(September 20, 2018 at 10:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(September 20, 2018 at 9:17 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: So should Ted Kennedy have been removed from Office?
The Republicans used a technical procedural move to (wrongly) deny Garland possible confirmation. Democrats consistently try to use last minute unfounded slander to ruin reputations, i.e. Bork, Thomas, and now Kavannauh. It's disgusting.
You consider Anita Hill's testimony unfounded slander? I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. Or maybe that's just you.
I don't know if Anita Hill's story was true or not. I don't automatically assume that people are innocent or guilty particularly when there are potential political motivations on both sides to fudge and exaggerate reported events. And I would think you would be the very first to admit the fallibility of human memory. That said, her testimony was exploited to slander Thomas.
Here is the report transcript by NPR: NPR
So here we have 3 things: 1) Hill's own testimony, 2) confirmation to NPR by an anonymous source, and 3) the FBI report stating that there were no contradictions in Hill's testimony.
The question is whether the last two support Hill's testimony, (1). (2) appears to do so but the source is not identified so that doesn't really count. (3) doesn't really count as supporting either. Just because there is no evidence that something isn't true doesn't mean that it is actually true.
<insert profound quote here>