January 1, 2018

"The sincerity of Roberts' intentions can be judged by whether he re-visits Anita Hill's allegations against 'Justice' Clarence Thomas."

"Her testimony was clearly credible and were backed up by a federal judge who remembered Hill telling her about the events at the time they happened."

That's the most-liked comment on the Washington Post article "Chief Justice Roberts says courts will examine protections against sexual harassment." If you order the comments by what is most liked, you'll see just about everything near the top talks about Thomas.

84 comments:

John Lynch said...

'Justice'

The Godfather said...

I don’t think the Supreme Court can punish Hill for perjury in her Senate testimony.

Quaestor said...

Justice in quotes. That's what happens when a field hand flees the plantation.

David Begley said...

I don’t remember any federal judge backing up Anita Hill. Who was it? What was the context?

Anita Hill was a clever liar.

CJ Roberts should stick to doing his job.

Disclosure: Clarence’s wife is a law school classmate.

paminwi said...

'Justice' in quotes. Let's cut to the chase - these media folks are assholes. Would they ever do that for RBG? No!

LincolnTf said...

Yet again, the hypocritical Left is playing the amnesia game regarding a certain President who was credibly accused of forcible rape, among countless other allegations of sexually abusive behavior spanning decades. The original sin of enabling Bill Clinton's predations will never go away, but that doesn't mean they can't pretend it doesn't exist. Still waiting for a single "feminist" Clinton voter to justify their vote for that diddling hillbilly.

Katherine said...

"Clearly credible" depends upon whose ox is being gored, not upon whether the accusations are in fact supported by the evidence, for commenters of this type. I followed several high-profile cases at this general time: the Thomas confirmation, and a couple of rape cases, Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith. My judgment was that Tyson was guilty, that the case against Smith couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt (although I think he was at fault), and that the Thomas situation was what he called it, a high-tech lynching.

Big Mike said...

I never believed Anita Hill. She was a cheap and disgusting bitch who knifed her mentor in the back for the promise that the Democrats would arrange a plum job in exchange for her bullshit.

David Begley said...

“Workers' compensation judges are not political appointees. They are lawyers who qualify for their positions by passing oral and written exams and are protected by civil service statutes, Duncan said.

Hoerchner was a staff counsel with the state compensation insurance fund from May, 1987, until she became a workers' compensation judge in August, 1990.”

Susan Hoerchner was not a federal judge.

More language lying and imprecision by Libs.

Michael K said...

Democrats hate Thomas with a fury that has not diminished since the confirmation hearings.

Conservative blacks threaten their very existence as a party.

What percentage of sexual harassment accusations on college campuses involve black male students?

It's very high. Much higher than the percentage of black students.

The "War on Whiteness" is a reaction to the recognition of black college failure rates.

The changing rules on school suspension is an attempt to hide the suspension rate for black students.

Bay Area Guy said...

Belated thanks to crazy man, David Brock, for writing The Real Anita Hill, which pretty much exposed Hill as a tool for Senate Democrat staffers, trying to sink Thomas' nomination.

Also, genuine thanks to former Dem Senator Dennis DeConcini from Arizona, whose Yea vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee helped push Thomas across the finish line.

In many ways, Thomas' story about growing up in the Jim Crowe South, and ascending to the highest levels of the Legal profession, is one of America's most compelling tales of dogged, persistence.

hombre said...

Quaestor at 8:04 provides the definitive statement on the left vs. Justice Thomas.

hombre said...

"Re-visits?" Seriously?

How stupid are these people?

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I haven't looked up Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas for a long time. My recollection is that some enterprising reporter actually discovered that Thomas had rented a few x-rated movies. This was in the day when businesses where you could rent VHS tapes had suddenly proliferated, and one big profit-maker was porn. (It was probably porn that made VHS so much more commercially successful than Sony's Beta). Thomas, not unusually for his generation, was probably amazed at the explicit stuff that was available in a neighbourhood store. Not many years earlier, it was difficult to get access to porn. So he watched some of it--apparently in the privacy of his own home, in a way that did not involve harassing anyone else. The problem was that he wanted to talk to someone at work about this amazing, sometimes funny stuff. But who? He wisely chose not to share with just anyone, or with an entire team at a meeting. He picked Anita. To some extent they were work buddies. My recollection is that a Senator asked her: did you ever tell Mr. Thomas (as he then was) that you objected to hearing about this material? Answer: No. Did he have any reason to believe you objected? Answer: No. I'm pretty sure Hill didn't even use the phrase "sexual harassment" in those days; she was probably a good enough lawyer to know that nothing she was describing would count as sexual harassment in any of the U.S. states at the time. Based on my recent experience in a government office, I would say it's appropriate to have an office policy that sexually explicit talk should be confined to private conversations among people who are clearly in agreement as to what is acceptable. But such talk shouldn't be criminalized.

