Watch Anita Hill respond to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an interview with CNN.
NEW YORK (CNN) - Anita Hill, the woman who significantly jeopardized the 1991 Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas with allegations of sexual harassment, told CNN Tuesday she feels the need to "speak out" in the face of Thomas' latest allegations that the case was fabricated.
"In many ways I have made peace with what has happened in 1991, even what happened in the years I was working with Thomas," Hill told CNN. "I've moved on, but when comments like those made by Judge Thomas are made again, completely unsubstantiated comments, then I have to speak out."
In his new autobiography, "My Grandfather's Son," Thomas calls Hill his "most traitorous adversary" and describes her as a second-rate worker who was likely to overreact to "slights."
Thomas also denies any inappropriate contact with Hill and, in an interview Sunday with CBS's "60 Minutes," alleges her testimony during the confirmation hearing was politically driven and used as "a weapon to destroy me, clear and simple."
Hill strongly denied the claims Tuesday in an interview with CNN.
"There have been several books written since then by independent journalists. They have all investigated those charges that were raised in 1991 and that he raises now, and they have all found them to be false," she said. "They haven't found one connection between me and someone who was politically motivated to keep him off the court."
"What happened was that I was contacted by the Senate, and the Senate contacted me and asked me a direct question about what happened to me in the workplace, and I responded truthfully," she added. "And there was no intermediary group that put me up to anything."
For the full interview with Hill, tune into the Situation Room today, 4, 5, and 7 p.m. ET.
Click here to see CNN's new political portal: CNNPolitics.com
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Anita Hill is a classic example of someone who was and still is used by
others to slander another. She should
shut her trap and Judge Thomas should
do the same. What is to be gained by
re-birthing this mess.
"Because of this case I can never talk to women I work with. I can joke with one woman, but there is always another woman around the corner who is looking for a sexual harassment witch hunt. I can’t say hi anymore. People are now too easily ready to sue for sexual harassment because of this case. The world is a lot meaner."
from Alan, from New Haven
You have the Thomas's of the world to thank for that. Most women have to be on guard in the work place. It's a statistic that most(over 70%) of sexual harassment does not get reported because of the character assassination they will be subjected to, the fear of losing their job and the emotionally exhausting investigation process.
These are the facts.
Sad, but true.
There are clear guidelines of what is appropriate in the work place. I suggest you look them up and stop living in fear and ignorance.
Thomas and Scalia are competing to see who can be removed from the bench first for their mental deficiency. I thought Scalia was winning,maybe now it's Thomas. Either way the two of them are a disgrace to our nation. The concept of shaping the court to reflect the retarded of society is a socialist idea that has failed miserably. MRI testing should be required of all future candidates.
Oh god..... Not Clarence Thomas again. I cant believe he wrote a book, he has nothing to say.
To: The people offended that Clarence Thomas "got away" with sexual harrassment.
Are you more offended at Bill Clinton for a history of sexual harassment?
Dems, simply because they agree with his politics, give Bill Clinton a pass.
I guess you have to be a dem to sexual harrass. . . . otherwise lookout!
The Book of Proverbs says, "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Prof. Hill did not pick this fight – Justice Thomas did, by choosing to slander her in his memoir.
Thomas is still a judge and Anitia is still a nobody.
Everybody feel better now? I do..
Anita Hill should disappear, or at least go to work at a house of ill repute, like all others who sell themselves for money and/or attention.
She sold herself for it then, and she's trying to get a little more attention now. The question is, are we willing to buy into these falicies 16 years later, claiming partisan politics if the other side doesn't buy into them, or are we just willing to be intelligent (for a change), drop the party out of it, and realize that ... just because someone says it, then the news repeats it 100 million times, does NOT make it true... can't make it true, can't produce truth from it. Changing the definition of something to fit the situation won't make it true either.
She was nothing then, she's nothing now, those of you who idolize her hopefully will realize the crock you were lead to believe. Anyone can read stories of harrassment, and then regurgitate it out. You wonder why all the stories start to sound strikingly similar, it's because they're all starting with the same book, article, or blog entry, and then just fitting it to themselves.
Harrassment exists, man on woman, woman on woman, woman on man, man on man.... but such an obvious political ploy as this was, there just was no substance to it to begin with.
'I swear it happened this way... no... this way... no.. that way... um... what way will make it sound better to you?' is what the news media gobbles up. Sex sells, and the more sex in the story, the better it'll sell. You want sex, there is an entire industry dedicated to it, you want REAL news about things that REALLY happened, HA! good luck finding it from an American news agency, let alone CNN.
I have worked with at least one of the persons who testified in Support of Judge Thomas. I found him apolitically ambitious and skillfull lier. He was very capable of inuendo making the untrue seem true. I beleive that Anita Hill was an honest and truthful person on this basis alone. He was part of the rat pack who were friends with Thomas.