CBS' 60 Minutes offered no rebuttal to Clarence Thomas' claims about Anita Hill
The September 30 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes featured an interview with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, which coincided with the October 1 release of his memoir, My Grandfather's Son (HarperCollins). During the interview, Thomas again denied Anita Hill's allegations in 1991 that he sexually harassed her, saying of Hill: "She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed. That's not the person I knew." In October 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Hill's allegations during Thomas' confirmation proceedings. 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft reported: "In the book, [Thomas] remembers Anita Hill as an average employee whose behavior could sometimes be irritating, rude, and unprofessional, which he attributed to her youth. He was asked to write a number of recommendations for her and helped advance her career, and he speculates that she got swept up in events and succumbed to a combination of ego, ambition, and immaturity." Kroft offered no challenge to Thomas, and CBS gave no indication that it had contacted Hill or anyone else to respond to him.
On the October 1 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin faulted Kroft, saying: "Anita Hill wasn't just someone making accusations. There were corroborating witnesses. There were facts and allegations that he could have responded to and Steve Kroft could have asked him." Toobin also noted that Thomas was allowed to "simply assert his innocence, and, you know, disparage Anita Hill." Toobin is the author of the recently released book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (Doubleday).
From the September 30 broadcast of CBS' 60 Minutes:
KROFT: Most Americans know very little about the workings of the U.S. Supreme Court or its members, but mention Justice Clarence Thomas, and you're likely to start an argument. He is the court's only African-American and its most conservative member. He is arguably the most influential black man in the country, yet reviled by many in his own race for his opposition to government programs intended to help minorities.
Most people know very little about him, their opinions shaped by his bitter confirmation battle, in which he was accused of sexually harassing a former employee named Anita Hill. Now, 16 years later, he's written a memoir called My Grandfather's Son, which lays bare a remarkable life and the events that shaped it. Supreme Court justices are private people who rarely give interviews, and Justice Thomas doesn't think much of the press. But he gave us seven days of his life to talk about all of it.
[...]
KROFT: Thomas spent three and a half months preparing for the hearings and survived a five-day grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee about his conservative views on affirmative action, welfare, capital punishment, school prayer, and abortion. The nomination was sent to the full Senate, where it appeared Thomas had enough votes to be confirmed.
And then what happened?
THOMAS: The next round of attacks that I could never have anticipated took place.
KROFT: Anita Hill?
THOMAS: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Here she comes.
KROFT: Anita Hill, a former employee of Thomas', had submitted a confidential statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that Thomas had sexually harassed her 10 years earlier when both of them were single. The FBI had already investigated the allegations and given the Judiciary Committee what was called an "inconclusive report." The committee decided not to pursue the matter. But two days before the full Senate was expected to confirm Thomas, Hill's statement was leaked to the media.
THOMAS: It was only after they had been leaked, illegally, to the public, to the -- in the press, that then it's out of hand. It's in the feeding frenzy.
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA) [video clip]: At the minimum, we need to see a delay, a delay of this nomination.
KROFT: Under pressure from women's groups and congressional Democrats, Anita Hill was summoned before the Judiciary Committee to testify before live television cameras. More than 20 million households tuned in to watch the proceedings, which were more titillating than the soap operas.
HILL [video clip]: After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid.
KROFT: You've denied all of the allegations.
THOMAS: Oh, absolutely, from day one. It didn't happen. I mean, some -- if somebody makes a broad allegation against you, what would you do?
KROFT: Ask them to prove it, I guess.
THOMAS: Yeah.
KROFT: Was the Anita Hill that testified on the hill the Anita Hill that you knew at EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]?
THOMAS: She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed. That's not the person I knew.
KROFT: Who was the person you knew?
THOMAS: She could defend herself, let's just put it that way, and she did not take slights very kindly. And anyone who did anything, she responded very quickly.
KROFT: Didn't take 10 years?
