It seems clear to me that the Democrats on the Judiciary (and I say that because I find it incredible that Ranking Member Feinstein had such a juicy tidbit as the Ford letter and not tell) secretly investigated Blasey Ford’s claims and held back for two reasons: 1) the allegations were not supported and were too thin to survive scrutiny and 2) thin allegations are far more useful when used to create public doubt.
Now we are subjected to an assault on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court because Ford made “credible accusations”. Democrats also want to dredge up 27 year-old allegations against Clarence Thomas so they can say there are now two SCOTUS Justices who have been “credibly accused” of sexual assault.
But were the accusations truly credible?
The Hill accusations and testimony before the Judiciary Committee in 1991 bear striking resemblance to the accusations and testimony of Christine Blasey Ford before the same committee in 2018.
Hill’s allegations differed from those of Ford because they were more contemporaneous and made more substantial because criminal conduct in a federal workplace was alleged – the offices of the EEOC where she worked for Justice Thomas. That is why the FBI re-investigated – the FBI has the authority to investigate federal crimes.
Four women testified on Hill’s behalf, swearing that she had told them long before Judge Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court that he had pressed her for dates and made suggestive remarks with such intensity that she resigned as his assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1983.
At the time, as today with Ford, none of the “corroborating” witnesses saw the alleged conduct themselves, they only testified that Hill told them years later that there was a problem. This was not corroboration of the alleged events, merely that Hill told the witnesses that the events occurred.
Susan Hoerchner was Hill’s star witness—the only witness to testify that Hill told her at the time specifically that she was being sexually harassed by Thomas but, as in Ford’s case, there was a timeline problem – Hoerchner testified that Hill told her about the harassment three months BEFORE Hill worked for Thomas.
So, even though Hill’s accusations had a specific place and time, there were still timeline issues.
Again, sound familiar?
There were also allegations of witnesses supporting Hill’s story who were not allowed to testify or be interviewed – but apparently in 1991, hearsay was more readily recognized. NPR identified a “fifth witness” who was not called as Sukari Hardnett. Hardnett wanted to corroborate Anita Hill’s testimony about then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas but was not called before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
So what would have been Ms. Hardnett’s contribution to justice?
Hardnett was not employed at the EEOC at the same time as Hill and had no knowledge of any of the specific incidents but in her own words, “…I knew that what she [Hill] was saying was true because I’d observed some of those very same situations myself.”
Sounds a lot like the “Well, we don’t know Brett or about anything he did but we know how those Georgetown Prep boys are, so he must be guilty” we have heard over the past few weeks.
It should be noted that the two FBI agents who interviewed Hill, wrote a report to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, Democrat Joe Biden, stating that since Hill’s testimony before the Committee differed from their interview with her in material and significant ways, they believed her “not to be truthful”.
Hill’s accusations and testimony were not credible and neither were Ford’s. Neither were corroborated by any witnesses. No doubt they both told stories that were useful to the opposition of Kavanaugh and Thomas but in the end, neither were factual.
Were the stories compelling?
But neither were credible.
What was old is new again. I guess in a time when Magnum, P.I., McGyver, Hawaii Five-O and Murphy Brown are being recycled, it’s not too much of a stretch that the Democrats would recycle a high-tech lynching.