Sunday, October 13, 1991 Evening Session

[Statement of Mr. Grayson, Vice President, Goldman Sachs and Co.]

MR. GRAYSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Thurmond, members of this Judiciary Committee.

My name is Stanley E. Grayson. I reside in the city and State of New York. I am a vice president at the investment banking firm of Goldman Sachs & Company. Immediately prior to joining Goldman Sachs, approximately 20 months ago, I served as the Deputy Mayor for Finance and Economic Development for the City of New York.

I am a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School and the College of the Holy Cross.

During the weekend of August 10, 1991, while at the hotel and conference headquarters for the American Bar Association's convention, in Atlanta, Georgia, I was introduced to Professor Anita Hill by Mr. Carleton Stewart.

At this meeting, Ms. Hill, Mr. Stewart and I sat and conversed for at least 30 minutes. During the course of our conversation, in the presence of Mr. Stewart, Ms. Hill expressed her pleasure with Judge Thomas' nomination, and stated that he deserved it.

During this time, Ms. Hill made no mention of any sexual harassment by Judge Thomas, nor did she in any way indicate anything that might call into question the character or fitness of Judge Thomas for the U.S. Supreme Court. To the contrary, she seemed to take great pride in the fact that she had been a member of Judge Thomas' staff at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

SENATOR DECONCINI: Thank you.

Dean Kothe, let me just ask you a question here. References are made here in different statements about a period of time when Judge Thomas was visiting you and apparently staying at your home. There was a dinner, where Professor Hill was invited and a breakfast the next morning where Professor Hill was invited, as was Judge Thomas, then Chairman Thomas, and that she drove Judge Thomas to the airport.

My recollection is that Professor Hill said that you asked her to do that. Do you recall those incidents, and did you ask her to do it? And if you did ask her to do it, did she leave any impressions, verbal or physical, that she didn't want to be with Judge Thomas or had any problem doing what you asked her to do, if you did ask her to take him to the airport? Do you remember the incident, first of all?

MR. KOTHE: Oh, yes, but you would have to describe the setting, to fully understand even the importance of your question.

You know, the part that offends me so much here is that Clarence Thomas has never been described. You say who is the real Clarence Thomas? Well, the real Clarence Thomas is a warm, wonderful human being.

SENATOR DECONCINI: Yes, I understand that.

MR. KOTHE: Let me finish.

SENATOR DECONCINI: Just address the area, if you will, please.

MR. KOTHE: Yes, I will. At that breakfast, if you ever heard him laugh, it would vibrate this room. Anita doesn't have just a modest little laugh, either, and the two of them were just laughing, and it was laughing at laughing, incidents they would bring up about things that they were privy to that I was not, but my wife and I would sit there and just watch these two people just enjoy one another, as you do when you are in his presence.

When it ended, time to go to the airport, whether I asked her to take him to the airport, I don't think it was that way. It was a question of his going to the airport and she just said, "Well, I'll take him," and that's the way I recall it. But it was in a setting of conviviality or joy.

SENATOR DECONCINI: Of close friendship and respect in the--

MR. KOTHE: Oh, my, you would have had to have been there to understand it.

SENATOR DECONCINI: Thank you, dean, very much.

Mr. Doggett, your affidavit is of interest, of course, because if you want to draw something from it, you can, and if you don't want to, you don't have to. One thing you can draw from it is that perhaps Ms. Hill--when you knew her then, she was not Professor Hill, I don't believe--would somewhat fantasize as to a relationship that she thought she was going to have with you. Is that a fair observation or your interpretation?

MR. DOGGETT: That was the conclusion I came to, in response to what I felt was an absolutely bizarre statement she made to me at her going-away party.

SENATOR DECONCINI: Thank you. I have no further questions.

SENATOR BIDEN: [Presiding.] Senator Thurmond?

SENATOR THURMOND: I have asked Senator Specter to propound to these witnesses.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have heard many impressive witnesses during the course of these proceedings, but I do not believe that we have heard any more impressive than this panel.

I want to divide the first portion of the 15 minutes into two segments. Professor Kothe and Mr. Doggett have both submitted affidavits, which develop the statement of a fantasy on the part of Professor Hill, and I will examine both of them to see if there was any connection or any suggestion as to their use of the word "fantasy," and I can see Professor Kothe moving forward to suggest to the contrary, but I will come to that.

I first want to take up the testimony of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Grayson, because their testimony is much briefer, although by the time you finish your questioning tonight, you won't think so.

Going to a very important conversation which was held very recently, according to the statements of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Grayson, in August of this year, and a subject that I questioned Professor Hill about in detail, Mr. Stewart, you have already testified, and the critical part of your statement or your affidavit is, as follows:

"In August of 1991, I ran into Ms. Hill at the American Bar Association Convention, in Atlanta, Georgia, whereupon she stated to me in the presence of Stanley Grayson, 'How great Clarence's nomination was and how much he deserved it.'"

Mr. Stewart, are you sure that's the essence of what Professor Hill told you?

MR. STEWART: Absolutely.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Grayson's statement refers to the weekend of August 10, 1991, at the American Bar Association Convention, in Atlanta, Georgia, where he says he was introduced to Professor Hill by Mr. Stewart, and this is his statement: "During the course of our conversation, in the presence of Mr. Stewart, Ms. Hill expressed her pleasure with Judge Thomas' nomination and stated that 'he deserved it.'"

Mr. Grayson, are you certain that Professor Hill said that?

MR. GRAYSON: Yes, I am, Senator.

SENATOR SPECTER: Later I'm going to come back to what Ms. Hill said by way of denial. But for the point of the first 15 minutes, I want to move at this point to what Mr. Doggett and Mr. Kothe have had to say.

And, Professor, I want to start because of limitation of time, and you will be expanding in great detail on your statement, and I want to turn to the statement which you submitted on October 7th and ask you if you have a copy of that with you?

MR. KOTHE: I have the statement I submitted on October 10.

SENATOR BIDEN: Senator? Senator, I am not interrupting this. On an administrative matter.

SENATOR SPECTER: Yes.

SENATOR BIDEN: In light of the hour, do you mind if I make an announcement about the remainder of the witnesses that people may be interested in knowing.

SENATOR SPECTER: I would be glad to yield to you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: And I apologize, but this just has been decided.

We only have now only one more panel of witnesses and it will be limited to an hour. Because I would like to read to the Committee a letter that I sent to, after a number of conversations with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to Ms. Wright, who was going to testify, or potentially going to testify, had been subpoenaed, and to Ms. Jourdain, who was going to corroborate the testimony of Ms. Wright.

This is the letter that I telefaxed to her lawyer in the office in downtown Washington a few minutes ago after extensive negotiations and discussions with Democrats and Republicans and Ms. Wright's lawyer.

Dear Ms. Wright: It is my preference that you testify before the Judiciary Committee in connection with the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas. But, in light of the time constraints under which the Committee is operating and the willingness of all the members of the Committee to have placed in the record of the hearing the transcripts of the interviews of you and your corroborating witness, Ms. Rose Jourdain, J-o-u-r-d-a-i-n, conducted by the majority and minority staff, I am prepared to accede to the mutual agreement of you and the members of the Committee, both Republican and Democrat, that the subpoena be vitiated. Thus the transcribed interviews of you and Ms. Rose Jourdain will be placed in the record without rebuttal at the hearing.

I wish to make clear, however, that if you want to testify at the hearing in person I will honor that request.

Signed: Sincerely, Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Postscript on the bottom I attached from Angela Wright: "I agree the admission of the transcript of my interview and that of Ms. Jourdain's in the record without rebuttal at the hearing represents my position and is completely satisfactory to me."

SENATOR BIDEN: Translated Ms. Wright and Ms. Jourdain will not testify at the hearing. Their extensive interviews conducted by the majority and minority staffs will be placed in the official record available to all of our colleagues and to the press and the world, without rebuttal, in the record.[The interviews referred to follow:]

SENATOR BIDEN: And that will, at least as far as this Committee's investigation at this moment of those two witnesses, end the matter. Now--and not in the matter in terms of judgment, in the matter in terms of witnesses.

So we are taking extensive testimony placed in the record by both majority and minority at the request of Republicans and Democrats as well as the potential witness. That is why I vitiated the subpoena, in spite of the fact I would have preferred her to be here. But, in light of the time constraints, I did not insist that that be done.

Now that means for the remainder of the night, I hope this doesn't encourage people to go longer than they otherwise would. For the remainder of the night, the only witnesses remaining are the four distinguished gentlemen before us and a panel of nine witnesses that are being produced by Judge Thomas, all women who worked in some capacity with him at, I believe all were at EEOC. Don't hold me to that. It could be at Education as well.

Each will be by previous unanimous consent agreement limited precisely to three minutes. No more time will be allowed. And there will be 16 minutes a side to cross-examine if anybody wishes to do that.

I say that to the press and others who have been here so long trying to determine what the remainder of the witness list is.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Mr. Chairman?

SENATOR BIDEN: I yield to my friend from Ohio.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly think we should conclude the hearing with respect to these witnesses. But I wonder whether, in view of the fact that it is now 11:30 at night, and the next nine witnesses, of those nine I think seven of them are employed by the Administration either at the EEOC or at the Labor Department or the Department of Education, and two of them, one is a former secretary to Senator Danforth and one is a former chief of staff to Clarence Thomas--I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we couldn't stipulate that all of that testimony will be very supportive of Clarence Thomas? I don't think there is any argument about that. I don't know why there is any reason to have to hear it. And, frankly, I think in fairness to this Committee and in fairness to the candidate that it would serve just the same purpose. We know what the testimony will be.

SENATOR BIDEN: I appreciate the Senator's request. And, as I hear from one of my friends from the far West and my right, not far right, a deal is a deal. They will be heard unless they choose to decide as two panels have on behalf of the witness, Ms. Hill, unless they so choose they will be heard because we have a unanimous consent agreement to do just that.

Now, with that, I apologize to my friend from Pennsylvania. I hope someone has kept some notion as to how much time--how much time does the Senator have left? He has nine minutes left. Six minutes had expired when I interrupted. And you will have time to come back, if you wish.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: I apologize to the gentleman for the interruption.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Stewart, after Professor Hill said to you "how great Clarence's nomination was and how much he deserved it," did you continue to have a discussion with Professor Hill?

MR. STEWART: Correct.

SENATOR SPECTER: Was there any mention at all of any sexual harassment by Judge Thomas of Professor Hill?

MR. STEWART: No mention at all, Senator.

SENATOR SPECTER: Or any other unfavorable conduct of Judge Thomas?

MR. STEWART: No, none at all, Senator.

SENATOR SPECTER: And, Mr. Grayson, after, as you have testified, Professor Hill said about Judge Thomas that he deserved it, referring to the Supreme Court nomination, was there any discussion by Ms. Hill of anything derogatory about Judge Thomas?

MR. GRAYSON: No, Senator.

SENATOR SPECTER: Is it Professor "Koth-e"?

MR. KOTHE: Well, you use the Pennsylvania Dutch pronunciation. Actually it is "Ko-the."

SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Koth?

MR. KOTHE: Kothe.

SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Kothe--

MR. KOTHE: Right.

SENATOR SPECTER: I would like you just to start, because time is limited and I can assure you there will be many questions on the body of your statement later, but because I want to move to Mr. Doggett in just a moment I would like you to just read the final paragraph of your statement of October 7th, if you would, please?

MR. KOTHE: I read it.

SENATOR SPECTER: Would you read it, please?

MR. KOTHE: "I find the references to the alleged sexual harassment not only unbelievable but preposterous. I'm convinced that such is a product of fantasy."

SENATOR SPECTER: Professor Kothe, did anybody suggest to you that you use the word "fantasy" in describing Professor Hill's conduct?

MR. KOTHE: No. In the second statement that I made on October 10 I left that off. That wasn't intended as words of art or scientific expression. It was just the instant reaction I had to this awful event. When I heard what the allegations were, my instant reaction was that it is just unbelievable, preposterous, and then I said that it must be a product of fantasy. Because if you just knew these people and knew Clarence Thomas, you would know that that couldn't possibly have been true.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, Professor Kothe, was there anything that you could point to in Professor Hill's conduct which would lead you in either an evidentiary or a feeling way to that conclusion of fantasy?

MR. KOTHE: No. I think perhaps my selection of words there was probably unfortunate. I have never seen Anita Hill in a situation where she wasn't a decent person, a dignified person, a jovial person. I have never seen her in a situation where actually you would say she is fantasizing in that sense. I almost regret that I used that in my first testimony.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, then how would you explain Professor Hill's charges against Judge Thomas in the context of your very forceful testimony in support of Judge Thomas?

MR. KOTHE: There is just no way of explaining it. How she ever was inclined to make such an observation is something that is totally beyond my comprehension. If you knew these two people as we all have known them, and evaluate that or equate that in the context of what has been alleged here, it just, it just couldn't be the same person, you wouldn't think.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Doggett, turning to your affidavit, and I am going to ask you for the conclusions first before you comment on the substance of your statement. And permit me to comment, I found your testimony of your professional background extremely, enormously impressive.

And let me now move to the last line in the third full paragraph where you--well, why don't you read the last sentence in the third full paragraph on page 2, if you would, please?

MR. DOGGETT: "I came away from her 'going away' party feeling that she was somewhat unstable and that in my case she had fantasized about my being interested in her romantically."

SENATOR SPECTER: And, if you would now, Mr. Doggett, read the paragraph on page 3?

MR. DOGGETT: "It was my opinion at that time, and is my opinion now, that Ms. Hill's fantasies about my sexual interest in her were an indication of the fact that she was having a problem with being rejected by men she was attracted to. Her statements and actions in my presence during the time when she alleges that Clarence Thomas harassed her were totally inconsistent with her current descriptions and are, in my opinion, yet another example of her ability to fabricate the idea that someone was interested in her when in fact no such interest existed."

SENATOR SPECTER: Now, Mr. Doggett, while your testimony has already, in effect, answered this question, I want to ask you explicitly did anyone suggest to you that you use the word "fantasy" in describing your conclusion about Professor Hill?

MR. DOGGETT: I talked to no one about my affidavit and the contents of my affidavit. I was quite frankly amazed when I heard the Professor had used the same term. In fact, just to make it very clear, I have not talked to the Judge, have not talked to any of these witnesses, I have not talked to the women that preceded us.

SENATOR SPECTER: Now, Mr. Doggett, what happened between you and Professor Hill which led you to conclude that she was fantasizing?

MR. DOGGETT: At a "going away" party for Anita Hill before she went to Oral Roberts University Law School, soon after I arrived and relatively early in that "going away" party she asked me if we could talk in private, and I agreed, having no reason to see that that was inappropriate.

And she talked to me like you would talk to a friend who you are going to give some advice to help them "clean up their act." She said, "Something I want to tell you"--and this is what I have quoted in my affidavit, and it is the only part of my affidavit that talks about her statements that is in quotes because it was emblazoned in my brain because it was such a bizarre statement for me.

She said, "I'm very disappointed in you. You really shouldn't lead women on, or lead on women, and then let them down."

I came to a woman's "going away" party who I really didn't know very well. She says, "Hey, let's talk in the corner," and she said, "You led me on. You've disappointed me." And it is like, What? Where is this coming from?

I don't know about you, gentlemen. Washington, D.C., is a very rough town if you are single and you are professional, for men and for women. Most people come here to be a part of the political process. They have legitimate, real ambitions. And it is a lonely town, a difficult town to get to know people because people are constantly coming in and coming out.

I came to Washington, D.C., to be part of the business process. I was not interested in politics. I wanted to be an international management consultant. And the first time I met Anita Hill I sensed that she was interested in getting to know me better and I was not interested in getting to know Anita Hill. And, based on my experience as a black male in this town, I did everything I could to try not to give her any indication that I was interested in her, and my affidavit talks about that in some detail.

Even when I was jogging by her house and she said, "Hi, John," and we had a conversation, and she raised the issue of, well, since we are neighbors why don't we have dinner, I tried to make it very clear that although I respected her as a person and as a fellow alumnus of Yale Law School, and as somebody I thought was very decent, the only relationship I was interested in was a professional relationship.

And, as I stated in my affidavit, she said, "Well, what would be a good time?" and I was in my jogging clothes and so obviously I don't have a calendar with me. I said, "Well, I will check my calendar and I will get back to you." And I checked my calendar and I said, "Looks like Tuesday will work. You get back to me if that will work and let's talk about a place."

Later on with that dinner agreement, arrangements fell through, she gave me a call and said, "What happened?" I said, "What do you mean what happened? I never heard from you." She said, "Well, I never heard from you." And apparently, we both had expected the other person to call to confirm.

At the end of that I never heard from you, I never heard from you, if I was interested in her the logical response would have been, "Well, since we didn't get together this time, let's do it again." There was no response, and there was a very awkward, pregnant pause and the conversation ended.

And I never saw Anita Hill again until that "going away" party where she dropped at bombshell on me.

SENATOR BIDEN: Senator, your time is up.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will come back the next round.

SENATOR BIDEN: Mr. Doggett, I don't doubt what you said, but I kind of find it equally bizarre that you would be so shocked. I mean are you that, I mean is it--have you ever not wondered why you thought maybe when you called a woman-maybe it has never happened to you.

I know a lot of men who call a woman and ask her out or ask to meet. Let me finish my comments here. Ask to have--decide to have dinner. Say let's get together for dinner, but afraid to say fully let's go out together for dinner. Let's get together. We live in the neighborhood, let's go to dinner. And then that person call back or you call again and speak to her again and the date is set. And then for whatever reason she doesn't show up.

You are still interested. You call back. You say, "How come you weren't there?" You say, "Well, I thought that you were going to call." And you thought I was going to call, et cetera. And that goes back and forth. Then there is a pregnant pause and you hang up.

I know some men--maybe I am just accustomed to being, when I was younger, being turned down more than you were. But some men sit and say, "Geez. I wonder whether she's just bashful, that was the reason for the pregnant pause, or I wonder if she really wants me to call her back. She didn't say don't call me again. She didn't say I don't want to hear from you again. Maybe."

And then you see her a little while later a party and she is leaving town. And you walk up to her and you say, you know, "Can I talk to you?" And she says, "Yes." And you walk over to the corner of the party and say, "You know, you really shouldn't let guys down like that. You led me to believe that you wanted to go out with me. You shouldn't do that to women--or to men."

And, if she turned around and said, "You're fantasizing. How could you ever think that? What an outrageous--you must be demented? You must `e crazy."

I don't think that is how normal people function. I mean, I don't doubt a word you said. But you go on and say you said, "I'll check my calendar and get back to you." You checked calendars, you got back to each other, the date fell--the date? We don't use dates these days, I know. The dinner fell through. You talk again and say, "What happened?" and she is silent. And she says, "What happened?" and you are silent.

You did not say to her, did you, don't call me again? Don't pay attention to me? I may be a virile person but don't pay any attention, just stay away from me? You didn't say anything like that did you?

MR. DOGGETT: I sure wish I had, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, I wish you had to because maybe there wouldn't be this confusion. She may not be telling the truth, but how one can draw the conclusion from that kind of exchange that this is a woman who is fantasizing, this is a woman who must have a problem because she has turned--are you a psychiatrist?

MR. DOGGETT: Senator, I am trying to follow your question, but I may have to ask you to restate it.

SENATOR BIDEN: My question is are you a psychiatrist?

MR. DOGGETT: Absolutely not.

SENATOR BIDEN: Are you a psychologist?

MR. DOGGETT: Absolutely not.

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, how from that kind of an exchange can you draw the conclusion that she obviously has a serious problem that she--where is the section? I want to find it here in your statement. You were stunned by her statement. You told her her comments were totally uncalled for and completely unfounded. Balderdash!

"I reiterated I had never expressed a romantic interest in her, had done nothing to give her any indication he might romantically be interested in the future. And I also stated the fact that I lived three blocks away from her, but never came over should have led her to believe something."

MR. DOGGETT: Pardon?

I didn't hear what you just said, sir.

SENATOR BIDEN: The implication is that should have led her to understand that you weren't interested in her. Did she come up to you say in mildly hysterical terms, why have you not called me or did she just make the statement straight, monotone, you shouldn't lead somebody on like that, or whatever the precise statement was? Can you characterize the way she said it? Did she sound very disappointed in you, you really shouldn't lead women on like that and then let them down? Or did she say, why did you do this? I am very disappointed in you?

I mean can you characterize what it was like?

MR. DOGGETT: She was very, very intense, Senator. This was not--

SENATOR BIDEN: Describe for me how intense she was? Was her voice at a higher octave than normal?

MR. DOGGETT: She seemed very upset to me.

SENATOR BIDEN: Was her voice at a higher octave than normal, do you recall?

