Live 1057

Free Internet Radio Stations
Nina Totenberg on Breaking the Anita Hill Allegations

Nina Totenberg on Breaking the Anita Hill Allegations

18 comments on “Nina Totenberg on Breaking the Anita Hill Allegations

  1. Ambulance chaser hooky reporting totenberg. Shame on you for bringing that Anita Hill contrived story and shamming a good man. Much like the christine blasey ford circus that failed. It's people like you that could give a rats ass about trying to destroy great men like Thomas and Kavanaugh just to further your career. You gloat and laugh about it on the PBS special. Let me guess.. your a democrat? I used to be a Dem til I smartened up and left that disgraceful party!

  2. Amazing. Nina, you’ve just verified and corroborated everything Mark Levin says in his new book, “Unfreedom of the Press.” You, and all the Democrat shills in this mockumentary have absolutely PROVEN that media and the DNC share exactly the same agenda and ideals: the utter corruption and destruction of the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, and the end of the entirety of our Constitution that undergirds our rights as Citizens, forcing all of us outside of California and New York and Illinois to bow down to the tyranny of mobocracy. You, and your government-directed propaganda arm of the DNC, with your ignorant, know-nothing anti-freedom shills like Annalisa Quinn seek NOTHING but the single-party fascist rule of America, with known traitors and felons in the seats of power.

  3. Clarence Thomas never sexually harassed or assaulted Anita. She knows she is lying. Just typical liberal/left/democrats ploys to smear republicans they don’t like. It’s sad. They have no conscious.

  4. Yes, she is right, Corporate Democrats did start how thing are today. Even then Hollywood fund's like the Russians try to undermine our democracy. Interference from Soros David Brock like China & N. Korea overthrow the people

  5. The problem with this doc is it plays both siderism. The Federalist Society is a small organization in each law school representing 1-3% of students. But it represents a near 100% of Republican judges. Republicans only pick from the most conservative of lawyers. On the flip side Democrats pick center right corporate lawyers. The 10% of truly liberal lawyers are not even in consideration. Where is the ACLU lawyer, or the Green Peace lawyer or The SPLC lawyer up for judgeship? Democrats did not start this fight, they fought back when it became clear that the Republicans had abandoned the idea of picking moderate judges, and would only pick from this tiny 1% of lawyers who are in the Federalist Society. The Dems pick from the other 99%. Which of these two process is radical?

    Second, this docs fails to mention that the Republicans have had a majority of Judges since Reagan. But where the bar was set for considering conservative justice kept changing. Sandra Day O'Connor was a very conservative judge by any historical standard. The fact that she became a swing vote does not change that. It just shows how right the court moved with Republicans only picking people who were in their society of radicals. After she retired, Kennedy was the swing vote. Kennedy is on the record saying he uses the Federalist Society to find his clerks. Kennedy is more conservative than O'Connor, but than is the swing vote.

    This idea that Democrats changed the game is nonsense. Democrats reacted to Republicans changing of the game in a radical way.

  6. What is the "mainstream" anymore if it is not based on originalism? Nina is doing revisionist history here. The reason the supreme court became so political is the democrat tactic of using the court to achieve what they could not legislatively and democratically, circumventing the will of the people. The republicans realized this and wised up. Roe Wade was not adjudicated by law rather written into law by judicial fiat

  7. Bottom line elections have consequences and the president gets to choose qualified judges that fit His and His party's ideology. Liberals from their way of thinking and conservatives likewise

  8. Whenever I see Totenberg, I think of an interview she did on NPR, right before the 2016 Democratic convention. She was campaigning hard against Bernie Sanders, and in her discussion with an NPR host, after giving a long, tedious, error-laden and heavy-handed disparaging of Senator Sanders, she squealed, "No one in congress respects Bernie Sanders!" and then cackled with glee. Bizarre. That's when it was clear that the Emperor has no clothes. That comment was false, amateurish, and manipulative and revealed her motivations…it was a desperate attempt to damage Senator Sanders on the eve of the primary. Totenberg I guess is probably near 80 years old, yet does not seem to realize how transparent her attempts at manipulation are.

  9. They might as well have interviewed a Democratic senator.She couldn’t have towed the line for the left any harder if she had tried.

  10. “It made the Senate look like a white man’s club…” For putting a black man on the Supreme Court? Ok 🤣

  11. This reporter work's for NPR. Nothing she says can be trusted. Leftist to the bone. Her deep hatred for consurvitives is pure and clear. Tax payer funding people who truly hate them? Why is this so?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *