Biden tells NPR he "fought like hell" to support Anita Hill and oppose Clarence Thomas'

[ucrdem]

nomination to the Supreme Court:

But I fought like hell to keep him off the court. But the point is, it took enormous courage for Anita Hill to — and she did get treated unfairly. I tried my best but she got treated unfairly — the way Republicans went after her. And I said then: You don't understand. This is about a national problem: harassment.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/18/564798115/joe-biden-remembers-his-son-in-his-new-memoir

Could it be that conventional DU wisdom on this point is, er, mistaken?

[bettyellen]

1. There were other witnesses ready to testify. And he let the GOP walk all over him.

He rolled over and let the GOP run the show, it was obvious it wasn't important to him to anyone who watched it. I'm disgusted by his lack of ownership in the whole fucked it thing.

[tammywammy]

3. He specifically talks about that

The part that I feel badly is: Anita Hill did not get treated fairly. The part that was the most difficult was there were two witnesses — one major witness, a very substantial, well-respected woman who would be able to give evidence that she was told contemporaneously by Anita Hill what was happening. And so at the last minute, she said she did not want to testify.

So I had a really bright guy running the committee, well-known guy named Ron Klein and he suggested: look, we better go to her hotel and have an affidavit where, if she says she's not going to testify, she has to sign and say she's not. We want you to testify.

Now people say I should have made her testify, but what happens if she testified and she didn't corroborate what was happening, if she remained silent? Then I knew that would make sure Clarence Thomas would be on the Court. As it turned out, he got the smallest margin of any Supreme Court justice in history who made it. But I fought like hell to keep him of the court. But the point is, it took enormous courage for Anita Hill to — and she did get treated unfairly. I tried my best but she got treated unfairly — the way Republicans went after her. And I said then: You don't understand. This is about a national problem: harassment.

[spooky3]

55. So is he blaming Anita Hill for the other witness's decision not to give evidence?

This is a terrible statement. And my recollection of Biden's role in this is quite different from his characterization.

His failure to come clean on his role and ask for forgiveness is one of the reasons why I never supported Biden for VP or Pres.

[ucrdem]

58. He's saying that the other witness/es declined to testify voluntarily.

And since he was conducting a confirmation hearing, not a sexual harassment trial, he respected their wishes. What is he supposed to apologize for?

[spooky3]

61. I watched the entire confirmation hearings. He did a terrible job as CHAIR. And if the witnesses

feared giving evidence because of how Hill was treated, that is partly a reflection on his failure to control the hearing to ensure that all witnesses were treated fairly and respectfully.

[ucrdem]

67. I'm watching the special public televised hearing he called to address this matter now.

Here's the CSPAN first-hour link. So far he's done and said everything he should:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?21974-1/thomas-second-hearing-day-1-part-1

[spooky3]

70. If you did not see the original hearing, I suggest you may want to suspend your questioning of those

who did until you have. Relying on Biden's recollection and perception of his own behavior is not wise.

Many of us who experienced sexual harassment at the time were appalled at the hearing.

[pbmus]

103. Many were appalled, and still are...Anita, where are you?

Stand up and tell the world....I know she tried to once...and our politicians (mainly male) were balless...this is a stain on the conscience of our society....and needs to be removed.

[bettyellen]

77. Other women claimed they were ready to testify. I believe them.

Watching Biden at the time I don't think he took it seriously enough. I don't think he nearly did all he could.

[tammywammy]

59. He's not blaming Anita Hill at all.

He said there was a witness that Anita Hill gave statements to who decided not to testify.

[spooky3]

63. self-delete

[tammywammy]

66. You should listen to the interview.

I heard it the other day and in no way was he blaming Anita Hill.

[spooky3]

68. No, I shouldn't. His treatment of her was bad during the hearing, and until he owns it

and takes responsibility, stating how he has learned a lot in the intervening time, etc., he is still not doing the right thing.

[ucrdem]

74. It seems she wasn't even called until after the link I gave you.

But Biden takes a good bit of slapdown from Hatch and Thomas himself just for calling her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. Yes, "failure to come clean" is a very good reason to not support a candidate...

that could explain a lot.

[ucrdem]

64. Thanks for posting this excerpt which is an important part of the story.

The weird thing is that I'd completely forgotten Biden was on our side in this, so pervasive is the conventional wisdom that he committed some kind of perfidious betrayal. I'm trying to get through the old CSPAN videos and having some PC trouble with the long ones but so far it sounds like he did everything right

[ucrdem]

73. 52 to 48.

It wouldn't have made a difference if he hadn't.

[creeksneakers2]

76. I just checked

I was wrong. Biden voted against Thomas. Sorry.

[ucrdem]

79. Yes, Biden voted nay per wiki.

Thanks for beating me to the punch!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

[tammywammy]

78. Biden did not vote for Thomas. n/t

[creeksneakers2]

80. You are right

Sorry.

[oasis]

92. So you're going to amend your error by deleting your post #72?

Right?

[creeksneakers2]

96. If you think that's a good idea I will

Seemed a little dishonest to me but I'll do it.

[oasis]

104. Thanks for deleting. There's a certain percentage of DUers

who scroll down and glance at the many headers on a thread without clicking to see the text. Many who saw your header,"Biden voted for Thomas" may have taken it to be a fact, and moved on.

IMO, it's not "dishonest" to clean up and clarify important details. It helps to avoid the desimination of misinformation.

Thanks again.

[SandyZ]

4. Talking about running and wanting him to address the issue. He chose a fail.

He rolled over. He isn't owning it.

That investigation was a real eye opener for so many women.

[DURHAM D]

8. AMEN !!!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

2. It's like he thinks we weren't watching at the time? WTF?

[DURHAM D]

7. Exactly.

Biden caved because he was afraid people might accuse him of having an issue with black men.

Couldn't let that happen but it was okay to have a problem with women, esp. black women.

[yardwork]

34. I watched the whole thing.

I was home on maternity leave. I watched every minute. I remember thinking at the time how annoyed I was with Biden. I don't recall him fighting like hell for Anita Hill. Quite the opposite.

I'm fond of Joe Biden. I appreciate many things about him. But his role in the Clarence Thomas hearing was a low point in his career.

I'm disappointed that he's bragging about it now instead of apologizing.

[EffieBlack]

89. Those of us who were watching at the time know exactly what happened

Biden's performance was disgraceful. He's one of the primary reasons Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court justice. I was willing to give him a pass as Obama's VP because, well, Obama, but if he runs for president, I won't be so kind.

He's got some 'splainin and then apologizing to do, and if he tries to rewrite history, he'd better get ready for a huge smackdown.

[spooky3]

56. And he was the CHAIR of the committee. He could have interjected when members behaved

inappropriately, in addition to not behaving badly himself. It was appalling at the time and the fact that even today he still doesn't take responsibility for what might have been forgivable by Hill and others if he had done so, and apologized, means that he still needs to be held to account.

[enough]

82. It's amazing how long people live these days! I remember those hearings

very clearly. I did a brief stint in nursery (plants) retail in a small upstart nursery that never really made it. I spent all day every day watering plants and listening to the hearings on the radio. Rarely had any customers. Sorry, but I think it may be Biden's memory that isn't exactly working.

[JI7]

5. He should take a lesson from al franken

And apologize and say he has learned and become better on the issue.

[ucrdem]

6. He says there was a corroborating witness who backed out at the last minute

leaving Anita Hill without a backup. And she was was accusing Clarence Thomas who said he was the victim of a high-tech lynch job. What is it that Biden should have done?

[DURHAM D]

9. There was more than one witness. nt

[ucrdem]

10. Were they willing to testify against Thomas on TV?

Anita Hill was very brave but it's easy to see why the second witness backed out.

[DURHAM D]

11. Yes

[ucrdem]

12. and?

Perchance a link?

[DURHAM D]

14. I don't have a direct link to my brain.

There are a couple of books about it however.

[JHB]

16. Well, I recall listening to the hearings waiting for Wright to be called, but she never was...

...even though she was waiting in a nearby hotel to be called, but since that's not a link:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15113601

or page 8 of:
https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/selectedwork/docs/anita-hill-the-complete-story-florence-graves.pdf

[ucrdem]

17. Wright seems to be the second witness Biden referred to last night.

He says she decided at the last minute she didn't want to testify. She says herself in your first link (to a 2007 NPR interview) that she was willing, but wasn't called. Is it not possible that she was willing until she wasn't?

[JHB]

23. It's always possible, but that wasn't her position when interviewed shortly thereafter...

...and no, I can't provide a link because it was a radio interview. Perhaps Pacifica Radio still has it on reel-to-reel tape in their archives, but that ain't a link.

[ucrdem]

24. You don't need another link. It's transcribed in your NPR link.

She told Michel Martin (same interviewer btw) she was ready to testify but wasn't called. Last night Biden said it was her decision and named his own corroborating witness, Ron Klein. Both are giving versions of events that don't reflect well on the other. My suggestion is that it's possible that both are telling the truth, but that Biden took a hit for something he wasn't responsible for.

[JHB]

27. For the most part I agree, since I think the error was not opposing Thomas earlier...

...on his failure to recuse himself when he had obvious conflicts of interest, and on his fairly lackluster record.

But since it came down to the sexual harassment issue, it ends up being he-said/she-said of Wright and Biden over whether she could have testified publicly, which would have broken the hs/ss dynamic of the Thomas/Hill testimony. If Biden takes the hit for taking the path of least resistance, fair or not, because he was chairman, then so be it. Comes with the territory.

If he winds up being the 2020 candidate, I won't hesitate to vote for him. But I really think Joe should be one of the people out on the campaign trail drumming up support for someone with a better sense that conservatives need to be fought.

[JHB]

31. Just as a point, that's not the interview I'm talking about...

...but it does parallel the one that I do remember hearing, either the same night as the final hearing, or the next night.

[yardwork]

35. Yes. I'm disappointed in Biden on this.

[JHB]

13. Or could it be that Joe is spinning a little?

Thomas was a mediocre nominee with conflict of interest issues, but the conservatives wanted a reliable operative in the court young enough to be there for decades. Initially Biden and other senate Democrats were not inclined to oppose too much because the conservative had thrown a tantrum over Bork and they didn't want a repeat. Plus, initially, the black community didn't know much about Thomas, but wouldn't react well to a liberals blocking a black nominee.

Two things threw a wrench in that acquiescence: Thurgood Marshall's "a black snake is still a snake" comment, which soured the cautious black support of Thomas, and the sexual harassment issue coming out, which Democratic women were tired of seeing swept under the rug. But this late-stage opposition made the Republicans go full blast supporting Thomas.

Sure it took Anita Hill a lot of courage to come forward, but she wasn't the only one. The hearings devolved into he-said/she-said, but having more than one woman would have changed that. Angela Wright was there, but she wasn't called.

And so we've had a mediocre jurist with conflict of interest issues acting as a reliable conservative operator on the Supreme Court of nearly 30 years. Is DU's conventional wisdom mistaken? Or is Joe trying to put a good face on short-sightedness?

[ucrdem]

15. The conventional DU wisdom is that Biden sliced Hill to shreds in an effort to support Thomas.

How do I know this? Because that what's I assumed until last night when I happened to catch a few minutes of his interview on NPR. And I remember the Thomas hearings; I don't know if I watched them 24/7 but I saw enough to know how it went down and I'd never thought Biden did anything dishonorable until I came to DU and found it was the CW which I had no cause to doubt, until now that is.

[JHB]

18. Can you provide examples of the instances you're thinking of when...

...you refer to that as "the conventional DU wisdom"?

That wasn't my own take on "conventional DU wisdom" on this matter, and I don't particularly single out Biden beyond his role as committee chairman.

[ucrdem]

19. Probably, but if I post links the message risks getting removed.

But I'll try to think of a workaround.

[ucrdem]

22. Archived OP, 106 replies, most tacitly accepting the OP's version of events:

Anybody know why Joe Biden STILL hasn't apologized to Anita Hill for letting the 'Pugs trash her?

Biden's never going to run for anything again after 2012, and no Thomas loyalist is going to vote Democrat next year.

Nobody who ever thought Thomas was innocent ever voted for Biden(none of the "Hill was lying" crowd were swing voters).

He knows damn well she was teliing the truth about everything.

Why can't Joe, after all these years, FINALLY man up and say "I SHOULD have protected Anita and I didn't, and I'm sorry"?

That's the Conventional Wisdom I'm referring to (my bolding). When did Biden ever dispute Hill's story? He didn't, but the OP suggests that he somehow did.

[JHB]

25. I don't see where anyone is claiming "Biden sliced Hill to shreds"...

...unless by that you mean "took the path of least resistance, which had the effect of allowing the Republicans slice Hill to shreds", but I would regard that as significantly different from how you characterized it earlier.

[ucrdem]

26. The OP above suggests that Biden disputed Hill's story. He didn't.

In fact, Biden supported Hill and opposed the Thomas nomination. That's not the impression that OP I posted above, or the DU conventional wisdom it represents, would leave us with.

[JHB]

28. can you provide a link to the op? Or do you mean yours?

