Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court October 12, 1991. Clarence Thomas appears before Commitee after the have questioned Anita Hill about her charges of sexual harassment
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). And with that brief introduction what I would like to cover with you in this round relates to questions on credibility, on four specific subjects. First, the USA article; second, her move from Education to EEOC; third, her testimony on not documenting the alleged comments; and four, the inferences on credibility arising from the telephone logs. The issue of the article in USA Today, I think is a very compelling one because I believe - and I am going to ask you about this - that Professor Hill testified in the morning and demolished her testimony in the afternoon. And what I want to examine with you for the next few minutes is an extremely serious question as to whether Professor Hill's testimony in the morning was or was not perjury. And I do not make that statement lightly. But we are searching here for what happened. And nobody was present with a man and a woman when this tragedy arose. And the quality of her testimony and the inferences are very significant on the underlying question as to credibility. I am going to read you extensive extracts from the testimony which I re-read this morning and I think it ought to be noted that we proceed here on a very short timetable. Senator Thurmond asked me to undertake this job on Wednesday and I started on it with Thursday and we are in hearings on Friday and are reading overnight text this morning.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). The start of it was my question to Professor Hill about the USA article on October 9th, "Anita Hill was told by Senate staffers her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that would quietly, and behind the scenes, would force him to withdraw his name." Now, I am about to go through the transcript where I asked Professor Hill about this repeatedly and at one point she consulted her attorney and throughout an extensive series of questions yesterday morning flatly denied that any Senate staffer had told her that her coming forward would lead to your withdrawal. And in the afternoon she flatly changed that by identifying a Senate staffer who she finally said told her that she was told that if she came forward you would withdraw or might withdraw your nomination. The transcript, which is prepared overnight, does not reveal the part where she consulted with her attorney, but I asked my staffers to review the tape, because I recollected that and they did find the spot, which I shall refer to, but I want to make that plain that it is not in the written transcript.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). I start, Judge Thomas, at page 79 of the record, where I questioned Professor Hill, that USA Today reported on October 9th, "Anita Hill was told by Senate staffers her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that, quietly and behind the scenes, would force him to withdraw his name." I am not reading all of it, because I cannot in the time we have here, but if anybody disagrees with anything I read, they are at liberty to add whatever they choose. On page 80: "Question: Did anybody ever tell you that, by providing the statement that there would be a move to request Judge Thomas to withdraw his nomination?" Ms. Hill: I don't recall any story about using this to press anyone." Later, on page 80: "Ms. Hill: I don't recall anything being said about him being pressed to resign." Page 81: "Senator Specter: Well, aside from 'quietly and behind the scenes pressing him to withdraw,' any suggestion that just the charges themselves in writing would result in Judge Thomas withdrawing and going away? Ms. Hill: I don't recall that at all, no."
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Skipping ahead to page 82 - this is in the middle of one of my questions: "You have testified with some specificity about what happened 10 years ago. I would ask you to press your recollection as to what happened within the last month. Ms. Hill: And I have done that, Senator, and I don't recall that comment. I do recall there might have been some suggestion that if the FBI did the investigation, that the Senate might get involved, that there may be that a number of things might occur, but I really, I have to be honest with you, I cannot verify the statement that you are asking me to verify. There is not really more that I can tell you on that." Then skipping ahead to page 84: "Senator Specter: Would you not consider a matter of real importance, if someone said to you, professor, you won't have to go public, your name won't have to be disclosed, you won't have to do anything, just sign the affidavit, and this, as USA Today reports, would be the instrument that, quietly and behind the scenes, would force him to withdraw his name. Now, I am asking you whether it happened. I am asking you now only, if it did happen, whether that would be the kind of a statement to you which would be important and impressed upon you that you could remember in the course of four or five weeks." Now, it is at this time that she consulted with her attorney, according to my recollection and according to my staff's, looking at the tape. And then she says: "I don't recall a specific statement and I cannot say whether that comment would have stuck in my mind, I really cannot say this."
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). In the afternoon session, I asked Professor Hill - Page 203 - to begin, if you could, and proceed from there to account who called you and what those conversations consisted of as it led to your coming forward to the committee. Then, on a long answer inserted at the end, which was not responsive, because I wasn't asking about the USA Today article any more, she says - and this appears at the bottom of 203 - "It even included something to the effect that the information might be presented to the candidate and to the White House, there was some indication that the candidate - excuse me - the nominee might not wish to continue the process." Then, on the following page, 204, continuing in the middle of the page: "Senator Specter: So, Mr. Brudney did tell you that Judge Thomas might not wish to continue to go forward with his nomination, if you came forward? Ms. Hill: Yes." Now, Judge Thomas, what do you make of that change of testimony? Judge Clarence Thomas. Senator, I think that the individuals such as Jim Brudney, Senator Metzenbaum's staffer on the Education and Labor Committee, should be brought to hearings like this to confront the people in this country for this kind of effort, and I think that they should at some point have to confront my family.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D - Ohio). I would like to just make a statement. Yesterday, I called for the Ethics Committee to investigate the matter of the leak and anything else they consider appropriate. Jim Brudney was performing his responsibilities as a member of my staff. Senator Strom Thurmond (R - South Carolina). Mr. Chairman, I might make this statement, that today I have called for an FBI investigation. I think that is the one that will count, and the Republicans on this side of the aisle, all I have talked with have agreed to sign it, all down the line, I believe, and - Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Wait a minute. I am not getting into any collateral issues at this time. I have not discussed signing anything. I do not want to have any attention diverted from this issue, which is the nomination of Judge Thomas, and the point we are on now is where the credibility is. When Senators want to interrupt, that is part of the process around here, but I am not going to discuss that issue at this time.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Judge Thomas, I went through that in some detail, because it is my legal judgment, having had some experience in perjury prosecutions, that the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat-out perjury, and that she specifically changed it in the afternoon, when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted, and if you recant during the course of a proceeding, it is not perjury, so I state that very carefully as to what she had said in the morning. But in the context of those continual denials and consulting the attorney and repeatedly asking the question, with negative responses, that, simply stated, was false and perjurious, in my legal opinion, and the change in the afternoon was a concession flatly to that effect. In searching for credibility, let me add that I am not representing that it is conclusive or determinative, but it certainly is very probative and very weighty.