• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 831 0

Moreover, I was sure that the focus would be the politics of the nomination or the personalities of Judge Thomas and me. I wanted to talk about harassment. Of all the hosts, Phil Donahue and his producer seemed the most sensitive and open to a change in format. Whether out of self-consciousness or mistrust, I declined their invitation as well. Directly following the hearing, neither I nor the public was ready to discuss the issue rationally. Still, if only partly to refute the idea that I had become a recluse, in January I granted an interview to Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes. I had long admired his work, and he struck me as a sincere individual, less affected and more animated than most of his professional counterparts.

I did not relish being in front of the television camera and felt too self-conscious to enjoy the experience. Yet I was beginning to appreciate the value of a visual image. I had learned a lesson from the print media. No matter how provocative or inflammatory the question asked, what appeared in print was only the exasperated response, with the hostile question omitted or toned down to a gentler version. For example, before the hearing a reporter called me and told me that the Republicans were trying to say that I was pursuing Thomas by frequently talking to him and persistently telephoning him. “That’s garbage,” I responded. That statement was later characterized as a denial that I had called Thomas’ office. It was pitted against the telephone log which showed that I had called the office eleven times in ten years. Of course, the logs did not show that I had actually talked to Thomas that number of times and revealed nothing about the business nature of the calls, and neither did the news stories. Yet my statement about the inferences being drawn from the logs was used to show my untruthfulness. So despite my discomfort with the television camera, I concluded that the format of even a taped and edited interview reduced the opportunity for a manipulation of the question and response.

The interview itself was less than satisfactory from my perspective and likely from that of the 60 Minutes crew as well. Ed Bradley was relaxed and comfortable. His producers were courteous and professional. But it was only January, and I was still badly wounded and mistrustful of the press. I could not bring myself to discuss the pain from the hearing that had not ended in October but continued with attacks from local Republicans. The Senate investigation of the leak was still pending and I did not want to jeopardize it or myself. The positive impact of the letters and support I received and the sense of urgency that the stories of harassment generated in me were my only focus. I could not help feeling that, if people glimpsed the urgency that I felt from reading these letters, they, too, would see the need for remedy in these matters. In January 1992 I tried to show the public this in the interview, but was either unable to convey the message effectively or was addressing a television audience that was not ready for it.

Though the hearing was over, my contact with the Senate was not. On October 24, 1991, the Senate had passed Resolution 202, which called for the appointment of a “special independent counsel to investigate … recent unauthorized disclosures of nonpublic confidential information from Senate documents in connection with the … nomination of Clarence Thomas.” Less than two weeks after the vote to confirm Clarence Thomas, the Senate had taken swift and clear action to investigate “the leak” of my statement to the Senate. The pity was that they had not acted promptly in investigating my statement. When the investigation was announced, I got the clear impression that the establishment of the special counsel was as much to investigate me as it was to investigate the leak. Peter Fleming’s appointment and the institution of the investigation only confirmed my feelings.

Through a contact from David Swank, Andrew Coats, an Oklahoma City attorney, volunteered to represent me in the investigation. Coats’ dual experience in