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 Friday October 11, 1991 afternoon session. Anita Hill is questioned about her charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Strom Thurmond (R - South Carolina). Senator Specter, do you want to proceed? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). We ll set the clock at 30 minutes again, Senator. Will we need that much time? Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Chairman, I hope to conclude in less time than that. I would want to finish the chronology if I may. Professor Hill, when my time expired we were up to the contact you had with Mr. Brudney on September 9th. If you could proceed from there to recount who called you and what those conversations consisted of as it led to your coming forward to the committee? Professor Anita Hill. Well, we discussed a number of different issues. We discussed one, what he knew about the law on sexual harassment. We discussed what he knew about the process for bringing information forward to the committee. And in the course of our conversations Mr. Brudney asked me what were specifics about what it was that I had experienced. In addition, we talked about the process for going forward. What might happen if I did bring information to the committee. That included that an investigation might take place, that I might be questioned by the committee in closed session. It even included something to the effect that the information might be presented to the candidate or to the White House. There was some indication that the candidate or, excuse me, the nominee might not wish to continue the process. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Brudney said to you that the nominee, Judge Thomas, might not wish to continue the process if you came forward with a statement on the factors which you have testified about? Professor Anita Hill. Well, I am not sure that that is exactly what he said. I think what he said was, depending on an investigation, a Senate, whether the Senate went into closed session and so forth, it might be that he might not wish to continue the process.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). So Mr. Brudney did tell you that Judge Thomas might not wish to continue to go forward with his nomination, if you came forward? Professor Anita Hill. Yes. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Isn't that somewhat different from your testimony this morning? Professor Anita Hill. My testimony this morning involved my response to this USA newspaper report and the newspaper report suggested that by making the allegations that that would be enough that the candidate would quietly and somehow withdraw from the process. So, no, I do not believe that it is at variance. We talked about a number of different options. But it was never suggested that just by alleging incidents that that might, that that would cause the nominee to withdraw. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Well, what more could you do than make allegations as to what you said occurred? Professor Anita Hill. I could not do any more but this body could. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Well, but I am now looking at your distinguishing what you have just testified to from what you testified to this morning. And this morning I had asked you about just one sentence from the USA Today news, "Anita Hill was told by Senate Staffers that 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." And now you are testifying that Mr. Brudney said that if you came forward and made representations as to what you said happened between you and Judge Thomas, that Judge Thomas might withdraw his nomination? Professor Anita Hill. I guess, Senator, the difference in what you are saying and what I am saying is that that quote seems to indicate that there would be no intermediate steps in the process. What we were talking about was process. What could happen along the way. What were the possibilities? Would there be a full hearing? Would there be questioning from the FBI? Would there be questioning by some individual members of the Senate? We were not talking about or even speculating that simply alleging this would cause someone to withdraw.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Well, if your answer now turns on process, all I can say is that it would have been much shorter had you said, at the outset, that Mr. Brudney told you that if you came forward Judge Thomas might withdraw. That is the essence as to what occurred. Professor Anita Hill. No, it is not. I think we differ on our interpretation of what I said. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Well, what am I missing here? Senator Ted Kennedy (D - Massachusetts). Mr. Chairman, can we let the witness speak in her own words, rather than having words put in her mouth? Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Chairman, I object to that. I object to that vociferously. I am asking questions here. If Senator Kennedy has anything to say let him participate in this hearing. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Now, let everybody calm down. Professor Hill, give your interpretation to what was asked by Senator Specter. And then he can ask you further questions. Professor Anita Hill. My interpretation - Senator Strom Thurmond (R - South Carolina). Speak into the microphone, so we can hear you. Professor Anita Hill. I understood Mr. Specter's question to be what kinds of conversation did I have regarding this information. I was attempting, in talking to the staff, to understand how the information would be used, what I would have to do, what might be the outcome of such a use. We talked about a number of possibilities, but there was never any indication that, by simply making these allegations, the nominee would withdraw from the process. No one ever said that and I did not say that anyone ever said that. We talked about the form that the statement would come in, we talked about the process that might be undertaken post-statement, and we talked about the possibilities of outcomes, and included in that possibility of outcome was that the committee could decide to review the point and that the nomination, the vote could continue, as it did. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). So that, at some point in the process, Judge Thomas might withdraw? Professor Anita Hill. Again, I would have to respectfully say that is not what I said. That was one of the possibilities, but it would not come from a simple, my simply making an allegation. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Professor Hill, is that what you meant, when you said earlier, as best I could write it down, that you would control it, so it would not get to this point? Professor Anita Hill. Pardon me? Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Is that what you meant, when you responded earlier to Senator Biden, that the situation would be controlled "so that it would not get to this point in the hearings"? Professor Anita Hill. Of the public hearing. In entering into these conversations with the staff members, what I was trying to do was control this information, yes, so that it would not get to this point. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Thank you very much.