From POST POLITICS at The Washington Post:
It is one of Washington’s enduring mysteries.
No, it isn’t.
Nearly two decades after Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his fractious Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it remains unclear who was lying.
No, it doesn’t. It’s very clear that Clarence Thomas is a big stinking liar.
Now, Virginia Thomas, the justice’s wife, has rekindled the controversy by leaving a voice mail message at Hill’s Brandeis University office seeking an apology.
“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” said the message left this month, according to a transcript provided by ABC News. “I just want to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometimes and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”
“I certainly thought the call was inappropriate,” Hill, who worked for Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions, said in a statement released by Brandeis, where she is a professor.
“I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony,” she added.
In her Senate testimony, Hill said that Thomas would make sexual comments to her at work, including references to scenes in hard-core pornographic films. Thomas angrily denied the allegations, memorably saying they amounted to a “high-tech lynching.”
But Lillian McEwen, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer who said she dated Clarence Thomas from 1979 through the mid-1980s, told The Washington Post in an interview that Hill’s long-ago description of Thomas’s behavior resonated with her.
“The Clarence I know was certainly capable not only of doing the things that Anita Hill said he did, but it would be totally consistent with the way he lived his personal life then,” said McEwen[…].
[…] Thomas, a longtime conservative activist who now heads Liberty Central, a nonprofit group aimed at stopping what she calls the “power grabbing” of the Obama administration, has been consistent in her criticism of Hill.
In an interview she and her husband did with People Magazine just before Thomas ascended to the high court, she said of Hill: “In my heart I always believed she was probably someone in love with my husband who never got what she wanted.”
Yeah, because he’s such a charming hunk.
From The Caucus at The New York Times:
Who’s Sorry Now?
It’s Virginia Thomas, not Anita Hill, who is apologizing – for the public appearances she has been canceling since the news broke Tuesday that she recently asked Ms. Hill to apologize for accusing Ms. Thomas’s husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, of sexual harassment during his Senate confirmation battle nearly 20 years ago.
Ms. Thomas, who has been tirelessly promoting her pro-Tea Party conservative advocacy group, Liberty Central, in coast-to-coast travels and television appearances, backed out of a Wednesday morning interview on NPR that had been scheduled a week ago, the public radio network said. Her publicist cited a “scheduling conflict.”
Hours later came word from the conservative Family Research Council that Ms. Thomas would not participate Wednesday evening on a Web cast with its president, Tony Perkins, that the group had been advertising as late as mid-afternoon. A spokesman said that both she and the group agreed her appearance would distract from the show’s subject – President Obama and taxes. While the program was titled “The Taxman Cometh: Stopping the Obama Tax Hikes,” at issue are the Bush tax cuts, which expire by law on Dec. 31 and which President Obama would extend except for income above $250,000 for couples.
Ms. Thomas, 53, known as Ginni, was a familiar conservative advocate in Washington even before she met her husband and married him 23 years ago. But her formation of Liberty Central has taken that political activism to a level previously unknown for the spouse of a Supreme Court justice.
While many scholars of legal ethics say Ms. Thomas should not be constrained from political advocacy because of her marriage, they say her solicitation and acceptance of at least two big contributions — $500,000 and $50,000 in late 2009, from donors whose identity do not have to be disclosed publicly — raises questions of potential conflicts of interest if the donors ever have cases before the Supreme Court.
The New York Times published an article about Ms. Thomas and Liberty Central on its Web site on Friday night, Oct. 8, and then in the next day’s newspaper. It was on that Saturday, at 7:31 a.m., that Ms. Thomas left a message on Ms. Hill’s office phone at Brandeis University.
Ms. Hill, unsure whether the message was a prank, said she asked police at Brandeis, University, where she is a professor, to turn it over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
My take? Not that anyone asked, but here it is. I think ol’ Ginni is far too politically savvy to just pick up the phone out of the blue and blabber. She would carefully plan and practice exactly what to say. It doesn’t sound like her message was particularly thought out or practiced, so I’m wondering if ol’ Ginni got drunk or took too much Valium and picked up the phone. One thing I haven’t seen or heard anyone discuss is the wording of her message. According to all reports, she said:
I would love you to consider an apology sometimes and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.
Now, if she was talking about the testimony, wouldn’t she say what you did to my husband? i think with is a strange preposition for ol’ Ginny to go with. Maybe ol’ Ginni found out that ol’ ugly Clarence got his dinky stinky with women other than herself during their marriage, got a bit smashed, and wanted to know if Anita Hill had taste bad enough to actually do the nasty with ol’ Clarence. Sorry about that, I can’t seem to keep anything down. Ol’ Ginni couldn’t have figured that Professor Hill would contact campus security and that they would, in turn, contact the FBI, so I don’t buy that ol’ Ginni did it for publicity purposes or as a distraction from anything else. If that had been the case, she would not have canceled her appearances. Just my 2¢, for what it’s worth.