I spent some time last night reviewing some of the transcripts from the “high-tech lynching” delivered by the Senate Judiciary Committee to Clarence Thomas, just to refamiliarize myself with the actual testimony and evidence. It almost felt like jumping into Peabody’s Wayback Machine, only in this case the transcripts reveal the truth rather than a facile and inaccurate misrepresentation. Based on a momentary reference in Thomas’ book, I reread the testimony of John Doggett, who had come to the panel to testify on behalf of Thomas — and who ended up facing the exact same smear, from the same apparent authors.
Let me set the stage for readers. Doggett, a successful black attorney who knew both Hill and Thomas, had come to testify on Thomas’ behalf — and had done so with little issue. However, Senator Howard Metzenbaum’s turn came up to start asking questions, and he immediately accused Doggett of being a sexual harrasser himself (page 562-3 of Part 4 of the transcripts):
Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Doggett, I haven’t had a chance to read the full transcript of your testimony that was given in the telephone interview with several staff members representing Senator Biden, Senator Heflin, Senator Thurmond, Senator Leahy and Senator Specter. But let me read you some portions of it, because I think we are talking about Anita Hill, and I think we need to also talk a little bit about Mr. Doggett, and this is a question to you:
Now, since we have received your affidavit and since your statement has gone public, the majority staff has received word from an individual who said she worked with you at McKenzie. Answer: Yes. And she has made some allegations concerning yourself. Answer: All right. And did she give you a name? Answer: She did. And we will move to that. I wanted to let you know where this line of questioning was going, to turn at this time. Answer: All right. I am not surprised. Question: This morning, we spoke with a woman named Amy Graham, who said she worked with you … at McKenzie & Company, and I believe you started down there in August of 1981. Answer: That is correct. Let me tell you generally what her allegations were, and then I will ask you some questions, and then I will turn back to Ms. DeOreo, to follow up with some questions. Answer: All right. Question: Ms. Graham indicated that, on her first day of work, when she met you, along with other people in that office; first of all, very succinctly, do you remember Ms. Amy Graham? Answer: I do not. Question: You do not? Answer: I do not. Question: She claims that, on her first day at work, at some point in the day, I believe she said—I don’t have the transcript available yet, but at some point during the day you confronted her in the hall, in front of an elevator, and kissed her on the mouth and told her that she would enjoy working with you very well. She also—Answer: You know, I also got—I deny that. I didn’t remember the woman, and that is outrageous. I also got a message on my answering machine after you guys went public with my affidavit, saying “This is your Texas whore from five years ago.” Somebody, I don’t know, never met, who decided that she was going to claim to be my whore.
Question: Mr. Doggett, let me just tell you generally her allegation, and then I will give you adequate opportunity to respond. I think that, in all fairness, that you need to know what she said, and then you can respond overall. She also claimed that, during the time that she worked there—she was 19 years old when she began work, she is 29 years old now—she also claimed that at times, in front of the copying machine—and again, I am just going from my recollection, I don’t have the transcript—that you would rub her shoulders at the copying machine. At the time, you suggested to her, “Oh, you are making copies, that is sort of like reproduction, isn’t it?” She also said that some of your conversation dealt with sexual innuendo, there was sexual overtone in your talk. But what struck me, though, is she also said that you weren’t in the office very much. So, first, if you could respond to Ms. Graham’s allegations, and then I have some questions I want to discuss with you. I am still reading: Answer: I do not remember Amy Graham. If she was there, she was not there as an associate or as a researcher or as a consultant, but was there as a part of the secretarial staff. I never made any comments or statements to anybody like that. I never did anything like that, so I categorically deny it. I am, quite frankly, not surprised that somebody has come out of the woodwork to make a claim like this. That’s the nature of this business.
Metzenbaum had broken the rules of the committee by reading unsworn testimony into the record. His staffers had tried to dig up dirt on Doggett before his testimony, and found a young woman who made unsubstantiated allegations of harrassment against Doggett, and whose version contradicted itself in several ways. The staffers then called Doggett and asked him about the allegations, who immediately and vehemently denied them. Metzenbaum had set Doggett up, but Doggett wasn’t about to take it lying down:
Mr. DOGGETT. Senator, your comments about this document are one of the reasons that our process of government is falling apart. First of all, Senator, I have a copy of the statement that this person met—it is called a transcript of proceedings. But, Senator, if you read this, it is as telephone conversation that she has with some staff members pro and against Mr. Thomas, and she is not under oath. I did not do any of the things that she alleged. In fact, the first time any of these issues were raised was the day before I was supposed to come here, 8 1/2 years later. I knew when I put my information into the ring, that I was saying I am open season. For anybody to believe that, on the first day of work, for a woman working in the xerox room, who is 19 years old, a 33-year-old black man would walk up to a 19-year-old white girl and kiss her on the mouth as the first thing that they did, whoever believes that really needs psychiatric care. But let me talk about the facts, since you brought up this statement, which was not made under oath, which was not made consistent with any of the rules that you Senators are supposed to be responsible for, since this is the Judiciary Committee, let me talk about that, since you asked the question and went on and on and on. During that time that she—I have read this statement. If she had made it under oath, Senator, I would go to court, but
Senator METZENBAUM. This isn’t her statement. I am reading from your statement, Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. The statement that you read from was a discussion with me, and consistently your staff people said, “I don’t have the transcript, I don’t remember the exact facts.” Well, I have the transcript and the exact facts show this woman to be a profound liar who does not even remember the facts accurately.
