Clarence Thomas Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill

jjm

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,505
0
0
Gee, maybe Anita Hill was more correct about Thomas than we were led to believe...


June 27, 2001

Thomas Book Author Says He Lied in His Attacks on Anita Hill

By ALEX KUCZYNSKI and WILLIAM GLABERSON

The author of a best-selling book that attacked the credibility of Anita F. Hill has disavowed its premise, and now says that he lied in print to protect the reputation of Justice Clarence Thomas.

David Brock, the author of the book, "The Real Anita Hill" (Free Press, 1993), has also suggested, in a magazine article to be published this week, that Justice Thomas used an intermediary to provide Mr. Brock with damaging information about a woman who had come forward to provide support for Ms. Hill's accusations of harassment by Justice Thomas. Ms. Hill's accusations became the focus of Senate hearings into Justice Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991.

Mr. Brock reported that he then used the information to force the woman to retract her statements about Justice Thomas. The article, in the August issue of Talk magazine, is excerpted from Mr. Brock's new book, "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex Conservative" (Crown Publishers), which is scheduled to be published in September.

Describing an article he wrote for The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, in 1992, which became the basis for his book on Ms. Hill, he said he did everything he could to "ruin Hill's credibility," using "virtually every derogatory and often contradictory allegation I had collected on Hill into the vituperative mix."

"I demonized Democratic senators, their staffs, and Hill's feminist supporters without ever interviewing any of them," he continued.

In the last few years, Mr. Brock has disavowed his conservative activism, and criticized his own and his former colleagues' attacks on their main targets, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In the Talk article, Mr. Brock said the incident involving the intermediary occurred in 1994 as he was preparing a review of a book, "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas," by two Wall Street Journal reporters, Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer, for The American Spectator. Ms. Abramson is now the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times; Ms. Mayer is a Washington correspondent for The New Yorker.

He said Mark Paoletta, a Washington lawyer whom Mr. Brock identifies as a close friend of Justice Thomas's, gave Mr. Brock damaging information about Kaye Savage, another friend of Mr. Thomas's, who had told the "Strange Justice" authors that Justice Thomas had an obsessive interest in pornography. The information, which according to Mr. Brock's account, Mr. Paoletta said came from Justice Thomas, involved personal details about Ms. Savage's divorce.

Mr. Brock wrote that he used the information to intimidate her into recanting her account, threatening that he would "blacken her name, just as I had done to every other woman who had impugned Thomas's reputation."

In an interview, Mr. Paoletta, now senior Republican counsel to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, denied Mr. Brock's account.

"It's not true," he said. "Justice Thomas did not ask me to pass along any derogatory information about Kaye Savage."

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, Kathy Arberg, said yesterday that the justice had no comment.

Reached at home in Washington last night, Ms. Savage said that Mr. Brock had tried to intimidate her but that he had not told her the source of the negative information.

"I didn't think to ask," she said.

But she said that she had shared the information about her divorce with few people and that Justice Thomas and Ms. Hill were "primarily" those to whom she had confided.

"He either got it from Clarence or he got it from Anita," Ms. Savage said, "and Anita's my friend."

Mr. Brock also said in the magazine excerpt that Mr. Paoletta told him that Justice Thomas rented pornographic videos from a store called Graffiti Video.

Mr. Brock wrote that in an effort to protect the conservative political agenda, he "consciously lied" in the review of "Strange Justice" in The American Spectator.

In the review, Mr. Brock wrote that there was no evidence that Justice Thomas had "ever rented one pornographic video, let alone was a habitual consumer of pornography."

In the excerpt, Mr. Brock writes: "When I wrote those words I knew they were false. It was the first and last time that I consciously put a lie in print."

Mr. Paoletta denied Mr. Brock's statement that Mr. Paoletta had told Mr. Brock that Justice Thomas had often rented pornographic movies from a store named Graffiti Video when Anita Hill worked for him.

In the interview yesterday, Mr. Paoletta said, "I do not know whether Justice Thomas ever rented pornographic videos at any time."

