Clarence Thomas Hearings: A Timeline

[wing2000]

In light of current events, let's revisit the timeline of events surrounding the Clarence Thomas hearings.

Of note:

- The process started on September 10th and lasted until October 15th....after a 7 day extension was granted to consider Hill's claims, to include a 3 day FBI investigation.

- The Senate Judiciary committee questioned Thomas for 10 days (in contrast to the current questioning)

- An FBI investigation was launched after the initial round of hearings


A Timeline Of Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Controversy As Kavanaugh To Face Accuser

 

[JerseyChristianSuperstar]

Yeah, Thomas was (thankfully) eventually confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48. God bless!

 

[Halbhh]

In light of current events, let's revisit the timeline of events surrounding the Clarence Thomas hearings.

Of note:

- The process started on September 10th and lasted until October 15th....after a 7 day extension was granted to consider Hill's claims, to include a 3 day FBI investigation.

- The Senate Judiciary committee questioned Thomas for 10 days (in contrast to the current questioning)

- An FBI investigation was launched after the initial round of hearings


A Timeline Of Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Controversy As Kavanaugh To Face Accuser

I was just reading on Kavanaugh and Judge's HS antics, and a thought came up -- when people get really drunk, they can't remember what happened later on, right?

‘100 Kegs or Bust’: Kavanaugh friend, Mark Judge, has spent years writing about high school debauchery

That creates the possibility Kavanaugh can truthfully say he doesn't remember doing any such thing....

 

[com7fy8]

This woman accusing him is a "doctor" of some sort???? And another accuser was with him in Yale????

 

[wing2000]

I was just reading on Kavanaugh and Judge's HS antics, and a thought came up -- when people get really drunk, they can't remember what happened later on, right?

‘100 Kegs or Bust’: Kavanaugh friend, Mark Judge, has spent years writing about high school debauchery

That creates the possibility Kavanaugh can truthfully say he doesn't remember doing any such thing....

Okay, however, that isn't relevant to the Clarence Thomas hearings.

 

[PloverWing]

This woman accusing him is a "doctor" of some sort???? And another accuser was with him in Yale????

According to Wikipedia, Christine Blasey Ford has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of Southern California. Unless you're referring to Anita Hill; she has a J.D. from Yale Law School.

Why all the question marks?

 

[com7fy8]

According to Wikipedia, Christine Blasey Ford has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of Southern California. Unless you're referring to Anita Hill; she has a J.D. from Yale Law School.

Why all the question marks?

Thank you, Plover I found pretty much the same things on the Net.

The question marks meant, to me, that I would think women with doctorate and Yale degrees might be developed enough so they would not make up such accusations only for political purposes.

But . . . there is a reason why we have the commandment to not bear false witness against our neighbor. There are people who bear false witness, frame people, and other things. And in case ones consider Donald and his to be a major threat to their lives . . . they could be capable of lying in order to defend themselves. And it sounds like a number of Democrats are quite upset about Donald and his activities; so ones could be motivated to lie in order to protect how they want to live.

But . . . also . . . I have been in college and seen how men can behave, including in order to fit in with drinking and immoral people and their parties. Plus, women can go along with stuff.

And I have seen a pattern, maybe > a number of men on TV have said they are innocent, are not going away, and then they get canned even with proof that they lied. Bill Clinton did that, and others have.

So, I don't know any of them enough to know.

I think an F.B.I. investigation could open things up. Of course, there is the political motive to hold up the evaluation past the elections, and an F.B.I. thing could help hold things up.

I might find it important to know if the doctor knew about Mr. Kavanaugh being evaluated for becoming an appellate court judge. That might not have gotten enough attention to get her attention; but if she knew about that but did not speak up, then, why not? Even if she did know, though, at that time she might have been traumatized enough not to get involved, but seeing him get into the Supreme Court could effect her more to say something.

So, my opinion is I can not know, by the facts which are being claimed.

 

[Halbhh]

Thank you, Plover I found pretty much the same things on the Net.

The question marks meant, to me, that I would think women with doctorate and Yale degrees might be developed enough so they would not make up such accusations only for political purposes.

