Posted on 09/25/2018 9:14:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Twenty-seven years after testifying that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her, Anita Hill says she believes the upcoming hearing on an alleged sexual assault by the current nominee "cannot be fair and thorough."
As it stands now, the hearing cannot provide the senators "with enough information to reach a reasonable conclusion," Hill tells NPR.
On Thursday, Christine Blasey Ford is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about an incident that she says happened when she and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were in high school.
She says that during a party, Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down in a bedroom and groped her as a friend of his looked on.
"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," Ford, a research psychologist in California, has said. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."
Kavanaugh has categorically denied these allegations and a second accusation against him. In a Fox News interview that aired Monday night, he said: "I had never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever."
While some details of the hearing remain up in the air, the only people currently set to testify are Kavanaugh and Ford.
Ford's lawyer — and Democratic senators — have called for an FBI investigation into the claims. The attorney has also proposed the committee subpoena Mark Judge, the other person Ford says was in the room during the alleged assault.
So far, those requests have not been granted.
A fair process would start with a "real investigation," Hill tells All Things Considered, saying the absence of other witnesses raises concerns about a he-said-she-said situation.
"It's only that kind of a situation if it's set up as that kind of a situation," Hill says. "In a real hearing and a real investigation, other witnesses would be called, including witnesses who could corroborate, witnesses who could explain the context of the experiences of Dr. Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh during that period in their lives, as well as experts on sexual harassment and sexual assault."
Hill, who is now a professor of social policy, law and women's and gender studies at Brandeis University, called for a "neutral body" to investigate the allegations. She says Senate members have already indicated "the presumptions they have about the claims that have been made."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced later Tuesday that a female staff attorney, not senators, would be questioning Kavanaugh and Ford. Fellow Republican and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said it was an effort to "depoliticize the whole process."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer then stated that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee planned to ask their own questions at Thursday's hearing.
Hill says there is going to be an inherent power imbalance in the hearing. "The very least we can do is balance it out through a fair process."
She found herself in a similar position to Ford when, in 1991, she came forward with allegations against Thomas.
Hill had briefly worked with Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — but by the time interest in her story spiked, Hill had already left Washington, D.C., and was working as a law professor at the University of Oklahoma.
According to Hill's congressional testimony, Thomas told her that he was likely to get a political appointment and that if he did, she could come work with him. She followed Thomas to the Education Department, where she worked for one year.
When Thomas moved on to become EEOC chairman, Hill joined him as a special assistant. She held that post from 1982 to '83, when she moved back to Oklahoma.
Hill initially refused to speak about what happened between her and Thomas. She was "torn between what she saw as her duty to provide information to the committee and her desire not to be publicly identified," as NPR's Nina Totenberg has reported.
An FBI inquiry into her claims began in late September 1991; on Oct. 7, Hill said she was willing to testify.
She recalls a hectic journey from Oklahoma to Washington, where she says she had only about a day to confer with her legal counsel before facing senators. "Experiencing that was just as shocking as it sounds," Hill tells NPR.
Discussing her interactions with Thomas, Hill testified that their working relationship had initially been positive. But several months after she took the job at the Department of Education, she said, "He asked me to go out socially with him."
Hill continued in her testimony: "What happened next and telling the world about it are the two most difficult things, experiences of my life. It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and a number of sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends."
She declined his offer, telling lawmakers that she believed going out with Thomas might jeopardize their professional relationship. She said Thomas pressed her to explain why she said no and tried repeatedly to get her to change her mind.
"My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex," Hill said at the time. She added, "After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid."
The topics ranged from pornography and bestiality to Thomas' "own sexual prowess," she said.
Hill testified that the graphic conversations and pressure tapered off toward the end of Thomas' tenure at the Education Department, prompting her to accept his offer to join her at the EEOC.
In the second half of 1982, she said, Thomas resumed making sexual overtures and pressuring her to go on a date. She began looking for another job and landed one in 1983.
Hill told the committee, "When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now, I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him."
Thomas denied Hill's accusations and called the hearing "a high-tech lynching."
On Oct. 15, 1991, Thomas was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate, by a vote of 52-48.
The personal cost of coming forward was substantial, Hill tells NPR.
"My family was threatened, along with me. My friends were threatened," she says. "Anybody who dared support me were also threatened with loss of life, loss of jobs. You lose privacy."
But, she says, "for me, what it does come down to is that I felt that I had an obligation to come forward."
She says she doesn't regret it.