MR. DOGGETT: She seemed very upset, Senator.

Senator, my statement, my conclusion is based on a year and a half of experience, not just one afternoon jog on a Saturday in 1983.

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, tell me what else she ever said to you?

MR. DOGGETT: Okay. Examples, that is a very fair question, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.

MR. DOGGETT: The first time I went over to Clarence Thomas' office, okay, the question is what else did she say to me?

SENATOR BIDEN: What did she ever say to you, yes.

MR. DOGGETT: A, she called me after the dinner fell through. I didn't call her. B, there were a number of months that--

SENATOR BIDEN: Let's stop there a minute. Wouldn't that lead you to believe that maybe she thought you might be interested or she wouldn't, a woman wouldn't put her ego on the line to call a man?

MR. DOGGETT: Absolutely, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: All right.

MR. DOGGETT: What I have tried to say and what I am trying to say right now is that I did everything in my power with Professor Hill over the time I knew her to make it absolutely, positively clear that I was not interested in that woman.

SENATOR BIDEN: Did you say that to her? Did you say, Professor Hill, look, I mean, Anita, I just want to be clear before we get things out of hand here. I want to make it clear to you, I think you are a wonderful person, but I have absolutely no interest in you in anything other than professional terms. Did you ever say that to her?

MR. DOGGETT: There was never a need to do that because we never got to the level where I had given her enough encouragement where she felt that it was appropriate to--

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, give me more instances where she said things to you that this just wasn't the one instance where she said, you know, you led me on or you led women on.

Tell me another instance.

MR. DOGGETT: Well, I think a perfect example of the conclusion that I came to when I was sitting at my computer in Austin, Texas was the statement that she gave under oath, before you two days ago, that she had dated John Carr. And the statement that John Carr gave under oath today that he would not characterize their relationship as a dating relationship.

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, wait a minute. John Carr said he went out with her.

MR. DOGGETT: That's right, and I believe, as I understand it--

SENATOR BIDEN: He said dating.

SENATOR THURMOND: Let him get through.

MR. DOGGETT: Pardon?

SENATOR BIDEN: I am worried about your instances. What did she ever say to you, you that led you to believe that she, in fact, had a clear understanding that you had no interest? You said that there were other instances, other than this occasion, where she said to you, I am very disappointed in you, you really shouldn't lead on women and then let them down.

MR. DOGGETT: Right.

SENATOR BIDEN: What else did she ever do or say?

MR. DOGGETT: Nothing else, Senator.

SENATOR BIDEN: That's it?

MR. DOGGETT: Absolutely, Senator, and if she hadn't said it and hadn't been upset to some degree with--

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, how was she upset again?

SENATOR THURMOND: Well, let him get through, let him get through, let him answer.

SENATOR BIDEN: Okay.

MR. DOGGETT: It was her, she was intense. I do not believe she raised her voice, but this was not just, hey, guy, you know, be careful as you characterized it, this clearly bothered her. And I hear what you are saying, Senator, and I respect your opinion and I am not trying to argue with you but for me, in that time, in that room, that shocked me and maybe it would have not shocked you, it shocked me.

SENATOR BIDEN: I appreciate that. I do appreciate that. I sincerely do. Let me tell you what I thought when I first was told about this.

MR. DOGGETT: Okay.

SENATOR BIDEN: I thought it was the case of a woman walking up to someone she never had spoken to other than in passing business, watched him jog, said hello to them and then all of a sudden at a going away party walked up and called him aside and said, I don't know why you led me on like this.

That to me, if a woman did that to me, I may either think she is nuts or be flattered but I would wonder, at a minimum, I would walk away going where did that come from? But if I had, if a woman whether she called me or I called her, if I had agreed on one occasion to go to dinner with her, and if I had known that she had, if I felt that she had an interest in me, if the dinner date was broken, if she called me to ask me why.

If I said nothing and remained silent, and did not say, look, I just don't want to go out to dinner with you, I was just polite and said nothing. And then she came up to me and said that one sentence, I don't know how, quite frankly, a reasonable man could conclude from that to be stunned and shocked that this woman is fantasizing because she has a male complex--what was your phrase about complex? Come on, earn your salary. There is some place in there where you say, this must mean that she is used to be, this is a complex from being rejected by men.

MR. DOGGETT: It is on page three.

SENATOR BIDEN: The fact, you believe Ms. Hill's fantasies about my sexual interest in here were an indication of the fact she was having a problem with being rejected by men she was attracted to. It seems to me that is a true leap in faith or ego, one of the two.

[Laughter.]

SENATOR SIMPSON: Are we playing to the audience now?

SENATOR BIDEN: No, I am not.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, then let's stop the crowd from responding. You have done that before and they have responded about six times now.

SENATOR BIDEN: If anyone else responds they are out and the reason I probably didn't is I am so intensely involved in this, I did not do that. Please, if anyone else responds I ask the police officers to move them out, I mean that sincerely.

MR. DOGGETT: Would you like for me to respond to your question?

SENATOR BIDEN: I would like you to say anything you want. I mean I truly would because I am having trouble understanding this one and I won't say anything more.

SENATOR THURMOND: Now, take your time and say what you please.

SENATOR BIDEN: As long as you want.

MR. DOGGETT: I appreciate your concern.

SENATOR BIDEN: My confusion, not concern.

MR. DOGGETT: I assumed you were concerned also.

SENATOR BIDEN: No, I am not concerned.

MR. DOGGETT: I appreciate your confusion and I will do what I can to try to clarify it. A, I clearly reacted to this event differently than you would and I respect our differences of opinion.

B, there were a number of occasions when Gil Hardy and others who were black Yale Law School graduates made an attempt to bring together those of us who were in town, including people like me who were not practicing law and who were not involved in the political process, so that we could have social fellowship. We had parties, and other get-togethers.

I observed from a distance--and I am not a psychiatrist, I am not an expert, just a man--Anita Hill attempting to be friendly with men, engage them in conversation, initiate conversation, elongate conversations, and people talking with her and eventually going away.

SENATOR BIDEN: Can you name any of those men for us, for the record?

MR. DOGGETT: Sir, eight almost nine years have gone by. If she had filed a sexual harassment charge--

SENATOR BIDEN: That's not the issue--

MR. DOGGETT: --I would be able to do that because we would be in 1983 or 1984 given the statute of limitations. Which is why you have created a statute of limitations. It is too long, I cannot, sir.

I also remember, sir, the first time I went to Clarence Thomas' office, I was going to talk to somebody who was a classmate of mine about why he had become a black Republican Reaganite, because I had some real concerns. And as I went into his outer office, Anita Hill happened to walk by and she tried to stop me and engage me in conversation and acted as though she thought that since we were all black Yale Law School graduates, I should say, well, let's go in and talk with Clarence, which I did not.

Clearly, people can disagree as to whether or not my observations and conclusions are ones that they would make. But I assure you that based on my experiences and my observations of Anita Hill, both in terms of how she related to me--and let's talk about the jogging incident, Senator. When I was running by I was timing myself with my watch and my interest was to run in place for maybe 30 seconds, be polite and keep going. The reason we continued to talk was because she wanted me to continue to talk. That is action on her part, sir.

SENATOR BIDEN: Can I ask you a question, why didn't you keep running?

MR. DOGGETT: Because the group of black Yale Law School graduates is a very small, a very close, and a very special group and it is like a family. Gil Hardy, the man who introduced Anita to Clarence Thomas was one of the leaders of that group. We did what we could to be as supportive as possible.

Senator, I graduated in 1972. She graduated in 1980. She was significantly younger than me, she seemed to be lonely in this town. I was not going to try to make this woman feel that I was not going to be straightforward with her as a professional. There have been other women who have made it very clear that to me that they have been interested in me and I have said, I am not interested. Anita Hill did nothing to deserve me to slam the door in her face. She was one of the Yale Law School black fraternity and there are very few of them, Senator.

Now, I agree that others may interpret my conclusions differently but that's how I saw it and that's why I said what I said.

SENATOR BIDEN: I appreciate that and I thank you very much.

Dean, did you work for Clarence--this is the first time I knew this, I should have read the record more closely--did you work for Clarence Thomas when you spent most time with Anita Hill, Professor Hill?

MR. KOTHE: I would have to say it this way. I worked for Clarence Thomas after I worked with Anita Hill. She was a professor on our faculty. When I retired as Dean, I became special assistant to Clarence Thomas. I think in large part through what she did in initiating our arrangement.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you.

Now, from your testimony I got the impression though that the time that you spent the most time with Anita Hill was in setting up that conference you referred to on harassment.

Well, let me not say most time. You said there was a conference that you were setting up on harassment and Anita Hill was participating in that. And you were surprised that if she had been harassed she would have said something to you at that time. Were you working for the man that she alleges harassed her when you were surprised that she did not say something about harassment?

MR. KOTHE: Yes, sir, it was in '87 and I had already been working with Thomas then--

SENATOR THURMOND: Talk into the machine so that everybody can hear you.

MR. KOTHE: Yes, I had been working with Chairman Thomas at that time for probably two years.

SENATOR BIDEN: So I want to just make sure I understand. You made a statement which I thought was fairly powerful and obviously accurate. You said that one of the things you pointed to as evidence of the fact that Anita Hill's assertions are probably not true is that with regard to a conference on harassment she worked with you in setting that up. And you said, and I am paraphrasing, that if she had been harassed why would she not say to me that she had been harassed when the purpose we were getting together for was to discuss harassment?

And I ask you, in light of the fact that you worked for the man who allegedly harassed her, would it surprise you that she would not confide in you? Sir, I mean that sincerely?

MR. KOTHE: Well, precisely and that is what I said in my opening statement.

SENATOR BIDEN: That's what I did not understand. Thank you.

MR. KOTHE: How could it possibly be that a person was talking to me about being a featured speaker on the subject of sexual harassment and never, ever have said, I have been harassed, I have been exposed to this, I know if from personal experience, never ever?

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, what I am saying Dean, as a trained lawyer, does it surprise you that a person who says they were harassed now, would not say to you she was harassed when she would then have to tell you that the man who harassed her was your boss?

MR. KOTHE: It not only surprises me, it completely confounds me. How could it possibly be that a person as intelligent, as decent, as dignified as this young woman was could talk to me about having a program of sexual harassment and never say, I personally have experienced it.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, very much. My time is up and I yield to Senator Thurmond.

SENATOR THURMOND: Senator Specter.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doggett, we have been searching in the past week, and you are right when you talk as an experienced litigator, the speed with which this matter has been put together. I have never seen anything like it. I doubt that there has ever been as complex a matter as this put together in this kind of a hearing sequence, calling of witnesses and examination as we have proceeded with overnight transcripts in trying to move through in an orderly process.

And we are doing it at the mandate of the Senate and those of us who are doing it, at least, this Senator has some concern about doing it at this speed. We are doing it the best we can. And we have been trying to figure this matter out.

And we have been going on the proposition most of the time, and it hasn't been very long, that either he is lying or she is lying. And I have been trying to figure it out myself on the credibility issue or the perjury issue. And as the matter has evolved I have started to explore a third alternative. And that alternative was suggested to me when I read on the same day, which was last Thursday, the affidavits of Professor Kothe and the affidavit of Mr. Doggett.

And I had not seen, I still have not seen Professor Kothe's affidavit of the 10th. I have your affidavit of the 7th, where you had the word fantasy in, but as you say, you have changed it.

But I am fascinated, Mr. Doggett, by your pinpointing the John Carr issue. And I think that could bear some additional clarification because, as you testify about it, as I understand your testimony--

SENATOR THURMOND: Senator, you had better wait a few minutes, somebody is talking to your witness. And let him get through.

SENATOR SPECTER: Will somebody stop the clock.

SENATOR BIDEN: I apologize. I asked that they speak up. I just wanted to give the Dean an opportunity, if he wanted to, to take a break at this moment if you want to and come back. I want the witnesses to know if they have to get up and leave and come back they can.

MR. KOTHE: Mr. Chairman, I have requirement at this time. I would have to have something, protein or something.

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes, that's why I asked the staff to talk to you and, Dean, you are free to come and go. Or go. You don't have to come back. I mean seriously, I sincerely mean it. The hour is late and you have a medical requirement and I understand that.

MR. KOTHE: I don't want to miss this.

SENATOR BIDEN: Senator Specter, understandably, says he needs the dean here to ask him questions.

SENATOR SPECTER: I need the dean here, because I am going to talk about the dean's statement--

SENATOR BIDEN: Fair enough. Why don't we yield to some on the other side who can question, who does not have questions for the dean, but wishes to ask someone else questions, and then come back to you.

SENATOR SPECTER: What do I have left, 14 minutes?

SENATOR BIDEN: No, you can have as much time as you want.

SENATOR SPECTER: Okay. Thank you.

SENATOR BIDEN: I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Mr. Doggett, I haven't had a chance to read the full transcript of your testimony that was given in the telephone interview with several staff members representing Senator Biden, Senator Heflin, Senator Thurmond, Senator Leahy and Senator Specter.

But let me read you some portions of it, because I think we are talking about ANita Hill, and I think we need to also talk a little bit about Mr. Doggett, and this is a question to you: "Now, since we have received your affidavit and since your statement has gone public, the majority staff has received word from an individual who said she worked with you at McKenzie. Answer: Yes."

"And she has made some allegations concerning yourself. Answer: All right. And did she give you a name? Answer: She did. And we will move to that. I wanted to let you know where this line of questioning was going, to turn at this time. Answer: All right. I am not surprised. Question: This morning, we spoke with a woman named Amy Graham, who said she worked with you"--

SENATOR SPECTER: Excuse me, Senator Metzenbaum. Would you tell us where you are reading from?

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Yes, page 64.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: --"who said she worked with you at McKenzie & Company, and I believe you started down there in August of 1981. Answer: That is correct. Let me tell you generally what her allegations were, and then I will ask you some questions, and then I will turn back to Ms. DeOreo, to follow up with some questions. Answer: All right."

"Question: Ms. Graham indicated that, on her first day of work, when she met you, along with other people in that office, first of all, very succinctly, do you remember Ms. Amy Graham? Answer: I do not. Question: You do not? Answer: I do not. Question: She claims that, on her first day at work, at some point in the day, I believe she said--I don't have the transcript available yet, but at some point during the day you confronted her in the hall, in front of an elevator, and kissed her on the mouth and told her that she would enjoy working with you very well. She also-- Answer: You know, I also got--I deny that. I didn't remember the woman, and that is outrageous. I also got a message on my answering machine after you guys went public with my affidavit, saying 'This is your Texas whore from five years ago.' Somebody, I don't know, never met, who decided that she was going to claim to be my whore. Question: Mr. Doggett, let me just tell you generally her allegation, and then I will give you adequate opportunity to respond. I think that, in all fairness, that you need to know what she said, and then you can respond overall. She also claimed that, during the time that she worked there--she was 19 years ago when she began work, she is 29 years old now--she also claimed that at times, in front of the copying machine--and again, I am just going from my recollection, I don't have the transcript--that you would rub her shoulders at the copying machine. At the time, you suggested to her, 'Oh, you are making copies, that is sort of like reproduction, isn't it?' She also said that some of your conversation dealt with sexual innuendo, there was sexual overtone in your talk. But what struck me, though, is she also said that you weren't in the office very much. So, first, if you could respond to Ms. Graham's allegations, and then I have some questions I want to discuss with you."

I am still reading: "Answer: I do not remember Amy Graham. If she was there, she was not there as an associate or as a researcher or as a consultant, but was there as a part of the secretarial staff. I never made any comments or statements to anybody like that. I never did anything like that, so I categorically deny it. I am, quite frankly, not surprised that somebody has come out of the woodwork to make a claim like this. That's the nature of this business." That is on page 76.

We now turn over to page 77, again the question--I was not present at this and I am only reading from the transcript: "Question: Okay. Fine. So, I understand that you didn't have much conversation with Mr. Chisholm. Let me ask you, do you recall the name Joane Checci? Answer: Joane Checci, yes, I do remember that name. She designed business cards for me and stationery for me, when I was getting ready to leave the firm and become an independent consultant. Question: Do you recall ever touching Joane Checci? Answer: I never recall doing anything other than standing next to her. I may have brushed her when I was standing next to her, as she was designing business stationery, but I never remember. Question: Do you remember giving any neck massages? Answer: I don't remember, but if she had asked for one, I would have."

Then we go over to page 84: "Question: Mr. Doggett, so I don't leave one more thing hanging out there that has been alleged against you, I want you to have an opportunity to clear your name. I recall one other thing Ms. Graham said. She said that, subsequent to your leaving McKenzie, she bumped into you on the street one afternoon or one day, and that she was still at McKenzie. She told you she had since that time received a promotion and that you responded, 'Well, whom did you sleep with to get the promotion?' Answer: All right. Question: Did that occur? Answer: I absolutely categorically completely deny that."

Mr. Doggett, you have an interesting series of questions and answers in this transcript. I wonder if you would care to tell us what are the facts with respect to these several ladies who have raised questions concerning your own conduct?

MR. DOGGETT: Senator, your comments about this document are one of the reasons that our process of government is falling apart.

First of all, Senator, I have a copy of the statement that this person met--it is called a transcript of proceedings. But, Senator, if you read this, it is as telephone conversation that she has with some staff members pro and against Mr. Thomas, and she is not under oath. I did not do any of the things that she alleged. In fact, the first time any of these issues were raised was the day before I was supposed to come here, eight and a half years later.

I knew when I put my information into the ring, that I was saying I am open season. For anybody to believe that, on the first day of work, for a woman working in the xerox room, who is 19 years old, a 33-year-old black man would walk up to a 19-year-old white girl and kiss her on the mouth as the first thing that they did, whoever believes that really needs psychiatric care.

But let me talk about the facts, since you brought up this statement, which was not made under oath, which was not made consistent with any of the rules that you Senators are supposed to be responsible for, since this is the Judiciary Committee, let me talk about that, since you asked the question and went on and on and on.

During that time that she--I have read this statement. If she had made it under oath, Senator, I would go to court, but--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: This isn't her statement. I am reading from your statement, Mr. Doggett.

MR. DOGGETT: The statement that you read from was a discussion with me, and consistently your staff people said, "I don't have the transcript, I don't remember the exact facts." Well, I have the transcript and the exact facts show this woman to be a profound liar who does not even remember the facts accurately.

She said--Senator, I would suggest we all turn to "Transcript of Proceedings of Ms. Army Graham, the woman who has accused me, the liar, page 6: "I met John Doggett the first day I started there, which I remember correctly was probably Monday, March 20th, in 1982."

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Doggett, what page are you on, please?

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I don't have that.

MR. DOGGETT: Page 6 of the unsworn telephone conversation that Ms. Grant had with some staffers.

SENATOR BIDEN: Excuse me, let me interrupt for a minute.

MR. DOGGETT: I'm pissed off, sir.

SENATOR BIDEN: It is totally out of line with what the committee had agreed to--

MR. DOGGETT: I'm sorry.

SENATOR BIDEN: --for there to be entered into this record any unsworn statement by any witness who cannot be called before this committee, and I rule any such statement out of order.

Now, I apologize for being out of the room. Was there any--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I was only reading from Mr. Doggett's own statement.

MR. DOGGETT: My statement was not under oath, sir. That was a telephone conversation and they said we staffers would like to talk with you, we have a court reporter there. I'm a lawyer, sir, it was no deposition, it was not under oath, as Ms. Graham's comments were not under oath. And since you have brought this up, I demand the right to clear my name, sir.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I was only reading from his statement, not from--

MR. DOGGETT: I demand the right to clear my name, sir. I have been trashed for no reason by somebody who does not even have the basic facts right. This is what is going on with Clarence Thomas, and now I, another person coming up, has had a "witness" fabricated at the last moment to try to keep me from testifying.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Well, Mr. Doggett--

MR. DOGGETT: I am here, I don't care, she is wrong, and I would like to be able to clear my name, sir.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Please do.

SENATOR BIDEN: Sir, you will be permitted to say whatever you would like to with regard to, as you say, clearing your name. If there was no introduction of the transcript of Amy Louise Graham in the record, then that is a different story. I was under the impression that had been read from. That has not been read from.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I did not read from that at all.

SENATOR BIDEN: It has not been read from, and I don't know what else took place, but--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I read from Mr. Doggett's questions asked of him--

SENATOR BIDEN: Mr. Doggett, please, as much time as you want to make--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: --by the staff of Senator Biden, Senators Heflin, Thurmond, Leahy and Specter. My staff was not even present. I am just asking you if you would please go ahead and respond in any manner that you want to clear your name.

MR. DOGGETT: Yes, sir.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Chairman, you were not here, but what happened is that Senator Metzenbaum was reading to Mr. Doggett from Mr. Doggett's unsworn statement of the telephone interview--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: That's correct.

SENATOR SPECTER: --and that statement involved questions from Ms. Graham, who was questioned similarly in an unsworn statement over the telephone, and for Mr. Doggett to reply to what Senator Metzenbaum had asked him, since Senator Metzenbaum was basing his questions on what Ms. Graham had said, it is indispensable that Mr. Doggett be able to refer to what Ms. Graham said--

SENATOR BIDEN: It is appropriate for Mr. Doggett to refer to whatever he wishes to refer to at this point, in light of where we are at the moment.

MR. DOGGETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: So, Mr. Doggett, proceed.

MR. DOGGETT: I will tell you, Senators, before I talk about the specifics, I debated, myself and with my wife, whether or not to start the process that resulted in me being here, because this is vicious, and I knew, since anything I said was going to raise the question about the credibility of Professor Anita Hill, as a lawyer, that meant my character was open season.

I have never been involved as a candidate, although I have always said you can't complaint about the process, if you're not willing to put your ass on the line--pardon me, I am sorry. I am sorry about that.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Mr. Chairman--

MR. DOGGETT: But I have said if you don't like the way the political process is, then you have to get into it and you have to get into the fray.

So, I said, okay, if I submit this information to this committee, then I am open season and people are going to shoot at me, and I do not care. I have information I think the committee needs to hear. If they feel it is relevant enough for me to be here, I will be here and I will take whatever occurs.

But I will tell you, sir, I have had lawyers and professional people in Texas and around the country say that I was insane to subject myself to the opportunity to have something like this crawl out from under a rock. They have said I should have just stood on the sidelines and let it go by.

I am an attorney, sir--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Mr. Doggett--

MR. DOGGETT: --I am a businessman and I cannot allow this process of innuendo, unsworn statements and attacks on characters to continue, without saying it is unacceptable.

Now, specifically, page 6 of her unsworn telephone conversation with Senate staff, dated the 12th of October, two days ago, says, "I met John Doggett the first day I started there, which, if I remember correctly, was probably Monday, March 20th in 1972. At that"--

SENATOR BIDEN: I will let you continue, but you ought to seek your own counsel for a minute here. No one has read anything into the record, as I understand--

MR. DOGGETT: Now--

SENATOR BIDEN: No, wait, let me finish.

MR. DOGGETT: Yes, sir.

SENATOR BIDEN: --that you may be about to read into the record. Let me say that anyone who asks you--that I think it is unfair--that you were in a telephonic interview, whether it is sworn or unsworn, are asked about an uncorroborated accusation that is not sworn to, and then in open session you are asked from your statement about that same statement, that's no different than as if it was introduced without--if the original statement were introduced, which is inappropriate.

Now, all I am saying to you is this: I believe you are entitled to say whatever you wish to say here, and I believe we are beyond the bounds here.

MR. DOGGETT: I understand.

SENATOR BIDEN: The question I want you to think about is whether you want to further give credence to an unsubstantiated, unsworn to statement of someone that may be completely lying. It is up to you to make that judgment. That is your call, but I would think about it.

MR. DOGGETT: I appreciate your comments and I apologize for getting angry.

SENATOR BIDEN: No, you have no reason to apologize.

MR. DOGGETT: No, I am going to apologize, sir. This is as difficult process. I have only been up here for a short period of time and you have been here, as I understand it, for a very long period of time.

Let me say, without reading the statement or putting in that "evidence," since I am under oath, comments made by this person, that they are wrong, that at the time the allegations, the unsworn allegations were made, I was in the midst of a major project with McKenzie & Company regarding the Comptroller of the Currency, where we had just found, from a computer analysis, that bank deregulation would result in bank failures and savings and loan failures that exceeded the historical limits of bank failures over the past ten years.

We were in the midst of that analysis, we were frightened by the information that we had found, and we were doing everything we could do to prove ourselves wrong, and it is in the context of that time that this person, whom I do not remember, claims that I would walk up to her and do that. At the same time, Senator, I had just started a relationship with an attorney, a very intense relationship. The facts are wrong.

Secondly, that person, as read by Senator Metzenbaum, alleges that I was getting ready to leave the firm at that time. Senator, after I finished that Comptroller of the Currency study, in approximately April of 1982, in May of 1982, McKenzie & Company sent me to Copenhagen, Denmark, to spend the summer working for our Danish office. That is not exactly an exit strategy, sir. That was one of the most prized assignments that the firm had.

The facts in this uncorroborated, unsworn to statement are not even consistent with the facts of my life. So, without trying to put this thing into the record, all I can say is that I expected somebody to do something like this, because that is what this process has become, and one of the reasons I am here is to work with you gentlemen to try to take the public process back into the pale of propriety.

Now, secondly, when I was the Director of the State Bar of California's Office of Legal Services, I had the opportunity to hire two deputies. Both of those people were women. In fact, when I knew that I was going to leave the state bar to go to Harvard Business School, the person I hired to replace me was a woman.

I have a very clear long record of commitment, sensitivity and support for women having the greatest role possible, but I am afraid that the outlandish allegations of Anita Hill are going to result in us feeling that it is inappropriate for us to be human beings with people if they happen to be women. Nobody would ever question me if I put my hand around this man, who I have never met.

SENATOR BIDEN: He might.

MR. DOGGETT: Well, maybe he would.

[Laughter.]

But I hope we don't get to the point where if anybody by any way, accidentally or purposely, innocently touches somebody of the opposite sex, that becomes sexual harassment.

SENATOR BIDEN: Let the record show--and I would really like this to end--let the record show, and I am stating it, there is absolutely no evidence, none, no evidence in this record, no evidence before this committee, that you did anything wrong with regard to anything, none. I say that as the chairman of this committee. I think your judgment about women is not so hot, whether or not people fantasize or don't. You and I disagree in that.

MR. DOGGETT: Yes, sir.

SENATOR BIDEN: But you did nothing. There is no evidence, the record should show, the press should show, there is absolutely no evidence that you did anything improper, period.

MR. DOGGETT: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman, would it be proper to expunge from the record, then, that information that came out?

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, fine, but Senator, I would hope you would read from his statement of questions asked of him. I it is a little bit like if someone asked me over the telephone, "Are you still beating your wife?" and I answer yes or no, it doesn't matter. I am still in trouble. And then someone says, "I am reading only from your statement, Mr. Biden. You are the one that mentioned your wife." I never did.

And I know that is not what the Senator intended, but that is the effect. It is no different than just putting this unsubstantiated material in, and I want the record to show I don't think anything that is unsworn and I don't think anything in an FBI record is anything--up until the time it is sworn or the person is here to be cross-examined--is anything but garbage.

MR. DOGGETT: Thank you, sir.

SENATOR BIDEN: Senator, I apologize for the interruption--

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Chairman?

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes?

SENATOR THURMOND: Would it be proper for you to explain for the record those parts that you feel were improper?

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes, and I will.

SENATOR THURMOND: Thank you.

SENATOR BIDEN: Now, Senator, please continue, not along the lines of what someone said he said, and he had to respond to what they said.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I am not saying what somebody said he said. I am asking him what he said. He said that he did not remember Ms. Amy Graham, that he did not know Amy Graham.

You also indicated that she was white and 19. How did you know that?

MR. DOGGETT: Senator, when your staff or the staff of the committee--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: My staff has not been in touch--

MR. DOGGETT: Excuse me. When the staff of the committee--I corrected myself--made these allegations to me, one of the things I said, and if you read my complete statement, you will realize it is there, is that although I do not remember this person, that does not mean this person was not there; that it is possible that she did work at McKenzie and Company. I just do not remember her. I said that. Okay?

The second thing I did after the staffers of committee hung up was to call an associate of mine who started at McKenzie in the company with me, at the same time, a man named Carroll Warfield, and I asked him if he remembered this woman because I did not remember her name at all. I did not remember her face. Nothing about her came into my mind, but I knew it was possible she could have been there. Senator, it has been eight or nine years and I, even I can forget people.

He said, "Oh, yes, I remember her," and he was the one who indicated to me that she was white. That, as far as the age 19, I believe you read that when you read statements that I responded to from the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, and that is how we got the age 19, sir.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: No, I think it was your statement, but we will just drop it, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: All right. Thank you. Now let me make one other thing clear. The exception to unsworn statements being placed in the record is when the witnesses stipulate that they are admissible, when the parties mentioned in the statements stipulate they are admissible, and when the committee stipulates they are admissible, which is the case of the Angela Wright stipulation. That is different, so no one is confused later, that there is a fundamental distinction.

Now, Senator, who had the--

SENATOR THURMOND: The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in the midst of questioning Mr. Doggett and Professor Kothe when we had to take a brief recess for Professor Kothe, so I shall resume at this point.

I think it is worth noting, Mr. Chairman, to amplify what Mr. Doggett has said--if I could have the attention of the chairman for just a moment--

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes. I'm sorry.

SENATOR SPECTER: Late yesterday evening when we caucused and the chairman stated his intention to try to finish the hearings today--

SENATOR BIDEN: Yes.

SENATOR SPECTER: --I then reviewed what had to be done, and at about 6:45 this morning called Duke Short and said we ought to have Mr. Doggett here, and that is why he was called this morning at about 7 o'clock, he said- -

MR. DOGGETT: 6:30, sir.

SENATOR SPECTER: --6:30 central time, so he has been on that track to accommodate our schedule so we could finish today.

MR. DOGGETT: I don't mind staying here as long as you need, sir.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, that is probably doing to happen.

[Laughter.]

MR. DOGGETT: I sense that.

SENATOR SPECTER: I want to explore with you what conceivably--I don't want to overstate it- -could be the key to the extremely difficult matter we are looking into. And I had said, shortly before my line of questioning was interrupted, that we have been working on the proposition that either Anita Hill is lying or Judge Thomas is lying.

And we have explored earlier today, with a panel of four women who favor Judge Thomas but who knew Professor Hill very well, the possibility that there could be in her mind that these things happened when they really didn't. And I developed that question after talking to a number of my colleagues, because we have been discussing this matter all day, and it originated with the two affidavits or statements, your affidavit, Mr. Doggett, and Professor Kothe's statement that was not sworn to, where the word "fantasy" was used.

And it may be that we are not limited to the two alternatives, one, that he is lying; two, that she is lying. Perhaps they both think they are telling the truth, but in Professor Hill's case she thinks it is true but in fact it is not. And you testified to a very interesting approach when you referred to the testimony of Mr. John Carr, whom you said you went to graduate school at Harvard with, where you made a key distinction between the way Professor Hill viewed the relationship and the way John Carr viewed the relationship. And I think it would be worthwhile if you would amplify that, as you had started to articulate it earlier.

MR. DOGGETT: Senators, at every step--in fact I remember when I was at Yale Law School seeing Senator Kennedy give a speech to people at Yale, back in the early seventies --at every step of my education, at Claremont Men's College, at Yale Law School, at Harvard Business School, one of the things I tried to do was to provide assistance to make sure that black law students and Hispanic law students would have the best possible opportunity to do as well as possible, because I had something to prove, Senators. I had had people tell me that I could not be good because I was black, and I was out to prove them wrong.

Because of that, I was asked by my colleagues at Harvard Business School, in part because I was an older student and in part because of my commitment to excellence, to be the Education Committee chairperson for the African-American Student Union, and to organize tutorial study groups and other support activities to make sure that every one of our people had the best possible chance to do as well as possible, to excel. That is how I met John Carr.

I know John Carr, and I think I know him well. I definitely know him better than I know the Judge and I know the Professor. I saw John Carr this May at Harvard Business School for our 10th Harvard Business School Alumni reception, reunion, and we talked.

In those 10, 12 years, John Carr has never mentioned Anita Hill to me. We have talked about women John Carr has had relationships with. I have called him up at times and said, "Hey, man, haven't you gotten married yet?" because we were that close, and he would say, "Well, you know, there really hasn't been anybody special." We have talked about the issue of John Carr's personal life, and her name never came up in the way that she described herself.

I, as the Senator asked me, am not a psychiatrist, I am not a psychologist, and so maybe I am not qualified to use the term "fantasy" from a professional standpoint, but as a lay person and an individual, that is what I felt. And given what John Carr has said and has not said, given what the Professor has said, given that she has described a series of activities where Clarence Thomas was obsessed with her--every time she said no, he would try to get her to relent and go out with him, over a period of years, obsessed with her--I have to deal with the realities that if he was so obsessed with her, why did he never talk to me about her or anybody else about her?

One of the things, Senator, that stunned--I won't use that word again--that amazed me about the testimony of the women who worked with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, is that they came up with conclusions very similar to what I put in my affidavit, and these are women I have never met. These are women who knew both of the people involved in this hearing at this stage far better than I did.

I was going to a gut sense, on male intuition. They were saying the same thing, without any communication between the four of them and myself, based on years of observation. I find that amazing.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Doggett, you heard the testimony of the panel with Ms. Berry on it? You were in the hearing room at that time today?

MR. DOGGETT: Hearing room at the end, and I was at the hotel looking at it on TV, sir.

SENATOR SPECTER: So you saw the panel with Ms. Alvarez, Ms. Fitch, Ms. Holt--

MR. DOGGETT: I saw most of what they said, although I missed part of it as I was coming here to appear before you gentlemen.

SENATOR SPECTER: Did you hear the part where Ms. Berry testified to amplify an interview which she had given to the New York Times, that Professor Hill was rebuffed by Judge Thomas?

MR. DOGGETT: I do not remember the exact facts, but I heard most of her response to the New York Times--

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, I think it would be worthwhile for you to refer to whatever you heard of their testimony, in terms of their statements as to the relationship between Judge Thomas and Professor Hill, because their testimony was extensive as it relates to the approach you are articulating.

MR. DOGGETT: Right. My experience with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill was inconsistent, as I said, with what she was alleging, and based on my experiences over a period of a year and a half with Anita Hill and over a period of seven or eight years with Clarence Thomas, I came to some conclusions as a lay person, as an individual, as an untrained non- professional, where I used the words "fantasies" and I talked about her possibly reacting to being rejected. I did that sitting in Austin, Texas, Thursday afternoon, on my computer with my word processing software.

Today, gentlemen, as you know, four women I have never met and have never talked with came to the same conclusion based on extensive experience and observations with Anita, with Professor Hill and Judge Thomas. Mine was just intuition, gentlemen. Theirs was based on experience, and we both came, all five of us came to essentially the same conclusion. That surprised, but now I am not surprised.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Doggett, what similarities, if any, do you see between the description you have made of your own relationship with Professor Hill, where you categorized in your affidavit her response to being rejected, and the relationship which Professor Hill had with John Carr, where she had exaggerated the relationship as you have testified from your personal knowledge of the two of them, and the relationship with Judge Thomas, where she has represented the kind of a relationship which Judge Thomas has flatly denied and others who know the two of them think totally implausible?

MR. DOGGETT: In my case, Senator, which I obviously can talk about the clearest, she came up to me before we left--before she left for Oral Roberts University, and basically chastised me for leading her on, and gave me in effect advice that I should not in the future lead women on. I felt at the time, and the good chairman of this committee notwithstanding, I still feel at this point and I will always feel that that was totally inappropriate, given everything I tried to do to be a supportive, older upper-classman, part of the Yale Law School group.

Regarding Mr. Carr, John Carr, Attorney Carr, my friend, I have had a series of conversations with this man over the past decade. He has never, ever said that he was dating Anita Hill. When he was here under oath he said, to paraphrase him, "I would not define our relationship as a dating relationship."

Regarding Judge Clarence Thomas I have the least information, because he never, ever at any time mentioned this woman to me. And at the time, the one time that I have concrete observation about her perception of how she thought she should be treated by me vis- a-vis Judge Thomas, she wanted to go into Judge Thomas' inner office at EEOC because she felt that was appropriate, and for me it didn't make any sense at all.

So in those three instances--my own personal experience, a statement by a business school colleague and friend of mine, and my one observation about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas back, I believe, in 1982, there is a consistency in a perception of something that did not exist.

SENATOR SPECTER: Mr. Doggett, do you think it a possibility that Professor Hill imagined or fantasized Judge Thomas saying the things she has charged him with?

MR. DOGGETT: You know, part of what makes this so unpleasant for all of us is that her charges are so clear, explicit, and extreme. I know how difficult it has been for me to even remember what happened back in 1982, so one of the things I did was take some time off from work to look at Anita Hill when she was testifying before this committee, and I will tell you gentlemen, she looked believable to me, even though the words she was saying made absolutely no sense.

I believe that Anita Hill believes what she has said. I believe, and I am saying this under oath, that there is absolutely no truth to what she has said. But I believe that she believes it.

I was impressed with her confidence, her calm, even though the things she was saying in my mind were absolutely, totally beyond the pale of reality.

Clarence Thomas told me in his office that "These people are going to shoot at me. I have a target on my back. It is one of my jobs to make sure that I am not going to be the black in the Reagan Administration that gets tarred and feathers."

Doing what she alleges that he did with her was a prescription for instant death. Clarence is not a fool. And quite frankly, Anita Hill is not worth that type of risk.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you very much, Mr. Doggett. Very powerful.

Professor Kothe, just a question or two, and this is following up on what Senator Biden had asked you, and it relates to the testimony which you had given that Professor Hill was very complimentary about Judge Thomas. There has been considerable testimony given by people who have tried to explain Professor Hill's activities in the sense that she was controlled by Judge Thomas when she worked for him, and that even after she left him she needed him for a variety of assistance.

But my question to you is did there come a point where she had sufficient independence from Judge Thomas so that a continuation of laudatory, complimentary comments which you have testified about would tend to undercut her credibility that he had said these dastardly things to her early on?

MR. KOTHE: I am not so sure that I grasped the essence of your question. I don't know that she was ever dependent upon him for adulation. She had a continuing relationship, I think of a professional nature, with the EEOC. She was doing some studies and getting materials from them, and the things that we were working on together, we both derived information from the EEO office.

Just how extensive was her continued interaction with Chairman Thomas, I really don't know.

SENATOR SPECTER: Well, let me break it down for you, Professor Kothe, to this extent. You have testified that you thought her charges were inconceivable, as I think you have earlier said. Is that correct?

MR. KOTHE: Yes. Absolutely.

SENATOR SPECTER: And you have based that on your testimony that when you would talk to her about Judge Thomas she would consistently compliment Judge Thomas. Correct?

MR. KOTHE: Correct.

SENATOR SPECTER: So, is it your conclusion that if she consistently said complimentary things about him that it could not be true that he had done these dastardly deeds?

MR. KOTHE: Yes, that would be my conclusion. It is just so utterly incongruent and inconsistent that a person that would speak of him almost reverently as a hero, as a person--a remarkable person, she would say, as a person of untiring energy, she spoke of him, as I said earlier, as a devoted father.

I have never heard her speak of him but in pretty much relatively glowing terms. Never have I heard her say anything critical about him, even when we were discussing the subject of sexual harassment.

So, in that situation with a person that I respected and a person that I admired, I just cannot in my mentations equate how utterly impossible, grotesque statements could be made about this person that she spoke of to me with such high admiration.

SENATOR SPECTER: The follow-up question to that is some have sought to explain her continuing association with Judge Thomas on the basis that she needed him, that he was her benefactor. And my question to you is would it be necessary for her to go as far as she did in the kind of complimentary statements she made to you on a personal basis to maintain that kind of an association where she could go back to him, for example, for letters of recommendation?

MR. KOTHE: Well, certainly she needed no further letters of recommendation after she established herself as a teacher. She was a good teacher.

This is not a young woman that is obsequious and fawning and retiring. She was a very positive person. In our faculty meetings she was forthright. She was always a strong person. She didn't need Clarence Thomas to continue in her career of teaching, which she has done and become tenured at the University of Oklahoma.

SENATOR SPECTER: So your conclusion was when she complimented Judge Thomas she meant it?

MR. KOTHE: I had no reason to believe she didn't.

SENATOR SPECTER: And, if she complimented Judge Thomas, it would be totally inconsistent with his having said these terrible things to her?

MR. KOTHE: Utterly inconsistent.

SENATOR SPECTER: And the final point is the one where Senator Biden asked you would she have been reluctant to talk to you in truthful derogatory terms considering the fact that you were in a sense an employee of Chairman Thomas?

MR. KOTHE: I wouldn't think there was any basis for her having a reluctance to disclose to me anything that was of that nature if, indeed, it were a fact. I think that our relationship was such that she could have confidence in me.

I didn't need the position with Clarence Thomas. She didn't need Clarence Thomas to keep the position she had. We were both ad hoc in that sense, working on something that was avocational with us, from the point of view of our then situation.

SENATOR SPECTER: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, Senator. The Senator from Massachusetts indicates he would like to question.

