From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for p
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:57:47 GMT

In <ART.92Sep15111836@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.030247.11935@technology.com> richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy) writes:

>   >I couldn't care less about your example.  It has _absolutely_ nothing
>   >to do with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas.  This is the point, you
>   >are applying the behavior of others in your judgement against Thomas.
>   >What you have said is that because you have knowledge that sexual
>   >harrassment happens therefore Thomas is more than likely guilty.

>   >Can someone make an unsubstantiated statement to harm someone else
>   >in this society?  This is what you are defending, not wether sexual
>   >harassment happens - that's a no brainer.  Smear tactics are not 
>   >worthy nor honorable, and what goes around comes around.

>   >Show me proof to back Hills accusation.  There certainly exists proof
>   >that she was "inaccurate" regarding the facts such as when the incident
>   >occurred versus when she met Thomas for the first time.

>   >Liberals have oft used the phrase "the appearance of inpropriety".
>   >Well, I ask you, Anita said she wasn't doing this to advance herself
>   >yet she has certainly profited by her accusation hasn't she?  Does this
>   >look strange to you?

Strange?  No.  Assume for a moment she was telling the truth.  How would
her actions since then (making speeches for money) look any different?

Especially given that Anita didn't want to go public (and DIDN'T)
anyway.  It was a leak by a Senate staffer to the press that got these
charges publicized.  If that leak hadn't happened, she couldn't have
made any money.

>   Care to apply the same logic to Ms. Flowers? She's certainly profited
>   by her accusation, too. Look, neither you nor I know what happened
>   exactly, so calling Hills a liar is the same as me calling Thomas
>   a liar. What I object to is the assumption that Hills made everything
>   up, which seems to be what you are saying. 

>Sure, Ms Flowers produced a tape recording of a phone conversation with

Excuse me?  No one ever denied they KNEW each other.  That's how the
rumor started.  The tape recording didn't prove ANYTHING, given that it
consisted of Clinton telling her to just deny the allegations.  How is
that proof or even evidence that they DID have an affair?

>Slick.  If Anita Hill had produced such a tape Thomas would not now be
>one of the Supremes, he probably wouldn't have even been able to stay on
	^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the appellate court.

Boy, Diana Ross is going to be shocked to find this one out.

>Did Ms Hill make up what she was saying?  The only documentary evidence
>is that she reported sexual harassment to Hoerschner a full six months
>before she ever met Clarence Thomas.

No one denied that there wasn't documented evidence, but believe it or
not, very few people tape record conversations just in case their boss
gets appointed to the Supreme Court in 10 years.
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc