As you no doubt know, Virginia Thomas, wife of ultra–right-wing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, recently left a voice mail for Anita Hill, asking that she apologize for "what you did with [sic] my husband."
Since Hill did nothing "with" Clarence Thomas, Mrs. Thomas most likely meant "what you did
to my husband" — and in fact, what Hill did was accuse Thomas, under oath, of sexual harassment at his 1991 Supreme Court congressional confirmation hearing.
Lillian McEwen, who had a late-80s "six or seven year" relationship with Thomas, has recently come forward in the
Washington Post to back up Hill's side of the story, saying Hill's testimony is "
totally consistent with the way he [Thomas] lived" and that "he [Thomas]
was obsessed with porn".
McEwen just gave another, longer interview to the
New York Times, and several things emerged. The wide-ranging article is an excellent read. About Thomas:
Ms. McEwen said that pornography for Justice Thomas was “just a part of his personality structure.” She said he kept a stack of pornographic magazines, “frequented a store on Dupont Circle that catered to his needs,” and allowed his interest in pornography to bleed into his professional relationships.
“It starts inside,” she said, tapping her head during a 30-minute interview inside her three-story condominium in Southwest Washington. “And then your behavior flows from what it is that’s important to you. That’s what happened with him, certainly.”
She said she ended the relationship, in part because Thomas was "changing" — becoming "obsessed with campaigning for the president," for example. She describes this later Thomas as "obsessed, ambitious, irritable and bullying." Not the best combo for a happy life together, so she left the relationship.
This certainly sounds like the Thomas of Anita Hill's testimony at the hearings.
About the hearings themselves, she says she was surprised she wasn't called, since she had written to the man running the hearings, Sen. Joseph Biden, with whom she had worked, saying she knew Thomas well:
She said she never received a response from a note she wrote to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was running the hearings and with whom she had worked as a lawyer for the Judiciary Committee. ... “The hearings themselves were so constrained — the questioning, the subject matter — the scope of the hearings didn’t really allow for any kind of treatment of the issues that had been raised,” she said. “The kind of Clarence I knew at the time that these events occurred is the kind of Clarence that did not emerge from the hearings, I’ll say that. It was not him, and he probably would not have been on the court if the real Clarence had actually been revealed.”
Seems like a bad decision; the Dems may have blown their chances by not calling McEwen when her testimony was current.
Ms. McEwen has a book in the works, the writing of which she describes as "therapeutic." Surprisingly, however, she's having a hard time getting it published. I guess in a tell-all world, some things still can't be told (or maybe, some people may still not be told about).
Stay tuned; this may not be the end of this hard story.
GP
Read More......