traditionalguy said...

WaPo wants the Dem's demand for a High Tech Lynching restarted. The Dems have become a blatant sect of the Mafia.

Expat(ish) said...

I don't get this.

Is the idea that a bunch of white reporters can chase out a black Justice and then Trump can replace him with a MUCH YOUNGER black conservative justice considered a "win?"

-XC

AllenS said...

Like a lot of black women, Anita Hill was pissed that Thomas chose a white woman instead of her.

David Begley said...

AllenS

If you had met Ginni Lamp in a DC cab, no contest between her and Anita Hill.

Paco Wové said...

It has been true for some time that commenters at the WaPo make the stupidest, most partisan lefty at Althouse look like WF Buckley by comparison.

Ray said...

Bork was the nominee that video rental history was released.

Thomas was alleged to have used the stage name of a porn star in conversation with Hill.

Humperdink said...

To me, Clarence Thomas is the Ronald Reagan of the Supreme Court. Takes the slings and arrows from the libs and laughs in their faces. Then succeeds.

Bruce Hayden said...

"Thomas was alleged to have used the stage name of a porn star in conversation with Hill."

Oh, and then the pubic hairs on the Coke can. Or something like that. Extraordinarily lame, even back then. Now with prominent Dems exposing themselves to women they worked with, pushing for sex, and a former President credibly accused of forcible rape, it wouldn't even register, if Justice Thomas weren't black, conservative, and on the Supreme Court.

mockturtle said...

Quaestor observes: Justice in quotes. That's what happens when a field hand flees the plantation.

The vilest scorn is reserved for women and blacks who don't know their place.

Hagar said...

I think Anita Hill was set up by Ted Kennedy & Co. to be the little heroine that would save the nation from the horror of Clarence Thomas becoming a Supreme Court justice.

I read Thomas' book, and I do not see that the timeline would allow for any such intimate relationship as Hill claimed to reasonably have arisen.

I think the "risky" dialogue, etc., she quoted may indeed have happened though less provocatively than she tried to make it appear. It was kind of considered "edgy" among young professionals at the time, and these people were young and insecure then. The thing about "pubic hair on a coke can" I think came from some scene in Rosemary's Baby or The Exorcist that had just been re-released for a 10 year anniversary at the time.

Francisco D said...

What I remember most about the Thomas confirmation hearings was how medicated Anita Hill seemed to be.

There is something seriously wrong with that woman. Her demeanor was as flat as can be.

She claimed that Thomas harassed her by talking about Long Dong Silver and joking about pubic hairs on a can of Coke. Then she followed him as he changed jobs because she (a Yale Law School grad) had no other alternatives.

rhhardin said...

"Her testimony was clearly credible and were backed up by a federal judge who remembered Hill telling her about the events at the time they happened."


Exactly the opposite. The judge disproved Hill's claims.

The judge said that no matter how much she sympathized with Hill on the phone, it didn't help.

Sympathy always works. The only exception is if the lady with the distressing experience is making it up. Then of course sympathy is helpless. She knows it's made up.

The testimony is here
https://www.c-span.org/video/?21996-1/thomas-hearing-day-3-part-1

which doesn't play on my computer but perhaps it does on yours.

William said...

The Washington Post is about ripe for its first sex scandal. When it does, we can all have a hearty laugh at their discomfort. My money's on Carl Bernstein. His wife outed him as an adulterer, and my bet is that his seduction technique wasn't as graceful as Dustin Hoffman's. I'm sure that many of Ben Bradlee's conquests don't have totally fond memories of the man, but perhaps many of them do. It's an honor and a privilege to be harassed by a man of such stature........Anita is no dogmatic feminist. She is capable of reasoned, nuanced thinking when it comes to these sexual harassment claims. I have read her spirited defense of Bill Clinton. If given the task, I'm sure she could explain to us how Clarence Thomas is so much worse than Ted Kennedy or Al Franken.

