Thomas Second Hearing Day 1, Part 4 - Oct 11, 1991

Transcript Text

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:01:59
    25 seconds

    The committee will please come to order.
    Judge it is a tough day and a tough night for you, I know. Let
    me ask, do you have anything you would like to say before we
    begin?
    I understand that your preference is, which is totally and completely
    understandable, that we go 1 hour tonight, 30 minutes on
    each side. Am I correct in that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:02:24
    2 seconds

    That is right.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:02:26
    1 second

    DO you have anything you would like to say?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:02:27
    3 minutes

    Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally,
    uncategorically that I deny each and every single allegation
    against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations
    of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita
    Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal
    sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.
    Second, and I think a more important point, I think that this
    today is a travesty. I think that it is disgusting. I think that this
    hearing should never occur in America. This is a case in which this
    sleaze, this dirt was searched for by staffers of members of this
    committee, was then leaked to the media, and this committee and
    this body validated it and displayed it in prime time over our
    entire Nation.
    How would any member on this committee or any person in this
    room or any person in this country would like sleaze said about
    him or her in this fashion or this dirt dredged up and this gossip
    and these lies displayed in this manner? How would any person
    like it?
    The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I am not
    here for that. I am here for my name, my family, my life and my
    integrity. I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country,
    when any person, any person in this free country would be subjected
    to this. This is not a closed room.
    There was an FBI investigation. This is not an opportunity to
    talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment.
    This is a circus. It is a national disgrace. And from my standpoint,
    as a black American, as far as I am concerned, it is a high-tech
    lynching for uppity-blacks who in any way deign to think for them158
    selves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message
    that, unless you kow-tow to an old order, this is what will
    happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a
    committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:05:47
    6 seconds

    We will have

  • Senator THURMOND

    At 00:05:53
    1 second

    Mr. Chairman?

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:05:54
    3 seconds

    The Senator from South Carolina.

  • Senator THURMOND

    At 00:05:57
    12 seconds

    I have named Senator Hatch to cross-examine
    the Judge and those who are supporting him.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:06:09
    3 seconds

    AS I understand it, it was

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:06:12
    5 seconds

    I think that is correct. I think we would start
    with Senator Heflin and then go to Senator Hatch.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:06:17
    6 seconds

    I think that is the way I was—I would be happy
    to do it, but I think that is the way I was told.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:06:23
    3 seconds

    Senator Heflin.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:06:26
    36 seconds

    Judge Thomas, in addition to Anita Hill, there
    have surfaced some other allegations against you. One was on a television
    show last evening here in Washington, channel 7. I don't
    know whether you saw that or not?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:07:02
    2 seconds

    NO.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:07:04
    51 seconds

    YOU didn't see it. It was carried somewhat in
    the print media today, but it involved a man by the name of Earl
    Harper, Jr., who allegedly was a senior trial lawyer with the EEOC
    at Baltimore in or around the early 1980's. Do you recall this instance
    pertaining to Earl Harper, Jr.?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:07:55
    6 seconds

    I remember the name. I can't remember the details.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:08:01
    2 minutes

    The allegations against Mr. Harper involved
    some 12 or 13 women who claim that Mr. Harper made unwelcome
    sexual advances to several women on his staff, including instances
    in which Mr. Harper masturbated in the presence of some of the
    female employees. The allegations contain other aspects of sexual
    activity.
    The information we have is that the General Counsel of the
    EEOC, David Slate, made a lengthy internal investigation and
    found that this had the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile
    and offense working environment, and that on November 23, 1983,
    you wrote Mr. Slate a memo urging that Mr. Harper be fired. Mr.
    Slate eventually recommended dismissal. Then the story recites
    that you did not dismiss him, you allowed him to stay on for 11
    months and then he retired.
    Does that bring back to you any recollection of that event concerning
    Mr. Earl Harper, Jr.?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:10:38
    1 minute

    Again, I am operating strictly on recollection. If I
    remember the case, if it is the one I am thinking of, Mr. Harper's
    supervisor recommended either suspension or some form of sanction
    or punishment that was less than termination.
    When that proposal—the supervisor initially was not David
    Slate—when that proposal reached my desk, I believe my recommendation
    was that, for the conduct involved, he should be fired.
    The problem there was that if the immediate supervisor's decision
    is changed—and I believe Mr. Harper was a veteran—there are a
    number of procedural protections that he had, including a hearing
    and, of course, he had a lawyer and there was potential litigation,
    etcetera.
    I do not remember all of the details, but it is not as simple as
    you set it out. It was as a result of my insistence that the General
    Counsel, as I remember, upgraded the sanction to termination.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:11:56
    58 seconds

    DO you know a Congressman by the name of
    Scott Kluge, a Republican Congressman who was defeated by
    Robert Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, who now serves in Congress,
    who back in the early 1980's, 1983 or something, was a television
    reporter for a channel here in Washington and that he at that time
    disclosed this as indicating that, after the recommendation of dismissal,
    that you did not move in regards to it for some 11 months
    and let him retire? Do you know Congressman Kluge?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:12:54
    27 seconds

    I do not know him. Again, remember, I am operating
    on recollection. There was far more to it than the facts as
    you set them out. His rights had much to do with the fact that he
    was a veteran and that we could not simply dismiss him. If we
    could, that was my recommendation, he would have been dismissed.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:13:21
    12 seconds

    There was no political influence brought to bear
    on you at that time to prevent his dismissal? Do you recall if any
    political

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:13:33
    16 seconds

    There was absolutely no political influence. In
    fact, it was my policy that no personnel decisions would in any way
    be changed or influenced by political pressure, one way or the
    other.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:13:49
    1 minute

    NOW, it is reported to me that Congressman
    Kluge, after your nomination, went to the White House and told
    this story and, I hear by hearsay, that the White House ignored his
    statement and that Congressman Kluge further came to the Senate
    Judiciary Committee and made it known here.
    As far as I know, I attempted to check—I have not been able to
    find where it was in the Judiciary Committee, if it was, and I think
    the Chairman has attempted to locate it—but the point I am
    asking is, in the whole process pertaining to the nomination and
    the preparation for it, were you ever notified that Congressman
    Kluge went to the White House in regards to this?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:15:10
    1 second

    I do not remember that, Senator.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:15:11
    1 second

    Nobody ever discussed that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:15:12
    1 second

    NO.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:15:13
    18 seconds

    Well, that is the way it has been reported to me
    and it is very fragmented relative to it, but I have asked that all
    the records of the EEOC be subpoenaed by subpoena duces tecum
    pertaining to that, in order that we might get to the bottom of it.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:15:31
    8 seconds

    Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt Senator
    Heflin, I really think this is outside the scope, under the rules. I
    would have to object to it.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:15:39
    5 seconds

    I would have to sustain that objection. I do
    not

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:15:44
    4 seconds

    I hesitate to object, but I just think we ought to
    keep it on the subject matter.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:15:48
    3 seconds

    I do not see where it is relevant.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:15:51
    24 seconds

    Well, I think it is relevant in the issue pertaining
    to the period of time relative to the issue, particularly in re160
    gards to the responsibilities as head of the agency dealing with discrimination
    in employment.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:16:15
    1 second

    Mr. Chairman

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:16:16
    1 second

    If I may say

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:16:17
    1 second

    Mr. Chairman

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:16:18
    23 seconds

    If I may speak, let me say this is not about
    whether the Judge administered the agency properly. The only
    issue here relates to conduct and the allegations that have been
    made, so I would respectfully suggest to my friend from Alabama
    that that line of questioning is not in order and I rule it out of
    order.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:16:41
    30 seconds