But . . . there is a reason why we have the commandment to not bear false witness against our neighbor. There are people who bear false witness, frame people, and other things. And in case ones consider Donald and his to be a major threat to their lives . . . they could be capable of lying in order to defend themselves. And it sounds like a number of Democrats are quite upset about Donald and his activities; so ones could be motivated to lie in order to protect how they want to live.

But . . . also . . . I have been in college and seen how men can behave, including in order to fit in with drinking and immoral people and their parties. Plus, women can go along with stuff.

And I have seen a pattern, maybe > a number of men on TV have said they are innocent, are not going away, and then they get canned even with proof that they lied. Bill Clinton did that, and others have.

So, I don't know any of them enough to know.

I think an F.B.I. investigation could open things up. Of course, there is the political motive to hold up the evaluation past the elections, and an F.B.I. thing could help hold things up.

I might find it important to know if the doctor knew about Mr. Kavanaugh being evaluated for becoming an appellate court judge. That might not have gotten enough attention to get her attention; but if she knew about that but did not speak up, then, why not? Even if she did know, though, at that time she might have been traumatized enough not to get involved, but seeing him get into the Supreme Court could effect her more to say something.

So, my opinion is I can not know, by the facts which are being claimed.

I like how you are thinking carefully on this. And...something you said brought up a new angle for me, I hadn't thought of -- why would an already-successful professional woman...lie?

Christine Blasey Ford -- already a successful person with a flourishing career, secure.

Well, she would not lie at all is my guess. She has a lot to lose just by coming out with her information. She will suffer various attacks (as we've already seen).

In fact, it's all very inconvenient for her. All expense to her, and no gain.

No gain, except to tell the truth.

 

[wing2000]

The question marks meant, to me, that I would think women with doctorate and Yale degrees might be developed enough so they would not make up such accusations only for political purposes.

Did you listen to Anita Hill's opening statement in it's entirety? And if so, what leads you to believe she made her accusation "only for political purposes?"

 

[Kentonio]

I've never understood this idea that a successful woman would make claims like these for 'publicity'. What kind of publicity do people think it provides? That a strong, intelligent, ambitious woman was once degraded and treated like a helpless victim by others? Is that something you'd want people to know? To talk about in detail and dig into every aspect of your private life to investigate? All the while knowing perfectly well that half the country will assume you're a liar, insult you and try and destroy you, your family and the career you've worked so hard to build?

It's preposterous.

 

[com7fy8]

what leads you to believe she made her accusation "only for political purposes?"

I didn't mean that she did it only for politics; what I meant is that if she is a matured professional who has developed a conscience for being ethical, it is reasonable she would not be motivated to lie, for political purposes.

But I do not personally know any of these people; I am not a peer of any of them; so I could not, probably, function as a peer on a jury. I have seen how movie actors can have you experiencing them to be the personality they want to portray; and others can even cry and other things in order to convince people of what is not true. And ones of these have then been proven false, by evidence. So, there is no practical way I can know with what I have been told, so far.

There are mothers of pathological liars and serial predators who have fully experienced that their evil children are very kind and fine people. People can put on an act, and others can be so gullible.

And there are people who have used murder and false accusation in order to get what they want. And the bible has the do not bear false witness command for a reason. God knows people bear false witness.

And to me it looks like people on both sides can be going by prejudice and not presuming innocent until proven guilty after sufficient evidence has been provided. It seems a lot of Republicans are presuming the ladies of lying, while a lot of Democrats are automatically presuming Judge Kavanaugh guilty.

So, I was saying something which I would have no way of knowing > just theoretical > if she is a developed doctorally-educated professional who takes ethics seriously, she would not be motivated to falsely accuse Judge Kavanaugh. But do I know how she really is, and her real motives? n

And I am sure, likewise, how a judge might have developed his acting ability . . . how to tone his voice . . . on we could go.

 

[Halbhh]

I didn't mean that she did it only for politics; what I meant is that if she is a matured professional who has developed a conscience for being ethical, it is reasonable she would not be motivated to lie, for political purposes.

But I do not personally know any of these people; I am not a peer of any of them; so I could not, probably, function as a peer on a jury. I have seen how movie actors can have you experiencing them to be the personality they want to portray; and others can even cry and other things in order to convince people of what is not true. And ones of these have then been proven false, by evidence. So, there is no practical way I can know with what I have been told, so far.

