Speaking Truth to Power - Anita Hill [95]
But the processional of the twenty family, lawyers, and friends, led by two Secret Service escorts, wound its way back down the high-ceiling corridor of the Russell Building to the caucus room and the afternoon session. It was 2:15.
CHAPTER TWELVE
When the hearing readjourned that afternoon, Senator Heflin broached the subject of the USA Today report of the Henderson interview.
“Well, during any conversation with Keith Henderson, did you tell him that certain staffers had told you that if you went ahead and signed the affidavit, that might be a way to get [Judge Thomas] to withdraw?” Senator Heflin’s tone was deliberate—confident. It was, in litigation terminology, an attempt to redirect—to clarify or reestablish the testimony I had given in the morning.
“No, I did not tell him that,” I answered, grateful to be able to respond to a direct question about the newspaper article.
“Well, did you tell him that that was mentioned or that it would have been mentioned relative to this?” Senator Heflin asked.
“No, I didn’t tell him that.”
“Do you know whether or not Keith Henderson talked to certain Judiciary Committee staffers?”
“I don’t know whether he did talk to Judiciary Committee staffers.”
“Well, do you know whether or not there was a conversation between Keith Henderson and some staffer in which they were discussing the affidavit and saying that there were certain possibilities, which included the possibility that Clarence Thomas might withdraw his name?”
“That might have happened, but I haven’t talked with Keith Henderson about that,” I answered, hoping that this discussion would put an end to the matter. I did not know what any Senate staff had said to Henderson, nor what he might have said to them. This much I did know: no staffer ever promised me that Thomas would withdraw as a result of my statement.
Later, Senator Specter would return to the same line of questioning. In that exchange I allowed that Thomas’ withdrawal might have been discussed because of the procedure which would follow from my raising the claim. This was a foolish concession, for I was uncertain whether that particular possibility was raised, and any concession on my part would only be used against me by the Republicans. At the time of my conversations with Senate staffers, no one had any idea of what was going to happen. When I gave my statement to the Senate on September 23, I am not certain that the staff even knew what process they would follow, much less how Thomas would respond. Nevertheless, Specter continued to press for a contradiction. “And now are you testifying that Mr. Brudney said that if you came forward and made representations as to what you said happened between you and Judge Thomas that Judge Thomas might withdraw his nomination?”
“I was attempting, in talking to the staff, to understand how the information would be used, what I would have to do, what might be the outcome of such a use. We talked about a number of possibilities, but there was never any indication that, by simply making these allegations, the nominee would withdraw from the process. No one ever said that, and I did not say that anyone ever said that.”
The tension between Senator Specter and me was measurable. The process seemed to break down completely. Senator Specter would repeat the same question until he got the answer he wanted—that a staffer induced me to come forward with the story with a promise Thomas would withdraw. Specter was only more provoked by admission that Thomas’ withdrawal might have been mentioned. In a court of law, Specter’s questioning would have been limited. A court might have stopped him from repeating questions asked and answered previously or even admonished him for arguing with or badgering the witness. But this was not a court, as Biden had informed us from the start, and Biden was exercising little authority as chairman to limit the form of questions.
To the press and spectators, we must have sounded silly and ill tempered. More than