When he was a writer for The American Spectator, Mr. Brock also wrote an article titled "Troopergate," in which he reported accusations from Arkansas state troopers about Bill Clinton's private life when he was governor of Arkansas. Later, when Mr. Brock was working on a biography of Hillary Clinton, he had a change of heart about the attacks on the Clintons and has since defended them.

Earlier this year, during the confirmation hearings for Theodore B. Olson, President Bush's nominee for solicitor general, Mr. Brock accused Mr. Olson of being an active part of a campaign to air damaging information about the Clintons, an accusation that Mr. Olson, who is now solicitor general, denied.

Link
 

WordSmith2000

Banned
May 4, 2001
328
0
0
Just another isolated incident of a conservative coming clean. Prepare to be slammed, prepare to have the article slammed, prepare to have the source slammed, prepare to see the conservatives come out and deny, deny, spin and deny....

I wonder if we will now hear about the 8 other women who leveled the same charges against Thomas; their stories were read into the congressional record instead of airing (I wonder why?)

Sigh.

He is a SCJ now, there is nothing you can do to him...
 

jjm

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,505
0
0
Actually, if the evidence against him is clear, public outrage could make him step aside without having to resort to any (edit: fixed typo) legal procedings.
 

Shantanu

Banned
Feb 6, 2001
2,197
1
0
Who cares? :disgust: Clarence Thomas is the most unnecessarily maligned man in American politics. Compared to the usual "Clarence Thomas is Hitler" or "Clarence Thomas is the anti-Christ" remarks you hear from left-wingers every week (hell, there was a report of the ACLU bitching at Clarence Thomas just yesterday at Foxnews.com), this is nothing.

If you're gonna dig some dirt on a guy whose already survived so many beatings, you've gotta do better than "Clarence Thomas's biographer lied" or "Clarence Thomas rented pornographic videos"
 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
THIS is going to an interesting thread. Y'all hold off long enough to let me go get a nice tall glass of iced tea, would ya?
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
I don't trust hardline Republicans. I don't trust hardline Democrats.


I especially don't trust anyone who can swing from being one extreme to the other.
 

snakesnfrogs

Banned
Mar 1, 2001
3,411
0
0


<< THIS is going to an interesting thread. Y'all hold off long enough to let me go get a nice tall glass of iced tea, would ya? >>




bring back some chips or popcorn, too
 

WordSmith2000

Banned
May 4, 2001
328
0
0


<< Compared to the usual &quot;Clarence Thomas is Hitler&quot; or &quot;Clarence Thomas is the anti-Christ&quot; remarks you hear from left-wingers every week (hell, there was a report of the ACLU bitching at Clarence Thomas just yesterday at Foxnews.com), this is nothing.

If you're gonna dig some dirt on a guy whose already survived so many beatings, you've gotta do better than &quot;Clarence Thomas lied&quot; or &quot;Clarence Thomas rented pornographic videos&quot;
>>



First you lie, then you deny, then you spin, then you lie again...
There has been one ONE article in the press where people compared CT to Hitler; and you DO NOT know the political affiliations of the persons who made that comparison. So, you are lying to push your agenda.

If CT did lie during his confirmation hearings, he may have commited a felony. I do not want such persons sitting on the bench of the highest court of the land. And before you go off and cite ancient history about President Clinton...Clinton is retired, Thomas is not.
 

jjm

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,505
0
0
Shantanu - Justices don't run for elections. He's not in politics at all. At least he should not be.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Liberals crack me up. They called David Brock an obsessive liar, said that you shouldn't trust a single word he ever wrote, constantly attacked him as a right wing whacko, not to be trusted.

NOW they suddenly take his word as Gospel.

Russ, NCNE
 

Helpless

Banned
Jul 26, 2000
2,285
0
0
>..Clinton is retired..<


Well, that would depend on what the definition of the word &quot;is&quot; is.
 

jjm

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,505
0
0
Nice way to &quot;spin&quot; the source, Russ. Now, where have we seen that before?
 

brennan

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
330
0
0
No, Russ, liberals called him a liar, and now he's confirmed that they were right all along. Conservatives took his word as the gospel, and now they're denouncing him.

Spin, spin, spin...
 