SENATOR KENNEDY: Just for a moment, Mr. Doggett. When you were at Harvard, did you say you headed the Afro students' organization for student assistance?

MR. DOGGETT: Senator, what I said was that in the second year I was asked by my co- students to be the chairman of the Education Committee, of what at that time was called the Afro-American Student Union.

SENATOR KENNEDY: And that was a tutorial program for kids in Cambridge, or what was that?

MR. DOGGETT: No. Harvard Business School has a program to weed out people that it does not feel deserve an Harvard MBA. It is called hitting the screen. It is one of the most intense academic experiences that they have.

The Afro-American Student Union is a membership organization of black American students at Harvard Business School, and those of us who are second-years organized programs to do what we can, not only to prevent first-years from hitting the screen, but to do everything possible to make it possible for them to excel.

My fellow students asked me to be the chairperson of this committee and to organize programs for Harvard Business School MBA students in their first year.

SENATOR KENNEDY: Well, that is fine. I was just interested in whether you were working through the Phyllis Brooks House or community programs. Because the Business School, I believe, has a program. I just wanted to see whether you were associated with it.

MR. DOGGETT: No, sir.

SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much.

SENATOR BIDEN: Senator Brown?

SENATOR THURMOND: Senator Brown?

SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR BIDEN: I am sorry. I am sorry.

SENATOR LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, we go 20 some odd minutes on that side, 38--I am sorry, 48 seconds on this side. Just a couple of questions.

SENATOR THURMOND: Are we next over here?

SENATOR BIDEN: Well, apparently Senator Kennedy yielded the remainder of his five minutes.

SENATOR THURMOND: Hold off for just a minute then.

SENATOR BROWN: Okay.

SENATOR LEAHY: Mr. Doggett, you said that in the years that you have known John Carr he never mentioned knowing Anita Hill. You are not suggesting that John Carr didn't know Anita Hill, are you?

MR. DOGGETT: Absolutely not, Senator.

SENATOR LEAHY: Okay.

MR. DOGGETT: It is clear that he did.

SENATOR LEAHY: I just wanted to--the fact that he didn't mention her to you is one thing.

MR. DOGGETT: Senator, I asked John Carr specifically about who he was going out with and whether or not he was getting married.

SENATOR LEAHY: I understand. I think, though, that we should perhaps go by Mr. Carr's sworn statement here this afternoon. It might be the best testimony, rather than whether he thought it necessary to discuss it with you whether he knew her or not.

Now, in your statement you talked about how much you have known Professor Hill. You met her at a social function in 1982. You had two or three phone conversations in which you were primarily interested in having her get you in touch with Harry Singleton. You met outside, I think, Clarence Thomas's office. You bumped into each other jogging, and you explained how you jog in place, so you couldn't talk to her on there. Somehow what other plans to go out fell through. Then you saw each other at a party and, according to you, Professor Hill said, "I'm very disappointed in you. You really shouldn't lead on women and let them down."

Now, you have described these contacts with her as minimal. Professor Hill, incidentally, testified she has little or no recollection of you. When I pressed her, I asked her specifically, she said she thinks she recalls that you were tall.

Now, based on such minimal contacts with Professor Hill, how could you conclude that she had fantasies about your sexual interest in her, or do you just feel that you have some kind of a natural irresistibility?

MR. DOGGETT: My wife says I do.

SENATOR LEAHY: Well, Anita Hill apparently doesn't say you do, though, Mr. Doggett.

MR. DOGGETT: Sir--

SENATOR LEAHY: She doesn't even remember you.

MR. DOGGETT: No, she didn't say that, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: She said she barely remembers you. When I asked her to describe you she had some difficulty and thought that you were tall.

MR. DOGGETT: I looked at Anita Hill's face when you folks mentioned my name. She remembers me, Senator, I assure you of that.

Now, to answer your question, the reason I thought her statements were so bizarre was because our contact was so limited. If we had had much more contact with each other, and as the good Senator Chairman had said, she had come up to me at the end and said, "John, you know we've been seeing, running into each other time and time again," then her comment would have been much more understandable. Since we had had so little contact, I found it to be a bizarre comment.

SENATOR LEAHY: You have remarkable insight into her, you are able to watch her face and know when we mentioned your name, "By golly! John Doggett's name gets mentioned, this woman is, Wow!"

It really triggered a bell; is that what you are saying? I mean, I don't understand. Mr. Doggett, you--I know this has been an interesting experience for you. You have talked about how Tom Brokaw's office is looking forward--

MR. DOGGETT: Sir, it has not been interesting. It has been very painful, been very difficult. It has interfered with my life. It has resulted in me getting threats and obscene phone calls on my telephone, people approaching me and accosting me in public. This is not fun, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: But, Mr. Doggett, what I am saying is you had these very minimal contacts and yet you have been able to analyze Anita Hill from these just jogging in place and talking to her, talked to her on the phone a couple of times when you asked her to set up a meeting with somebody else, and you are able to figure out that she has a problem with being rejected by men, that she has fantasies about sexual interest in her.

Are you able to make such thorough judgments about everybody you meet for such a short period of time? And I mean that seriously.

MR. DOGGETT: I understand, Senator. I appreciate your question and I think it is a very fair question. Let me do what I can to try to assist you in understanding how I could say what I said.

The jogging incidence, I wanted to jog in place for a few seconds and then move on. She made it very clear that she would like the conversation to be more involved by her body language, by her questions: Well, where do you live? Why are you jogging in this neighborhood? I stopped jogging and we had a conversation that lasted between five or 10 minutes. I don't remember exactly how long it was. It is a long time ago.

As I remember it, she was the one who initiated the suggestion that we have dinner. I also observed her from time to time at the Black Yale Law parties that we had. As she had conversations with me, my sense, unprofessional, limited as it was, was that she was trying to engage people in conversations and to prolong conversations. Based on my experience, it suggested an interest. I never saw any of those conversations result in people continuing to talk with her.

Now that is totally unscientific and it is just a point of view.

SENATOR LEAHY: You don't have an aversion to long conversations, do you, Mr. Doggett?

MR. DOGGETT: When somebody is trying to, to use the terminology "hit on somebody," and the result is people walk away, and you see that happen more than one time, it leads you to believe, Senator, that maybe something is not working.

SENATOR LEAHY: You said in your sworn affidavit that Anita Hill was frustrated not being a part of Clarence Thomas's inner circle.

MR. DOGGETT: That is correct, Senator.

SENATOR LEAHY: From these minimal contacts, you were able to deduce that?

MR. DOGGETT: The look on Anita's face when we were in the outer office of Clarence Thomas's office at EEOC when I did not say, "I'm getting ready to talk with Clarence, why don't you come on in with me," the look on her face is the basis for that decision.

Now, you and anybody else may feel that I did not have sufficient information to justify making that opinion, but that is what I said and that is what I felt.

SENATOR LEAHY: Let me make sure I understand this. Body language, you knew that she was concerned about not being part of Thomas's inner circle. The look on her face outside of Thomas's office when you spoke to her, you are able to discern what was in her mind. And then watching her on television, the look at her face when I mentioned your name, you are able to draw other conclusions about her remembrance of you.

MR. DOGGETT: That is my sense, sir.

SENATOR LEAHY: That is all right. I just want to make sure I understand your ability of perception.

And, Dean, you have testified the Clarence Thomas you knew could not possibly have made the statements Anita Hill claims he made, and I understand that. You stated that very forcefully, sir.

Do you believe that the Clarence Thomas you knew could enjoy talking about pornographic movies? I mean, that is one of the things that was alleged. Anita Hill alleged that he talked to her about pornographic movies. Are you saying that the Clarence Thomas you knew wouldn't even enjoy talking about pornographic movies?

MR. KOTHE: I can't believe it. I can't just believe that this man would even think in terms of pornographic movies. All of my relationship with him was at such a high level, talking about books of religion and philosophy and the things that he was reading. I can't imagine this man would have any diversion in the area that you describe. I just can't.

SENATOR LEAHY: I understand. I understand, Dean.

You are aware, however, that a supporter, a Ms. Coleman, has been quoted in the New York Times as saying that at law school he didn't talk about religion or philosophy, he talked about pornographic movies?

MR. KOTHE: I didn't get that. Will you please say it again?

SENATOR LEAHY: I said you said that the man you know would talk probably about books and religion and all but you could not conceive of him talking about pornographic movies. You knew that one of his supporters, strong supporters--she has written a letter to me, in fact, in support of him--a Ms. Coleman, has been quoted in the New York Times as saying that Judge Thomas used to talk about pornographic films at law school.

Does that surprise you at all?

MR. KOTHE: It does.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you. And you have--just very quickly, you have no way of knowing from your own personal knowledge whether Anita Hill is telling the truth about what Clarence Thomas said to her?

MR. KOTHE: No.

SENATOR LEAHY: And, Mr. Doggett, would your answer be the same? You know of nothing from your personal knowledge whether she is telling the truth or not? I know your opinion you have expressed here. But of your personal knowledge, do you know?

MR. DOGGETT: I have absolutely no information.

SENATOR LEAHY: And, Mr. Stewart, of your own personal knowledge?

MR. STEWART: My personal knowledge of Clarence Thomas would lead me to conclude that she was, in fact, lying.

SENATOR LEAHY: But, of your own personal knowledge, you don't know whether Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill?

MR. STEWART: No. I don't know that we, the term sexual harass or said the things she said. I think we are confused about all of that.

I will restate my statement and say that my personal knowledge of Clarence Thomas would make it incredible for me to believe the things she has alleged.

SENATOR LEAHY: Do you know that Judge Thomas said that if somebody did the things that Anita Hill claims that he did, if somebody did that he freely admits that that would be sexual harassment. But you don't know of your own personal knowledge whether that happened or not; is that correct?

MR. STEWART: I don't know that it happened. I conclude that Clarence Thomas did not do it.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

Now, Mr. Grayson, of your personal knowledge, you don't know whether Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill?

MR. GRAYSON: I have no personal knowledge.

SENATOR LEAHY: Thank you.

SENATOR HEFLIN: I will just ask one minute and that will do it. Dean, Clarence Thomas wrote a letter of recommendation for Anita Hill to you and she became a member of the law school at the Oral Roberts University.

And is it correct that you wrote a letter of recommendation to the Dean of the University of Oklahoma Law School when she went there to teach at the University of Oklahoma?

