Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [133]
I met with Peter Fleming and his assistants twice in the winter and spring of 1992, first on February 11 and later on April 23. Held in Mr. Coats’ office, each meeting lasted approximately five hours. Fleming questioned me about where I had been and to whom I had spoken from July through October 6. He was particularly interested in telephone conversations. He asked me for the “records of all transmissions” of telecopy machines in the “University of Oklahoma Law School, or in the University Provost’s office”; “records of the Federal Express overnight service utilized by the University of Oklahoma Law School to the remainder of the country for the entire month of September and the first week of October”; and my home and office telephone records, as well as the “telephone records for every telephone at the University of Oklahoma Law School” for that time period.
I submitted all of my personal records to him, and Dean Swank and Provost Richard Gibson submitted their department’s records. He asked for specifics about calls to my parents and my sisters and colleagues with whom I had been in contact. I answered his questions thoroughly. Fleming questioned me about my statement, how it had been notarized, to whom I had given it. I answered and submitted the logs of the person who notarized my statement. Fleming questioned me about anyone whom I might have talked to about the statement and about people I never even knew—individuals associated with interest groups in Washington. He interviewed my friends, colleagues, and members of the legal team—“every person [I] called during this period who would have been in a position to speak with the press.”
I had nothing to conceal and wanted to know the source of the leak. But I was certain that I was being forced to revisit this painful episode to satisfy the Republicans in the Senate who were offended on behalf of President Bush and Judge Thomas. They were still bent on some retribution for their embarrassment in having the claims reach the public. As I relived the experience, I was keenly aware of the fact that the special investigator neither questioned Judge Thomas nor requested his or Senator Danforth’s records. No one seemed concerned with my hurt or embarrassment.
The Fleming investigation included inquiries into Timothy Phelps’ and Nina Totenberg’s activities. As the two reporters who first aired the story about my interview with the FBI and statement to the Senate, both likely knew the source of the leak. Totenberg had a copy of my statement. How it came to her is still a mystery. Their cooperation was limited; both rejected requests for interviews. Fleming countered by issuing subpoenas to Phelps and Totenberg demanding that they appear and bring with them documents relating to the investigation. Again, Phelps and Totenberg resisted but were later deposed. Citing the First Amendment’s protection of the press, they continued to withhold the names of their sources and the records of their telephone calls.
Fleming asked me to write a letter to the Senate Rules Committee supporting his request “to compel answers from Tim Phelps and Nina Totenberg.” Though I had a personal interest in finding out who had leaked my statement, I refused to be used by the Senate in their fight with the press. I found it ironic that the same body which had treated me so ungraciously would seek my assistance in this matter. I was only as important to them as I was useful. Finally, the chess match concluded when the Senate declined to seek further information from the two reporters.
As a lawyer I have a healthy respect for the First Amendment’s free press protections. Yet I was