Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [93]
Finally having completed his goal of creating a record with unsworn testimony, Senator Specter asked his question: “Did anybody ever tell you that, by providing the statement, that there would be a move to request Judge Thomas to withdraw his nomination?”
“I don’t recall any story about pressing, using this to press anyone.”
“Well, do you recall anything at all about anything related to that?” Senator Specter continued pressing for the answer he wanted.
“I think that I was told that my statement would be shown to Judge Thomas, and I agreed to that,” I answered.
“But was there any suggestion, however slight, that the statement with these serious charges would result in a withdrawal so that it wouldn’t have to be necessary for your identity to be known or for you to come forward under circumstances like these?”
By this time I was beginning to be worn down by Specter’s methodology. Not only did his questions rely on unsubstantiated comments, but they kept changing in substance.
“There was—no, not that I recall. I don’t recall anything being said about him being pressed to resign,” I said, still attempting to respond to the first question.
“Well this would only have happened in the course of the past month or so, because all this started in just early September.” At this point Specter moved from questioning to arguing by suggesting not only that the conversation with the staffer had occurred but that I should recall it.
“I understand,” I responded. Had I been clearer of Specter’s purpose, I would have advised him of the reason that I could not recall such a conversation. This was my weakness—I assumed a level of honesty in the questioning that did not exist.
“So that when you say you don’t recall, I would ask you to search your memory on this point, and perhaps we might begin—and this is an important subject—about the initiation of this entire matter with respect to Senate staffers who talked to you. But that is going to be too long for the few minutes that I have left so I would ask you once again …”
“Well I can’t really tell you any more than what I have said. I discussed what the alternatives were, what might happen with this affidavit that I submitted. We talked about the possibility of the Senate Committee coming back for more information. We talked about the possibility of the FBI, asking, going to the FBI and getting more information; some questions from individual Senators. I just, the statement that you are referring to, I really can’t verify.”
Unsatisfied with the answer, the Senator came back, “Well, when you talk about the Senate coming back for more information or the FBI coming back for more information or Senators coming back for more information that has nothing to do at all with Judge Thomas withdrawing, so that when you testified a few moments ago that there might possibly have been a conversation, in response to my question about a possible withdrawal, I would press you on that, Professor Hill, in this context: You have testified with some specificity about what happened 10 years ago. I would ask you to press your recollection as to what happened within the last month.”
“And I have done that, Senator, and I don’t recall that comment.… May I just add this one thing?”
“Sure.” Senator Specter was by now exasperated.
“The nature of that kind of conversation that you’re talking about is very different from the nature of the conversation that I recall. The conversations that I recall were much more vivid. They were more explicit. The conversations that I have had with the staff over the last few days in particular have become much more blurry, but these are vivid events that I recall from even eight years ago when they happened, and they are going to stand out much more in my mind than a telephone conversation. They were one-on-one, personal conversations, as a matter of fact, and that adds to why they are much more easily recalled. I am sure that there are some comments that I do not recall the exact nature of from that period, as well, but these that are here are ones