Thanks Angela Wright

p.s. there's some question about whether she was willing to testify without a subpoena -- Biden says he received word that day that she wasn't.

to be called.

And she HAD been subpoenaed. Why would her requiring the subpoena -- that they had issued to her -- make Biden not call her in the end?

Surely Biden was familiar with the concept of a "friendly subpoena."

It isn't even clear here:

by saying "I wanted to testify"?

She has made it abundantly clear that she was willing to testify, but under subpoena.

And Anita Hill was very disappointed when Wright and the others weren't called. Shouldn't her wishes have mattered, too?

And he didn't just let her down -- he let all Americans down, by making decisions that ended up helping Thomas get on the court, despite the Democrats holding a solid majority on the Committee.

waiting to be called to testify under subpoena.

Why did she have to "want" to testify? What person in their right mind would WANT to testify publicly under those circumstances? She was WILLING and that's all that should have mattered.

And Biden cited time limitations at the time -- but it was in his power to extend the hearings another day.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-10-14-9104020934-story.html

Wright was scheduled to appear in person but agreed to let her interview with committee staff members stand as her account because the hearing was running hours behind schedule, according to Biden.

And I completely agree with his decision. The senators would have destroyed her credibility and it would have detracted from Hill's testimony, which was perfectly compelling without it. And we both know it wouldn't have changed a single vote except possibly in Thomas' favor.

and she felt he let her down.

And it wasn't just Angela Wright he didn't call. There were two other corroborating witnesses who he decided time prevented from giving public testimony.

But he had time to let someone testify about a crackpot theory of Anita having "erotomania."

And it wasn't about Hill or Wright or Biden, it was about Thomas. And Biden voted against him twice, and ran the hearings for a month in the face of considerable opposition. So he gets credit for that.

even if it was under subpoena.

And Biden has said that he thinks if the women had testified, Thomas might not have been confirmed. So Biden gets some credit for Thomas ending up on the court. The Dems had the majority and if the women had given their testimony, the vote might have gone the other way.

offering corroborating testimony could have made the difference.

Instead, Biden bent over backwards to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-joe-biden-hasnt-owned-up-to-about-anita-hill

On September 27, 1991, the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on Thomas’s confirmation, sending it to the rest of the Senate for final approval. Unexpectedly, the committee split evenly, showing more opposition to Thomas than expected. The public still knew nothing. But when Biden himself voted against Thomas in committee, he made a cryptic public statement warning against the idea that Thomas’s character should be an issue. “I believe there are certain things that are not at issue at all,” Biden said, “and that is his character. This is about what he believes.” Further, Biden admonished, “I know my colleagues will refrain, and I urge everyone else to refrain from personalizing this battle.”

SNIP

Biden succeeded on one key point. He insisted that if there were other women who could corroborate Hill’s sexual-harassment accusations or who had had similar experiences, they should be allowed to testify, over Republicans’ objections. And there were three women who wanted to testify, which might very well have changed the outcome of the final vote. But the Republicans convinced Biden that one of the women, Angela Wright, who, like Hill, worked for Thomas at the E.E.O.C., would not hold up as a witness. Wright watched the hearings on television from her lawyers’ office, waiting to be called. Wright had a corroborator, Rose Jourdain, who also was eager to testify, but she, too, never got the chance. They and a third woman, Sukari Hardnett, instead were allowed to submit only depositions or written statements, which went into the public record so late that few senators ever saw them—all of which was Biden’s call.

Yes and we all might very well become lotto billionaires tomorrow. Who would have changed their vote to nay? No one. I like Jane Mayer but she's writing from the same fantasy slant that RW nutjobs have been putting on this thing for 28 years. Yes, Wright was waiting, but you already conceded that she had also refused to testify voluntarily, as Biden had expected her to. And Biden was right not to compel her to speak against her will, and it would only have helped Thomas if she had.

was split down the middle, so they only needed to flip one vote.

As I've explained repeatedly, she was willing and expected to testify with a subpoena, which they had obtained. But she wanted the burden to be on the committee, not on her. She didn't want to go up against Thomas on her own volition. What is so difficult about that for you to understand?

did say clearly that "..Joe Biden doesn't owe me an apology.. Clarence Thomas does.".

It's Anita Hill who deserved an apology. I hope he has finally made peace with her.

Maybe he's done that by now. I hope so.

But this is what is left in my memory back then:

I thought that there was no way to decide whether or not she was right. (I am certain she was honest now)

I thought that Ted Kennedy’s questions were more important, because he attacked his record. His record was crazy right.

Joe Biden was amazingly tanned and smiling.

I have been better since, especially since G W Bush.

Yes, Ted did a much better job than Joe, who really let Anita (and America) down. It's easy to forget that the D's had a solid majority on the committee. The result could have been very different.

captured the attitudes pretty accurately. Biden enabled the GOP 🐷🐷.
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cold-opening/n10108

from public scrutiny nor are their records.

None of the current candidates running are essential to winning the oval office.

It is unlikely that any candidate who may announce in the future will be essential to winning the oval office.

Our democratic process is how we engage in democracy.

We are engaged and the candidates must engage also.

We still have topics being downplayed and ignored by candidates. These must also be discussed by candidates. Russian interference is one of these topics.

I noted yesterday the power of the voices of women on the judiciary and I have noted in general the power of the voices of women in confronting both William Barr and Jaime Dimon in hearings. I've noted the power of the women we have elected in the Blue Wave.

This is the true revolution. It cannot be postponed.

Now is the time to discuss. If not now, when?

with respect, ran a fair hearing, and voted against Thomas. If Hill wishes to continue to hold a grudge against him, that is on her.

Being told to "move on" is truly offensive. Thomas being horrible is not an excuse for Biden. he is the result of his actions.

Move on. That’s the only option.
Biden isn’t dropping out. Anita Hill can’t accept, we need to move on.

rape victims questions during Kavanaugh hearings just popped into my mind. Biden is running on misogyny - this thread reinforces my feeling.

to Hill and each of us. In this sentence, Thomas is the object ("for what?&quot . The either/or is a specious argument and it won't work.