Hagar said...

And it was not a lynching and it was not high tech.

Just flat out lying in a last ditch attempt to derail the Thomas nomination.

Michael K said...

"Like a lot of black women, Anita Hill was pissed that Thomas chose a white woman instead of her."

Bingo !

I think that was it. Hell hath no fury like black women who see a potential boyfriend/husband choose a white woman.

Even Obama admitted this in rejecting his white girlfriend.

I go to a black dental hygienist who is married to a white man. She has told me about getting "hate stares" from black women when she is out with her husband, so it goes both ways.

Trumpit said...

I'll make the first nonpartisan, non-hack comment in this thread. Clarence Thomas, Alex Kosinski, George H.W. Bush are all unqualified to be on the Supreme Court by virtue of their sordid history of sexual harassment. Clarence Thomas apparently continued with his inappropriate conduct after becoming a Supreme Court Justice. He should be impeached and removed from office if found guilty. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/lawyer-accuses-justice-thomas-of-groping-her-at-party-in-1999.html?_r=0

Matthew Sablan said...

"But several guests at the dinner — held by the head of the Truman Foundation, which awards scholarships to young people who plan to pursue a career in public service — said they had no recollection of any inappropriate behavior."

-- If it is he-said, she-said (which it is), and every other potential witness backs him up... sorry. Charging him with anything, even if it were possible, would be a, well, high-tech lynching.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Are they trying to get him off the court?
I think Thomas is a brilliant legal brain, however, if he would prefer to retire that would be fine. Trump can replace him with a younger constitutionalist. I'm OK with that.

Oh Yea said...

I tried to give Anita Hill the benefit of the doubt but when she said she was afraid to do anything because she feared losing her job She lost all credibility. She was a African-American, female, career civil service civil rights lawyer. Talk about one of the most secure positions that exists.

Richard Taylor said...

Serious question - is what Thomas did actually considered "illegal", either then or now?

That's really the difference between Right and Left, I think. The left doesn't let anything go, at least to a greater degree than the right does. The sad thing is the Left basically gets what it wants, in that the Right can only slow down what the Left wants to do. Government doesn't shrink, for example, only the growth can be slowed down. Any attempt to reverse anything the Left does is literally the "end of the world".

So, I can see the Left trying to get rid of Thomas, although the only way they can do that is impeachment, if I'm not mistaken.

I will say using the New York Times as a source to make a "nonpartisan, non-hack comment" as laughable.

mockturtle said...

Anita Hill was both the scorned woman and a tool of the Dems. I watched the proceedings with interest, however. The Senate committee members showed themselves to be fawning idiots except for the sagacious Alan Simpson, R-WY. I miss him.

Tim at large said...

’ll make the first nonpartisan, non-hack comment in this thread.

Show us on the doll where the bad man hurt you, Trumpit.

Mark said...

whether he re-visits Anita Hill's allegations

Justice also means that at some point, you must say res judicata, rather than engage in the injustice (and leftist political tactic) of going around and around and around and around in perpetuity.

LuAnn Zieman said...

I have a paper copy of George Will's April 19, 1993 Newsweek column. It goes into detail on Hill and the changes in her testimony over time, as well as the dozens of people who testified that her testimony was not true. Quote: To believe that Hill told the truth you must believe that dozens of people, with no common or even apparent motive to lie, did so. In fact, the conclusion seems to indicate "that Hill was actually a victim of the system of racial preferences that put her on a track too fast for her abilities, that taught her to think of herself as a victim and made her fluent in the rhetoric of victimization."

LuAnn Zieman said...

I should have given the title of the column--which is "Anita Hill's Tangled Web."

Michael K said...

More trumpit delusions, I see.

Drago said...

Trumpit still has his/her/xis -Reagan as a Nazi- poster hanging up on the wall and a picture of Rove & W being frog-marched out of the White House.

Because that's just how the lefties roll.

Drago said...

The incompetent Anita Hill was paid off handsomely for her efforts to derail the Thomas nomination.

No different than if George Soros had kicked some cash over to Brock et al to pay her off directly.

Book deal, movie deal, nice little teaching gig where her lack of acumen was on full display.

Yep. You drag a couple hundred thousand dollars thru a condo complex.....

Henry said...

How's that Al Franken exoneration plan going, top-rated-commenters?

cubanbob said...

"The sincerity of Roberts' intentions can be judged by whether he re-visits Anita Hill's allegations against 'Justice' Clarence Thomas."
"Her testimony was clearly credible and were backed up by a federal judge who remembered Hill telling her about the events at the time they happened."

In the alternative universe these people live in this maybe true but in the universe we live in there is not a shred of truth in this.

PackerBronco said...

For Trumpit being nonpartisan means that he's undecided whether Thomas is a rapist or a fascist.

Molly said...

We need to continue to investigate until we get the answer we want.

Bad Lieutenant said...

I followed several high-profile cases at this general time: the Thomas confirmation, and a couple of rape cases, Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith. My judgment was that Tyson was guilty,

Kennedy was not guilty by reason of Kennedy, e.g. droit de seigneur.

Tyson no doubt did the acts claimed, but I would have found him not guilty, because when you intrude in the tigers cage at the zoo and stick your head in its mouth, you buy yourself a haircut. Any woman that accompanies Mike Tyson alone to a hotel room, wishes to be forcefully sexed, in exactly the way that he did.

Ken B said...

Hatred of Trump trumps racism.

RichardJohnson said...

"Her testimony was clearly credible and were backed up by a federal judge who remembered Hill telling her about the events at the time they happened."
Not if you have read David Brock's article that appeared in American Spectator at the time.

Courtesy of the University of Iowa and Web Archive- American Spectator has it behind a pay wall. The Real Anita Hill.

TWW said...

It's clear that the Federal judiciary should be seen as 'Legal OBY-GYN's' in respect of Judge/Justice : Clerk relationships.

Sam L. said...

Whaddaya expect? It's the WaPoo!

TWW said...

Chief Justice Roberts will never revisit Anita Hill's allegations because he never visited them.

And,he is conservative enough to know that it is not his job to revisit a vote of Congress decades ago.

Birches said...

I thought most people agree today that Mike Tyson is innocent of rape.

robother said...

Re: Bork or Thomas renting VHS porn.

If the only test of pornography is "I know it when I see it" how else were these men supposed to do legal research on a vital legal question likely to come before them on the Supreme Court?

Drago said...

TWW: "And,he is conservative enough to know that it is not his job to revisit a vote of Congress decades ago"

What if the democrats position this as a "mandate" that will burden us if we don't revisit?

You know, sort of a "tax on our morality"?

Unknown said...

The word credible is used when proven may not.

-sw

Clark said...

"Bork was the nominee [whose] video rental history was released.
Thomas was alleged to have used the stage name of a porn star in conversation with Hill."

Just so we don’t cloud the record: "Bork enjoyed whodunits and Brit films, costume drama and otherwise; he and his hadn't rented anything remotely salacious enough to rankle patron Reagan's buds in the Moral Majority." — From a 2012 New Republic article by the reporter who broke the story of Judge Bork’s chaste video rental history.

Trumpit said...

"For Trumpit being nonpartisan means that he's undecided whether Thomas is a rapist or a fascist."

I read some of his poorly-reasoned opinions a long time ago. I came to the conclusion that he's a reactionary hack lacking in intellect, common sense, or the ability to reason logical. I would call him a fascist if that makes you happy, although it doesn't explain much.

Btw, Thomas has admitted that he struggled in law school because he couldn't understand his professors, and the material was too abstract for his pea brain. One professor didn't remember him believing he frequently played hooky:
But professor Steven Duke LAW ’61 said Thomas did not stand out as a student.
“Although I had Thomas in a small class, I do not recall him at all,” Duke wrote in an e-mail. “My guess is that he did not attend class very often.”
Duke added that his inability to remember Thomas is “not a recent memory lapse,” since he could not remember Thomas at the time of his nomination to the Supreme Court either.

Francisco D said...

Trumpit,

Your arrogance is only surpassed by your supreme ignorance.

eddie willers said...

