Molly Hemingway is one of the best journalists out there. Here's her take on Biden and Hill. She actually does research, something unheard of for so many "talk at the camera" or "click and link" journalists.
"The issue [of Biden's revisionist history] is important, as the media and other partisans rewrite the historical record about Hill and her accusations. The widely watched hearings revealed inaccuracies in Hill’s various versions of events and ended with 58 percent of Americans believing Thomas and only 24 percent believing Hill."
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/28/joe-biden-on-anita-hill-in-1998-she-was-lying/?
Although it took me a few more years to leave the Democrat party, it was while watching the hearings I first became aware of the deep racism of that party. They just could not fathom giving a black man who hadn’t sworn his loyalty to the master that kind of power. He believes in the Constitution, and that was very scary.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/5185/6-pieces-evidence-anita-hill-was-lying-amanda-prestigiacomo
“. . . when I watched the hearings, just like probably many Americans, I accepted the idea that we had a contest of equal credibility between two people, between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. I think the main message is that when you look at the evidence, when you go out, as I did, and interview third parties, pore over the documents and the records, the battle of credibility is settled hands down in favor of Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill's testimony is really shot through with false, incorrect and misleading statements, and I think so much so that at the end of that particular part of the book it's very difficult to believe that what she said about Clarence Thomas is also true.” David Brock, NPR, 1993 https://www.c-span.org/video/?43009-1/the-real-anita-hill
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment