Virginia Thomas asks Anita Hill for an apology

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2010 9:03 PM GMT
    This lady has mental problems.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20thomas.html?hp

    And then there are the issues raised by her political activism:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09thomas.html?scp=1&sq=judicialissues&st=cse

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 6:05 AM GMT
    Total bitch move by Mrs. Thomas
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 9:51 AM GMT
    She's a crazy bitch. But what would you expect given that she's married to Clarence Thomas.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 21, 2010 10:31 AM GMT
    Crazy in what sense of the word?

    Was she crazy enuf to have been a lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce when she met Clarence Thomas before he sided with the "DISATROUS" 5-4 majority on letting millions upon millions of corporate untraceable donations to taint our electoral system?

    Was she crazy enuf to lead a teaparty inspired nonprofit called Liberty Central?
    Inserting herself into party politics
    Something no spouse of a sitting justice has ever done in the history of the United States

    No she's not crazy .... she's read the playbook and is going Right Along with the play by play

    But to see her do it and not call out her and her husband ... and say cut the crap
    now That's crazy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 5:44 PM GMT
    GQjock saidCrazy in what sense of the word?



    I started this thread by writing "The lady has mental problems," and though I'm not sure I'd use the word crazy, I think this incident does demonstrate mental problems.

    Here's the message she left, "Good morning Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.

    "So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day."

    And later she said, in explanation, "I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago. That offer still stands. I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended."

    Now if I thought she was being insincere and was just trying to get at Anita Hill, I wouldn't necessarily say she had mental problems, or at least not serious ones. (Who doesn't have some sort of mental problems?) I'd just say she was being a bit of bitch.

    But I do think she sincerely thinks that she was "extending an olive branch," even though you can hear the fury in her just by reading her words, without even hearing her say them.

    And on what level of delusion does she function to think for one second that Hill's going to recant or apologize? Ginni Thomas is a woman who not only can't let go, but can't see reality.

    I hasten to add that I'm not 100-percent convinced that everything did happen as Hill said. But to think that Hill's going to change her story now, or that this kind of clearly angry phone call (no matter how much Ginni Thomas thinks she's not angry) is going to persuade her to change it or even talk to Ginni Thomas, that's truly delusional.

    This is basically what she said. "Hello, my dear friend. I'd like an apology and an explanation of why you did such a terrible thing to my husband. I'm concerned for your well-being because you're such a lying bitch that you'll surely burn in hell if you don't apologize and recant so I wanted to reach out to you. I'm extending an olive branch to you in all sincerity." That she seems to have no idea that what she did was extremely aggressive and confrontational, that she seems to think it was a loving gesture of concern, is delusional.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 21, 2010 10:22 PM GMT
    But what's delusional to you or I plays well among the deluded

    To media whores like Sara Palin
    or Glenn Beck it's a means to an end

    There are ACTUALLY people out there who think that Anita Hill made all of this up
    and that Clarence Thomas isn't the legal equivalence of Uncle Tom-ism on the bench

    and I BET this was an opening salvo because the Thomas' knew that THIS was coming out
    Lillian McEwen is writing her Memoirs
    who's Lillian McEwen you might ask?
    Lillian McEwen dated Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, and in her book tells, "The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 21, 2010 10:41 PM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR saidAnita Hill should apologize but she never will. I don't know why Mrs Thomas is even bothering with this issue 20 years later. It's like asking OJ to apologize for killing Nicole and Ron. Not that you can compare murder to what Hill did, but either way you look at it, some people are above the law.


    There are ACTUALLY people out there who think that Anita Hill made all of this up
    and that Clarence Thomas isn't the legal equivalence of Uncle Tom-ism on the bench


    Case in Point icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2010 11:40 PM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR saidAnita Hill should apologize but she never will.


    Apologize for what? Telling the truth?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 22, 2010 1:15 AM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR said
    Christian73 saidShe's a crazy bitch.


    That's an opinion some people have of Anita Hill.