    All right, sir, I will reserve an exception, as we
    used to say.
    Now, I suppose you have heard Professor Hill, Ms. Hill, Anita F.
    Hill testify today.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:17:11
    1 second

    NO, I haven't.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:17:12
    1 second

    YOU didn't listen?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:17:13
    6 seconds

    NO, I didn't. I have heard enough lies.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:17:19
    5 seconds

    YOU didn't listen to her testimony?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:17:24
    2 seconds

    NO, I didn't.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:17:26
    1 second

    On television?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:17:27
    22 seconds

    NO, I didn't. I've heard enough lies. Today is not
    a day that, in my opinion, is high among the days in our country.
    This is a travesty. You spent the entire day destroying what it has
    taken me 43 years to build and providing a forum for that.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:17:49
    44 seconds

    Judge Thomas, you know we have a responsibility
    too, and as far as I am involved, I had nothing to do with Anita
    Hill coming here and testifying. We are trying to get to the bottom
    of this. And, if she is lying, then I think you can help us prove that
    she was lying.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:18:33
    6 seconds

    Senator, I am incapable of proving the negative
    that did not occur.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:18:39
    25 seconds

    Well, if it did not occur, I think you are in a
    position, with certainly your ability to testify, in effect, to try to
    eliminate it from people's minds.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:19:04
    46 seconds

    Senator, I didn't create it in people's minds. This
    matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
    a confidential way. It was then leaked last weekend to the media. I
    did not do that. And how many members of this committee would
    like to have the same scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations made
    about him and then leaked to national newspapers and then be
    drawn and dragged before a national forum of this nature to discuss
    those allegations that should have been resolved in a confidential
    way?

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:19:50
    12 seconds

    Well, I certainly appreciate your attitude towards
    leaks. I happen to serve on the Senate Ethics Committee and
    it has been a sieve.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:20:02
    18 seconds

    But it didn't leak on me. This leaked on me and
    it is drowning my life, my career and my integrity, and you can't
    give it back to me, and this Committee can't give it back to me,
    and this Senate can't give it back to me. You have robbed me of
    something that can never be restored.

  • Senator DECONCINI

    At 00:20:20
    8 seconds

    I know exactly how you feel.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:20:28
    1 minute

    Judge Thomas, one of the aspects of this is that
    she could be living in a fantasy world. I don't know. We are just
    trying to get to the bottom of all of these facts.
    But if you didn't listen and didn't see her testify, I think you put
    yourself in an unusual position. You are, in effect, defending yourself,
    and basically some of us want to be fair to you, fair to her, but
    if you didn't listen to what she said today, then that puts it somewhat
    in a more difficult task to find out what the actual facts are
    relative to this matter.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:21:43
    58 seconds

    The facts keep changing, Senator. When the FBI
    visited me, the statements to this committee and the questions
    were one thing. The FBI's subsequent questions were another
    thing. And the statements today, as I received summaries of them,
    are another thing.
    I am not—it is not my fault that the facts change. What I have
    said to you is categorical that any allegations that I engaged in any
    conduct involving sexual activity, pornographic movies, attempted
    to date her, any allegations, I deny. It is not true.
    So the facts can change but my denial does not. Ms. Hill was
    treated in a way that all my special assistants were treated, cordial,
    professional, respectful.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:22:41
    30 seconds

    Judge, if you are on the bench and you approach
    a case where you appear to have a closed mind and that
    you are only right, doesn't it raise issues of judicial temperament?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:23:11
    15 seconds

    Senator? Senator, there is a difference between
    approaching a case objectively and watching yourself being
    lynched. There is no comparison whatsoever.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:23:26
    14 seconds

    I might add, he has personal knowledge of this
    as well, and personal justification for anger.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 00:23:40
    40 seconds

    Judge, I don't want to go over this stuff but, of
    course, there are many instances in which she has stated, but—
    and, in effect, since you didn't see her testify I think it is somewhat
    unfair to ask you specifically about it.
    I would reserve my time and go ahead and let Senator Hatch ask
    you, and then come back.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:24:20
    4 seconds

    Senator Hatch?

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:24:24
    1 minute

    Judge Thomas, I have sat here and I have listened
    all day long, and Anita Hill was very impressive. She is an
    impressive law professor. She is a Yale Law graduate. And, when
    she met with the FBI, she said that you told her about your sexual
    experiences and preferences. And I hate to go into this but I want
    to go into it because I have to, and I know that it is something that
    you wish you had never heard at any time or place. But I think it
    is important that we go into it and let me just do it this way.
    She said to the FBI that you told her about your sexual experiences
    and preferences, that you asked her what she liked or if she
    had ever done the same thing, that you discussed oral sex between
    men and women, that you discussed viewing films of people having
    sex with each other and with animals, and that you told her that
    she should see such films, and that you would like to discuss specific
    sex acts and the frequency of sex.
    What about that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:25:48
    27 seconds

    Senator, I would not want to, except being required
    to here, to dignify those allegations with a response. As I
    have said before, I categorically deny them. To me, I have been pilloried
    with scurrilous allegations of this nature. I have denied
    them earlier and I deny them tonight.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:26:15
    55 seconds

    Judge Thomas, today in a new statement, in addition
    to what she had told the FBI, which I have to agree with you
    is quite a bit, she made a number of other allegations and what I
    would like to do is—some of them most specifically were for the
    first time today in addition to these, which I think almost anybody
    would say are terrible. And I would just like to give you an opportunity,
    because this is your chance to address her testimony.
    At any time did you say to Professor Hill that she could ruin
    your career if she talked about sexual comments you allegedly
    made to her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:27:10
    1 second

    NO.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:27:11
    4 seconds

    Did you say to her in words or substance that
    you could ruin her career?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:27:15

    NO.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:27:15
    8 seconds

    Should she ever have been afraid of you and any
    kind of vindictiveness to ruin her career?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:27:23
    32 seconds

    Senator, I have made it my business to help my
    special assistants. I recommended Ms. Hill for her position at Oral
    Roberts University. I have always spoken highly of her.
    I had no reason prior to the FBI visiting me a little more than 2
    weeks ago to know that she harbored any ill feelings toward me or
    any discomfort with me. This is all new to me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:27:55
    32 seconds

    It is new to me too, because I read the FBI
    report at least 10 or 15 times. I didn't see any of these allegations I
    am about to go into, including that one. But she seemed to sure
    have a recollection here today.
    Now, did you ever say to Professor Hill in words or substance,
    and this is embarrassing for me to say in public, but it has to be
    done, and I am sure it is not pleasing to you.
    Did you ever say in words or substance something like there is a
    pubic hair in my Coke?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:28:27
    2 seconds

    NO, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:28:29
    6 seconds

    Did you ever refer to your private parts in conversations
    with Professor Hill?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:28:35
    2 seconds

    Absolutely not, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:28:37
    4 seconds

    Did you ever brag to Professor Hill about your
    sexual prowess?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:28:41
    1 second

    NO, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:28:42
    7 seconds

    Did you ever use the term "Long Dong Silver" in
    conversation with Professor Hill?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:28:49
    2 seconds

    NO, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:28:51
    5 seconds

    Did you ever have lunch with Professor Hill at
    which you talked about sex or pressured her to go out with you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:28:56
    1 second

    Absolutely not.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:28:57

    Did you ever tell

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:28:57
    9 seconds

    I have had no such discussions, nor
    have I ever pressured or asked her to go out with me beyond her
    work environment.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:29:06
    4 seconds

