Andrea Mitchell Lauds the 'Living Legacy' of Anita Hill, Knocks Clarence Thomas
According to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Clarence Thomas' accuser, Anita Hill, is a "living legacy." The cable anchor on Wednesday fawned over the woman who, 20 years ago, charged the now-Supreme Court justice with sexual harassment. At no point did she offer a tough question or challenge the honesty of Hill.
Instead, Mitchell treated the Brandeis professor as a larger than life figure, wondering, "How is it to live with this, this history? You are now part of history. You have been for 20 years."
Mitchell reminisced about her own role in covering the 1991 confirmation hearings, remembering, "I was a correspondent sitting right behind you. It was three days of hell. It must have been excruciating for you to do through that, excruciating for everyone involved, on both sides."
Back on the October 15, 1991 Today, Mitchell groused, "...The Republicans did a great job of hammering [Hill]. It's basically what happened in the '88 campaign. The Republicans know how to fight dirty."
On Wednesday, Mitchell had zero skepticism for Hill, touting her talking points: "Now, you took a lie-detector test, a polygraph exam, privately administered from a former FBI official and that was not paid any attention to. There were other corroborating witnesses who were not permitted to testify."
Of course, what the host didn't point out is that the Democrats controlled the Senate in 1991. Mitchell might have speculated as to why the Democrats wouldn't permit these women to testify.
Also, an October 14, 1991 USA Today poll found that 47 percent of Americans believed Thomas. Only 24 percent found Hill to be telling the truth.
Mitchell added, "How did you feel at the time about the way the hearings treated you?"
Mitchell closed by cheering, "Anita Hill, a living legacy. And thank you. Thank you for your book and thank you for being here."
Hill has written a book about the experience and also appeared on Tuesday's Good Morning America. There, co-host Robin Roberts speculated about the "legacy" of the "quiet" law professor.
A transcript of the October 12 segment, which aired at 1:30pm EDT, follows:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓[Clips of '91 hearings.]
ANDREA MITCHELL: Anita Hill is a professor and senior adviser to the provost at the Heller School for Social Policy an Management at Brandeis University. And she's the author of the new book Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race and Finding Home. Very interesting subtitle. I want to get to that in a moment. Let's talk about what we just saw, because it brings me back. I was a correspondent sitting right behind you. It was three days of hell. It must have been excruciating for you to do through that, excruciating for everyone involved, on both sides. And unresolved in the end.
ANITA HILL: Well, I think there was a resolution in the end. Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court so there was a resolution of sorts but that did not resolve the issue of sexual harassment. In fact, what happened was that the pundits all said "Look what happened to Anita Hill? Women will never come forward having that in their mind of that experience and they were absolutely wrong. So in that case, in that situation or in that instance, no, there was not a resolution and even if people thought that women were not going to come forward they were proven absolutely wrong by women who came forward in record numbers after the hearing.
ANDREA MITCHELL: Now, you took a lie-detector test, a polygraph exam, privately administered from a former FBI official and that was not paid any attention to. There were other corroborating witnesses who were not permitted to testify. How did you feel at the time about the way the hearings treated you?
HILL: I believed they were trying to portray the situation as a he said-she said. Two individuals just having a disagreement when, in fact, there was, as you say, much evidence about Thomas' behavior. Three other women. One woman got out of the hospital in order to testify. They were not called to testify. There were other individuals who knew Thomas who were able to talk about his propensities to discuss pornography and those individuals were not called to testify. But in addition, it would have been helpful to have had an expert testify about sexual harassment to talk about sexual harassment, what it is to help the Senate and the public to really understand what the problem was. That was not available either.
MITCHELL: In your book, you talk about the genesis of the book and you write that you "began to feel more at home in America than I had since 1991 when the public rejected the testimony of my life experience." Talk about that about that and how this evolved into Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race and Finding Home."
HILL: I look at "Reimagining Equality," really, as a compilation of if things that I have learned through the experience of the hearing but my training before as a lawyer and as a law professor in researcher as well as the many years since then. And I look at it through the lens of the current crisis we have the foreclosure crisis and the millions of people who are insecure about whether or not they are going to be able to find a home in America.
MITCHELL: And do you think the economic crisis has exacerbated workplace tensions or are we at a stage where the relationships between men and women, or other sexual harassment issues, are really dealt with more seriously in the workplace?