Metzenbaum knew he wasn’t allowed to enter the testimony of the woman into the record, because she had not submitted her testimony under oath. Metzenbaum instead used the underhanded method of taking Doggett’s conversation — also not under oath — as a means to smear him publicly with the unsworn allegation. It was, as one Senator later complained, the same as if a staffer had told Doggett about a rumor that he beat his wife on a regular basis, and then entered it into the record to discredit Doggett regardless of the truth.
And for those of us who watched it, it seemed very similar to what was happening to Clarence Thomas at that exact moment — and from the same people, too.
Doggett let Metzenbaum have it with both barrels:
Mr. DOGGETT. I will tell you, Senators, before I talk about the specifics, I debated, myself and with my wife, whether or not to start the process that resulted in me being here, because this is vicious, and I knew, since anything I said was going to raise the question about the credibility of Professor Anita Hill, as a lawyer, that meant my character was open season. I have never been involved as a candidate, although I have always said you can’t complain about the process, if you’re not willing to put your ass on the line—pardon me, I am sorry. I am sorry about that.
Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Chairman —
Mr. DOGGETT. But I have said if you don’t like the way the political process is, then you have to get into it and you have to get into the fray. So, I said, okay, if I submit this information to this committee, then I am open season and people are going to shoot at me, and I do not care. I have information I think the committee needs to hear. If they feel it is relevant enough for me to be here, I will be here and I will take whatever occurs. But I will tell you, sir, I have had lawyers and professional people in Texas and around the country say that I was insane to subject myself to the opportunity to have something like this crawl out from under a rock. They have said I should have just stood on the sidelines and let it go by. I am an attorney, sir
Senator METZENBAUM. Mr. Doggett —
Mr. DOGGETT [continuing]. I am a businessman and I cannot allow this process of innuendo, unsworn statements and attacks on characters to continue, without saying it is unacceptable.
If anyone doubted that there existed a concerted effort to commit character assassination in that proceeding, that portion of the testimony should have removed all doubt. The modus operandi was the same — a sexual smear against a black attorney designed to discredit him. It again relied on unsubstantiated allegations, culled from an incident that purportedly occurred years beforehand. And it was designed to intimidate the target into withdrawing from the proceeding, and also failed.
It was the clearest example of McCarthyism since Tail Gunner Joe, and most people don’t even know that it happened. The guardians of history have not seen fit to show exactly how unscrupulous Thomas’ enemies were. It was despicable, and that was the entire Thomas confirmation process in a nutshell.
Wow, Ed. Just wow.
What a wretched and disgraceful display from Metzenbaum. He really was scum… with all due apologies to scum.
If only Dogget had said ‘have you no shame, Senator’ it would have been a perfect response to such a mendacious attack.
The “high tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas was a low point in our political life that continues to reverberate. Thank you for some clarity.
I forgot about that exchange. I hope Doggett has done well since.
I’ve been recalling the deep throat aspects of how Hill came to the attention of the committee. Was is the late Paul Simon who brought Hill forward?
I watched Metzenbaum’s disgusting display on live TV. As I recall, at some point during Metzenbaum’s dishonest attack, Mr. Dogget clearly nailed him on a particular point and Metzenbaum turned to his aides in obvious panic and they all shuffeled pointlessly through some papers. That was the high point of the “hearing”. That visual doesn’t show up on the transcript, it may have happened during one of the segments the Captain quoted. But what does show up on the transcript is Metzenbaum repeatedly whining “Mr. Chariman”.
“…and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
Art I, Sec 6, U.S. Const.)
Any U.S. Senator (or Congressman) can say whatever he or she wants on the floor, they can smear, slander, accuse and abuse anyone for any reason. The only thing to constrain them is their own integrity and the possibility of some political backlash come election time if they go too far against the wrong person.
It’s an awesome privilege if you think about it, this right to say whatever you want as long as you’re sitting in the Senate. It kind of makes you want someone like Doggett to stand up and say, “step outside Senator and say that again to my face. Let’s see how big a bully boy you really are.”
I am amazed a lot of times watching people testify, why they don’t challenge these guys more often the way Doggett did here. I suppose it’s because they’re mostly up there trying to get confirmed or they’re administration officials who have to just sit there and take it. But someone like Doggett, a private citizen who doesn’t need anything from these people? Yeah, right back at ya. Good for him.
What this country needs is smarter voters.
Let’s never forget the true legacy of sexual-harassment hysteria: Most workplaces have become hostile environments for men
Now, that’s progressive!
Good work, Ed. I’ve reviewed Hillary Clinton’s reference to “putting together a network in the blogosphere” to take her arguments and make them effective and disseminate them widely.
“Noting that the “origin” of the smear was Media Matters, Limbaugh on his show and website Tuesday played a sound bite from a speech given by Hillary Clinton this past August [2007]. Hillary said:
“We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments and making them effective and disseminating them widely and really putting together a network in the blogosphere, and a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support, like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.””