THOMAS: It didn't take 10 minutes.
KROFT: In the book, he remembers Anita Hill as an average employee whose behavior could sometimes be irritating, rude, and unprofessional, which he attributed to her youth. He was asked to write a number of recommendations for her and helped advance her career, and he speculates that she got swept up in events and succumbed to a combination of ego, ambition, and immaturity.
THOMAS: It did not occur.
KROFT: When it came time for him to publicly respond to the allegations, Thomas turned the tables on his interrogators and, for all intents and purposes, ended the debate.
THOMAS [video clip]: This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
KROFT: Why did you use that language? And why a "high-tech lynching"?
THOMAS: If somebody just wantonly tries to destroy you, if somebody comes in and just drags you out of your house and beats the hell out of you, what is it?
KROFT: What do you want people to think about those allegations? What's it -- what is it important for people to think?
THOMAS: I -- really, at this point, I think most well-meaning people understand it for what it was. It was a weapon to destroy me, clear and simple.
From the October 1 edition of CNN Newsroom:
KYRA PHILLIPS (co-host): You mentioned Anita Hill -- of course, a lot of people wanting to know his thoughts about that, all these years later. He talked about it. Let's listen.
[begin video clip]
KROFT: You've denied all of the allegations.
THOMAS: Oh, absolutely, from day one. It didn't happen. I mean, some -- if somebody makes a broad allegation against you, what would you do?
KROFT: Ask them to prove it, I guess.
THOMAS: Yeah.
KROFT: Was the Anita Hill that testified on the hill the Anita Hill that you knew at EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]?
THOMAS: She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed. That's not the person I knew.
KROFT: Who was the person you knew?
THOMAS: She could defend herself, let's just put it that way.
[end video clip]
PHILLIPS: What'd you make of that?
TOOBIN: Well, I mean, I think that's a real unfair to Anita Hill. I mean, Anita Hill wasn't just someone making accusations. There were corroborating witnesses. There were facts and allegations that he could have responded to and Steve Kroft could have asked him.
You know, what about the incident here? Did you ever go -- were you -- was she ever in your apartment? Were you ever -- was she ever alone in your office? Did you ever see her after hours? I mean, those are the kind of questions 60 Minutes sometimes asks the people they're interviewing. They didn't -- he didn't ask that time. So all he was allowed to do was simply assert his innocence, and, you know, disparage Anita Hill.
I had read the Real Anita Hill by David Brock years ago, I found it to be somewhat of a lie.
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Anita-Hill-David-Brock/dp/0029046564
I just knew someone would bring up David Brock's sensationalistic book about Anita Hill. I had someone else in mind at first but had a feeling it would be you that'll bring Brock's book up in this thread. You enjoy diverting attention from the topic at hand and switching the conversation into something else.
Anyway, I'm going to leave this thread alone though; Thomas irks like no other, and I might be accused of being "hateful" and "inflammatory" if I voice my opinion about him even further.
I brought it up because conservatives always used that in the early and mid 90s as the bible. I never bought it back then. Thomas lies if you want to play games and attack so be it. I believe Anita Hill to the day I die.
Maybe I read you wrong then because I thought you bringing up Brock's book was a way to point a finger at him for being a hypocrite. My bad.
And of course Thomas lied. The fact he refused to take a lie detector test while Hill did and passed it proves more than anything that he has something to hide.
Way too funny that in his book, thomas claims when his wife told him he was nominated 52-48, his response was whoop de damn doo.
you had it right the first time, preston.
grow up troll
were you looking in the mirror?
No why do you comment on the substance of what I posted instead of your usual sarcastic one sentence bs. If you agree that Thomas lied say so, if not say so. Instead everything with you is petty and personal and everyone is a troll but yourself. You need to look in your mirror.
what prevailed you to do a link to brock's book on hill? everyone knew that some conservative would bring it up. why you?
Sueeld
I will give advice I have given others, ignore this poster , do not engage him. He loves to smear people. He tried it with me. Lets make a pact to be civil with eachother and ignore people who refuse to act that way.
Good point about Thomas lie , what disturbed me about this is that this is 16 years later a generation may not remember what happened in 1991 and watching that interview they could come to the conclusion that Thomas was questioned becuase of his "race". The fact was he sexually harrassed this poor women and got away with it and remains on a powerful position for life. Its sick.
how come you always need to get into the middle of this? you're ignoring me for what, the 200th time? and as i have told you, the reason i was suspicious of you is that when you first came on here, you said about hillary: "it's not like her people are not capable of smearing people".
Doris
Thanks (will try ). You make a valid point, I was not even thinking of . This is an obvious attempt to re-write history. The scary thing was that Cons tried to do it in the 90s with the Brock book and now as time has gone by even more to "smear" Anita Hill again. I am just not aware of why CBS would partner in this.
Sue
I just checked and the publisher is Harper Collins owned by Murdoch and the slime at News Corp. I would have expected this type of interview from Hannity not 60 Minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollins
Oh god, I see melast is up to the smear games again. Just ignore melast Sueeld.
who did i smear?
Thank you Preston. The biggest problem with how the Cons treated and are treating Anita Hill was so apparent at the 60 min interview. She is a liar , she is wrong, Thomas is a saint. I did not buy for a second Thomas and his victim poor me role.
hill has written an persuasive answer to thomas in the new york times.
This was a cream puff interview and an attack on all victims of sexual harrasment. Shame on CBS.
OMG, are Thomas and Hill really in the news again???
Yes Pete they are and do you know why? Its book season.
This story was a profile on Clarence Thomas - a Supreme Court Justice. Anita Hill's allagations, a small part of the story, were addressed and put to rest during his confirmation hearings in 1991. There was no new information that required rebuttal. Talk about old news.
"put to rest"? then why is thomas discussing them?
While a small part of his life story - it did take center stage in 1991. If CBS had not asked the question, and he had not responded, the interview would have been dismissed for avoiding the issue.
it was the major event of his hearings. it's in his book. he discusses and makes allegations against hill. that is not "old news". he brought the subject up again.
The subject of this story line is CBS and why they did not offer a rebuttal to the comments Clarence Thomas made about the Anita Hill incident. The comments Thomas made in Sunday nights interview regarding Hill are no different than the ones he made in 1991 - therefore no rebuttal is rquired. If there is new information, or new alligations - then the absence of a rebuttal would be suspect. MMFA missed the mark on this one
If you wish to use this thread to retry Clarence Thomas in the court of public opinion you are only going to frustrate yourself - as he will continue on the court regardless of your personal verdict. Sorry but that's the way it is.
thanks for the tommy-like answer. just ignore it because it won't change anything. the fact is if cbs has him on and he makes comments, then it's a subject for discussion. now.
The comments Thomas made in Sunday nights interview regarding Hill are no different than the ones he made in 1991 - therefore no rebuttal is required.
True. And when Ed Bradley gently interviewed Hill a decade or so ago on 60 minutes, she told her story...without rebuttal.
It is quaint to see Brock's website all worked up over poor Anita, considering she was once described by David Brock as "nutty & sl#tty". And there was that book...
Yeah yeah, he apologized. But like I've said before:
You said it, you own it.
Let's see, the Dems guru smeared Hill...and was responsible for smearing Bill Clinton with "troopergate".
Seems like character assassination is his specialty.
Maybe Limbaugh & even Billy-Boy have a tiny point?
Jeter
I am sure in the Ed Bradley interview, 60 Minutes offered Thomas a chance to be interviewed but declined. That is the difference.
Perhaps Doris.
But even if they couldn't get Thomas, they could have found someone else to present his side. They didn't.
Quite frankly, I don't think it was necessary, nor do I believe it was necessary here.