[JHB]

41. OK, I found the thread you're referencing...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2396101

That thread is from 28 November 2011. Your profile says you joined DU under your present username on Jan 20, 2013, which is over a year after that thread and today is almost 6 years after that thread.

Do you have any more recent examples? Ones that would have informed your opinion of the "conventional DU wisdom"?

I don't think our positions are intractably far apart, but I do think you have, unintentionally, mischaracterized the issue as it has been discussed on DU.

[ucrdem]

48. You asked for something that is difficult to provide. I complied. You're welcome. nt

[JHB]

50. As I provided recollections of what I remeber from the time, which are not available online.

You are equally welcome.

[pnwmom]

30. The conventional wisdom is that he gave lukewarm support to Anita Hill, not that he shredded her.

And she deserved strong support.

The worst part is that there were 2 other women who had come to the hearing to testify in support of Anita, and they were never called. There was no excuse for that.

[ucrdem]

39. Right, Biden supported Hill and opposed the Thomas nomination. Publicly, on live TV.

That's the reality that has gotten lost here.

[pnwmom]

42. He gave her lukewarm support. Why didn't he go public with his knowledge

that 3 other women were present and waiting to testify? Why did he let the hearings end without hearing from them? Why didn't he present evidence about sexual harassment in the workplace?

[ucrdem]

51. Because it wasn't a trial. It was a confirmation hearing.

If the witnesses were willing to come forward without subpoenas they could have gone public themselves. They didn't.

[pnwmom]

52. Angela Wright was subpoenaed and she was waiting to be called. She sat there waiting for 3 days

and they never called her.

What's Biden's excuse for that?


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/schuster-institute-for-investigative-journalism/what-they-didnt-tell-you-_b_5070620.html

Another witness was waiting to testify against Thomas, with information that could have helped corroborate Hill’s allegations. But Angela Wright, then a North Carolina journalist who had been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and left waiting in a Washington hotel for three days, was never called to testify.

Wright heard Anita Hill and thought, “I believe her because he did it to me.” Her testimony might have changed history. She was subpoenaed. Why wasn’t she called to testify — and what would she have said if she had been?

In 1994, Florence George Graves cleared up those mysteries in the Washington Post, revealing the intricate — and bipartisan — behind-the-scenes maneuvering by several Senate Judiciary Committee members to discourage Wright’s testimony. The article, entitled “The Other Woman,” uncovered a surprising agreement among top Republicans and Democrats not to call Wright, apparently because they feared either that her testimony would create even greater political chaos or that it would doom Thomas’ nomination.

The article also revealed evidence suggesting that Thomas lied to the Committee. Several senators — including then-Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, then-Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.), and several other key senators — told Graves they believed that if Wright had testified, Thomas would not have been confirmed to the Supreme Court, where he has repeatedly voted to narrow the scope of sexual harassment law.

[ucrdem]

53. Last night Biden said she changed her mind and named a corroroborating witness, Ron Klein.

So that's where it stands on her testimony. And if she was willing to go public, couldn't she have simply held a press conference and made her allegations public?

[pnwmom]

62. Well SHE never said she changed her mind. And I believe HER, and the other two witnesses

who didn't understand why they weren't called.

Sukari Hardnett was willing to testify about why she quit her job with Thomas, and she was never called. John Greenya, the video shop owner, was waiting for a subpoena (which the committee could have issued, as they did with Wright) and was surprised to not be called.

https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/selectedwork/docs/anita-hill-the-complete-story-florence-graves.pdf

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-biden-hearing

Anita Hill, the woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, on Thursday said that as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President Joe Biden did a “terrible job” overseeing Thomas’ confirmation hearings in 1991.

Hill said on HuffPost Live that Biden failed to call witnesses and experts to testify who could have shed light on the sexual harassment claims made about Thomas.


“I think he did two things that were a disservice to me, that were a disservice more importantly to the public,” Hill said. “There were three women who were ready and waiting and and subpoenaed to be giving testimony about similar behavior that they had experienced or witnessed. He failed to call them.”

[ananda]

20. Memory can be a little blurry.

I generally like Biden, but the Anita Hill case
was not handled well at all.

[LenaBaby61]

37. "The Anita Hill case was not handled well at all."

Nope, not at all.

I like you generally like Vice-president Biden, but his memory is REALLY foggy on this.

Anita Hill was thrown to the wolves, so to speak.