    GQjock said
    There are ACTUALLY people out there who think that Anita Hill made all of this up
    and that Clarence Thomas isn't the legal equivalence of Uncle Tom-ism on the bench


    Case in Point icon_rolleyes.gif


    There are actually people out there who think Anita Hill was telling the truth. Case in point. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Esp since she wanted to take a lie detector test and Clarence Balked icon_wink.gif

    The decision to rush the swearing-in of Justice Clarence Thomas spared the controversial nominee the publication of more embarrassing personal revelations than Anita Hill's notorious testimony. That same day, three Washington Post reporters were set to write a story about Thomas' extensive taste for pornography, including accounts from eyewitnesses such as the manager of his local video store. "But since Thomas had been sworn in, the Post decided not to pursue the issue and dropped the story."
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3572143&page=1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 2:13 AM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR saidAnita Hill should apologize but she never will. I don't know why Mrs Thomas is even bothering with this issue 20 years later. It's like asking OJ to apologize for killing Nicole and Ron. Not that you can compare murder to what Hill did, but either way you look at it, some people are above the law.




    Clarence Thomas is a liar, and HE should be the one to apologize.

    And, YES, you did "compare murder to what Hill did" NOT do.
    Shame on you for that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 2:20 AM GMT
    Wan2GetBigR saidAnita Hill should apologize but she never will. I don't know why Mrs Thomas is even bothering with this issue 20 years later. It's like asking OJ to apologize for killing Nicole and Ron. Not that you can compare murder to what Hill did, but either way you look at it, some people are above the law.


    This is insane.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 4:05 AM GMT
    Well, honestly, since none of us was there, we can't be sure whether what Hill said was true or not. It's interesting to know that there is some evidence from others that might be considered supportive (though by no means conclusive or even close to conclusive), but nothing can ever prove this one way or the other.

    What was more relevant to me at the time was that Thomas had the lowest ABA rating of any justice who was ever confirmed to the Supreme Court.

    Truly, even if he did the things that Hill said he did (and I am fairly inclined to believe her), did that make him unqualified? I'm not so sure that I think it did, though other things did make him, to my mind, unqualified.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2010 7:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidOh dear, it's been a while since we've had such a nutty topic as this one introduced here on RJ.



    Thank you. I try to make you happy. (Well, not really.)

    FWIW, I don't think it can compete with some that you've introduced.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 23, 2010 10:40 AM GMT
    Perhaps it's just all you looney liberal Democrats / socialists on here starting to panic about November 2nd... and the desperation is manifesting itself here with all these completely off-the-wall comments you are all making

    We weren't the one who called a complete stranger at 7:30 on a Saturday morning asking for an apology for something that happened 20 years ago
    and for something she will Never need to apologize for

    ........... and I fail to see what connection this has to do with Nov 2
    Care to enlighten?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 7:20 PM GMT
    Mrs. Clarence Thomas has lots of calls to make if she's planning to ask for apologies from everyone who has backed up Anita Hill's testimony.

    In the last week, The Washington Post and Bloomberg News have done extensive reporting on Clarence Thomas's nasty history of sexual harrassment involving many more women.

    Hmmmm, my suspicion is that Virginia Thomas is actually trying to OUT her husband. Subconcious Retaliation is always part of a spouse's arsenal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 7:53 PM GMT
    PresentMind saidMrs. Clarence Thomas has lots of calls to make if she's planning to ask for apologies from everyone who has backed up Anita Hill's testimony.

    In the last week, The Washington Post and Bloomberg News have done extensive reporting on Clarence Thomas's nasty history of sexual harrassment involving many more women.

    Hmmmm, my suspicion is that Virginia Thomas is actually trying to OUT her husband. Subconcious Retaliation is always part of a spouse's arsenal.


    Here are a couple of worthwhile links:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102004013.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/10/three-things-to-do-when-clarence-thomass-wife-calls-you.html

    Interesting to learn that Ginni Thomas made the call on the morning the story abut her political activities and the issues they may raise for her husband appeared in the Times.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2010 5:00 AM GMT
    And here's another link with mentions of the considerable corroborating evidence supporting Thomas's story at the time of the hearings:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/clarence-thomas-s-wife-dialed-the-wrong-number-commentary-by-ann-woolner.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2010 2:26 PM GMT
    theatrengym saidAnd here's another link with mentions of the considerable corroborating evidence supporting Thomas's story at the time of the hearings:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/clarence-thomas-s-wife-dialed-the-wrong-number-commentary-by-ann-woolner.html


    GREAT ARTICLE. We tend to remember this story as a 'Clarence said/Anita said' story. Hardly. The women who dated him and both the women and men who worked with him knew him as one nasty perv.

    I have no problem with the man being 'kinky'. But his free expression of disrespect for others is disqualifying for a position that requires both fairness and respect for all.

    Impeach him.