Reply #83: So, before election 2012, we trash the VP for your non-clear statement of what happened. .. um. No! [View All]

[Festivito]

See, you don't say that he stopped others from testifying just to harm Anita Hill. Why? Because you can't in good faith that you'd be called out for later?

Was there a deal? Hill testifies -- versus not at all -- provided others meeting certain contrived criteria do not, and Biden had to bide it. I don't know. Turns out people weren't sure of Hill's testimony. So, we are to believe her based not on the clarity and conviction of her formidable-self's own testimony, but based on the QUANTITY of other even less reliable less verifiable testimonies? Quantity? Really?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to underline that Anita Hill was telling the truth and that poignant truth was ignored when changing the balance of power on the court that has profound negative effect that continues into our now much less secure futures. Thomas could use the public perception flogging while bringing light to his conflict of interest situation, or better expressed, his outrightly taking of bribes for which he should be impeached.

But, for no clear reason to go with this controversial sale to the public? No.