Anita Hill Needs to Apologize? Please

[Botany]

The Mrs. Judge Roberts calling Anita Hill to ask for an apology is just too damn rich but as long as she wants to
drag out old history here are a couple things that our liberal media skipped over:

1) 3 other women all of whom did not know each other came forward and wanted to testify that Clarence Thomas
had sexually harassed them in the same way that Ms. Hill had testified to. They were never called.

2) Funny when they called 3 witnesses to corroborate Ms. Hill's testimony all 3 backed her up, they did not
know each other, 2 of whom were republicans.


If anybody needs to apologize it is Justice Thomas for the holy hell he helped to unleash w/ Bush v Gore &
Citizens United.

********

BTW
To all Freepers, Trolls, Rush Limbaughs, and other sorted people go ahead and check out if this is true ....
real easy to do.

[FSogol]

1. Thomas is scum and his tea-brained wife is in some serious denial.

If the Thomas' spent the rest of their lives apologizing, they would never be able to make up for the damage he has done to the country

[chelsea0011]

2. Thomas lied under oath and should be impeached.

[Bitwit1234]

3. And the photo copies of what he had passed around

were available to anyone to see. He is a skank and should be disgraced not a supreme court judge. And this time he won't receive favorable press because BUSH #1 isn't in the white house like he was when this human piece of wasted was appointed. How in the world someone of his character was approved and put on the court is ridiculous and his wife better shut the hell up. Or he will certainly face embarrassment because those women will tell the world what he is.

[jeremyfive]

4. Clarence Thomas a Liability

Now that corporations are people, per the Supreme Court decision that threw out 200 years of American legal precedent (and a matter on which 90%+ Americans disagree with the Court), do corporations purchase "Long Dong Silver", too? What would Christine O'Donnell think?

[Liberal Insights]

5. "living in sin"

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Clarence stil a devout Catholic and as such bound by the Catholic teaching that marriage after divorce = adultery?

Is the Catholic Church making an issue out of this most prominent of Catholic couples publicily "living in sin"?

If you want to see which party goes beyond talking about "family values" and actually acts on them, then check out http://liberal-insights.org/FamilyvaluesParty.html where I promise you'll be amazed by some of the exclusive info I provide.

[DirkGently]

6. Yep. I believed her completely at the time and still do. This could backfire entertainingly.

[immoderate]

7. What should a good Christian wife do?

The insanity runs deep in that family. :rofl:

--imm

[ehrnst]

8. My question: Why now? Is she trying to turn this into a T party issue? (nt)