or maybe what we have here is a Paula Jones Salad with a beautiful arrangement of Jennifer Flowers, and a main course of Lewinsky with a cigar afterwards.

Aye Clintonistas

Excellent post - Too bad they think that is okay

[ In Reply To ..]

Similar Messages:


Perry Denies His Campaign Behind Cain AccusationsNov 03, 2011
Don't know if Perry's behind it or not, but it's not implausible given that Cain appears to be a stronger candidate than Perry is, IMHO. ...

What About A Gingrich/Cain (or Cain/Gingrich) TicketNov 02, 2011
Been thinking about this.  What are your opinions of a Gingrich/Cain or vice versa ticket.  I think with Newt's government experience and Cain's business experience they'd be a good ticket.  What do you think about them and what are your pros/cons of them.  Oh yes, please don't respond with any of that bogus harassment crap.  Again looking for a serious conversation, not unsubstantiated rumors.  I think we need strong candidates.  Perry and ...

"If These Allegations Prove To Be True, (sm)May 21, 2014
someone will be held accountable, as the Commander in Chief, (He throws that one around a lot - AW), blah, blah, blah.  New day, same crap.  Did he read it in today's news?  ...

New Allegations About Trump's Ties To RussiaJan 11, 2017
More important than ever that he release those tax returns.   ...

British Judge Denies Assange BailDec 07, 2010
I heard that there are 4 women who have now come forward. Don't know how true it is.   LONDON -- A British judge denied Julian Assange bail on Tuesday after the WikiLeaks founder told a London court he would fight efforts to extradite him to Sweden to face a sex-crimes investigation. The secret-spilling websites' finances came under increasing pressure as both Visa and Mastercard cut off funding methods, but a WikiLeaks spokesman insisted details from classified U.S. diplomatic ...

ANOTHER College Denies Christine O'Donnell AttendedSep 29, 2010
Another university is bringing Christine O'Donnell's self-professed education history into question Wednesday, as Claremont Graduate University, a school that the Delaware Senate candidate claims she attended, has told Talking Points Memo that they have no record of her being there. "Claremont Graduate University has no student or education record for an individual named Christine O'Donnell," Rod Leveque, a spokesman for Claremont told TPM Tuesday, despite O'Donnel ...

Trump Denies He Is Sick And Blames The MicrophoneSep 28, 2016
"An uncharacteristically low-tempo speech in Chicago Wednesday, paired with noticeable congestion, has fueled further questions about Trump's health following his infamous debate-night sniffles." For the latest see link below. ...

Lou Dobbs Denies He Hired Undocumented Workers For Years.Oct 07, 2010
Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell show, along with his very well resourced, legally vetted accuser, Isabel MacDonald, a reporter for The Nation, who has been doing an in-depth investigation of Dobbs for over a year.  The dapper dimpler plans to set the record straight, orso he claims.  Oh my.  ...

Judge Denies D'Souza Time To Promote MovieOct 02, 2014
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/judge-to-dinesh-dsouza-no-you-cant-delay-your-sentence-to-promote-your-movie/     Whereas, if he were given the time to promote it, that would be punishment for some of us! ...

Louisiana Magistrate Denies Marriage License To Interracial CoupleOct 16, 2009
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/louisiana-denies-marriage-license-interracial/   ...

Whoops! Looks Like Clinton Campaign Is Hiding ASep 02, 2016
Those pesky glass houses. If anyone ought not to live in them, it's the Clintons. ...

Herman CainJan 12, 2011
Announced today that he is creating a presidential exploratory committee to run for president in 2012.   To my knowledge, this is the first republican to do this for the upcoming election. ...

Whoops! Did As Many As 2.8 Million Vote Illegally In 2008?Jan 26, 2017
Can't help wondering why, if Trump's suspicions are so absurd, liberals are so violently opposed to looking into the question.  If he's wrong, they can make bricks out of that hay.  Don't say "waste of money" unless you'd really like to have that conversation as it relates to liberals and wasting money. They say "absolutely no evidence"...but...(follow link). ...

Palin-Cain 2012Oct 05, 2011
In the near-absence of any sign that Sarah Palin is actively considering a GOP primary campaign, the good folks at Conservatives4Palin come up with this alternative scenario to keep hope alive: [T]he possibility of an independent run does make sense and to delay the anouncement of her candidacy may simply be part of a bigger plan. Sarah Palin promised this to be a very unconventional election cycle. Creating a third party fits that narrative. ... Political parties always fear a rogue thi ...

ACORN Pimp Arrested Trying To Tap Dem Senators Phone. Whoops.Jan 26, 2010
Michelle Malkin scolds:  "Don't get carried away."  Boys will be boys.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/1751-acorn-pimp-arrested-trying-to-tap-sen-landrieus-office-phone ...

