"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Saturday, December 9, 2017
ANITA HILL LIES AGAIN
The following article
appeared in the Powerline blog on December 8th
Earlier this week, I responded
to an op-ed
in which Jay Kaganoff said conservatives should call on Justice Clarence Thomas
to resign. I distinguished the Thomas-Anita Hill controversy from recent cases
of sex harassment charges against public figures in three ways.
First, Thomas categorically denied
Hill’s allegations. Second, no one other than Hill testified that Thomas
engaged in inappropriate behavior. Third, Hill never even accused Thomas of
sexual touching or of demanding sex in exchange for career advancement, and the
things she did accuse him of don’t amount to sexual harassment under the law.
My post, which came in at nearly
1,000 words, did not discuss the question of Anita Hill’s credibility. Carrie
Severino takes up that matter at NRO’s Bench Memos. It’s a long post, but
well worth reading in full.
Severino stresses the discrepancies
between Hill’s initial affidavit and statement to the FBI on the one hand, and
her Senate testimony on the other:
[Hill] had preceded her committee
testimony with the affidavit and a September 23 interview with the FBI that
differed so much from her later testimony, both interviewing FBI agents
produced affidavits detailing what one of them called “comments that were in contradiction with” her earlier statement.
In short, they attested that none of Hill’s specific, headline-grabbing charges
about Thomas during the hearing—allegations of lurid references to himself, to
a pornographic movie character, and to an indecipherable description of a Coke
can—had been made during their interview despite their request for any such
To the questioning senators who were
wondering why they were hearing these allegations for the first time, Hill
testified that an interviewing agent advised her that she did not need to discuss
subjects that were too embarrassing. Both
FBI agents also repudiated this part of Hill’s testimony, stating in
their affidavits that the interviewer had asked her to provide specifics of all
Every witness who knew both Thomas
and Hill stated they believed Thomas. A dozen women who worked with Thomas
testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee (one by affidavit) with strong
statements defending his character, such as describing the allegations against
him as “unbelievable” or “totally preposterous” or deeming him “absolutely
incapable of the abuses described by Prof. Hill.”
Hill’s credibility was also
undermined by her testimony about whether Senate staffers told her that her
affidavit would cause Thomas to stand down (thus enabling her to avoid
During the hearing, Specter asked
Hill about a USA Today article reporting that Senate staffers told her that
producing an affidavit alleging sexual harassment would “quietly and behind the
scenes” compel Thomas to withdraw his name. Although the conversation would
have happened within approximately one month of her testimony (in contrast to
her allegations of a decade earlier), she repeatedly denied recalling any
mention of Thomas’ withdrawal—or even that such a “comment would have stuck in
As Specter recounted, Chairman Biden
reacted to this exchange by calling an early lunch recess, at which point he
told his chief of staff, “Go down and tell her lawyers that if her recollection
is not refreshed by the time she gets back, I will be compelled to pursue the
same line of questioning the senator [Specter] did. Because it seems to me, she
did what he said.”
After Specter resumed his questioning
following the recess, Hill, apparently alarmed at the prospect of losing the
committee’s Democratic chairman, not to mention being contradicted by other
testimony, backtracked with an awkward admission that the discussions at issue
included “some indication” that Thomas “might not wish to continue the process”
as a result of her allegations.
As late as 1998, Biden told Specter regarding her
evasions, “It was clear to me from the
way she was answering the questions, she was lying.” To be sure, Biden
would distance himself from the spectacle over which he chaired and publicly
claim to believe Hill; to do any less would be to defy the base of the
Democratic Party, which quickly turned her into a totem of workplace
After the dramatic and widely watched
and commented upon televised hearings, public opinion polls showed that more
Americans believed Thomas than believed Hill — and with good reason. The
country moved on, but the left never gives up. It has tried to resurrect Hill’s
credibility and to make her a hero. In the absence of push back, the left has
succeeded to some degree.
If we’re having a genuine reckoning,
Hill’s standing should return to what it was when Americans heard from her
under cross-examination — tool of the left.
Jay Kaginoff says he’s a conservative
who admires Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence. Questions
have been raised as to whether Kaganoff is who he says he is.
Whoever Kaganoff is, his dive back
into the facts of the Thomas-Hill matter (“I looked up the case again,” he
tells us) was not deep. Conservatives are not about to call on Clarence Thomas
to resign, nor should they.