HILL: Both of those things are true. Yes. The issue of sexual harassment is dealt with more seriously. I have heard from a number of woman who say after that testimony things changed in my work place overnight. But I also know the problem does still exist. So, in fact, yes, they do still exist and we have to be vigilant about enforcing the laws and women coming forward. But the other question, part of your question, part of your question, was about the economy. We know that the economy has had a disparate impact on women in particular women who are in- not high paying jobs.
MITCHELL: More vulnerable.
HILL: More vulnerable women, single women in particular, with families, heads of households. The housing industry or housing collapse really has hit them hard, just as they were getting a foothold into real estate and property ownership.
MITCHELL: I want to ask you about Clarence Thomas, as we have seen over 20 years now, the fact that he acknowledged not disclosing his wife's earnings, some $200,000. He said he didn't understand the form or something. What do you think about the ethics issue? Some argued that the Supreme Court polices itself and he has been tone deaf to conflicts of interest involving his wife's activism. I don't know how you feel about that.
HILL: I don't want to comment on that, because that is not an issue I have looked at. But for me, my testimony at the hearing in 1991 was really about the integrity of the individual, Clarence Thomas as a nominee for the Supreme Court. My testimony, as you'll recall, I testified about behavior that took place while thomas was chair of the EEOC.
MITCHELL: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
HILL: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He was, as the chair, charged with enforcing enforcing sexual harassment laws and I believe what I said during those hearings really reflected on his integrity and his respect for the law and its application to everyone including himself.
MITCHELL: How is it to live with this, this history? You are now part of history. You have been for 20 years. Do you get past that, just personally?
HILL: On a day-to-day basis, I don't experience it sort of in visible ways as I have in the last few days. I turned on the TV the other day and there I was on History TV, a picture of me 35-year-old me 20 years ago. So that doesn't happen every day. But you know what I do get regularly that reminds me of how important that moment was for so many people what I get every day, not every day, probably once a week or routinely, are letters and e-mails from individuals saying, specifically, what the hearings meant to them. And that reminds me not only that it was important then, but that it is important now and that we must keep pushing forward on the issues until we really feel that we have eliminated sexual harassment in the workplace.
MITCHELL: Anita Hill, a living legacy. And thank you. Thank you for your book and thank you for being here.
HILL: Thank you.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
As I have said before the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:04pm.
As I have said before the only legacy Anita Hill has is presenting contradictory testimony before Congress which she could not back up with evidence and being a pawn of liberals.
For all intents and purposes, she should be only a very minor footnote in American history.
Oh, Ancient Exhalted Mummy, the history you've seen.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:10pm.
Mitchell was the flower girl at Imhotep's wedding, in case you didn't know.
So this was quite a compliment coming from her.
"Ankh if you love Andrea!"
Obsessing over a 20 year old
Submitted by forest on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:15pm.
Obsessing over a 20 year old dead-end "scandal" must be doing wonders for the dino-media's young viewer ratings.
Polygraphs are not admissible Andrea, you half-wit!
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:23pm.
A privately administered polygraph was a colossal waste of time and succeeded only in lining the pocket of some off-duty FBI polygraph operator. Polygraphs are so easy to defeat, particularly for a dissembling parasite like Anita Hill. The witnesses would have been called if the Senate majority (DEMOCRAT, Andrea--DEMOCRAT) investigators felt they had anything corroborative to add. Turns out the probably did not, outside of rumor, speculation and hearsay (the mainstays of Democrat "evidence").
Anita has hardly suffered. She gets tens of thousands per pop on the lecture circuit, has a cushy (and probably tenured) faculty position at Brandeis allowing her unlimited potential for spewing even more vacuous diatribe and she has had fawning buttkissers like Andrea lauding her for every move. Tell us again how she has suffered?
In turn, Clarence Thomas has been vilified consistently and his wife's political activities attacked despite the fact that his wife does not hold public office. Libtrash like Andrea have excoriated him for everything and anything.
Just retire, Andrea. You were a media player two decades ago. Now you are just a has-been with an audience smaller than a test pattern.
LOL
Submitted by MrLuigi on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 7:34pm.
I hate to use the sophomoric LOL but your words had me laughing out loud- and of course, I agree with you completely.
Of course
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:25pm.