This is just petty griping on MMFA's part.
perhaps he didn't have a "side". maybe they couldn't find people to discredit her.
I believe there were other witnesses besides Hill. That fact is overlooked in the Corporate Media script.
More revisionist history, courtesy of the Corporate Media; Thomas is being generally portrayed as a "victim". He was on Rush Limbaugh's show yesterday, and if Rush had shoved his head any further up Clarence's butt, he would have disappeared.
Here's an interesting column about Clarence's whiney book:
[link to www.huffingtonpost.com]
Thomas is a troglodyte, and his presence on the court has been a detriment to our country.
I don't see Thomas being portrayed as a victim at all. His story is one of victory and triumph dispite a sytem that likes to create victims and the heroes that purportedly will save them. That is why the Libs don't like him.
how about thomas declaring himself the victim of a "hi tech lynching."?
"I don't see Thomas being portrayed as a victim at all."
Then you're not paying attention. He's accused the Senate Democrats of being racists. He's accused Anita Hill of lying and stalking him. He whined on Rush Limbaugh's show about how rough the confirmation hearings were, and how he only got through it with the help of his "prayer partners". Rush bloviated that he was only opposed because he didn't adhere to the traditional "black" viewpoint. The man just oozes self pity.
I agree and he seems like a pretty bitter guy in general. I saw a little clip of Anita Hill on CNN this morning. This woman was raked over the coals by our illustrious Republican sentaors many of them still in office. Even through all of that she was calm and gracious and she had that same demeanor this morning when I saw her.
Oh pleaseeeee
Thomas always acts like the victim. What he did in 1991 which is lynching remark was a real smart way of playing that race card. he is a disgrace.
When Thomas was on Rush's show, Rush was continually trying to steer him toward certain hot buttons. For example, he tried real hard to get Thomas to say that he did not benefit from affirmative action. The best he got was that it wasn't called "affirmative action" in those days.
Something's in the air...
I'm not a SCOTUS junkie so I'm not really sure what's on their docket, but it sure smells like a favor is in store for the corporate masters of CBS.
If Edward R. Murrow came back and saw what his old outfit is doing in the name of journalism, he'd never stop throwing up.
That's an interesting point. I don't remember a sitting Supreme Court Justice hawking a book like this...maybe it's happened, but I don't remember it.
The 60 Minutes interview was pretty sad, but his appearance on Rush Limbaugh was downright nauseating.
A friend of mine and I devised a list of people who are on constant spin cycle in their graves (Elvis, for example). Ad Ed Murrow to the list.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The man had, as he freely admits, the benefits of a good education, priveledged opportunities, and incredible advancement based on his appearance instead of his credentials, or proven skills, and HE is bitter!!
He has this altruistic vision of himself that don't fit the facts. He defies his own recolection of his own past, and he is bitter!! He has been held up by practicing bigots whom promoted him to the highest court and it's simply his false pride, and own prejudice that prevents him from doing what he knows is right! Once he was confirmed he was free to do the right thing, and instead he attached himself by the hip to the most radical conservative on the court, Scalia. He decided not to think, or make decisions unless sanctioned by his conservative DADDY!
He presumes to stand on principles that he admits are not his own, not his grandfather, and blames all those whom are outraged by his behavior for his behavior!
Let's face it, he's a big CRY BABY, and spoiled to boot!
16 years go by, and he thinks Anita Hill will just go away with a lie, and a slight of her character!! I wonder where he could have learned that technique??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
This interview was a complete sham. Thomas was portrayed as some victim of racial injustice. I was outraged at CBS and 60 Minutes, my only thinking was that either the publisher and CBS have a relationship or this was the terms of this rare interview. It was so deplorable.
And so we get to re-visit briefly, what wasn't exactly Senate Democrat's best moment ever, in publicly opposing a nominee to the Supreme Court.
The "60 Minutes" guy describes the Justice as having been questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee "about his conservative views on affirmative action, welfare, capital punishment, school prayer, and abortion"
And even though what we remember most about those Hearings, is what involved the testimony of the young woman, I guess it's true that much of the Hearings were also about "affirmative action, welfare, capital punishment, school prayer, and abortion"; because that's the usual modus operandi of Senate Democrats, to question those things and ask the nominee about them, and figure the answers to those questions will somehow disqualify the nominee.
Which is too bad that's the tack they take (either from a "knee jerk" reflex, or from the pressure of certain contributing interests): because I'm always amazed at how greatly some of these nominees to the Federal Judiciary threaten us, by way of their being nothing more but political hacks, and business agents dressed in black robes...
And yet Senate Democrats never take that tack, and challenge the nominee as to their political affiliations (of which we prefer they have none at all, as such affiliations upon Appointment, can become obligations upon Confirmation), or about their private financial interests.
Because which of us are so naive in these matters, as to think, say George W. Bush for example, nominates Judges to the Federal Courts, for his heart-felt concern to see the causes of "affirmative action, welfare, capital punishment, school prayer, and abortion" well served?
Give me a break.
George W. Bush (for example) looks at those he would potentially nominate, in one of two lights (or both):
Is the prospective nominee on our side politically? Does he know who it is he'd owe his Appointment to? Would he be so ungrateful as to forget us when we might need him?
I mean if he should see the Docket to have something on it called "Bush v. Gore", he'd know already his Opinion from those names alone, without needing to hear the case, right?
George W. Bush (for example) would similarly ask about the prospective nominee, that if he sees the names of oil companies and tobacco companies and perhaps a defense contractor on the Docket, he likewise already has an Opinion in the matter, regardless of the particulars of the Case, right?
Which of us are so naive in these matters, as to think George W. Bush nominates Judges to the Federal Courts based on their "conservative views on affirmative action, welfare, capital punishment, school prayer, and abortion"?
Senate Democrats missed the boat in their opposition to the Justice in this instance; they always seem to do that.
They question nominees about their "conservative views" etc., and falling flat on their faces so often, then resort even more foolishly to delving into matters involving pubic hairs and Coke cans (as I said, it wasn't exactly Senate Democrat's finest hour)...
...and what do we get as a result, on the Federal bench: political hacks and business agents dressed in black robes, that's what.
Too bad. All they have to do is be honest about it, in public, and go after these nominees for the right reasons, instead of their "Right" or "Conservative views".
Maybe next time they'll wake up a bit, and do a better job.
Maybe not. Maybe the "knee jerk" reflex is too real, and too ingrained in their bodies. Or maybe those other contributing interests are what it is, that's too ingrained in the Democratic Congressional Caucus.
Whatever the case, it sure was a bummer re-visiting such a low moment, as the above item reminds us of.
Good points. I don't expect much better from the Dems in the Senate...they practically rolled over for Roberts and Alito...and they're every bit as odious as Thomas.
Thanks for reminding us, Dem.
"CBS' 60 Minutes offered no rebuttal to Clarence Thomas' claims about Anita Hill"
Of course, since it's 60 minutes' job to put out left wing propaganda and refute whatever a conservative says. It's become very obvious that Media Matters simply wants the media to act as an arm of the Democratic Party. This was a very fair interview which shed light on the amazing life and career of a man who started out with nothing and worked his way to the top.
Rino
It was fair? Are you serious? Thomas smearing Anita Hill and having no rebutal from Anita Hill is not my definition of fair.
Read Jeter's comment above. They did an interview with Hill 10 years ago which had no rebuttal. It's not the interviewer's job to refute what the guest says.
"It's become very obvious that Media Matters simply wants the media to act as an arm of the Democratic Party."
Nice try, but no cigar. The truth is that Media Matters simply wants the media to NOT act as an arm of the Republican Party. If you're still languishing in the "liberal media" myth, you need to come join the rest of us in the real world. Otherwise, here, have some more Koolaid...your cup is almost empty.