[pnwmom]

29. No, the memory of DU women is correct. Biden's memory is self-serving.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/anita-hill-joe-biden_n_5002189.html

Anita Hill, the woman who accused then-Supreme Court justice nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, said Vice President Joe Biden did a “terrible job” as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman during the 1991 hearings.

Hill spoke about the hearings in an interview on HuffPost Live Thursday, saying they were meant to “inform the public.”

But Hill said Biden never called three women to testify who were subpoenaed to discuss alleged inappropriate behavior by Thomas. In addition, Hill said there were experts available who could have “given information and helped the public understand sexual harassment.”

Hill argued that Biden’s actions were both a “disservice to [her] and, more importantly, a disservice to the public.”

Watch a video of Hill’s interview above.

[spooky3]

57. Everyone at DU should read the article at your link. n/t

[Metatron]

87. Yep

I was so upset during those proceedings.

[Scruffy1]

91. I just think he didn't have the gumption to make some enemies.

Despite the rhetoric to the press the US Senate is normally a pretty collegial place. With only a hundred Senators they all know each other and need cooperation to get business done. Joe is by nature not confrontational. I'm going to thank Joe for the FMLA and wish him a happy retirement.

[pnwmom]

93. And he felt torn because Clarence Thomas was a black man

and he didn't want to seem disrespectful to him.

Problem was, Anita Hill was a black WOMAN and he allowed people like John Dogget to be disrespectful to her.

[JHB]

95. Particularly then, when conservative radicalism could still be disregarded..

...by people actively trying to disregard it, for whatever reason.

I trust that serving as Barack Obama’s VP has cured Joe of any vestigial notion of Republican honor or reasonability, but I do think his earlier blindness and unwillingness to balk at foaming conservatives puts him better in a supporting role than as a candidate.

[pnwmom]

32. Why did the Senators, including Joe Biden, allow Thomas to testify FIRST?

Why was he allowed to set the stage for Anita Hill? That was the beginning of the end.

http://time.com/5018066/anita-hill-sexual-assault-hearing-harvey-weinstein/

Almost immediately, it became apparent that Senator Biden thought he was conducting a hearing and Senator Specter thought he and the Republicans were conducting a trial. The Senators agreed that Thomas could testify first, allowing him to continue the assertion of power over Anita Hill. The Senate committee, all white men, seemed to presume that Thomas was right and Hill was wrong; that if she felt harassed, she misinterpreted Thomas’ actions, was retaliating for some promotional reason or simply had unfulfilled sexual fantasies of her own. The Democrats sought to be fair to Thomas; the Republicans fought to convict Hill. The Republicans succeeded.

[ucrdem]

36. Because it was his hearing.

I remember enough to know that Hill's claims were never going to derail that nomination. And even if Wright had corroborated her claims, they still wouldn't have. It's unfortunate but it was clear even then.

[pnwmom]

43. Oh, I see. Biden's lukewarm support was enough because Hill could never succeed anyway.

But you can't know that without knowing what the other women would have testified to. Biden himself said their testimony might have made a difference. And in any case they should have been allowed to go on the record.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/biden-anita-hill-women-senate-clarence-thomas-213864

Biden has expressed regrets about the hearings but has never apologized for them, as many Hill supporters and others wanted. He's acknowledged that he was wary of the racial dynamics involved. He's said that calling those witnesses might have killed Thomas' nomination. He and aides admit that they didn't anticipate the degree to which Republicans would target Hill personally and that they were outplayed politically.

[ucrdem]

46. Did the other witness agree to testify without subpoenas?

The problem is that Biden wasn't holding a sexual harassment trial; he was holding a fact-finding hearing on Thomas. If the witnesses were willing to testify if subpoenaed, they effectively made their testimony unavailable. Anita Hill herself originally requested confidentiality, with good reason, and agreed to testify voluntarily only after the press leaked her story.

[pnwmom]

49. They had agreed and were waiting to be called.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/schuster-institute-for-investigative-journalism/what-they-didnt-tell-you-_b_5070620.html

Another witness was waiting to testify against Thomas, with information that could have helped corroborate Hill’s allegations. But Angela Wright, then a North Carolina journalist who had been subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and left waiting in a Washington hotel for three days, was never called to testify.

Wright heard Anita Hill and thought, “I believe her because he did it to me.” Her testimony might have changed history. She was subpoenaed. Why wasn’t she called to testify — and what would she have said if she had been?