It matters not to them that the "harassed" Ms. Hill followed her "harasser" to another position, as was clearly laid out in the confirmation hearings. Biden kept asking "Why would she lie?" (Cough-book deal, speaking engagements-cough) without asking "If it's so bad, why would she follow him to another appointment?!"
Using the logic, I have a question about X, so X cannot be true!
Liberal narrative in full tilt. It's just amazing how decades of liberal narrative just feeds into more narrative. Yes, and Kennedy was killed by a communist reject, because of the "Atmosphere of Hatred in Dallas" by conservatives who didn't like him. Remember when Pelosi tried to recycle that piece of garbage during the Tea Party rallies? They will always reach for a previously successful piece of crap narrative, if you don't watch them.
They both earn the worst
Submitted by PeskyDane on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:32pm.
They both earn the worst insult possible. Pity.
Red-eyed, frothing at the
Submitted by TE on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:34pm.
Red-eyed, frothing at the mouth, leftist/feminist Andrea Mitchell alleges: "There were other corroborating witnesses who were not permitted to testify."
"Other corroborating witnesses" "were not permitted to testify"? LMAO!
Conveniently and predictably, Mitchell failed to inform her tiny, brainless audience that Joe Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wonder why Mitchell failed to mention that very relevant fact?
Who is stupid enough to think that Biden, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy and every other America-hating, Constitution-hating, leftist fanatic on the committee would "not permit" any of Hill's alleged "corroborating witnesses" "to testify"?
BTW, there were no "other corroborating witnesses" as alleged by Andrea Mitchell. There were no "corroborating witnesses" for Hill to begin with. Hill's one "corroborating witness" Susan Herchner turned out to be a complete, total, lying fraud who was exposed as such by Arlen Specter.
In All Fairness
Submitted by JustAl on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:34pm.
Since I don't watch trash like MSNBC. I'm sure she also held up Juanita Broaddrick, as an example of a brave victim. . . didn't she????
Why this sudden resurrection of Anita Hill?
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 5:57pm.
I really wonder if this isn't somehow connected to Herman Cain and his recent rise in the polls, as it seems the MSM is using this as an oportunity to bash Justice Thomas, who just happens to be a black conservative as well.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave
Submitted by grammajane on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:52am.
I wrote my post after reading yours and our minds are running in the same direction. The media is so scared of Cain and are now using Thomas as ammunition toward him.
Actually, the underlying message from Mitchell is clear:
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:54pm.
She and her M.S.S.R. (MSLSD) sycophant Obama pee-stream media are going to do the same thing to Cain. They failed with Clarence Thomas, so they will do their hardest to destroy Cain.
Does your husband, Alan Greenspan .....
Submitted by jmigyanka@msn.com on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 6:38pm.
.... approve of you kissing the arse of a liar! What about your affairs? Ooooops!
Anita
Submitted by markprice1983 on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 8:31pm.
Perfect summary of Hill still stands up 20 years later: A little bit nutty, a little bit slutty.
Is all
Submitted by grammajane on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 10:20pm.
this bashing now against Thomas because Cain is becoming so popular and a conservative? Mitchell keeps this 20 year story going for fear Cain might win the nomination and in the mean time, she and many others at bsnbc are trying to dis-credit him, without sounding racist. So, re-hash a story no one gives a dam about but most realize Thomas is the best judge in centuries and it appears Anita is doing just fine also after her acadamy award in Congress.
Andrea Mitchell
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:14pm.
This is what you call Hating a black man; This is racism straight up. This is nothing more than flea-bagging elitists!
So, I'm sorry, I missed it: Is Andrea in the "news" division...
Submitted by krendler on Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:17pm.
...or the "analysis" division at NBC? I seem to see her on both the Nightly News and doing spots like this on NBC.
Speaking of which, my favorite media moment of the past 4 years was Rudy Giuliani absolutely $-h-*-tting all over Andrea's head on live TV in a post-speech interview on the convention floor at the 08 RNC. He shredded her carefully prepared gotcha question to pieces without even breaking stride. The expression on Mitchell's face was priceless. Looked like she was about to vomit.
In the book
Submitted by aposematic on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:48am.
If one were to write the history of the lies and corruption of the American left, Hill would at least garner a paragraph or maybe even a chapter.
How many volumes?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:18pm.
How many volumes?