I think Hillary Clinton’s broader organization (referring to Media Matters, Center for American Progress. and similar Soros-funded organizations),
has assigned “minders” to more prominent conservative bloggers, including you.
Their “new progressive infrastructure” is a network organized and orchestrated to provide “real time response” to your commentary, and that of others of their adversaries. That’s an interesting “war room” they must be running.
The spontaneity of the blogosphere, and its early democratic impulses, championed most notably by Glenn Reynolds, is being challenged by this disciplined virtual network.
Of course, when Hillary Clinton takes power, such a network can be readily converted to a police network for controlling her opponents online. The model for this would be Communist Chinese control of their internet, aided and abetted by Microsoft, Google, and others.
That last paragraph is speculation on my part, but it’s consistent with earlier characterizations of Hillary as a “Manchurian Candidate”. Is it a conspiracy? It’s clearly organized and orchestrated. It only becomes a conspiracy if the organization is breaking laws. Whether that’s happening remains to be seen.
And how was Ms. Graham awarded (and by whom) for her “testimony”. Is she working with Anita Hill?
quickjustice said, “I think Hillary Clinton’s broader organization (referring to Media Matters, Center for American Progress. and similar Soros-funded organizations),
has assigned “minders” to more prominent conservative bloggers, including you.”
I read a lot of conservative blogs. I have noticed that quite often the first and even second comment on a topic is written by a “progressive”. It certainly seems that they are watching us and reading from the same script sometimes.
Thanks for that,Captain. I am going to copy that essay and put it in my permanent file.
Remember when the gals on “Designing Women” wore t-shirts that said “He Did It!” ? The left believe that there are no rules in their righteous cause.
I had forgotten that exchange. I thought Metzenbaum had his ears pinned back right smartly when I first heard this back in the day.
What ever happened to John Doggett. I remember hoping he would enter Texas politics, but did he?
Smearing Thomas gets even better .
Now, radical leftist Smiley wants equal time to trash Thomas on 60 minutes with his fellow PBS panelist packed full of left wing Clinton operatives. Apparently Smiley can not stand to see Thomas getting anything but hate filled press coverage.
And this is the professional BUSH Hater and Republican basher that some conservatives wanted to SUCKER Rudy, Fred , and Mitt into an ambush of crazy left wing questions and non stop Bush bashing speeches from radical left wing black activists !
McCarthy ain稚 dead, I guess
The following is a snippet of a long post over at Captain痴 Quarters, which is well worth reading. Ed Morrissey brings together…
Whatever happened to John Doggett?
Looks like he’s a faculty member at University of Texas at Austin.
Notice that this disgraceful democrat’s words don’t need to be interpreted, or punctuated with elipses… .
You don’t need to squint your eyes and tilt your head to see the democrat’s wrongdoing here, like you have to do to see Jesus in the potato chip, or the offense in Rush Limbaugh’s comment.
Real evil is self-evident. It’s appearance is sufficient. You don’t have to train the viewer to recognize it, or hire a professional firm to sell it to the masses.
I have confidence that most folks still have an inner sense of what right and wrong really are, and what truth really is, and I am hopeful that the smear campaign of the left will fall flat because it is so offensive to free people.
Metzenbaum thought he was saving the country from right wing legal extremism and he justified his sleazy tactics with the Left’s favorite fall back position “the ends justify the means”. And, we must remember that the Thomas hearings came AFTER the Bork hearings where Metzenbaum and his ilk had successfully ruined a jurist whom they considered too far to the right. Metzenbaum et al were feeling mighty powerful when Thomas came along. Power corrupts.
And I seem to remember Jesse Jackson and Rev Al Sharpton immediately holding a press conference to decry this racist attack on Mr. Doggett.
Not.
Yes, the nation is blessed by the service of Mr. Doggett and continues to be shamed by the presence of Mr. Metzenbaum and Mr. Leahy in the Senate. Said to say they are two of the tribe who besmirch its good name. Glad the Capn was able to pull these tidbits up. I wonder if there are any youtube videos of these exchanges? If so that would be precious.
When I read about the disgusting misconduct of some of our (spit) members of Congress, I often wonder:
Preston Brookes, where are you when we need you???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks
Bork’s real sin was being the official in the Nixon Justice department to fire the AG on Nixon’s orders if I recall correctly.
Wow too. Doggett is one sharp dude
a) To understand in the entirety what the proceedings were about,
b) To have analysed correctly the intent of Senator Metzenbaum from a telephone conversation with his staffers, and, finally
c) To have given Metzenbaum both barrels of the necessary legal theory, couched in such terms that any person in front of a TV set could understand what a travesty Metzenbaum was attempting to unleash.
Metzenbaum telegraphed his punch. And Doggett, like the good lawyer he is, was waiting.
How many people today would defend the rights of someone with whom they disagreed rather than remains silent and let their own side “win”?
You can’t blame Congress without blaming the electorate, which means looking at the culture.
Every so often a new low is hit as the enemies of freedom continue to probe and push. This year, a full-page ad accused an Army General of the high crime of treason, with no apparent consequences. What will it be in 2008?
I too read reread the Doggett testimony last night because for me it was the “highpoint” of the hearings. I didn’t post the entire exchange because it would have been a very long comment! Here is my favorite part of the exchange, taken at the point where Metzenbaum is fumbling through his papers in utter confusion and panic and Doggett let’s him have with both barrels. This exchange should be a famous as the “have you no shame?” speech from the McCarthy hearings. That fact that it has largely dropped down the memory hole is a testament to the power of the media to shove under the rug the disgusting behavior of the Democrats in the trial of Clarence Thomas. Here’s the exchange …
Senator SPECTER. Mr. Doggett, what page are you on, please?
Senator METZENBAUM. I don’t have that.
Mr. DOGGETT. Page 6 of the unsworn telephone conversation that
Ms. Graham had with some staffers.
The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, let me interrupt for a minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. I’m pissed off, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. It is totally out of line with what the committee
had agreed to
Mr. DOGGETT. I’m sorry.
The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. For there to be entered into this
record any unsworn statement by any witness who cannot be called
before this committee, and I rule any such statement out of order.
Now, I apologize for being out of the room. Was there any
Senator METZENBAUM. I was only reading from Mr. Doggett’s
own statement.
Mr. DOGGETT. My statement was not under oath, sir. That was a
telephone conversation and they said we staffers would like to talk
with you, we have a court reporter there. I’m a lawyer, sir, it was
no deposition, it was not under oath, as Ms. Graham’s comments
were not under oath. And since you have brought this up, I
demand the right to clear my name, sir.
Senator METZENBAUM. I was only reading from his statement,
not from
Mr. DOGGETT. I demand the right to clear my name, sir. I have
been trashed for no reason by somebody who does not even have
the basic facts right. This is what is going on with Clarence
Thomas, and now I, another person coming up, has had a “witness”
fabricated at the last moment to try to keep me from testifying.
This is a silly essay.
It is hardly McCarthyism to produce an arcane exchange with a witness that ultimately involves a “He said, She said”.
Doggett came to harm Anita Hill, and he did.
You like Doggett because you like Clarence Thomas, and you like Clarence Thomas because he is a small, petty man with a huge grudge against his enemies, Liberals, Democrats, poor and helpless people, and women who bring suits against men.
Thomas reminds me of OJ Simpson: they are both still playing the victim. “Poor OJ!”
We don’t have to say “poor Clarence Thomas!!!” because that is Thomas’ Morning Prayer.
It is hardly McCarthyism to produce an arcane exchange with a witness that ultimately involves a “He said, She said”.
The essential point of the exchange was that an unsworn allegation was entered into the hearing and used against a witness. This was totally in violation of the Sentate’s own rules of evidence; but it’s totally consistent with show-trials. If you do not see how this is a McCathy-ite tactic you’re either a friggin’ idiot or a mendacious liar.
tomproud – You make a fatal error in your comparison. OJ is indeed “playing victim”. Justice Thomas on the other hand, was an actual victim – and he has not spent a great deal of time “playing” at anything. He turned his back on the media (justafiably) and carried on with his life. I respect Justice Thomas greatly. You, not so much.
These tactics are now known as “Swifboating,” but the word did not become a verb or acquire a negative connotation until they were applied to a Democrat in the 2004 Presidential campaign. That is about when history began for the kidz in the Sorosphere.
Aldo:
The left has attempted to apply the term “Swiftboating” to an unfounded attack / smear. Unfortunately for the left, the swifties were correct. They signed affidavits. Kerry could have taken them to court, but didn’t. So for any fair observer, “Swiftboating” is synonymous with “getting the facts out”.
Jack Okie,
You and me too. I made a similar (but not identical) point about two weeks ago here on this blog.
The liberals have their idea of swiftboating, and we have ours.
Tomjproud: Amazing logic there. I guess I’m equally justified in saying that you dislike Clarence Thomas because you are a small, petty man with a grudge against conservatives.
Or he is one of Monsier Soros’s operatives trying to counter spin hard facts. I bet that the old Soviets propaganda machine would be really proud.
When & why I left the Democrat party
My turn from left to right began with the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas debacle, and Captain Ed does a great job of demonstrating int his post exactly how despicable and underhanded the left behaved in that circumstance. Ed has been writing about Clarenc…
It becomes increasingly clear with each passing scandal or political smear campaign that you Capt. Ed and others like you are the new guardians of history.
I remember that witness panel with Mr. Doggett very well indeed.
My father is having his 50th anniversary as a graduate of Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, where I am visiting tommorrow to honor this occasion. IIT has been perhaps eclipsed by other institutions as a prestige school, but I will never forget a member of the witness panel that included Mr. Doggett speaking to be a graduate of IIT among a parade of witnesses with Ivy League credentials, and by then Illinois Senator Paul Simon interjecting “which is a fine, fine Illinois university.”
The part you all are not remembering is not only Mr. Doggett defending his honor against a blindsided smear, but of Senator Metzenbaum visibly squirming in his chair when Mr. Doggett turned it back at him for violating Senate rules for introducing unsworn testimony, gamely paging through transcripts, turning to aides, and starting to look confused and flustered. Did Howard Metzenbaum ever stand for reelection after that episode?
This business of Senate Hearings is less about their probative value and more about a kind of Kabuki theatre where every participant has a ritualized role to play. Senators get to bully witnesses as if they are petty princes dealing with commoners, and the witnesses for the most part are supposed to “take it.” The “Senator, have you no shame dude” at the Army-McCarthy hearings was one exception as was Ollie North as well as Mr. Doggett.
I was cheering the man on as he was putting the pompous Howard Metzenbaum in his place, but my momma thought it was Mr. Doggett who came across as having a rather high opinion of himself and that the net effect was negative in terms of playing to the TV audience to help then Judge Thomas. Also, the Doggett witness panel came late in the whole proceedings when everyone had pretty much made up their mind one way or the other and had “gone home” as it were.
Tom proud said: “Doggett came to harm Anita Hill, and he did.”
Leftists love to turn reality around don’t they.
Doggett was there to support Thomas. How can this be construed as harming Hill, someone who didn’t feel ‘harmed’ by Thomas’ ‘actions’ for many years until he was up for Supreme Court.
Up is down to some people.
I remember the night of Doggett’s testimony.
He was so well spoken and impressive, had he been offering more fabrications against Thomas, he’d have been hailed in the media as the next great black hope.
Instead, he skillfully defends himself, exposes Metzenbaum for the ass he is/was and both his testimony and the outrageous behavior of Metzenbaum were ignored by the press.
Indeed, as Doggett said, imagine a black professional (much less a lawyer) kissing a white girl her first day on the job. The guy overcomes mountains of grief to achieve his position and he jeopardizes it utterly willfully? Nonsense.
Last, its funny to contrast the “outrage” liberals felt over the POSSIBILITY Thomas may have uttered some “blue” suggestions compared to their limitless defense of Bubba’s PROVEN disgraceful and disgusting sexual behavior in the WHITE HOUSE!
How can anyone take people who contradict themselves with such regularity and on such a scale, seriously?
If a Liberal Justice had as much bitterness and outright hatred of Conservatives as Clarence Thomas has for Liberals, Democrats, and many others who he deems his enemies, I would call for that Justice to resign immediately.
Bloggers and posters such as I and the people here do not have a vote on the Supreme Court. I would examine my conscience and pray to God for some guidance if I were a Supreme Court Justice. Clarence Thomas prays to God for vengeance, and he takes it against any liberal idea or liberal appearing before his court.
Who is the victimiest victim of all time? Clarence Thomas.
Who feels sorry for himself so much that he publishes a memoir that would embarass a 17 year old with any knowledge of the world? Clarence “Oh, poor me!” (Whoop ti damn doo, in his own self-pitying words) Thomas.
I am always shocked by the mediocrities our culture promotes. Vico said there is a Cycle in History from Heroes to Men, and now, we can add Midgets posing as Men.
P.S. Captain Ed’s post proving Thomas was not a lover and consumer of porn will be a welcome addition to our Thomas-o-philes. Too bad he lied under oath about it. And Roe v Wade, Abortion…let me see. No, Clarence Thomas cannot say he ever discussed any such things.
Most of the Soros’s left loons are the old useful iidiots of the soviet propaganda machine or their clones being churned out by its professorait operatives in wackodemia.
Senator Metzenbaum’s behavior is chilling.
It reminds me of the scene in the first Godfather movie when Michael Corleone is told that Senators don’t kill people and he responds, “Now who is being naive?”
“I am always shocked by the mediocrities our culture promotes.”
On intimate terms with that mediocrity, obviously.
McCarthyism?! How about Jim Crow!?
Thomas spoke well when he called this a lynching. Southern Blacks for decades knew better than to risk their life by even meeting the eye of a white woman. Thomas himself made mention of that in his 60 minutes interview.
In the Jim Crow South, the best way to destroy (literally) a Black man was to accuse him of a sexual crime or impropriety towards a white woman.
This confirmation farce literally relied upon the foulest of America’s failings, and was calculated to terrorize their Black male targets into self-preserving flight.
What I want to know is, who conjured this attack?
Robert Byrd?
Thomas is a hater of liberals and democrats? When? Where? How? Why is DISAGREEMENT with these peoples’ ideological positions by Thomas or any other conservative always transmogrified into “hatred” for them? Reagan, Ollie, Rush…Thomas – none of these men hated Democratics or “liberals” (socialists). They DID and do disagree with their beliefs. But that’s because they’re mature men. Liberals on the other hand constantly project hatred.
Conservatives who disagree about Roe v Wade point to arguments about the utter lack of Constitutional warrant for it as a “right” somehow so cleverly hidden in “penumbras” that the same generation that ratified the Constitution also passed positive legislation outlawing Abortion! That’s argumentation, not hatred.
Conservatives who disagree with the socialist creed that redistribution of wealth via high taxation will lead to social harmony and overall growth in the economy don’t “hate” the poor – we just have the numbers and history to prove that governments can’t tax their way into positive economic growth and thus reduction of poverty! Yet rather than ARGUE with our ARGUMENTS the Liberals attack our motives, go ad hominem, and claim to know our hearts and so determine whether or not we’re ‘hating’ someone.