RH,
Are you saying that Anita Hill is left-wing propaganda?
I'm saying that it's not the interviewer's job to repeat talking points from either side of the issue. Their job is to simply ask questions and let the guest make his case.
Apparantly its their job to allow CONSERVATIVES to pretend what THEY say is the only side to the story. I am sure you would be FINE if Clinton came on and just gave HIS side to Whitewater Monica and all that without a HINT that others see it differently. Ya, and arent those pigs flying in formation outside my window right now?
ANITA HILL ALLEGATIONS SMALL PART OF THE STORY! WHAT PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON? YOU CAN CLOSE YOUR EYES,OR PLUG YOUR EYES OR JUST REFUSE TO LISTEN BUT THAT WON'T MAKE WHAT CLARENCE THOMAS DID TO ANITA HILL GO AWAY! SHE STANDS BY HER TESTIMONY---SHE IS A COURAGEOUS WOMEN THAT STOOD UP SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER. SHE NOT THOMAS WAS THE VICTIM. HIS ANGER AT BEING EXPOSED BY HER PULLS BACK SOME REAL HIDDEN PERSONAL ISSUES. I THINK WE ARE SEEING SOME REAL SICKNESS BEING REVEALED. HE IS USING HIS POSITION ON THE COURT FOR PAYBACK. EVEN SCALIA IMPLIED THAT THOMAS IS NUTTY.
I think Thomas is extremely lucky that Anita Hill is so much better a person than he is. What's to stop her from successfully suing him for libel? She has every right to do so and it would probably be good for the country to get this marginally qualified and emotionally disturbed fellow off the Supreme Court.
Any plot to "destroy" this whiner was well deserved because he was being used in a plot to help destroy affirmative action through the appointment of a very marginally qualified black person to the "black seat" on the Supreme Court. (I.e. to serve as a walking illustration of the Republican caricature of affirmative action.) This is extremely sleazy even if you're opposed to affirmative action. It was also almost unbelievably hypocritical of him to accept a job offer based on affirmative action (AKA "black seat") when he is so strongly opposed to this practice.
And of course his behavior towards Anita Hill was creepy. But the most despicable thing of all, I think, was the behavior of the Republican Senators who rammed through the nomination of this apparent perjurer (a judgment based on Anita Hill's obvious sincerity, not just corroborating evidence that surfaced later). The only lynching that went on at his confirmation hearing is what his allies did to her!
The "moderate" poser Specter, in particular, deserves to be remembered forever for his disgusting behavior towards Anita Hill.
Copious:
Where have you been living - under a rock!
YOU ARE THE JOKE! Get "up to date" before you spout off!
holli
Anita doesn't waver from her recollection of events, Thomas on the other hand has had something to hide in the matter in that he declined during the hearings to a lie detector test, apparently he is "supremely" above all that shah-zizzle.
His recollection is tainted by a supreme love for the booze he was so enamored with during the times of the alleged sexually inappropriate conduct,,, Tell me what Drunk remembers the slurred mumblings to co-workers (especially of the opposite sex) stated in the midsts of being in the bottle as he says he was. He is not a good judge of his own past behavior due to his fondness for his steady companion @ the time = the Drink.
Mr Krofts interview was seriously lite and unfortunately a bit too shallow.
BTW Anita Hill was on ABC GMA the following day declaring that no apology (as asked by Thomas's wife) was forthcoming since she had nothing to apologize for and the record is the conduct took place.
The biggest point missed and the one the interviewer failed to ask was, Do you consider yourself a brilliant, curious, involved member of the Supreme Court? The answer has been given many times through the years, he (Thomas) rarely asks questions, rarely writes opinions, pretty much sleep walks through their sessions and then votes conservative. Clearly one of the worst appointments to the Supreme Court in the history of our nation, even minus the pubic hairs on the coke can comment that he made to Anita Hill.