Posted on 10/02/2007 8:14:41 AM PDT by presidio9
Anita Hill said on Tuesday she testified truthfully in 1991 in accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment and responded to a new book by the U.S. Supreme Court justice by saying he had unfairly attacked her character.
It was Hill's first response to the Thomas memoir that denounces his former aide and liberal interest groups who wanted to stop his nomination to the highest U.S. court.
"I'm really concerned that the approach that Clarence Thomas is taking now is so typical of people accused of wrongdoing. They trash their accusers ... and I don't want this to become the model of how we can react to bad workplace behavior," Hill said on ABC.
In an article on The New York Times op-ed page, Hill said Thomas in the book offered a litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears that Republican senators made when she testified.
"A number of independent authors have shown those attacks to be baseless," she wrote.
The sensational charges by Hill resulted in one of the most contentious Senate confirmation battles in history.
Hill, then a law professor in Oklahoma, charged that Thomas had badgered her for dates and offended her with sexually explicit talk when she was his aide at a government agency from 1981 to 1983.
A furious Thomas denied the charges and raised his own countercharges of racism and victimization. Both Thomas and Hill are black.
In the televised interview, Hill, now a professor at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, said, "I understand that he is very angry and he wants to vindicate himself. But when I testified in 1991 I was truthful."
She added, "I look back and think what could I have done to make this less combative, less tumultuous, and I can't think of anything I could have done to change that at all."
(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan)
Well, somebody’s lying.
What does the record support? Has anyone else ever said Thomas harrassed them, or does this seem to be a “one time event” that was conviently trotted out 10 years later?
“why do we believe Juanita but not Anita ?”
Simple: Pattern of behavior.
I don’t believe either until there’s proof.
why do we believe Juanita but not Anita ?
Two different situations. One had multiple accusations against him and one only had one. I am not saying that it is ok if only one gets harassed, but benefit of the doubt fits in this situation pretty good. Besides I only recall something about a soda can with some hair on it. That doesn’t sound like sexual harassment to me. Although I was young and not paying attention to politics like I am not, it did seem much ado about nothing and the Senate pretty much agreed. It is a shame that we will never have the full truth on either side.
A black lawyer from Dallas drove to DC on his own dime to tell the story of Hill's psychotic conduct at parties he had attended and Kennedy and Metzenbaum went after this guy like he'd done the Limburg kidnapping and started the Chicago fire.
Because the behavior Hill alleges is completely anomalous in the context of Clarence Thomas' record, while the behavior Broaddrick alleges is completely consonant in the context of Bill Clinton's record.
Juanita is about rape. By a politician who became president.
Anita is about abortion. By the opponents to a strict strict constitutionalist to the Supreme Court.
The thing about this situation is that he had an interview with 60 minutes and that is how it started again. Anita did not have the interview. Of course the media is going to ask her to comment on what he said.
All I know is that we have the liberal character destruction machine to thank for devolving the approval process into “he said ‘pubic hair on the Coke’”
No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.
Hill’s entire career has been based on that allegation. She has so much invested in that supposed incident that the only thing she can do is stand by it. Heck, she’s repeated it so many times, she believes she said it happened and there are a lot of other toads out there to back her up because it suited their careers as well. Helloooo, Ralph Neas.
Apparently, after she was "harassed", Ms Hill continued to follow Thomas from job to job. Strange behavior. If the charges were true, you'd think she wouldn't make an effort to stay in close proximity. How odd.
1. Juanita was raped, Anita was not.
2. Juanita was accused of being a nut or a slut, Anita was not.
3. Anita was fully backed by NOW, Juanita was not.
4. Anita was give full media support and coverage, Juanita was not.
5. Anita was brought before Congress, Juanita was not.
Besides, according to all the libs and the media, it's just about sex, right? Why the fuss? Who cares, then?
Until the libs and media start caring about assault on Juanita, then STFU.
BTW, Annita was NEVER assaulted, raped and reviled, Juanita was.
How's that, Sport? Is that clear enough for 'ya?
Lewis Grizzard summed up the hearings nicely: “What is Ted Kennedy doing on a senate ethics committee?”
Even the most convoluted mind does not equate telling a dirty joke with the forced rape and beating of a woman.
Almost forgot the most important:
(6) Hillary thanked Juanita for not making it public, that sort of seals the deal for most of us.
Thanks to Anita Hill I’ve haven’t been able to drink a can of coke without first checking for stray hairs.
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.