    Did you ever tell Professor Hill that she should
    see pornographic films?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:29:10
    2 seconds

    Absolutely not.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:29:12
    2 seconds

    Did you ever talk about pornography with Professor
    Hill?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:29:14
    8 seconds

    I did not discuss any pornographic material or
    pornographic preferences or pornographic films with Professor
    Hill.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:29:22
    4 seconds

    SO you never even talked or described pornographic
    materials with her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:29:26
    3 seconds

    Absolutely not.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:29:29
    3 seconds

    Amongst those or in addition?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:29:32
    13 seconds

    What I have told you is precisely what I told the
    FBI on September 25 when they shocked me with the allegations
    made by Anita Hill.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:29:45
    1 minute

    Judge Thomas, those are a lot of allegations.
    Those are a lot of charges, talking about sexual experiences and
    preferences, whether she liked it or had ever done the same thing,
    oral sex, viewing films of people having sex with each other and
    with animals, that maybe she should see such films, discuss specific
    sex acts, talk about pubic hair in Coke, talking about your private
    parts, bragging about sexual prowess, talking about particular pornographic
    movies.
    Let me ask you something. You have dealt with these problems
    for a long time. At one time I was the chairman of the committee
    overseeing the EEOC and, I might add, the Department of Education,
    and I am the ranking member today. I have known you for 11
    years and you are an expert in sexual harassment. Because you are
    the person who made the arguments to then Solicitor General
    Fried that the administration should strongly take a position on
    sexual harassment in the Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson case, and
    the Supreme Court adopted your position.
    Did I misstate that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:31:11
    18 seconds

    Senator, what you have said is substantially accurate.
    What I attempted to do in my discussions with the Solicitor
    is to have them be aggressive in that litigation, and EEOC was
    very instrumental in the success in the Meritor case.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:31:29
    21 seconds

    NOW, Judge, keep in mind that the statute of
    limitations under title VII for sexual harassment for private employers
    is 180 days or 6 months. But the statute of limitations
    under title VII for Federal employers and employees is 30 days.
    Are you aware of that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:31:50
    2 seconds

    Yes, Senator, I am generally aware of those limitations.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:31:52
    4 seconds

    And are you aware of why those statutes of limitation
    are so short?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:31:56
    20 seconds

    I would suspect that at some point it would have
    to do with the decision by this body that either memories begin to
    fade or stories change, perhaps individuals move around, and that
    it would be more difficult to litigate them.
    I don't know precisely what all of the rationale is.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:32:16
    31 seconds

    Well, it involves the basic issue of fairness, just
    exactly how you have described it. If somebody is going to be accused
    in a unilateral declaration of sexual harassment, then that
    somebody ought to be accused through either a complaint or some
    sort of a criticism, so that that somebody can be informed and then
    respond to those charges, and, if necessary, change that somebody's
    conduct.
    Is that a fair statement?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:32:47
    3 seconds

    I think that is a fair statement.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:32:50
    59 seconds

    NOW let me ask you something: I described all
    kinds of what I consider to be gross, awful sexually harassing
    things, which if you take them cumulatively have to gag anybody.
    Now you have seen a lot of these sexual harassment cases as you
    have served there at the EEOC. What is your opinion with regard
    to what should have been done with those charges, and whether or
    not you believe that, let's take Professor Hill in this case, should
    have done something, since she was a Yale Law graduate who
    taught civil rights law at one point, served in these various agencies,
    and had to understand that there is an issue of fairness here.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:33:49
    59 seconds

    Senator, if any of those activities occur, it would
    seem to me to clearly suggest or to clearly indicate sexual harassment,
    and anyone who felt that she was harassed could go to an
    EEO officer at any agency and have that dealt with confidentially.
    At the Department of Education, if she said it occurred there, or at
    EEOC, those are separate tracks. At EEOC, I do not get to review
    those, if they involve me, and at Department of Education there is
    a separate EEO officer for the whole department. It would have
    nothing to do with me. But if I were an individual advising a
    person who had been subjected to that treatment, I would advise
    her to immediately go to the EEO officer.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:34:48
    7 seconds

    An EEO office then would bring the parties together,
    or at least would confront the problem head-on, wouldn't
    it?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:34:55
    3 seconds

    The EEO officer would provide counseling

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:34:58
    2 seconds

    Within a short period of time?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:35:00
    7 seconds

    Within a short period of time, as
    well as, I think, if necessary, an actual charge would be

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:35:07
    13 seconds

    SO the charge would be made, and the charge
    would then—the person against whom it was made would have a
    chance to answer it right then, right up front, in a way that could
    resolve it and stop this type of activity if it ever really occurred?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:35:20
    2 seconds

    That is right.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:35:22
    2 seconds

    And you have just said it never really occurred.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:35:24
    5 seconds

    It never occurred. That is why there was no
    charge.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:35:29
    22 seconds

    YOU see, one of the problems that has bothered
    me from the front of this thing is, these are gross. Cumulative, I
    don't know why anybody would put up with them, or why anybody
    would respect or work with another person who would do that. And
    if you did that, I don't know why anybody would work with you
    who suffered these treatments.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:35:51
    2 seconds

    I agree.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:35:53
    28 seconds

    Furthermore, I don't know why they would have
    gone to a different position with you, even if they did think that
    maybe it had stopped and it won't start again, but then claimed
    that it started again. And then when they finally got out into the
    private sector, wouldn't somehow or other confront these problems
    in three successive confirmation proceedings. Does that bother you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:36:21
    8 seconds

    This whole affair bothers me, Senator. I am witnessing
    the destruction of my integrity.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:36:29
    27 seconds

    And it is by a unilateral set of declarations that
    are made on successive dates, and differ, by one person who continued
    to maintain what she considered to be a "cordial professional
    relationship" with you over a 10-year period.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:36:56
    34 seconds

    Senator, my relationship with Anita Hill prior to
    September 25 was cordial and professional, and I might add one
    other thing. If you really want an idea of how I treated women,
    then ask the majority of the women who worked for me. They are
    out here. Give them as much time as you have given one person,
    the only person who has been on my staff who has ever made these
    sorts of allegations about me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:37:30
    2 minutes

    Well, I think one of our Senators, one of our
    better Senators in the U.S. Senate, did do exactly that, and he is a
    Democrat, as a matter of fact, one of the fairest people and I think
    one of the best new people in the whole Senate.
    This is a statement that was made on the floor of the Senate in
    this Record by my distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman, a
    man I have a great deal of respect for. Senator Lieberman's staff
    conducted a survey of various women who have worked for you
    over the years. He was concerned. He has been a supporter of
    yours, and he was one who asked for this delay so that this could
    be looked into because he was concerned, too.
    But as a result of the survey, Senator Lieberman made the following
    statement: He said, "I have contacted associates, women
    who worked with Judge Thomas during his time at the Department
    of Education and EEOC, and in the calls that I and my staff
    have made there has been universal support for Judge Thomas and
    a clear indication by all of the women we spoke to that there was
    never, certainly not a case of sexual harassment, and not even a
    hint of impropriety." That was put into the Congressional Record
    on October 8, 1991.
    And I think Senator Lieberman has performed a very valuable
    service because he is in the other party. He is a person who looks
    at these matters seriously. He has to be as appalled by this type of
    accusation as I am, and frankly he wanted to know, "Just what
    kind of a guy is Clarence Thomas?" And those of us who know you,
    know that all of these are inconsistent with the real Clarence
    Thomas.
    And I don't care who testifies, you have to keep in mind, this is
    an attorney, a law graduate from one of the four or five best law
    schools in this land, a very intelligent, articulate law professor, and
    the only person on earth other than you knowing whether these
    things are true—the only other person. I don't blame you for being
    mad.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:39:54
    14 seconds

    Senator, I have worked with hundreds of women
    in different capacities. I have promoted and mentored dozens. I will
    put my record against any member of this committee in promoting
    and mentoring women.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:40:08
    4 seconds

    I will put your record against anybody in the
    whole Congress.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:40:12
    29 seconds

    And I think that if you want to really be fair,
    you parade every single one before you and you ask them, in their
    relationships with me, whether or not any of this nonsense, this
    garbage, trash that you siphoned out of the sewers against me,
    whether any of it is true. Ask them. They have worked with me.
    Ask my chief of staff, my former chief of staff. She worked shoulder
    to shoulder with me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:40:41
    9 seconds

    Well, I think we should do that.
    Now, Judge, what was Professor Hill's role in your office at the
    Education Department and at the EEOC?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:40:50
    15 seconds

    Senator, as I indicated this morning, at the Department
    of Education Ms. Hill was an attorney-adviser. I had a
    small staff and she had the opportunity to work on a variety of
    issues.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:41:05
    2 seconds

    She was your number one person?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:41:07
    2 seconds

    By and large, on substantive issues, she was.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:41:09
    2 seconds

    HOW about when you went to the EEOC?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:41:11
    41 seconds

    At EEOC that role changed drastically. As I indicated,
    my duties expanded immensely. EEOC, as you remember,
    had enormous management problems, so I focused on that. I also
    needed an experienced EEO staff, and my staff was much more
    mature. It was older. It was a more experienced staff.
    As a result, she did not enjoy that close a relationship with me,
    nor did she have her choice of the better assignments, and I think
    that as a result of that there was some concern on her part that
    she was not being treated as well as she had been treated prior to
    that.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:41:52
    14 seconds

    At any time in your tenure in the Department of
    Education, did Professor Hill ever express any concern about or
    discomfort with your conduct toward her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:42:06
    1 second

    NO.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:42:07
    1 second

    Never?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:42:08
    16 seconds

    NO. The only caveat I would add to that would be
    that from time to time people want promotions or better assignments
    or work hours, something of that nature, but no discomfort
    of the nature that is being discussed here today.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:42:24
    17 seconds

    NOW I note that Professor Hill alleges improper
    conduct on your part during the period of November, 1981 to February
    or March of 1982. Now isn't it true that both you and Professor
    Hill moved from the Education Department to the EEOC in
    April of that same year?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:42:41
    35 seconds

    Senator, that is an odd period. The President expressed
    his intent to nominate me to become Chairman of EEOC in
    February 1982, and during that very same period, to the best of my
    recollection, she assisted me in my nomination and confirmation
    process. I did in fact leave actual work at the Department of Education,
    I believe in April, and started at EEOC in May 1982, and
    she transferred with me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:43:16
    13 seconds

    SO, in other words, Professor Hill followed you to
    the EEOC no more than 2 or 3 months, possibly only 1 month after
    she claims this alleged conduct occurred.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:43:29
    1 second

    Precisely.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:43:30
    7 seconds

    Isn't it true, Judge Thomas, that Professor Hill
    could have remained in her job at the Education Department when
    you went to the EEOC?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:43:37
    19 seconds

    TO the best of my recollection, she was a schedule
    A attorney. I know she was not cleared through the White House,
    so she was not a schedule C. She was not a political appointee. As a
    result, she had all the rights of schedule A attorneys, and could
    have remained at the Department of Education in a career capacity.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:43:56
    11 seconds

    And even if she might not have remained the
    number one person to the head of the Civil Rights Division, which
    you were, she would have been transferred to another equivalent
    attorney's position.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:44:07
    1 second

    If she had requested it.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:44:08
    3 seconds

    Did you tell her anything to the contrary?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:44:11
    3 seconds

    Not to my knowledge. In fact, I don't think it
    ever came up.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:44:14
    1 second

    She didn't even ask you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:44:15
    5 seconds

    I don't think it ever came up. I think it was understood
    that she would move to EEOC with me if she so desired.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:44:20
    22 seconds

    If I could just button it down, in other words,
    Judge Thomas, if instead of following you to the EEOC, Professor
    Hill had remained at the Department of Education as a schedule A
    attorney, she would have had as much job security as any other
    civil service attorney in the government. And this is especially
    true, isn't it, because of your friendship with Harry Singleton?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:44:42
    28 seconds

    That is right. If she was concerned about job security,
    I could have certainly discussed with Harry Singleton what
    should be done with her. He is a personal friend of mine. He is
    also, or was, a personal friend of the individual who recommended
    Anita Hill to me, Gil Hardy. Gil Hardy of course drowned in 1988,
    but both of us or all three of us had gone to Yale Law School and
    knew each other quite well.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:45:10
    26 seconds

    NOW, Judge Thomas, I understand that on occasion,
    and you correct me if this is wrong, but I have been led to
    believe that on occasion Professor Hill would ask you to drive her
    home, and that on those occasions she would sometimes invite you
    into her home to continue a discussion, but you never thought anything—
    you never thought of any of this as anything more than
    normal, friendly, professional conversation with a colleague. Am I
    correct on that, or am I wrong?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:45:36
    24 seconds

    It was not unusual to me, Senator. As I remember
    it, I lived in southwest Washington, and would as I remember—
    and again, I am relying on my recollection, she lived someplace
    on Capitol Hill—and I would drive her home, and sometimes
    stop in and have a Coke or a beer or something and continue arguing
    about politics for maybe 45 minutes to an hour, but I never
    thought anything of it.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:46:00
    8 seconds

    When Professor Hill worked for you at the
    EEOC, did she solicit your advice on career development or career
    opportunities?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:46:08
    30 seconds

    Senator, as I discuss with most of the members of
    my personal staff, I try to advise them on their career opportunities
    and what they should do next. You can't always be a special
    assistant or an attorney-adviser. And I am certain that I had those
    discussions with her, and in fact it would probably have been based
    on that that I advised Dean Kothe that she would be a good teacher
    and that she would be interested in teaching.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:46:38
    4 seconds

    Did she treat you as her mentor at the time, in
    your opinion?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:46:42
    1 second

    Pardon me?

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:46:43
    3 seconds

    Did she treat you as though you were a mentor
    at the time?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:46:46
    3 seconds

    She certainly sought counsel and advice from me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:46:49
    6 seconds

    NOW at any time during your tenure at the
    EEOC, did you ever discuss sexual matters with Professor Hill?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:46:55
    1 second

    Absolutely not, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:46:56
    9 seconds

    At any time during your tenure at the EEOC,
    did Professor Hill ever express discomfort or concern about your
    conduct toward her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:47:05
    2 seconds

    NO, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:47:07
    10 seconds

    From your observations, what was the perception
    of Professor Hill by her colleagues at the EEOC? What did
    they think about her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:47:17
    58 seconds

    Senator, some of my former staffers I assume will
    testify here, but as I remember it there was some tension and some
    degree of friction which I attributed simply to having a staff. As I
    have had 2 weeks to think about this and to agonize over this, and
    as I remember it, I believe that she was considered to be somewhat
    distant and perhaps aloof, and from time to time there would be
    problems that usually involved—and I attributed this to just being
    young—but usually involved her taking a firm position and being
    unyielding to the other members of the staff, and then storming off
    or throwing a temper tantrum of some sort that either myself or
    the chief of staff would have to iron out.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:48:15
    10 seconds

    What was your opinion of the quality of Professor
    Hill's work at the EEOC, as her administrator and as the head
    of the EEOC?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:48:25
    8 seconds

    I thought the work was good. The problem was
    that—and it wasn't a problem—was, it was not as good as some of
    the other members of the staff.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:48:33
    6 seconds

    While Professor Hill worked for you at the
    EEOC, did she ever seek a promotion?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:48:39
    7 seconds

    I believe she did seek promotions. Again, most of
    that was done through the chief of staff at that time.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:48:46
    2 seconds

    Well, if so, to what position?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:48:48
    29 seconds

    She may have sought a promotion. In 1983, my
    chief of staff left and I was going to promote someone to my executive
    assistant/chief of staff, which is the most senior person on my
    personal staff, and I think that—again, I am relying on my
    memory—she aspired to that position and, of course, was not successful
    and I think was concerned about that.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:49:17
    4 seconds

    I see. When did Professor Hill leave the Equal
    Employment Opportunity Commission?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:49:21
    1 second

    In 1983.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:49:22
    7 seconds

    In 1983. Why do you think she decided to leave
    the agency at that time?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:49:29
    31 seconds

    Senator, I thought that she felt at the time that
    it was time for her to leave Washington and also to leave Government.
    She had, I believe, expressed an interest in teaching and the
    opportunity at Oral Roberts University provided her both with the
    opportunity to be in Oklahoma and to teach and, as I remember,
    she did not lose any salary or any income in the bargain, and that
    was attractive.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:50:00
    4 seconds

    Did you assist her in getting that job at Oral
    Roberts University?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:50:04
    13 seconds

    Yes, Senator, I discussed her with Dean Charles
    Kothe, both informally and provided written recommendation,
    formal recommendation for her.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:50:17
    6 seconds

    All right. Have you had any contacts with Professor
    Hill since she left the EEOC in 1983?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:50:23
    32 seconds

    Senator, from time to time, Anita Hill would call
    the agency and either speak to me or to my secretary and, through
    her, she would leave messages. They had been friends, Diane Holt.
    On a number of occasions, I believe, too, I am certain of one, but
    maybe two, when I was in Tulsa, OK, I spent time with her, I saw
    her, and I believe on one occasion she drove me to the airport and
    had breakfast with me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:50:55
    12 seconds

    Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, I would
    introduce into the record at this point excerpts from Judge
    Thomas' telephone logs from 1983 to 1991, if I could.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:51:07
    1 second

    Without objection.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:51:08
    5 seconds

    Judge Thomas, do you have

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:51:13
    2 seconds

    These are the same excerpts that he has had.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:51:15
    7 seconds

    These are the same ones that you
    have had. Now, Judge Thomas, are you familiar with these?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:51:22
    2 seconds

    I have seen those logs, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:51:24
    8 seconds

    DO you recall any of the telephone conversations
    with Professor Hill reflected by these particular messages?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:51:32
    1 second

    I do, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:51:33
    19 seconds

    For instance, on January 31, according to these
    logs—and I think I have got them correct, I am quite sure—on July
    31, 1984, at 11:30 a.m., a message from Anita Hill, "Just called to
    say hello, sorry she didn't get to see you last week." Is that accurate?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:51:52
    20 seconds

    Yes, that was I think one instance when she had
    come to town, either on personal business or because of her job,
    and my schedule conflicted with any opportunity to meet with her
    and simply called to—that was a call from her, I think, to reflect
    that.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:52:12
    11 seconds

    NO. 2, on May 9, 1984, at 11:40 a.m., Anita Hill
    was the caller, the message was "Please call," and she left her
    phone number, (718) et cetera. Do you remember that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:52:23
    2 seconds

    Yes, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:52:25
    14 seconds

    NO. 3, on August 29, 1984, at 3:59 p.m., Anita
    called, and the message was "Need your advice in getting research
    grants." Do you recall that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:52:39
    1 second

    I remember that, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:52:40
    2 seconds

    What was that call about?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:52:42
    27 seconds

    I can't remember exactly what the project was,
    but she wanted some ideas as to how she could get I think some
    grants, either from EEOC or some other agency, to do some research
    I believe at Oral Roberts, and I believe we discussed that
    and I may have put her in contact with someone. Again, my recollection
    of that is vague, but we did have a discussion.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:53:09
    1 second

    Did you help her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:53:10
    1 second

    I tried.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:53:11
    16 seconds

    YOU tried.
    No. 4, on August 30, 1984, at 11:55 a.m., Anita was the caller, the
    message "Returned your call (call between 1 and 4)." Do you remember
    that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:53:27
    4 seconds

    I don't remember the specifics of the call, but I
    remember that on the log, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:53:31
    2 seconds

    Was she calling you or were you calling her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:53:33
    11 seconds

    She was calling me. My secretary, when I placed
    the call and someone returned it, my secretary noted "returned
    your call."

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:53:44
    12 seconds

    On January 3, 1985, at 3:40 p.m., Anita Hill was
    the caller, "Please call tonight," and then left a phone number and
    a room number. Do you remember that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:53:56
    15 seconds

    I remember that. I think she must have been in
    town on a trip and that was her hotel room number. I don't know
    which hotel. I again may have been out of town, either on a business
    trip or somehow for some other reason inaccessible or unavailable.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:54:11
    10 seconds

    NO. 6, February 6, 1985, 5:50 p.m., Anita Hill
    was the caller, again it said, "Please call." Another call from her to
    you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:54:21
    1 second

    That's right.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:54:22
    10 seconds

    NO. 7, on March 4, 1985, at 11:15 a.m., Anita Hill
    called again, "Please call re research project." Do you remember
    that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:54:32
    1 second

    I remember that, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:54:33
    1 second

    Did you help her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:54:34
    15 seconds

    I did. I think the—I can't remember the details,
    but I think she and Dean Charles Kothe were involved in some research
    in a fairly large project and wanted some data from EEOC,
    and I think we provided them with that data.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:54:49
    21 seconds

    NO. 8, March 4, 1985, at 11:25 a.m., call from
    Susan Cahall, "With Tulsa EEO office referred by Anita to see if
    you would come to Tulsa on 3/27 to speak at the EEO Conference."
    Do you remember that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:55:10
    15 seconds

    Yes, I remember the message. I think that was—
    she would not have otherwise gotten through to me and used
    Anita's name in order to gain access to me and perhaps receive a
    positive response.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:55:25
    2 seconds

    Mr. Chairman, I notice that my time is about

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:55:27
    1 second

    YOU go right ahead.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:55:28
    1 second

    But I just want to finish this one
    line, if I can.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 00:55:29
    2 seconds

    NO, you take all the time you want.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:55:31
    17 seconds

    Thank you. I really appreciate that.
    (( No. 9, is July 5, 1985, at 1:30 p.m., Anita Hill is the caller,
    "Please call," with a number clearly out of town. Do you remember
    that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:55:48
    3 seconds

    Again, I remember it being in my log, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:55:51
    15 seconds

    OK. No. 10, October 9, 1986, at 12:25 p.m., Anita
    Hill called, message, "Please call, leaving at 4:05," and an area
    code number. Do you remember that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:56:06
    2 seconds

    Yes, I do.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:56:08
    18 seconds

    NO. 11, August 4, 1987, 4:00 p.m., Anita Hill,
    caller, "In town until 8:15, wanted to congratulate you on your
    marriage." Do you remember that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:56:26
    13 seconds