The best thing about the Thomas hearings is that I went into them a staunch, straight-ticket voting Democrat and came out vowing to never vote for a Democrat ever again.

Thanks, Messrs. Biden and Kennedy!

Michael K said...

Trumpit has forgotten that Hillary, Yale Law grad, flunked the DC bar exam.

Francisco D said...

It is not possible that Hillary flunked the DC bar exam. She is the smartest and most qualified candidate to ever run for POTUS.

Next thing you will tell me Michael K. is that JFK Jr. flunked the NY bar exam.

Three times, If I recall correctly.

Unknown said...

Given the inability of most of its readers/commenters to grow up and accept the results of the past presidential election, maybe it should be referred to as Waaaahhhh!Po.

n.n said...

Credible and plausible seem to be interchangeable and "=" to "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Jay Elink said...

Michael K said...

I go to a black dental hygienist who is married to a white man. She has told me about getting "hate stares" from black women when she is out with her husband, so it goes both ways.

****************

Are the second and fourth letters of her first name "s and "l"? I think I go to the same lady. VERY nice person, working in a top-tier dental practice. Sorry to learn that she gets "the look".

Mark said...

Hillary, Yale Law grad, flunked the DC bar exam.

Anyone taking the DC bar exam should be an automatic fail since you can waive in from any state.

Steven said...

So, tell me, what exactly do alleged sexual remarks made at the Department of Education 35 years ago have to do with "an initiative . . . to ensure there are proper procedures in place to protect law clerks and other court employees from sexual harassment" in the Federal court system?

n.n said...

There has been extraordinary progress from the biblical standard of proof necessary for a conviction: three independent witnesses. Today, both the biblical standard and our own standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt", have been deprecated in favor of hearsay witnesses, preponderance of allegations, and a standard of credible. We also conduct witch hunts (public), baby hunts (private), public lynchings (e.g. trial by press), swatting (including social justice adventures), public intimidation (e.g. wildings, knock-out games), extortion (e.g. diversity rackets, congruence schemes), etc. Monotonic change.

Rusty said...


Blogger Trumpit said...
"For Trumpit being nonpartisan means that he's undecided whether Thomas is a rapist or a fascist."

"I read some of his poorly-reasoned opinions a long time ago. I came to the conclusion that he's a reactionary hack lacking in intellect, common sense, or the ability to reason logical."

Logically. "reason logically"

I'm having difficulty believing the above id true.

FullMoon said...

Already before the first round of hearings, a pattern along these lines had emerged in the anti-Thomas stories marketed by the interest groups to the press. A pre-cooked story broke once every ten days or so, in a steady rhythm, throughout the summer. One negative story never sat on another. And the stories were always given as exclusives to one media outlet for maximum play. Thomas was a secret sympathizer of Louis Farrakhan, or of the apartheid regime in South Africa; he'd experimented with marijuana and watched porn films at Yale; he'd hung a Confederate flag in his office in Missouri; he had an unpaid tax bill; he had billed the government inappropriately for personal travel. Questions were raised about why Thomas had married a white woman, and about Thomas's religion (a theme explored by Democratic Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, in perhaps the lowest point of the first round of hearings: "He attends an Episcopal Church that has made a crusade out of the [anti-abortion] stand").

Enter Anita Hill, whose sexual harassment story had been circulating, as Michelman averred in her fund-raising phone call, since July. It was a private matter, impossible to disprove -- a charge tailor-made for the fix that the Thomas foes found themselves in. For despite the anti-Thomas camp's desperation, the Hill affair could never have happened without the complicity of the Senate and press, both of which unquestioningly accepted Hill's "credibility" without investigating.

Jay Elink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FullMoon said...

David Brock kills Anita Hill

Jay Elink said...

Blogger Jay Elink said...
Mark said: Anyone taking the DC bar exam should be an automatic fail since you can waive in from any state.

**************************

Today you can be "admitted on motion" if you have been admitted to another bar and been in "good standing" for five years directly preceding your application.

Hillary hadn't take the CT bar or any other bar exam before coming to DC. Nor had she been in practice for five years.

Back then the DC Bar Exam was a three-day , all-essay ordeal. No multi-state, no multiple choice. The average pass rate was about 50%.