Whoops! The Department Of Justice Admits That It Misunderstood U.S. Citizenship LawFeb 27, 2015
We all know that immigration law is complicated. We all know that human beings make mistakes. What we don't expect is that our government can't figure out who its own citizens are. But time and time again, the government disappoints. The latest culprit is the Department of Justice (DOJ), which employs the most powerful attorneys in the country. The DOJ has the authority to issue deportation orders. In a recent decision, the DOJ admitted that it has been misinterpreting ...

Cain Truth, Yes He Launched A WebsiteNov 10, 2011
Cain Truth, yes he launched a website ...

Cain Says He Back On Message As #4 Steps Up To The PlateNov 07, 2011
If by "back on message" he means week 2 of last week's reruns, then I guess he is.  Looks like this woman was never reqiured to sign a gag order and held a news conference at the Friar's Club this afternoon. This is a breaking story that already has 1200 articles linked to the headline under Google News, so pick your preference in terms of whose report you would like to read.  Personally, think Politico should get the honors, since they broke the original exclu ...

Jon Stewart On Herman Cain And Rick Perry. SmNov 03, 2011
Jon Stewart hilarious as usual.    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-31-2011/indecision-2012---ruh-roh-edition ...

An Unprecedented Threat To Reproductive And Sexual JusticeOct 18, 2010
What's the connection between the personhood of a fertilized egg and the personhood of corporations? Both can and will undermine the fundamental rights of women. On January 21st of this year, perhaps in some cosmically ironic sense a day before the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court handed down a decision on the Citizens United case. In the 5 to 4 opinion, the Court held that: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the govern ...

Doctors Required To Ask Patients About Their Sexual HistoryOct 15, 2013
It'll be a cold day in hell before I tell ovomit and his satanic HHS director Sebelius anything about my sex life.  Doctors are now required to document in the health record how many sexual partners a patient has had.  I go back and forth between saying "Oh, maybe 37,000" and "none of the F-ing government's business."  Ovomit has gone past the point of no return with his total intent on turning America into a socialist or even communist country. http://politix.topix.com ...

Whoops. McConnell Campaign Manager, Extended Family To Ron/Rand PaulAug 09, 2013
His temporary move from Paul to McConnell was supposed to bring the two adversaries closer together, their two GOP wings closer together, and set Rand Paul up for 2016. As for holding noses, Benton has himself recently been implicated in alleged bribery of an Iowa state senator to endorse Ron Paul during the last election. From the Washington Post; recorded conversation is real, at the link below.   McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton says he is running the race ‘holdin’ m ...

Herman Cain Threw His Hat Into The Ring Today For The Presidency (no Msg)May 21, 2011
. ...

Liberalism, Atheism, Male Sexual Exclusivity Linked To IQFeb 28, 2010
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQBy Elizabeth Landau, CNNFebruary 26, 2010 5:03 p.m. EST(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied a ...

Dutch Medics Euthanize Sexual Abuse VictimJul 02, 2016
Before you ask -- No, I'm not Catholic.  I'm not even religious.  But one doesn't have to have a religious affiliation to see what a dangerous "slippery slope" this is.  This is nothing but eugenics, which the "elites" LOVE because they want to decrease the world's population.  This is just one more tool in their arsenal.   Dutch medics have performed the euthanasia of a sex abuse victim who could not live with the memories of the ordeal she suffe ...

Etiology Of Cain's Brain Freeze And Flatulent Foreign Policy IsNov 15, 2011
which he perceives as "all this stuff  twirling around in my brain."  Symptomatic tardive dyskinesia in the form of facial twitching, rolling his eyes at the ceiling, squirming around in his seat, grasping at straws, ummm, I mean his water bottle, adjusting his coat, and yanking at his tie, were observed when questioned about his stance on Libya.  Plan:  Consider possible adjustment in medication dosage and observe for reduction in involuntary movements.   &nbs ...

Liberal Rag Salon Piece Says Pedophilia Isn't A Crime, It's A Sexual OrientationSep 21, 2015
Just another example of the degeneraiton in this country at the hands of liberals.  Sick and twisted.     ...

Ohmygosh! An Upset Rush: "Clarence Thomas! Herman Cain! NoneNov 07, 2012
Republican Party doesn't have OUTREACH. We do!" (This one is destined to be a classic among classics. LOL!) ...

Long List Of Women Who Have Accused Bill Clinton Of Sexual MisconductOct 09, 2016
http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/heres-the-long-list-of-women-14730379/ ...

On A Roll Tonight "she Denies Any Unusual Al Gore Exposures."Oct 14, 2011
Should be "outdoor exposures."  I swear to God, it said Al Gore with the correct capitalization and everything! We have nothing to fear from speech wreck.  ...