There are mothers of pathological liars and serial predators who have fully experienced that their evil children are very kind and fine people. People can put on an act, and others can be so gullible.

And there are people who have used murder and false accusation in order to get what they want. And the bible has the do not bear false witness command for a reason. God knows people bear false witness.

And to me it looks like people on both sides can be going by prejudice and not presuming innocent until proven guilty after sufficient evidence has been provided. It seems a lot of Republicans are presuming the ladies of lying, while a lot of Democrats are automatically presuming Judge Kavanaugh guilty.

So, I was saying something which I would have no way of knowing > just theoretical > if she is a developed doctorally-educated professional who takes ethics seriously, she would not be motivated to falsely accuse Judge Kavanaugh. But do I know how she really is, and her real motives? n

And I am sure, likewise, how a judge might have developed his acting ability . . . how to tone his voice . . . on we could go.

I agree. All of it.

I'd be less concerned actually about one thing alone -- example: the reports of his heavy drinking at that time (though that does raise a partial concern: we want to know he doesn't' get drunk lately!!) -- than I am about the multiple reporting of several people of various kinds of things showing a rowdy past combined with not hearing K said he admits he was of a checkered past and has repented of it. Did he say he's repented of it?

To me, that's what I want to be hearing: "I was too rowdy, and I'm glad I am not that way anymore"

That's humble, and would be very good to hear. Did he say something like that??

 

[Halbhh]

Brett Kavanaugh admits to ‘juvenile misbehavior,’ denies sexual assault in testimony

hmmm.... Ok, so there is a plan to confess....

ah....I would like it so much better if instead of a political reaction of ok, I'd better confess, it had already happened. But....a truly sincere contrition about one's wrongs, or even better, a true confession one relies on Someone greater than oneself(!)....that would help me feel more confident about K.

 

[com7fy8]

To me, that's what I want to be hearing: "I was too rowdy, and I'm glad I am not that way anymore"

That's humble, and would be very good to hear. Did he say something like that??

I have seen footage of Judge Kavanaugh being interviewed, and I thought I heard him say he ever did heavy drinking; but I just read that he said ones over eighteen of his classmates would drink, and in what I just read he does not plainly say he stayed clear of that drinking which could be heavy . . . if I understand it right. Also, he said he had stayed a virgin during his college years, I think. And he claims he has never sexually violated a woman.

In any case, I doubt he would have said he changed from what he claims he never did.

 

[Halbhh]

I have seen footage of Judge Kavanaugh being interviewed, and if I remember correctly he was asked if he ever did heavy drinking and he said never. Also, he said he had stayed a virgin during his college years. And he claims he has never sexually violated a woman.

So, I doubt he would have said he changed from what he claims he never did.

uh oh. If he claimed he didn't do heavy drinking, that directly contradicts in my view other things people have reported. Of course, words can be made slippery. Maybe he thinks to himself something like, it wasn't heavy drinking, because i was only drunk sometimes. But this is not good in my view, to deny.

Brett Kavanaugh’s College Classmates Out Him As ‘Sloppy Drunk’

 

[wing2000]

So, I was saying something which I would have no way of knowing > just theoretical > if she is a developed doctorally-educated professional who takes ethics seriously, she would not be motivated to falsely accuse Judge Kavanaugh. But do I know how she really is, and her real motives?

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[com7fy8]

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.

You are welcome; thank you for keeping an eye on me. I have not committed; so I could be slippery, myself, for all I know, so it could be unclear what I am saying.

Maybe he thinks to himself something like, it wasn't heavy drinking,

Ah-hah . . . and if he feels he has not done something, I suppose he could pass a lie detector test in which he says he never abused alcohol

And in case he drank and then became a very different person . . . he could do things he might not later remember.

It seems to be said by someone who knew him, how he was a pretty steady guy while sober, but could become rough and other stuff after drinking too much.

In general . . . I understand that a person can be spiritually one way while sober, and then be taken over by a different spiritual being who drives him or her to drink, and then that nasty spirit's personality can come through. And the memory which someone could have while taken over could be erased, essentially, by changing back to the more laid-back spirit. Because the memories in the rough and abusive spirit would not be in the personality of the laid-back spirit.

But . . . . . . I don't think this will come up in the hearing. But you are getting me more able to see he could have done that stuff. I think you have a point.