Hillary probably got tripped up by the "gotcha" questions peculiar to the jurisdiction.

Bar review exam instructors would signal them by raising their voices a tad, implying that "this issue is important".

Sure enough, those questions would show up on the exam.

Though I passed that exam on the first attempt I never practiced, but instead went on to do other things where a law degree opened many doors. And, of course, it helped form my attitudes and interests, and led me to blogs like this one.

Trumpit, what was your experience taking the bar exam?

Michael K said...

"I think I go to the same lady. "

She is Ethiopian and very tiny, She was one of the Ethiopian Jews rescued by Israel years ago and she grew up in Israel. Her husband is also Jewish and they visit Israel every year.

We have talked about the reaction of my foreign born black medical students who do not understand American blacks with their victim culture. She agrees.

I saw her about a month ago when I was over there for a couple of days.

Michael K said...

the Hill affair could never have happened without the complicity of the Senate and press, both of which unquestioningly accepted Hill's "credibility" without investigating.

Also Democrats were the majority and Biden was the Chair of the Judiciary. He assured Thomas that it was a dine deal, probably sio he would relax and be unprepared for the Anita Hill hit job,

The Democrats also blocked the witnesses, many of them women who had worked in his office, who were prepared to dispute Hill's story,

Francisco D said...

It should be no surprise that Little Richie Daley flunked the Illinois bar. (The surprise is that he got through law school). The same goes for Gov. Jerry Brown and the California bar.

However, I am shocked that the second most brilliant woman in the political arena (and possible POTUS nominee according to Inga) flunked the Illinois bar. What was her name again?

I thought liberals were the smart ones and we are the uneducated deplorables.

PeterK said...

Why is it that whenever Anita Hill's testimony is brought up no one brings up the testimony of the 7 women who testified en masse to the committee in support of Justice Thomas?

"a group of seven more women who worked with Mr. Thomas on Mr. Danforth's staff, at the Department of Education or at the E.E.O.C. They said he had treated them with dignity and respect and had comforted and encouraged them. They said they could not believe Ms. Hill's accusations. "
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/14/us/thomas-nomination-parade-witnesses-support-hill-s-story-thomas-s-integrity.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/04/clarence_thomas_female_supporters_in_the_iwf.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/5185/6-pieces-evidence-anita-hill-was-lying-amanda-prestigiacomo

Jay Elink said...

Michael K said...
"I think I go to the same lady. "

She is Ethiopian and very tiny,...

*********************

Different lady! Whodathunkit, white guys everywhere marrying black dental hygienists.

heh


Michael K said...

One of my black medical students, almost 20 hears ago, was from Trinidad and was married to a white Australian who was in Engineering grad school.

Unknown said...

> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/... 1999

Oh, an election week story about a "crime" 16 years earlier aimed to bolster the paper's candidate - "you owe her"

I like that Trumpit thinks someone can be "found guilty" of a non-crime decades later. Talk about a cold case!

Jay Elink said...

"Trumpit, what was your experience taking the bar exam?"
*****************

(sound of crickets quietly chirping in the night)

Anonymous said...

1: Interesting, you can no longer even READ the comments unless you do some sort of BS sign in. They recognize that i'm signed in w/ Disqus, but don't honor it

2: Anita Hill's accusations were not the least bit credible. The fact that she recycled the "pubic hair" charge from a case she'd been part of , was disqualifying in and of itself

3: Anita Hill was an incompetent lawyer who got fired from her first job because of her incompetence, and made up a story that she was leaving the job because she was sexually harassed there

Thomas gave her a 2nd chance, and she flubbed that, too

Which is why, even after becoming Saint Anita Hill, she's a no impact "law professor" at a no-impact law school (compare her success w/ Fauxcahontas'es success. If she had any ability at all, she would have been teaching at Harvard Law, not Warren).

4: Read "The Real Anita Hill". Senate Democrats pre-tested her friend's testimony about Hill telling her about being sexually harassed, and realized that they'd have to modify her testimony, and have her claim she "couldn't recall" when the discussions were, since the claims came before Hill went to work for Thomas.

Yes, David Brook is now a left wing nutcase. but, so far as I can discover, no one's ever disproved the claims he made in RAH.