You know alot about someone when they think they’re winning…so what do we see from the 2004 election cycle when the Left thought Kerry would win? Almost an exclusive outbreak of Liberal physical assaults on conservatives – personal violence fueled by hatred. This politics of personal destruction is almost exclusively a Liberal on Conservative tactic.
Ed is grasping at straws here, as usual. If all he wanted to do was show that Metzenbaum went way over the line in attacking a particular witness (who was himself attacking Anita Hill) — well, Ed would probably have a valid point.
But that’s not Ed’s purpose. His argument is really about Anita Hill herself. In Ed’s mind, everything Hill said was concocted by faceless behind-the-scenes villains — such as staffers in Metzenbaum’s office, among other places.
Unfortunately for Ed, there isn’t a single shred of real-world evidence for his conspiracy theory. Nothing in the testimony, and nothing so far in the archival record, backs up Ed’s case. Nobody else has dug up any proof. And Ed isn’t exactly competent to investigate the matter himself.
So instead all Ed has is a lot of basically irrelevant testimony and other material. Ed thinks he can get some use out of Metzenbaum’s ugly exchange with Doggett, because, he says, “the modus operandi was the same” as with Thomas and Hill. No, Ed, it wasn’t. Hill herself came forward and testified. And friends and colleagues of hers came as well and backed her up. Nothing Hill or her supporting witnesses said had anything to do with Metzenbaum’s smear (if that’s what it was) of Doggett.
I notice that quickjustice had this to say to Ed:
I think Hillary Clinton’s broader organization (referring to Media Matters, Center for American Progress. and similar Soros-funded organizations),
has assigned “minders” to more prominent conservative bloggers, including you.
Their “new progressive infrastructure” is a network organized and orchestrated to provide “real time response” to your commentary, and that of others of their adversaries. That’s an interesting “war room” they must be running.
Well, quickjustice, Hillary and George Soros and I all want to send you and Ed a “real-time” shout-out from here in the “war room.” You’re right — it sure is an interesting “war room” we’ve got. All of us “minders” think so.
Sorry, couldn’t help it. Honestly, quickjustice, you sound like Dale Gribble with a mail-order law degree. Please, put down the Mountain Dew, step away from the computer, and get yourself out of the basement for a while.
How would anyone know that Thomas “prays to God for vengeance”?
Ed isn’t “grasping at straws” or alleging a conspiracy. Susan Hoerchner changed her story to fit Hill’s chronology after meeting with Hill’s attorney. Hill dropped a corroborating witness, Linda Lambert Jackson, because she somehow knew in advance that the witness would contradict her.
All of the members of Hill’s witness panel contradicted her.
——-
For what it’s worth, a few days after the hearings Metzenbaum apologized to Doggett on the floor of the Senate.
———-
To clear up a matter from last night, here’s the actual exchange on Roe vs. Wade:
LEAHY: Have you ever had any discussion of Roe v. Wade other than in this room? In the 17 or 18 years it’s been there?
THOMAS: Only, I guess senator, in the fact that in the most general sense that other individuals express concerns. One way or the other and you listen and you try to be thoughtful. If you’re asking me whether I ever debated the contents of it, the answer to that is no, senator.
About 99% of the country could truthfully give the same answer. Thomas had no professional interest in abortion law and was involved in enough controversial issues. The real misconduct was the senators trying to get a judge to announce his position in advance of hearing a case.
“No, Ed, it wasn’t. Hill herself came forward and testified. And friends and colleagues of hers came as well and backed her up. Nothing Hill or her supporting witnesses said had anything to do with Metzenbaum’s smear (if that’s what it was) of Doggett.”
Hill and her “supporting witnesses” had everything to do with Metzenbaum’s attack on Doggett. He was a rebuttal witness, called to counter the testimony offered by Hill and her “supporting witnesses” because he knew both Hill and Thomas and was in a position to offer his own observations on matters within his personal knowledge.
Metzenbaum attempted to discredit Doggett by challenging, not his direct testimony, but his character. He attacked his credibility, i.e., why should we believe you when someone said (in a rambling telephone conversation) that you were a sexual harrasser, too?
Perhaps it will be easier for you to understand the connection, nandrews, if you will recall that the Senate committee was not empaneled to investigate sexual harrassment. It was empaneled to advise and consent on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the USC.
Anita Hill’s testimony was offered as evidence that Clarence Thomas was of low moral character and thereby unfit for the position of Associate Justice. Amy Graham’s unsworn statement was offered to show that Doggett was of low moral character and thereby unfit to comment on Thomas’ fitness for the position of Associate Justice. Exact same tactics.
Since both Thomas and Hill introduced testimony from others to support their respective version of events, the supporting witnesses effectively canceled each other out. This is why Metzenbaum tried so hard to dirty up Doggett, so his testimony could be dismissed and Hill’s “corroborating” witness statements would stand unchallenged.
Totally connected and perhaps something one would not discern simply from watching a lot of Law & Order.
nandrew wrote: Unfortunately for Ed, there isn’t a single shred of real-world evidence for his conspiracy theory. Nothing in the testimony, and nothing so far in the archival record, backs up Ed’s case.
So who leaked the FBI report to Nina Totenberg? That was an unethical and possibly illegal act. Metzenbaum’s action of attempting to get on the record an unsworn allegation against Doggett was also highly unethical. The Democrat senators and their staffers were using any trick they could think of, and ethics be damned, to derail the nomination and woe unto anyone who stood in their way.
Nothing Hill or her supporting witnesses said had anything to do with Metzenbaum’s smear (if that’s what it was) of Doggett.
If you can’t even admit without qualification that Metzenbaum was smearing Doggett then why should we pay attention to anything else you write? Your opinion, tainted by your political view, is utterly worthless.
tom proud american said:::
Doggett came to harm Anita Hill, and he did.
Tommy boy, your second sentence is a lie and distortion. As the “accused” Clarence Thomas had a right to be ‘innocent until proven’. Doggett was there to support Thomas.
What a simple example of the left’s constant reframing of the basic right of Americans to really having a target on your back.
Might makes right doesn’t it?
RE: nandrews3 (October 4, 2007 5:57 PM)
“…So instead all Ed has is a lot of basically irrelevant testimony and other material.”
Seems perfectly relevant and applicable to me. Metzenbaum of the opposition introduced a grotesque and unsubstantiated charge by violating Senate rules, nevermind the ethics, against a Black man (especially vulnerable to a charge of politically correct race relation violations as Black men generally were or to the repercussions of sexual assault as all men were) who availed himself for proper testimony under legal guidelines to help a committee perform a vital function. This Metzenbaum moron turned it into a smear campaign. Contemporaneously, this same man with the same staffers follows the exact same plan at the same time against another Black man who is availing himself under certain guidelines to, supposedly, assess his competence. We now know it was a litmus test that Metzenbaum and company thought this particular, conservative leaning Jurist should fail beforehand and that he ought to be failed by smearing him since he was entirely competent to serve on SCOTUS and other charges wouldn’t stick.
Theirs was base behavior. Truly despicable. Duel worthy in another age. That you would dismiss so cavalierly the political machinations so evident displays either naivety (which I don’t believe you really have) or a blinding allegiance to anything anti-Right that you cannot see straight.
“…Metzenbaum’s smear (if that’s what it was) of Doggett…”
Are you kidding me?!
john said,
John’s observation is why I have zero bumper stickers on my car, and the liberal lady down the block has twelve on hers. I found a direct correlation between (a) the presence of bumper stickers and (b) abusive behavior against me and my car, both moving and parked.
She doesn’t have to worry about me and my co-conservatives on the block, because we are of the political philosophy that a person’s property is sacrosanct and they have a right to express their views. But I sure do have to worry about her peers, because a right to private property and a right to express one’s views simply does not exist for certain of these people.
Brett said
Not true. The Oval Office was never a hostile workplace environment for Bill Clinton… In fact, he probably felt more comfortable there than in his own bedroom.
Keep in mind that Hill initially tried to ruin Thomas with an anonymous allegation. To call this McCarthyism is unfair to the Senator.
Metzenbaum’s staff set up the whole thing. A guy named Jim Brudney was in charge. His reward was a professorship at Ohio State U Law School. He is still there.
Why are all of these people law professors?
I later had dinner with Anita Hill. It was as part of a group. But I did see her up close and personal. I would have described her as incredibly depressed, almost catatonic. Now this was after her 15 minutes of fame, so I don’t know what she was like before.
But, if she was that gloomy, I can understand why Thomas would have tried to tell her some jokes, maybe even an off-color joke or two, to try to get her to smile. I doubt that she would have smiled though. The lady had no smiles in her.
I’ll never forget the sickening feeling I had while watching the vile Ted Kennedy sitting in moral judgment of Thomas. What an abomination!!
I want to know where Amy Graham is now.
Amy Graham
Federal Government Attorney
Administrative Office
Gave $250 to John Kerry in 2004.
Address listed:
6308 Evermay Dr
McLean VA 22101
I am not sure if this is the same Amy Graham, but she is working in the same field.
“I’ve been recalling the deep throat aspects of how Hill came to the attention of the committee. Was is the late Paul Simon who brought Hill forward?”
John — there is some controversy over this, but I doubt that Simon was the leaker, even inadvertently as some have charged. Simon was the first Senator on the committee to comment on this during the segment that NPR ran the first time the news became public, and Simon can rightly be criticized for even acknowledging Totenberg’s claim. But I still don’t think he did it, in large part b/c the information had been circulating among staff and interest groups for a few weeks before it became public.
For one thing, Senators on a committee are typically not given FBI files to take home with them, or even back to the office; same with sworn affadavits. They read these things in committee offices. Both Tim Phelps and Nina Totenberg, the two who first broke the story, have indicated that they had the FBI file. My guess is that someone on the committee, probably a Democratic committee staffer (but not definitively), photocopied key sections of the report and leaked it to the two reporters.
unclesmrgol wrote:
“I found a direct correlation between (a) the presence of bumper stickers and (b) abusive behavior against me and my car, both moving and parked.”
Don’t I know it. At this very moment I have a candidate’s sticker on my kitchen counter, and I’m debating whether to put it on my car.