In 1994, Florence George Graves cleared up those mysteries in the Washington Post, revealing the intricate — and bipartisan — behind-the-scenes maneuvering by several Senate Judiciary Committee members to discourage Wright’s testimony. The article, entitled “The Other Woman,” uncovered a surprising agreement among top Republicans and Democrats not to call Wright, apparently because they feared either that her testimony would create even greater political chaos or that it would doom Thomas’ nomination.

[ucrdem]

54. Biden tells a different story and names a witness, Ron Klein.

I understand the difficulty of their position, but would it not have been possible for all three witnesses to make their stories public in the press?

[pnwmom]

60. Were you an adult when this was going on? Do you remember the circus-like atmosphere?

It was worse for women, and especially black women, than it is even now. Why would they have put themselves through that for nothing? Why would they have had a sense then that their testimony could have changed anyone's minds? When Anita had been accused of some made-up sex obsession by Senator Danforth because of her testimony? After Thomas had been confirmed despite Anita's VALIANT and DIGNIFIED testimony and when there was nothing they could do to help Anita at all?

[spooky3]

65. +1

[Polly Hennessey]

33. Good grief, Mr. Biden,

do you think we don’t remember. It is the one thing I cannot find it in my heart to forgive. Joe Biden’s a great guy but he folded on this one. Did he not understand that we would have Clarence Thomas for a long time. He had to know how
under qualified he was.

[robbedvoter]

40. Besides the witnesses, it was the utter disrespect he showed for her

I was watching in a public place (gym) and it was a life altering moment. Never in my life will I forget! It woke me up, politically. SNL's Dana Carvey caught him perfectly.

[ucrdem]

44. Can you elaborate?

And is it possible that you're conflating Carvey's comic sketch with the actual hearing? It was Biden who reopened the confirmation hearings to deliberate on Hill's accusations, and delayed the vote on Thomas to accomodate them. Also it seems that Hill had requested confidentiality and that her wishes had been respected until the press got hold of the story and forced it into the public consciousness:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?21974-1/thomas-second-hearing-day-1-part-1

[pnwmom]

47. His questioning of her was disrespectful.

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/biden-anita-hill-women-senate-clarence-thomas-213864

Charles Ogletree, the Harvard Law School professor who represented Hill (and once had President Barack Obama as a student), said he's still mad about how Biden handled himself back then.

“I was shocked and dismayed that Joe Biden was asking questions that didn't seem appropriate and was not in her corner as a Democrat,” Ogletree said. “The point is that he's supposed to be neutral, but his questions to Anita Hill were as piercing as anyone's.”

Ogletree said he's brought up the hearings with Biden in the years since, but hasn't been satisfied with the response. “He's said that this job was to control the hearing, that he was surprised by the result as well,” Ogletree said.

[pnwmom]

45. I agree. n/t

[still_one]

69. Sorry Joe, you were so busy pontificating, that you threw Anita Hill to the republican wolves

You were weak an ineffective, and failed miserably to protect YOUR witness, and even allow corroborating testimony on Anita Hill's behalf. Just ask Angela Wright Shannon.

You won't be able to hide from this one Joe, it is all on video, and your behavior still hasn't changed much from back then.

You don't miss an opportunity to take an indirect swipe at Hillary and let us all know how "you would have been a better candidate, and would have won". Yeah Joe, it is still all about YOU.

If you decide to run in 2020, and win the nomination, I will vote for you in the General Election, but it won't be because you are a better candidate. When you said you "never thought Hillary was the correct candidate", guess what Joe, NEITHER ARE YOU, and I hope you realize that and not run in 2020.

You have tried to run two times, and were rejected both times. Maybe there is a message there for you Joe

[ucrdem]

71. Wright apparently backed out at the last minute.

Yes he could have compelled her testimony but it was a hearing not a trial and he didn't do that. She didn't admit to that after the hearing, and Biden might not have wanted to make a big deal about it, but he named a staffer last night, Ron Klein, who apparently was part of the preparations. So there's that.

[pnwmom]

75. There is no evidence for that except Biden's say-so, and Angela Wright disagrees.

And I believe Angela Wright.

And it is undeniable is that he didn't "fight like hell" against Thomas's confirmation. He was the CHAIRMAN of the Senate Judiciary Committee and they lost by only 2 votes. His decisions on how he set up the hearing and who he called and didn't call could have made all the difference. But he was too busy feeling conflicted over whether to support a black man or the black woman who was speaking out against him.