WordSmith2000

Banned
May 4, 2001
328
0
0


<< Liberals crack me up. They called David Brock an obsessive liar, said that you shouldn't trust a single word he ever wrote, constantly attacked him as a right wing whacko, not to be trusted.

NOW they suddenly take his word as Gospel.
>>



The head spinmeister speaks!

A more apt comparison:
You have a co-worker who tries to convince you for a week that 2+2=5
He tells you that 2+2=5 so many times that, even though you know it is 4, you almost believe him.

Then one day he says, &quot;I have had my eyes opened...2+2 really does equal 4!&quot;
You have a choice...you can think he was just as deluded as before...or you can think that he finally came around to reality.

The decision you make says a lot about YOU.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
jjm,

I'm not &quot;spinning&quot; anything. You people didn't believe him then, why do you now find him to be truthful? It's simple. Because he's saying what you want to here.

Russ, NCNE
 

snakesnfrogs

Banned
Mar 1, 2001
3,411
0
0


<< The decision you make says a lot about YOU. >>




and David Brock's decisions say a lot about his character or credibility---he has none
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0


<< You have a choice...you can think he was just as deluded as before...or you can think that he finally came around to reality. >>



Or you can think he's a freaking loon and not trust him as far as you can throw him from now on...
 

brennan

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
330
0
0
A scenario:

One day, I start claiming that Russ is a dog-beating baby-eater. Russ denies it, and says that I'm lying. A great many people who didn't like Russ in the first place agree with me and spread the word of his dog-beating baby-eating ways far and wide. Others point out that there's no good reason to think badly of Russ, and that I'm most probably lying. A while later, I recant what I said: Russ, I now say, never beat dogs or ate babies.

Now, Russ, by your logic, those who said I was lying should now believe what I said in the first place. They shouldn't agree that I was lying all along, but should rather denounce me, and say that if I was a liar before, I'm a liar now, and that Russ probably eats babies after all. By extension, those who believed me in the first place should probably believe my second story.

You do realize that this is patently insane, right? By this sorry-ass logic, the Democrats should be defending Thomas, and the Republicans who believed Brock's original story should believe his second story, and impeach Thomas.

Ooooookay.
 

AaronP

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
4,359
0
0
C-Thom as I like to call him is one of the few justices who still use COMMON SENSE when making decisions.

I can't wait till one of the libs steps down, hopefully Ginsburg, she is the worst.

Heck, I wouldn't mind if O'Conner stepped down, then Bush could put a good common sense conservative on the bench, and we can get this ridiculous Roe vs Wade overturned.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< Actually, if the evidence against him is clear, public outrage could make him step aside without having to resort to any (edit: fixed typo) legal procedings. >>



How many times in U.S. history has that happened, that a public official simply stepped down without being thrown out?

Besides, i thought that what someone did in private didn't matter? Wasn't that the mantra of two years ago?
 

jjm

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,505
0
0
glenn1 - The accusation against Thomas, if true, is not some private matter. He was accused of using his position to exert pressure on subordinates. Even Slick was not accused of that. Monica, by her own admission, pursued him.

AaronP - As long as the Senate is in Democrats' hands, there is not a chance for a Roe v. Wade opponent to win confirmation. But you are proving my point about the Christian Coalition wanting to limit freedom. As I said, whether or not you agree with abortion, laws limiting its availability represent a further limit on freedom.

Okay, Russ, so since both stories are opposites, what's the truth about Thomas? Certainly one of them is. I will be curious to see if anyone steps forward to say that they have proof that Brock's original book was true. If not, then I guess we'll have to assume it was not.
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
author BROCK NOW CHARGES that Supreme Court Justice Thomas used him to spread derogatory information about one of Thomas?s critics ? an allegation strongly denied yesterday by the man who Brock says was the intermediary between them.
?Thomas was complicit in an effort to discredit another witness against him with negative personal information, which is exactly what he claimed the Anita Hill forces had done to him,? Brock said in an interview. Thomas declined to comment through a court spokeswoman.

Maybe some day he will fess up. That may be grounds to have the pervert removed.

To see Russ and his followers try and defend this guy by discrediting the author is so eye opening about their character. Draw your own conclusions and consider the source.

WP: Author says he lied about Anita Hill
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |