According to this article in the Washington Post, David Brock had his fingers crossed when he wrote all those hatchet jobs on Anita Hill, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton.
He now admits to making up evidence and conveniently leaving out other evidence to further an evil right-wing agenda of which he was a mere tool.
You’re a tool all right, Brock. But I hope you’ll understand if I don’t pay too much attention to someone who says, “Believe me! I’m a liar!”
I would imagine the truth lies somewhere in between his two versions. In any event, it’s a fascinating story.
There’s a well known left wing radical activist attorney (& current radio show host) in NY named Ron Kuby. He was in his youth a member of the JDL, an ultra-right wing group (which he now hates & vilifies). So apparently this guy is a profesional radical - the direction may change but the extremism remains constant.
A similar situation may be with Brock.
So if we disbelieve everything David Brock has ever said, that means Anita Hill is not a lying slut and there’s no vast right-wing conspiracy.
Sounds likely to me on both counts.
Also makes me wonder if the limitations periods for libel in D.C. and New York have expired already.
And, to add to Izzy’s example, consider David Horowitz. Former ultra-left-wing radical who hung with the Black Panthers, current ultra-right-wing demagogue.
So… does Anita Hill have a good basis for a lawsuit here? I thin it would be justfieid, but IANAL.
I’m not sure, but it DOES give us smirking rights when we run into Justice Thomas down at the porn store.
Yep. But juries hate to slap down defamation defendants who are all apologetic and stuff. Besides, Brock’s a journalist, so his pockets are probably quite shallow. The public retraction and apology are probably the best outcome Anita Hill could hope for.
I think we already had those smirking rights if we ever met Mr. Justice Thomas at a porn store, Ukulele Ike.
IzzyR and pldennison, I’d never get on someone’s case for their politics shifting. I myself voted for Reagan in 1984, Nader in 2000, for one example. People change.
The thing about Brock is, he seems to want us to take him seriously now, even while he’s telling us he was not to be taken seriously back in the day. The boy who cried wolf. I think he just wants attention.
Personally, I think the our government would be much saner if more members were openly patronizing the local porn shop.
What bothers me is that David Brock is going to ride this wave of confession to new books and articles. Its a shame, but an avowed liar is not going to have any problem publishing whatever future lies he puts out.
Neither would I. I was making a specific point about Brock, with regards to your OP (as was pldennison, presumably).
To use my example of Kuby, one might, in looking at him and seeing an extreme leftist, make the assumption that his extremism is the result of something in his mindset or personality which is attracted to the extreme left. Knowing that he was once an extreme rightist, it is more likely that he is simply attracted to extremism itself. Thus he may change orientation, but his extremism (which is uncorrelated with his orientation) will remain constant.
So too with David Brock and his veracity. One might think that his lies were related to his conservative political outlook at the time. Or it could be that his lack of integrity is a quality that is independent of his political orientation, and will be employed in service of whatever position he happens to hold at the time.
But those of his publishers are quite deep. IANAL, but I believe defamation suits would have had to have been filed within a couple of years of the actual defamation. The clock starts from the defamation, not from the admission of it. Now, if anyone were to reproduce the defamation (i.e. re-issue Brock’s articles or book) then the clock would start over.
I doubt Professor Hill would be that interested in filing suit. She was beaten down pretty thoroughly the first time.
slight hijack
I was speaking with a co-worker who basically said that Clarence Thomas was a fabulous man, all lies, blah blah blah, the media was out to persecute him.
I had pretty much been under the impression that he was a dog, Anita called him on it, and she got the squeeze for it. Can someone please provide sites or just explain to me what’s going on here? If necessary, I’ll send this on over to mpsims or what-have-you. Thanks.
I’m working from memory here, for the most part, so excuse me if this isn’t complete.
After Thurgood Marshall left the court, Pres. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas. During the Senate hearings, a woman named Anita Hill showed up and claimed that when she was working under him in the EEOC, he made sexual advances to her, and sexually harrassed her, to the point where she quit.
In spite of these accusations, Thomas was confirmed.
In 1993, David Brock, who was at the time a conservate political writer (He also wrote the article in The American Spectator, saying that President Clinton, as governor of Arkansas, used state troopers to procure women.), wrote the book “The Real Anita Hill”, where he claimed that Hill had committed perjury before the senate, that she was never sexually harassed, that she was a slut, and that Democrats orchestrated the entire thing, with Paul Simon (the senator, not the singer) leaking government info to the press, in an attempt to stop Thomas’ nomination. Since that time, Brock’s political affiliations have changed, and he’s recently confessed, as can be seen in the link in the OP, that, when he wrote the Hill book, he printed facts that he knew to be untrue, and left out evidence that didn’t support his case. He’s also stated that he worked with other conservative activists in an attempt to discredit Hill.
My recollection is the opposite. Not only did Hill not quit, but she actually followed Thomas to work under him again in a different agency. The Republicans made a big deal of this at the time, and the Demo’s resorted to claiming that “you don’t understand what a black woman has to go through to get a job”.
Though it could be that she she also claimed that she ultimately left the second job it was due to the harrassment. But I don’t recall this. Hill and Thomas had a freindly relationship up until the nomination. The Democrats had to work hard at this angle.
That is my recollection also.
Also, after she left government and was at a university, she continued to call Thomas (as shown by notes maintained by Thomas’s secretary.) IIRC she also waffled about having maintained contact with Thomas, until the secretary’s notes proved the point.
Hill’s university Dean testified that Thomas was once invited to a party at the university. When he needed a ride to the station (or airport), she volunteered to drive him.
Like I said…I was working from memory…sorry. I’ll take your word for it.
While on the subject, it was my belief at the time that Hill was essentially telling the truth, insomuch as events along the lines that she described likely did take place. But it is not likely that the harassment was as traumatizing as she later suggested. IIRC, she claimed fewer than 10 instances of harassment (all of the “talking dirty” variety) over the period of something like a year and a half. Whereas there are likely some people who would be very wounded emotionally from such unwanted impositions, there are also many people who would find it unpleasant but within the bounds of the type of jerkiness that one must sometimes put up with from employers and even friends. (According to Hill, the behavior took place only during a time period in which Thomas had no wife or girlfriend, and ceased when this situation changed. Apparently, he was a model employer - and the soul of propriety - otherwise). Hill’s actions suggested that this was the case with her.
Interesting thing is that it was in no one’s interest to say this at the time. The Democrats were using the allegations as a way to sink the Thomas nomination (their primary opposition to him was ideological) and it was in their interest to make his crimes as severe as possible. The Republicans found it useful to emphasize the crime of sexual harassment as well - both to give themselves some political cover, and also to undermine Hill’s credibility. (In addition to the inconsistency of her having maintained a friendly relationship with Thomas, there were also many inconsistencies in the details of her story. Most notably, one incident that she described as having taken place with Thomas appeared to have been lifted from a porno film or novel. According to my theory, the details were not emblazoned on her memory, and she simply forgot or confused them over the years).
As I see it, Hill was victimized by both sides in the dispute. It is likely that she would have not gotten involved in the dispute on her own, but once things got going there was probably no turning back, and she, having assumed the role of victim, was forced to tailor her positions and testimony to fit that scenario. Which of course left her open to Republican counter-attacks.
It goes without saying that all of the above is pure speculation.
That would be the “pubic hair on the Coke can” allegation. Professor Hill stated that Thomas had said something to the effect of “there’s a pubic hair on my Coke can” to her. Arlen “Magic Bullet” Spector found a passage describing something similar in the book “The Exorcist” by William Peter Blattey and accused her of lifting the story from that source. It apparently never occured to MB that it might have been THOMAS who lifted the story.
As for maintaining a “friendly relationship” with Thomas, how inexplicable is it that someone who at the time was employed in the government would want to maintain cordial relations with someone who was seen as a rising star? How many of us have ignored truly disgusting things our employers have said because we couldn’t afford not to? That’s exactly how sexual harassment works, especially the quid pro quo type (“sleep with me or you’re fired”). The harasser has all the power and the victim has no power to stop him and little or no ability to exit the situation. Hill was allegedly being sexually harassed by the man in charge of the federal agency dedicated to combatting sexual harassment; to whom was she expected to complain?
Oh, well, in that case, all is forgiven! Of course he should have been allowed to make inappropriate sexual comments to a subordinate. He had no wife or girlfriend, so redirected his sexual attention to where it wasn’t welcome was just fine!
What always gets lost in the “he said, she said” of the Thomas/Hill mess is that, regardless of whether he did or did not sexually harass Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas was not and is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court.