"Yes, it is true that it's redefined my life in many ways," Hill says, "but in the end, I still have the power to define who I am and what my life stands for."
The allegations by Hill and Ford both concern incidents that they said happened years prior to Thomas' and Kavanaugh's nominations. But Hill argues that for a Supreme Court nominee with a potential life term, incidents long past must be weighed.
"We're talking about an experience that is a reflection — potentially a reflection — on the character and fitness of a nominee," Hill says. "And it has to be taken into account and it has to be taken seriously. And that is fair."
Anita Hill should have the teeth beaten out of her lying Front Hole face...
"...The really fatal fact about Anita Hill's accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.
Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present.
If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill's request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false. "
The same and worse is true for Ford's accusations. She wants to prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed, destroy his reputation, while avoiding any legal process.
In actuality, Chrissie Blatantly-Whored "encouraged" the next-door neighbor's German Shepherd to "take care of her needs"...
Democrat tactics have not changed in 30 years.
The Media refuse to report on credible anonymous online reports about Anita Hill's prediliction for sex with various barnyard animals...
At the end of the Thomas hearing a black attorney testified Hill actively persued him to the point that he had to forcefully tell her he wasn’t interested in her. This was after her association with Thomas. Her contact with Thomas ended when he married.
I believe in both cases she was looking for a meal ticket and she went to law school to get a rich husband.
I believe Clarence Thomas.
Seconded.
It was a long drive from the Oral Roberts University campus to the Tulsa International Airport one night for Anita and Clarence.
Anita Hill had more credence than anyone ever had before from an evangelical background—now buried. revised, and obliterated for modern tastes and sensibilities.
Lying harlot of the left speaks from NPR pulpit.
I though it was interesting the dates Hill sites 82-83 these are the same years Ford uses or around that time.
Alos I just noticed this below paragrah 2 line 2 this is in quotes. I saw the letter Ford wrote and the wording was quite different.
She says that during a party, Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down in a bedroom and groped her as a friend of his looked on.
“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” Ford, a research psychologist in California, has said. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”
The letter from Ford said this:
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.
They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.
With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth, I feared he may inadvertently kill me. From across the room, a very drunken Judge said mixed words to Kavanaugh, ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”
At one point, when Judge jumped onto the bed, the weight on me was substantial.
The pile toppled and the two scrapped with each other.
After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom”.
So which quote will be at the hearing I wonder.
Of course it cannot be fair. It is based on a contrived fraud, nothing more. How can that be fair?
“the hearing cannot provide the senators
with enough information to reach a reasonable conclusion,”
Hence the reason for a statute of
limitations.
From one liar to another.....
This is the statement every Republican committee member must say:
Ms. Ford,
Thank you for coming to speak to us today. I understand how difficult it is to speak publicly on such a sensitive and personal memory.
Let me say that I believe you, I believe you are a survivor, and you are courageous to speak out on the horrific circumstances.
I believe this incident did happen, and that it was traumatic. And that you should be believed that it did happen to you. But I am not certain that it was Brett Kavenaugh who did this to you, and we don’t have any evidence to indicate that he was the person who assaulted you. And that is the purpose of this hearing.
Its not meant to be judicially “fair”. It is amazing that she is getting a hearing at all given the scant or non-existent evidence, her poor memory, the way it reappeared in her memory, the manner in which the Democrats have used it as a last minute Hail Mary to get their own way. It certainly is not fair to Brett Kavanaugh to be accused in a manner which gives him little redress and in a forum which cannot clear his name. It is not fair on his family to suffer the humiliation, degradation and to have to live in fear because of one woman’s preposterous story that would not pass muster in a court of law. He has been tried, convicted and sentenced in the eyes of the media, the Democrats and from those whose minds are full of the filth that he is accused off. I believe him because his whole life has been about the law, about respect for the constitution and his love for the country. I dont believe her because she has so much invested in him losing this nomination and the people who support her have even moreso. To those to whom politics is everything, everything is political - including what is fair!
Well, she’s the expert. :-D
Actually, no she isn’t. “Fair” is one of the mos subjective words in the English language. “That’s not fair” is the mantra of the child not getting her way.
Your contradictory testimony was not convincing and after making hundreds of thousands of dollars as a speaker over the past 27 years you are still milking your false claims for more.
You are a very lackluster college professor who got your job because you cried wolf where there was none. But keep right on carrying your case to the media: there is always one more rabid MSM reporter who will have you on just because of your rep. Pitiful woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.