>She wasn't suing anyone. She was called to testify and she

>The big missing piece I have heard since the hearing was that
>the truth was that they were actively having an affair and
>neither of them wanted to put that on blast in the hearing.
>
>
>
>


What is your source on this? Because that assertion fits what many of her critics were saying: that she was just bitter about not getting with him eventually and that was her motive for testifying.


You can't say you were harassed by a man you were having an affair with. That makes the "harassment" actually part of the sexual "games" of the affair.


If you are going to say you believe they were having an affair, you're saying Anita is a scorned woman, which is what her critics were saying all along.