Previously, doing so earned me a load of spray paint that took hours to remove. Scratches, of course, cannot be removed, and I’m wondering whether I can afford the deductible just to save my car’s resale value after an attack.
Think the magistrate would get involved? Think again. Democrats can go so far as to disable vans that were to be used by Republicans to assist voters to polling places, and they get a wrist slap. Boys will be boys.
Sometimes I wonder if we’re all just stock characters in the leftist narrative.
You say you are reading the transcript of the hearing. If so, I urge you to read the testimony of Susan Hoerchner, particularly the part where she goes off the record at the urging of a friendly staff interrogator and then comes back on with a “corrected” story.
It was here that she almost gave the scam away. She was an anti-Thomas witness who testified that Anita Hill telephoned her about harassment by her boss. At the time of the hearing, she prompted Hill’s memory and promoted her appearance before the Senate Committee.
The problem was the dates when she said Hill called her–her original testimony would put the alleged harassment BEFORE Hill went to work for Thomas.
Anita Hill’s memory of the incidents was very foggy and it appears that she may have confused Thomas with her previous boss. She had to be pushed into testifying and coached on what to say, but once she went public, she was stuck with her lie.
I am writing this from memory, but if I’m right, all the stories make sense.
In the midst of Hill’s testimony the Republicans were all calling her a liar when suddenly she passed a lie detector test administered by one of the most respected polygraph experts in the country. Suddenly, they stopped accusing her of lying and diagnosed her with “erotomania.” The new line was that she believed her testimony was truthful, but was delusional, driven mad by love for Clarence Thomas. Doggett was brought in to testify that this was a pattern of behavior on Hill’s part, and that she had at one time considered him erotically irresistible, too. Doggett came across as a conceited, narcissistic, lying fool.
Nandrews– Thanks for “minding” Ed’s “store”.
Say “hi” to Hillary and Soros for me! It’ll be interesting to watch the cyber war room operation as it unfolds. After all, organization, orchestration, and party discipline are what drove Lenin and the Bolsheviks to power.
I gotta give you guys credit– it’s tactically clever– until it’s exposed.
There’s no such thing as a “lie detector” test. It’s a polygraph test. It measures physiological reactions to questions, not the truth. Here’s what FBI polygrapher Bill Roemer said at the time of the hearings:
“It’s not the machine that gives the results, it’s the operator. All he does is make a recommendation. There’s no science to it.”
There are particular problems with Hill’s polygraph test. Hill and her legal team framed the questions. The questions were vague (“Have you deliberately lied to me about Clarence Thomas?”) Hill’s team didn’t say what she told the examiner; she could have told him Thomas was innocent.
Hill hired the examiner. She could take the exam confident that the results could only be released with her permission.
Normally, control questions and machine readings are released with the results. Hill chose not to do this.
The polygraph examiner hired by Hill was Paul Minor, formerly a chief FBI polygrapher. Here’s what he said at his press conference:
Q. Have you had cases where you later found out that the polygraph did not accurately report?
A. I’ve heard of such cases, but I don’t know that I have ever had one. I don’t think so.
THe LA Times subsequently reported about one of Minor’s polygraph exams: “[Minor’s] results were later examined by other experts who concluded that the tests had been improperly administered and the results ‘seriously flawed,’ according to Dr. Chris Gugas, chairman of the National Polygraph Assn.”
Mr. Minor also found that Stephen Gobie lied about Barney Frank. Frank later confirmed Gobie’s claims.
Here’s what some Democrats said about the reliability of polygraphs:
“The American Medical Association, testifying before the Labor Committee, stated that polygraph tests ‘measure nervousness and excitability, not truth …’ We cannot have careers and reputations depending on the results of such a frightening, unscientific test.” — Metzenbaum, 1988
“Honest people are more likely to fail polygraph tests than dishonest people.” — Paul Simon, 1987
“Who fails it? If you are an altar boy, you will probably fail it. You would have a sense of conscience and potential guilt. But who passes? The psychopaths, the deceptive ones.” — Kennedy, 1988
All we know for sure is that Anita Hill joined the company of Aldrich Ames and Jack Ruby as people who passed a polygraph.
Oh, and Nandrews– Didn’t Hillary Clinton flunk the absurdly easy D.C. bar exam that Anita Hill passed? And by Anita Hill’s own standards, doesn’t that make Hillary Clinton incompetent to serve in the U.S. government?
Unlike Hillary Clinton, I’ve never failed a bar exam. 😉
Kudos, Captain Ed, on a job well done.
This looks pretty damning of Metzenbaum. But isn’t there a big difference between this and Anita Hill, who did come forward and, under oath, gave direct testimony about her experiences with Mr. Thomas?
test
Hill’s Republican attackers apparently believed her polygraph was accurate; as soon as the results came out they stopped calling her a liar and branded her a delusional “erotomaniac.”
Thomas, on the other hand, didn’t take a polygraph.
He claims to be opposed to affirmative action and resents the fact that he got into Yale and onto the Supreme Court because he was black. And when confronted with Hill’s accusations, he ultimately played the race card to shut things down (“high-tech lynching”).
He apparently not only wanted all of it handed to him on a silver platter; he wanted everyone to pretend that he deserved it.
Pathetic.