Anita Hill could have and should have been allowed to make her statement BEFORE Thomas gave his rebuttal. Instead, Biden went along with a format that framed her as a looney before she could give a word of testimony.

You should go back and watch all the hearings. I don't think you ever did.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15113601

Angela Wright also worked with Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and alleged that she, too, was sexually harassed by him. She was later fired. Wright shares her story, including why she did not testify against Thomas during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearings.

The following is an excerpt of our interview with Wright:

First of all, I would like to ask, why didn't you testify? You were subpoenaed to come to Washington. You were interviewed. Your interview was placed in the record, but you were never called. Now, [former] Republican [Senator] Alan Simpson, at the time, said you got cold feet. Did you get cold feet?

No, absolutely not, Michel. I was fully prepared to testify. I realized it was not going to be easy, but I was – once I was there, I was committed to going through with the process. The only reason I didn't testify is because I wasn't called to testify. I was there for three days, waiting with my attorneys for the Judiciary Committee to call me, and it was their decision...

[ucrdem]

81. She was there, she was ready, but she wasn't called. But:

apparently she'd also asked that she not be called. That doesn't make her statements at the time false.

The part that was the most difficult was there were two witnesses — one major witness, a very substantial, well-respected woman who would be able to give evidence that she was told contemporaneously by Anita Hill what was happening. And so at the last minute, she said she did not want to testify.

So I had a really bright guy running the committee, well-known guy named Ron Klein and he suggested: look, we better go to her hotel and have an affidavit where, if she says she's not going to testify, she has to sign and say she's not. We want you to testify.

Now people say I should have made her testify, but what happens if she testified and she didn't corroborate what was happening, if she remained silent?

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/18/564798115/joe-biden-remembers-his-son-in-his-new-memoir

[pnwmom]

83. She said in 2007 that she was "fully prepared to testify" and "committed to going through with the

process." She said that the only reason she didn't testify is because she wasn't called. She gave ZERO indication that she'd asked not to be called.

And what is Biden's excuse for not subpoenaing the owner of the video store? He was also willing but his lawyer had recommended he wait for a subpoena -- and the committee could have issued one, just as they had for Angela Wright.

I believe Angela and Anita Hill, not Biden's self-serving recollections.

First of all, I would like to ask, why didn't you testify? You were subpoenaed to come to Washington. You were interviewed. Your interview was placed in the record, but you were never called. Now, [former] Republican [Senator] Alan Simpson, at the time, said you got cold feet. Did you get cold feet?

No, absolutely not, Michel. I was fully prepared to testify. I realized it was not going to be easy, but I was – once I was there, I was committed to going through with the process. The only reason I didn't testify is because I wasn't called to testify. I was there for three days, waiting with my attorneys for the Judiciary Committee to call me, and it was their decision...

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15113601

[still_one]

85. It still doesn't negate the obnoxious grand standing he did, and failure to protect Anita Hill from

the abuse she received during those hearings

That is just another example why many women fail to come forward and report abuse

[ucrdem]

86. Look I need to restart my laptop before I can see any more CSPAN video but

from what I can tell he went out of his way to give her a hearing, voted against the Thomas nomination, and it squeaked by with several Dem votes who were never going to be persuaded against it by any number of witnesses to Thomas' sleazy tricks, Earnest Hollings for example and several others now forgotten:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

It's a shame Thomas got the nom but blaming it on Biden is crazy. He did his bit to make Thomas' harassment public, but the other witnesses weren't willing to go on TV and I can't blame them. Hill herself requested confidentiality and the others can say what they wish but it wasn't a trial and if they politely declined to step into the glare, as they appear to have, Biden didn't force them. My strong feeling is that Biden is getting blamed for Thomas which wasn't his doing.

[pnwmom]

88. He allowed Thomas to rebut her and slur her character and frame her testimony before she had

even opened her mouth.

He allowed in witnesses like John Dogget, who accused her of erotomania, and failed to call witnesses like Angela Wright and the porn shop owner. He did a terrible job in giving her a fair hearing, much less supporting her -- and millions of women my age and older will never forget.

[still_one]

90. That was my impression, he gave the republicans free reign to slur her

[ucrdem]

101. It was a senate confirmation hearing. Yes, Arlen Specter and others

played their usual gotcha games, but Hill gave as good as she got and held up well. And I have yet to come across any evidence that Biden, who called the extra hearing and invited Hill and the others to testify, was ever anything less than cordial and kind to Anita Hill, Angela Wright, and Rose Jourdain. You can read the full transcript here, and I do mean full:

http://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/thomas/hearing-pt4.pdf

p.s. Orrin Hatch threatens to resign from the committee on page 37, and that's with 995 pages left to go.