    I remember that, Senator, because one of the—
    my wife and I were on a delayed honeymoon in California when
    she came to town.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:56:39
    12 seconds

    NO. 12, November 1, 1990, 11:40 a.m., Anita hill,
    caller, "Re speaking engagement at University of Oklahoma School
    of Law." Do you remember that?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:56:51
    2 seconds

    That was since I have been on the Court of Appeals,
    Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:56:53
    10 seconds

    There are 12 phone calls between 1983 and 1990.
    Did you try to call her back each time?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:57:03
    32 seconds

    Senator, I tried, whenever I received calls from
    her or from others, I attempted to return those calls. Although, as
    I indicated before you started through those series of calls, I remember
    the messages in the log themselves, but I don't remember
    the nature of each call. It would be my practice to return those
    calls, especially from someone such as Anita.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:57:35
    4 seconds

    SO, each and every time she called you, you tried
    to call her back and tried to help her?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:57:39
    9 seconds

    Senator, the log reflects only those calls where
    she was unsuccessful in reaching me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:57:48
    4 seconds

    Did you ever call her, other than to return these
    calls?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:57:52
    38 seconds

    Senator, I may have. Again, Anita Hill was someone
    that I respected and was cordial toward and felt positive
    toward and hopeful for her career, and I may have on occasion,
    and I can't remember any specific occasion, picked up the phone
    just to see how she was doing. Again, the calls that you have there
    are the calls that are reflected or that reflect her inability to get in
    touch with me when she had called, as opposed to the instances in
    which she was able to contact me successfully.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:58:30
    12 seconds

    Judge Thomas, before this day, have you seen
    Professor Hill on various occasions since she left the Equal Employment
    Opportunity Commission?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:58:42
    19 seconds

    Yes, Senator. As I indicated, I recall seeing her I
    am certain one time and perhaps twice in Tulsa, OK, and on one of
    those occasions it is my recollection that we had dinner with
    Charles Kothe, we also had

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:59:01
    1 second

    She was there?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:59:02
    2 seconds

    Charles Kothe, the Dean of

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:59:04
    1 second

    Was she there at that dinner?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:59:05
    29 seconds

    She was at the dinner. We also
    had—we being Anita and myself—breakfast with Charles Kothe at
    his house. I usually slept at Charles Kothe's house, and I believe
    she drove me to the airport, and for some reason I seem to remember
    that she had a Peugot.
    I may be wrong on that, but I remember her being very proud of
    it, because, to my recollection, she did not have a car in Washington.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 00:59:34
    8 seconds

    I see. In addition to all the phone calls, you had
    these contacts and these meetings. How would you describe these
    meetings?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 00:59:42
    30 seconds

    Very cordial, positive, always one—as I treat my
    other special assistants, I tend to be the proud father type who sees
    his special assistants go on and become successful and feels pretty
    good about it. It would be that kind of a contact, as well as her telling
    me how her teaching assignments were going. Indeed, that was
    similar to the conversation, again, that I would have with my other
    special assistants or former special assistants.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:00:12
    9 seconds

    Overall, how would you characterize the nature
    of your contacts with Professor Hill since she left the EEOC in

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:00:21
    2 seconds

    They have always been very cordial and very
    positive, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:00:23
    2 seconds

    Any unpleasantness?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:00:25

    Never.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:00:25
    2 seconds

    Any problems ever raised?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:00:27
    1 second

    NO, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:00:28
    1 second

    Any questions about your conduct?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:00:29
    3 seconds

    NO, Senator.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:00:32
    6 seconds

    Can you think of any reason for her efforts to
    continue to try to be associated with you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:00:38
    8 seconds

    Senator—could you repeat the question, Senator?

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:00:46
    12 seconds

    Can you think of any reason why she would
    want to continue this cordial professional relationship with you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:00:58
    35 seconds

    Senator, I would hope it would have been for the
    same reasons that all of my other special assistants did, that I was
    very supportive of them. The people, some of whom you will hear
    from today, who have flown in, certainly at their own expense,
    they feel warmly toward me and have a sense of loyalty and feel
    that I will help them and that I will assist them as best I could,
    and I believe that was as part of the reason and we certainly enjoyed
    a cordial and professional relationship.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:01:33
    9 seconds

    Before you first heard of Professor Hill's allegations
    during this confirmation process, did you have any reason to
    believe that she was unhappy with you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:01:42
    24 seconds

    Senator, on Tuesday, September 24, the day
    before I heard from the FBI, I would have told you, if you asked
    me, that my relationship with Anita Hill was cordial, professional
    and that I was very proud of her for all she had done with her life
    and the things that she had accomplished.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:02:06
    6 seconds

    Judge Thomas, this is your fourth confirmation
    in 9 years, isn't that correct?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:02:12
    8 seconds

    Yes, Senator. It is either my—yes, Senator, it is.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:02:20
    15 seconds

    In fact, three of those confirmations occurred,
    the time of the allegations by Professor Hill.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:02:35
    5 seconds

    Actually this, Senator, would be the fourth.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:02:40
    17 seconds

    That's right, this would be the fourth.
    So she actually has known you through four Senate confirmations,
    four of them. No, this is the fourth. So four Senate confirmations,
    right?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:02:57
    2 seconds

    That's right.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:02:59
    5 seconds

    And none of those have been very easy, have
    they?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:03:04
    7 seconds

    That's right, now that I think about it, none of
    my confirmations, aside from the first one, was easy.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:03:11
    4 seconds

    And you had your critics in each and every one
    of them, didn't you?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:03:15
    5 seconds

    That is right.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:03:20
    9 seconds

    DO you remember the details of each of those
    calls that were made that we went over?
    Or do you just remember them generally?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:03:29
    8 seconds

    I remember the calls generally, Senator. I don't
    remember the specifics of each call. That has been quite some time.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:03:37
    52 seconds

    Well, let me just say this. I have kept everybody
    too long and I know we can continue tomorrow, but I would like to
    ask this question just to end the day with and I think it is an important
    question. I have to say, cumulatively, these charges, even
    though they were made on all kinds of occasions, I mean they are
    unbelievable that anybody could be that perverted. I am sure there
    are people like that but they are generally in insane asylums.
    What was your reaction when you first heard of these allegations
    against you, just the first allegations, not all the other ones, and
    then you can tell me your reaction when you heard of these ones
    that were brought forth for the first time today?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:04:29
    1 minute

    Senator, when the FBI informed me of the allegation,
    the person first, there was shock, dismay, hurt, pain, and
    when he informed me of the nature of the allegations I was surprised,
    there was disbelief and again, hurt. And I have reached a
    point over the last 2 weeks, plus, I have reached a point where I
    can't go over each and every one of these allegations again.
    As I said in my statement this morning, that when you have allegations
    of this nature by someone that you have thought the world
    of and felt that you have done the best for it is an enormously
    painful experience and it is one when you ask yourself, you rip at
    yourself, what could you have done? And why could this happen or
    why would it happen?

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:05:58
    7 seconds

    HOW do you feel right now, Judge, after what
    you have been through?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:06:05
    2 minutes

    Senator, as I indicated this morning, it just isn't
    worth it. And the nomination is not worth it, being on the Supreme
    Court is not worth it, and there is no amount of money that is
    worth it, there is no amount of money that can restore my name,
    being an associate Justice of the Supreme Court will never replace
    what I have been robbed of, and I would not recommend that
    anyone go through it.
    This has been an enormously difficult experience, but I don't
    think that that is the worst of it. I am 43 years old and if I am not
    confirmed I am still the youngest member of the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for the D.C. Circuit. And I will go on. I will go back to my life
    of talking to my neighbors and cutting my grass and getting a Big
    Mac at McDonald's and driving my car, and seeing my kid play
    football. And I will live. I will have my life back. And all of this
    hurt has brought my family closer together, my wife and I, my
    mother, but that is not—so there is no pity for me. I think the
    country has been hurt by this process. I think we are destroying
    our country. We are destroying our institutions. And I think it is a
    sad day when the U.S. Senate can be used by interest groups, and
    hate mongers, and people who are interested in digging up dirt to
    destroy other people and who will stop at no tactics, when they can
    use our great political institutions for their political ends, we have
    gone far beyond McCarthyism. This is far more dangerous than
    McCarthyism. At least McCarthy was elected.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:08:09
    1 minute

    Judge, I have a lot of other questions to ask you
    and I think they are important questions. I think you deserve the
    opportunity to tell your side of this and you have done it here so
    far. And I have to tell you this has come down to this, one woman's
    allegations that are 10 years old against your lifetime of service
    over that same 10-year period. I have known you almost 11 years.
    And the person that the good professor described is not the person
    I have known.
    We are going to talk a little bit more about this tomorrow and
    about what went on there and about how this could have happened.
    How one person's uncorroborated allegations, could destroy
    a career and one of the most wonderful opportunities for a young
    man from Pin Point, GA.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:09:57
    45 seconds

    Senator, I repeat what I said, I have been hurt by
    this deeply, and nothing is worth going through this. This has devastated
    me and it has devastated my family. It is untrue. They are
    lies. I have hundreds of women who work with me, and you can
    call them, dozens who worked closely with me on my personal
    staff. You can call them. You can bring them up and give them as
    much air time as you have given this one, one person, with uncorroborated
    scurrilous lies and allegations. Give them as much time
    and see what they say.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:10:42
    1 second

    I hope we will do that.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:10:43
    56 seconds

    It is not just that, Senator, it is more than that.
    You are ruining the country. If it can happen to me it can happen
    to anybody, any time over any issue. Our institutions are being
    controlled by people who will stop at nothing. They went around
    this country looking for dirt, not information on Clarence Thomas,
    dirt. Anybody with any dirt, anything, late night calls, calls at
    work, calls at home, badgering, anything, give us some dirt. I think
    that if our country has reached this point we are in trouble. And
    you should feel worse for the country than you do for me.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:11:39
    31 seconds

    I feel bad for both.
    Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I have kept us over a little bit. I wish I
    could proceed further tonight but I think we will wait until tomorrow
    morning. I know everybody is dead tired, and I am sure you
    are dead tired, I know that.
    So, thank you for giving me this extra time. You have always
    been courteous and decent, and frankly, you have run this committee
    through this whole process in a courteous and decent way, including
    the way in which you ran it with regard to the FBI report,
    as well. We, on this side, know that but thank you.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:12:10
    11 seconds

    Let me, before we go, Judge Heflin, reserved
    some of his time.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:12:21
    41 seconds

    Judge Thomas, you describe Anita Hill and your
    relationship with her up until you heard, on September, I believe
    you said the 24th, as cordial, positive, had no trouble with her, in
    any way. Now, you make rather strong statements. Do you think
    that Anita Hill is lying?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:13:02
    6 seconds

    Senator, I know that what she is saying is
    untrue.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:13:08
    12 seconds

    NOW, what do you think that her motivations
    are to come here and testify?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:13:20
    14 seconds

    Senator, I have agonized over that. I have
    thought about it. I have thought about why she would say these
    things, why she would come here, why it would keep changing. I
    don't know.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:13:34
    40 seconds

    Well, if you don't know, see we, in the committee,
    have a responsibility to figure out if she is not telling the
    truth, why? When you worked with her did you feel that she was a
    zealous civil rights supporter who was willing to consider and be
    only a one-interest individual?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:14:14
    41 seconds

    Senator, I cannot characterize her that way. I
    have not thought about her that way. But I would like to address
    what you said before that. I think you have more than an obligation
    to figure out why she would say that. I think you have an obligation to determine why you would allow uncorroborated, unsubstantiated
    allegations to ruin my life.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:14:55
    43 seconds

    Well, she has testified, that you, in effect, act as
    a character witness for her. You have testified here about the relationship,
    her work, and her reputation and here we are trying to
    get to the bottom of what the facts are. And we want to know what
    the truth is, and you knew her probably better than any one of us.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:15:38
    9 seconds

    Senator, there are others that you could bring as
    witnesses. I have suggested to you there are dozens of people who
    work there. And

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:15:47
    5 seconds

    I think you have made a point and I hope they
    are brought here.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:15:52
    2 seconds

    We are, we have agreed already to do that.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:15:54
    26 seconds

    But we are still faced with the fact, Judge, that
    if she is lying why? We are still faced with the fact that if she is
    telling a falsehood, what is the motivation?
    Now, we have watched her testify today and she is a meek
    woman.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:16:20
    30 seconds

    That is not as I remember Anita. Anita is, I can't
    say that and you can ask others who visit here, Anita would not
    have been considered a meek woman. She was an aggressive debater.
    She stood her ground. When she got her dander up, she would
    storm off and I would say that she is a bright person, a capable
    person. Meek is not a characterization that I would remember.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:16:50
    5 seconds

    Well, you say when she got her dander off she
    would stalk off.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:16:55
    7 seconds

    Well, she was a good debater. She fought for her
    position. I don't remember her as being someone who was a pushover.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:17:02
    5 seconds

    Well, was she a vindicative woman?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:17:07
    24 seconds

    I think, Senator, that she argued personally for
    her position, and I took it as a sign of immaturity, perhaps, that
    when she didn't get her way, that she would tend to reinforce her
    position and get a bit angry. I did not see that as a character flaw
    or vindictiveness.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:17:31
    9 seconds

    Did she have any indication to you that she
    wanted to be a martyr in the civil rights movement?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:17:40
    1 minute

    Senator, I can't answer all those questions. What
    I have attempted to do here is simply say to you that—you indicated
    that she was meek and suggesting that she was not an aggressive,
    strong person. I remember Anita as aggressive, strong and
    forceful and advocating the positions that she stood for. Again,
    there are others who worked with her and I suggest that you have
    them come before this committee and you ask them.
    With respect to why, as I saw through my own memory and my
    own recollection of what could possibly have happened, particularly
    at EEOC, the change in position, where she was no longer my
    top assistant or my top aid and she became one of many, and certainly
    not the most senior and not the one who received the better
    assignments and later not becoming the top assistant, that could
    have been a basis for her being angry with me, but that doesn't
    seem to be too much of a basis.
    I don't know, Senator. If I knew, I would not have been as perplexed
    as I am.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:18:58
    6 seconds

    Well, did she ever show signs of being resentful?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:19:04
    25 seconds

    I can't remember, Senator. I know that she has
    shown signs that she was upset when she did not get her way.
    Again, I am not going to sit here and attempt to criticize her character.
    I can only say that during the time that she worked with me,
    she was not perfect, but there seemed to me nothing that would
    suggest that she would do this to me.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:19:29
    33 seconds

    Well, did she at any time during the time that
    she worked with you at the EEOC, which most of—I mean at the
    Department of Education, where most of the charges that she
    makes against you pertaining to remarks about pornographic films
    and pornographic materials, and then she says they continued
    some, but that there were more at that time, she was your attorney
    assistant, as I understand it.

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:20:02
    2 seconds

    Attorney adviser.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:20:04
    13 seconds

    All right. Did you at that time ever notice anything
    about her that would indicate to you that she was out of
    touch with reality?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:20:17
    42 seconds

    Senator, again, that is 10 years ago and my working
    relationship with her, she was professional and cordial, as I
    suggested this morning. It did not involve, as I have indicated, any
    discussion of pornographic material or any attempt to ever date
    Anita. I view my special assistants as charges of mine. They are
    students, they are kids of mine and I have an obligation to them. It
    is the same way I feel toward interns and individual co-ops or stayin-
    school students.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:20:59
    21 seconds

    Well, we are still left in a great quandary and
    we are trying to get to the bottom of it. After she went to EEOC
    with you, did she show any signs at that time of being out of touch
    with reality?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:21:20
    1 minute

    Senator, again, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist,
    and at EEOC, I can tell you, I was enormously busy and
    spent an enormous amount of time at the office, involved in any
    number of activities. At EEOC, the assignments, as I remember
    them, the individual in charge of the office, I had a chief of staff at
    the time who would take care of the assignments and would be
    more involved with the special assistants.
    My suggestion to you, as I have indicated, would be that this
    committee spend some time with the people who worked there.
    This committee has spent I think an inordinate amount of time
    with someone making uncorroborated allegations against me, and
    should have people who have worked with me, who have not seen
    any such activity, who did not corroborate these allegations and
    who had opportunities to work with and observe Anita Hill.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:22:21
    36 seconds

    I believe Chairman Biden adds to that, saying
    that they will come and be available. But, now, at the Department
    of Education and at the EEOC, did any fellow employee of hers, did
    any supervisor of hers or anybody else indicate to you that she was
    out of touch with reality?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:22:57
    24 seconds

    The only one employee who indicated very
    strongly to me during my tenure at EEOC that she was, I believe—
    and I believe this may be a quote—my enemy, and I refused to believe
    that and argued with him about that and refused to act in
    accordance with that.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:23:21
    7 seconds

    Well, did he tell you any of the facts surrounding
    how he arrived at the opinion that she was your enemy?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:23:28
    14 seconds

    Senator, as I said, I ignored it. Loyalty is something
    that was important to me and I paid no attention to it and
    he in recent days reminded me of what he told me.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:23:42
    18 seconds

    All right. Now, was there any other information
    that came out while you were working with her that would indicate
    to you that she lived in a fantasy world or anything?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:24:00
    12 seconds

    Senator, again, I don't know, I am not a psychiatrist
    or psychologist. I was a busy chairman of an agency.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:24:12
    28 seconds

    Well, here we are in a perplexed situation
    trying to get to the bottom of it. I will ask you again, do you know
    of any reason why she might purposely lie about these alleged incidents?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:24:40
    8 seconds

    Senator, I don't know why anyone would lie in
    this fashion.

  • Senator HEFLIN

    At 01:24:48
    2 seconds

    I believe that is all.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:24:50
    2 minutes

    Judge, just because we take harassment seriously
    doesn't mean we take the charges at face value. You have pointed
    out that when you worked with Anita Hill and up until the
    moment that the charge was made available to you through an FBI
    agent, you thought her to be a respected, reasonable, upstanding
    person. When a respectable, reasonable, upstanding person, a professor
    of law, someone with no blemish on her record, comes forward,
    this committee has the obligation to do exactly what you
    would have done at EEOC, investigate the charge.
    You are making a mistake, if you conclude that because this is
    being investigated before all the evidence is in; the conclusion has
    been reached by this committee.
    You have said some things tonight that are new information to
    us. Assuming them to be true, it is the first time I've heard that
    you were ever invited, drove home and/or were invited into Professor
    Hill's apartment to have a Coke or a beer. You have told us
    things that are new. You should not in your understandable anger
    refuse to tell us more. We have to figure this out.
    For us to have concluded, when faced with a person of Professor
    Hill's standing and background that this is something we were not
    going to look at would have been irresponsible.
    I don't disagree with you, it was irresponsible, the way in which
    Professor Hill ended up before us.
    I understand that, and if I had
    had anything to do with it, I would apologize for it, but in a very
    much smaller fashion, I was at the other end of that one myself.
    So, do not in your anger refuse to tell us more tomorrow. This is
    not decided. Witnesses are going to be coming forward, the witnesses
    that you and your attorneys have asked us to hear, and
    people we want to hear from.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:27:23
    2 seconds

    Mr. Chairman, could I just make one last comment?

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:27:25
    1 second

    YOU may.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:27:26
    38 seconds

    I hope that nobody here, either on this panel or
    in this room, is saying that, Judge, you have to prove your innocence,
    because I think we have to remember and we have to insist
    that Anita Hill has the burden of proof or any other challenger,
    and not you, Judge.
    The fact of the matter is, the accuser, under our system of jurisprudence
    and under any system of fairness, would have to prove
    their case.
    Judge we will go into some things tomorrow, and I look forward
    to questioning again tomorrow, and we wish you a good night's rest
    and we look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

  • Senator SIMPSON

    At 01:28:04
    3 seconds

    Mr. Chairman.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:28:07
    8 seconds

    I have been asked by one of my colleagues to
    clarify one thing. I don't think you misunderstood it, but no one
    else should. What I was referring to, that

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:28:15
    1 second

    I wasn't referring to you.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:28:16
    19 seconds

    I know you weren't. I am just referring to my
    comment. I was referring to the fact that Professor Hill testified
    here today that her statement, which we have attempted to keep
    confidential, was leaked to the press. That is what I am referring
    to as an injustice.

  • Senator HATCH

    At 01:28:35
    1 second

    Right.

  • Senator SIMPSON

    At 01:28:36
    1 minute

    Mr. Chairman, just a moment, because Howell
    Heflin and I came here to the Senate together in the class of 1978.
    I have great respect for him and I see this terrible quandary that
    he is in, because I have watched him work.
    Intimately we have worked together on a lot of things, and it is
    the same thing we all feel, but there is a big difference here, and
    Orrin has just touched on it, and that is what you said this morning,
    Mr. Chairman, in your very fair way, and I quote from your
    statement, and I think we must not forget this, and this is a quote
    from our Chairman this morning: "Fairness also means that Judge
    Thomas must be given a full and fair opportunity to confront these
    charges against him, to respond fully, to tell us his side of the story
    and to be given the benefit of the doubt."
    Now, that's what we are doing here, and if there is any doubt, it
    goes to Clarence Thomas, it does not go to Professor Hill.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:29:50
    32 seconds

    I made the statement and I stand by the statement.
    That is why I—not that you need my recommendation,
    Judge, but tell us what you know. We are trying to determine what
    happened. It is as simple as that. And the mere fact, as I said, that
    we take the allegation seriously does not mean that we assume the
    allegation is correct.

  • Senator THURMOND

    At 01:30:22
    17 seconds

    Mr. Chairman, I believe you mentioned
    Clarence Thomas' attorneys. So far as I know, he has no attorneys.
    He doesn't need any.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:30:39
    10 seconds

    Tomorrow, we will reconvene—I assume, Judge,
    it is your choice, I assume you wish to come back tomorrow. The
    committee is not demanding you come back tomorrow. Do you wish
    to come back tomorrow?

  • Judge THOMAS

    At 01:30:49
    2 seconds

    I think so, Senator. I would like to finish this.

  • The CHAIRMAN

    At 01:30:51
    1 minute

    We will reconvene at 10 o'clock.