It’s no wonder Anita Hill initially called the police, thinking she was being pranked. Who ever expects the wife of a Supreme Court Justice to call out of the blue and ask for an “apology” for…well, not lying under oath nearly twenty years prior about being sexually harassed?
Via ABC News:
“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginny Thomas,” said the voice, “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”
Hill didn’t think the call was real.
“I initially thought it was a prank,” Hill tells ABC News. “And if it was, I thought the authorities should know about it.”
She reported the call to campus police.
Mark Matthews of our affiliate KGO learned about this and reached out to Virginia Thomas.
Thomas emailed him, saying: “I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”
Hill tells ABC News: “Even if it wasn’t a prank, it was in no way conciliatory for her to begin with the presumption that I did something wrong in 1991. I simply testified to the truth of my experience. For her to say otherwise is not extending an olive branch, it’s accusatory.”
She continues: “I don’t apologize. I have no intention of apologizing and I stand by my testimony in 1991.”
Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, is best known for her Tea Party organizing roots, having no qualms about staying on the political sidelines despite her husband’s need to have an appearance of non-partisanship. The New York Times recently reported:
Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, is the founder and chief executive of Liberty Central, a nonprofit organization set up to “restore the greatness of America,” in part by opposing the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress. Its first contributions of $500,000 and $50,000 came from undisclosed donors. The size of those gifts, their anonymity and their importance to the organization raise a serious issue of ethics for Justice Thomas.
Sarah Field, an executive of Liberty Central, told The Times that the organization pays Mrs. Thomas. Justice Thomas is a beneficiary of that pay and has a responsibility under federal law to “inform himself” about who the donors are because they have an impact on Mrs. Thomas’s personal financial interests.
Mrs. Thomas is not legally required to disclose the donors. That is unfortunate, but she does have a duty to do so, just as former President Bill Clinton had a duty to disclose the donors to his library and charitable ventures when his wife became secretary of state.
Justice Thomas needs disclosure to know if either of those donors is a party in a case before the Supreme Court or has an interest in a party. That is the only way he can comply with a fundamental ethical and legal requirement to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Could this new ploy be a way to get Thomas back in the headlines in a way that doesn’t scream of impropriety and possible back door dealings? Instead, it’s just reminded everyone of the days of public hair on coke cans, and a porn called Long Dong Silver.