[VermontKevin]

84. Sorry, Joe. You punted and fumbled.

[Gabi Hayes]

97. He caught his own punt?

?

He did more than fumble

Can’t believe nobody has mentioned the book that documents precisely what pmwmom so diligently documents

Here’s Wright’s story


https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/10/09/the-other-woman/ca495db5-5a09-4397-8620-fd443751c8e2/?utm_term=.bd2d51ab0bdf

Long article, but deals with why Wright was not called, and the sleazy dealings that kept Americans in the dark

If she and Rose Jourdain, who had similar testimony, had been allowed to speak, Thomas would have been revealed as the filthy liar anyone with half a neuron can see

She DID NOT back out

Chicken shit senators from both sides did not want to deal with the fact that Wright and Jourdain would have turned the already scabrous fiasco into something beyond imagining

The blame falls squarely on Biden’s refusal to do his job

A profile in taking the easy way out, to be charitable

Read the article; fascinating look at how slimy and cowardly these giants of the senate can be

Huge thanks to pmwmom for prompting this

Also

Strange Justice is the book to read, by the estimable Jane Mayer (Dark money) and Jill Abramson

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/957959.Strange_Justice

[ucrdem]

100. The transcript of the 4th day, when Hill testified, runs to 1,032 single-spaced pages.

You can download the PDF here:

http://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/thomas/hearing-pt4.pdf

It includes complete transcripts of Wright's and Jourdain's testimony to committee staffers, and on pages 439, Biden's invitation to Wright to testify personally, which she signed on page 440:

Dear Ms. Wright: It is my preference that you testify before the
Judiciary Committee in connection with the nomination of Judge
Clarence Thomas.

But, in light of the time constraints under which
the Committee is operating and the willingness of all the members
of the Committee to have placed in the record of the hearing the
transcripts of the interviews of you and your corroborating witness,
Ms. Rose Jourdain, J-o-u-r-d-a-i-n, conducted by the majority and
minority staff, I am prepared to accede to the mutual agreement of
you and the members of the Committee, both Republican and Democrat,
that the subpoena be vitiated. Thus the transcribed interviews
of you and Ms. Rose Jourdain will be placed in the record
without rebuttal at the hearing.

I wish to make clear, however, that if you want to testify at the
hearing in person I will honor that request.

Signed: Sincerely, Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Postscript on the bottom I attached from Angela Wright: "I
agree the admission of the transcript of my interview and that of
Ms. Jourdain's in the record without rebuttal at the hearing represents
my position and is completely satisfactory to me."

[The empressof all]

94. I watched every moment of those hearings that were televised

Sadly, my memory differs greatly from the Vice Presidents. Perhaps if he pulled up the videos and spent some time reflecting on how he appeared, he might come to a different opinion of his recollection.

[Gabi Hayes]

98. See my post above

Biden knows what he did

Sad!

[ucrdem]

99. Biden says she backed out, and he was running the hearings.

The 1994 WaPo article you linked to above says Wright was angling for a columnist's job, and she says she was "betrayed" by someone on her paper who published her Thomas column without her permission, thus triggering the invitation from Washington:

Wright says she never intended to have the column published; she intended it as a sample only. She showed it to some co-workers. She planned to polish it, and eventually submit it to editors, but she never got the chance. The next day, she was at work when a clerk yelled across the newsroom that she had a phone call.

It was the Senate Judiciary Committee. Its members wondered if she would be willing to talk to them about Clarence Thomas. They had heard that she'd written a column on the subject.

Someone at the paper, she realized, had betrayed her.

Something had begun that might be unstoppable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/10/09/the-other-woman/ca495db5-5a09-4397-8620-fd443751c8e2/?utm_term=.76ccc00d67c1

Wright had a lot to lose, says she was unwillingly brought into the process, says she never meant to publish the column, says a lot of things. Biden claims she declined to testify at the last minute. That was perfectly within her rights, and she probably would have paid a high price if she had. So I'm sorry but I'm inclined to believe Biden. He also named a staffer, Ron Klein, who was managing the hearing and also knew of Wright's change of mind.

[Mike Nelson]

105. Joe...

... Biden rightfully sees this as a 2020 problem. I watched. He can't clean this one up... he should be admitting he was too cozy with the Republicans and say he wished he'd done it differently.