MR. KOTHE: I think I talked to Dean Swank, I don't remember writing the letter.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Well, he wrote, Clarence Thomas wrote you?

MR. KOTHE: Yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: Did you, in talking to the Dean of the University of Oklahoma Law School, did you give her a good recommendation?

MR. KOTHE: Oh, yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: A great recommendation?

MR. KOTHE: Yes.

SENATOR HEFLIN: All right, thank you.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman, just one 30-second comment to Mr. Doggett. When your counselor suggested the Illinois Institute of Technology rather than MIT or Cal Tech let me tell you, that counselor was recommending an excellent, superb school in Illinois. It was not a put down.

MR. DOGGETT: All right.

SENATOR LEAHY: The only trouble with that, Senator Simon is that there is probably up at this hour of the night to see you say that plug, but we will make sure that you have a certified copy of the record in the morning.

SENATOR THURMOND: Professor Kothe, I have two very brief questions. Knowing Clarence Thomas as you do, and knowing Anita Hill as you do, do you give any credibility to her charges against Clarence Thomas?

MR. KOTHE: The last part?

Would I what?

SENATOR THURMOND: Do you give any credibility to her charges against Clarence Thomas?

MR. KOTHE: No, the answer is I do not.

I can't believe that she would even say that. I can't believe that she would put that kind of words in her mouth and I can't believe that she would ever say that about Clarence Thomas.

SENATOR THURMOND: Well, do you give credibility to the charges or not?

MR. KOTHE: I do not.

SENATOR THURMOND: What?

MR. KOTHE: I do not.

SENATOR THURMOND: You do not.

The next question. You have had a close relationship with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Do you believe the serious charges made against Judge Thomas by Professor Hill are true?

MR. KOTHE: I do not believe they are true.

SENATOR THURMOND: You do not, that's all. I will yield to the Senator Simpson.

SENATOR SIMPSON: It's been a long night and thank you so much Professor, and Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Stewart and Mr. Grayson. I bet you two gentlemen wish you hadn't gone to the ABA convention in Atlanta if it was going to cost you this kind of a night, did you?

MR. STEWART: It's well worth it, Your Honor, to clear the name of Clarence Thomas.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Let me tell you, it is true, you have to break it with levity because it does get so, it is so stunning. But I do ask you both, you two are really quite critical. And you have been asked very little but the questions you have been asked have been very important.

But you two are probably the two who have seen her most recently, and got an idea of her state of mind about Clarence Thomas in the midst of his travail. In other words, he has been in the tank now for 106 days. And you saw her in August and you spent 30 minutes with her, right?

MR. STEWART: If not longer.

SENATOR SIMPSON: If not longer, and you talked about Clarence and lots of other things as we do, we lawyers at bar conventions.

MR. STEWART: Mostly Clarence, because that is what we had in common.

SENATOR SIMPSON: And that was in an informal way you are having a drink or just sitting talking or just that was it?

MR. STEWART: The former.

SENATOR SIMPSON: And she was very pleased about Clarence Thomas?

MR. STEWART: Yes.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Or indicated that?

MR. STEWART: Yes, Senator.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Proud of him, was she proud of him?

MR. STEWART: There seems to be--there was such euphoria, I would assume she was proud of him.

SENATOR SIMPSON: You recall that and her voice and her demeanor?

MR. STEWART: Laughing, smiling, warm.

SENATOR SIMPSON: And saying, isn't it great about Clarence?

MR. STEWART: And how much he deserved it and that, essentially in other tones that his hard work was paying off.

MR. GRAYSON: Senator, if I could comment. That particular afternoon was the first, and only time I have met Anita Hill and Mr. Stewart and Ms. Hill really spent a few moments sort of reminiscing, they both worked together. So, sort of as an observer, I clearly walked away from that meeting with the clear sense that Ms. Hill shared the excitement about Judge Thomas' nomination, and was, indeed, very supportive of it.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, and I am sure you found her testimony here incredible.

MR. STEWART: Well, I think the reason we are here is incredible. It doesn't surprise me that she would say that after making all of these other allegations.

MR. GRAYSON: I would have to say on my end, I was a bit surprised by it. I am not a student of people but I think to the extent of watching the interaction and the discussion, I was indeed surprised that the reaction was that she Carlton's enthusiasm for the Judge and didn't want to--I don't remember her exact words--but basically didn't want to ruin the mood of the little meeting that took place. If that is, in fact, the case, my response would be that she is very good because that was not clear in my perception of the conversation that took place.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Well, I thank you, very much for coming. And I realize the serious reason that you are both here. And Mr. Doggett, you have been dealing with the issue of what you saw of her and what she said to you. I accept your summary of your affidavit and your testimony as something you feel very strongly about. And apparently if someone else does not that is truly a difference of opinion.

But to you, from your background and the way you describe it, I understand your reaction and I believe it sounds like a natural reaction to you. And you, Professor, thank you. You have been very kind and very patient, and I would like to, if I were in law school, I would have loved to be under your tutelage. I had some rugged rascals that nearly drive me insane. I needed kindness, I needed kindness and sweetness that you could have given to me.

SENATOR LEAHY: They succeeded, Alan.

SENATOR SIMPSON: And as for Leahy--

SENATOR LEAHY: Alan, I think yours succeeded in that insanity drive.

SENATOR SIMPSON: You see what happened to Leahy and I we were in a hearing here one day and a courier came in and he said, I am looking for a bald-headed guy with gray hair and glasses and homely as hell and they said there are two of them, meaning myself and Leahy.

So I want to tell you if we all started to trot out what we did in law school that ought to be a riot for the American public. I don't know what Clarence Thomas did in law school, but I got a hunch about it. And I believe Playboy came out while I was in law school and I remember reading it for its articles and its editorial content. So maybe we can just drop all reflections of what we did in law school, what we watched. It is like doctors going to medical school and calling their cadaver certain names, you know, and lawyers doing all the black humor and the white humor and the ghastly humor and the grotesque and the drinking. Well, some of you may have missed law school.

Anyway I thank you for coming and--

MR. STEWART: Senator, may I make one comment?

SENATOR SIMPSON: Yes, sir.

SENATOR THURMOND: I believe we have six minutes left on this round.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Mr. Stewart had a comment.

SENATOR LEAHY: I think in fairness one thing I do want to say in fairness to the Professor I had quoted when I quoted from the New York Times that quote about Ms. Coleman's discussion of the X-rated films, he obviously had not seen this and I just asked the staff just to give him--I am not going to go back to that--but out of fairness from him, if somebody from the staff could just give that to the Professor, please?

SENATOR SIMPSON: Mr. Stewart had a question.

MR. STEWART: I would just like to make one comment. I understand the need for levity at this late hour but we are here for a very, very serious matter. I think we need not lose sight of the fact that separate and apart from Supreme Court confirmation, Clarence Thomas is a sitting Federal Judge. This process has treated him, in the last several days, like he is a foreman in a manufacturing plant. We are dealing with claims that are that's a nullity at law.

Allegations come in 10 years, eight years, whatever, way beyond the statute of limitation and I think we need to keep these things in focus and in vogue when we are trying to make a decision about who is telling what. We have two witnesses today for Ms. Hill who were told two different things. Two were told that she was being sexually harassed by her supervisor and two were told by her boss.

We still don't know who they are. There were giant leaps in logic to conclude that it was Clarence Thomas, but that is clearly not the case. Many were asked the question of why we are here? We are here because of a leak, not because of allegations, but because of a leak. This is publicized because of a leak by the committee, somebody on the committee.

Clarence should not be the person who receives the brunt of this. The very same rights that they accuse him of being against, they took from him by leaking this information.

That's all I have.

SENATOR THURMOND: I have propounded the question to Professor Kothe and I want to ask a second one and I just put one question to you three gentlemen.

Even though Anita Hill may believe what she said was true, in your opinion, is there any merit in the charges made by her against Clarence Thomas?

MR. GRAYSON: In my judgment, Senator, absolutely not.

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Stewart?

MR. STEWART: In my judgment, Senator, absolutely not. Whether they are lies or a product of fantasy, they should be dismissed.

SENATOR THURMOND: Mr. Doggett?

MR. DOGGETT: Absolutely not. Clarence has been trying to do some things that are extremely important for this country and for any of the things that Anita said to have been true would have totally made it impossible for him to be successful.

SENATOR THURMOND: I believe, Dean Kothe, you have already answered that question.

MR. KOTHE: Yes, I share with those views.

SENATOR BIDEN: Are we prepared to dismiss this panel.

I am sorry, Senator Brown?

SENATOR BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have a few brief questions and I will try to make them brief.

Dean Kothe, your statement indicates that you saw Professor Hill and Judge Thomas together on a number of occasions. Do you remember how many occasions?

MR. KOTHE: I don't think I said a number of occasions. I said I saw them in Washington, in my home, at the seminar, that was about it.

SENATOR BROWN: Could you characterize for us the nature of the conversations between them, the way they acted toward each other?

MR. KOTHE: Oh, it was most friendly. And, in fact, it was a matter of joviality and a lot of laughter. You know, when you are around Clarence Thomas in a relaxed mode, it is a time of joy. And they would reminisce about certain situations that I was not privy to in their experience in Washington and people that they would talk about and they would talk and laugh. But it was always one of pleasure.

SENATOR BROWN: Did you detect any latent hostility in the relationship?

MR. KOTHE: Oh, no, you couldn't possibly have.

SENATOR BROWN: Did you have any occasion in the time you knew Clarence Thomas to see him off-guard, see him in relaxed situations?

MR. KOTHE: I tried to convey that. I have ridden with him in a car for three hours down in Georgia, right in the swamps where he said he was reared. I have been in offices with him. I have been on several college campuses with him. I have been with faculty. I have been with students. I have been in my home when we just stripped down and getting ready for bed and in my library and just talking for a couple of three hours.

SENATOR BROWN: In those relaxed situations, did his vocabulary include any of the words we have talked about in these hearings?

MR. KOTHE: I said this over and over again, I never ever heard this man use profane word. And like I am experienced with other lawyers and other men and in a long discourse inevitably there is a story somebody wants to tell. I never heard him tell a dirty story, so to speak, or make an off-color remark.

It just has to be that this man in the situations I have seen him in would have to be the greatest actor in history to have disguised this part of his nature that has been described here, this totally unreal.

SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.

Mr. Doggett, I liked your reaction to something. In reading through the transcript or reading through your testimony, your statement, it has been some time since I have been in a situation as an unmarried person, so I am not sure I am an expert on this at this point, but the conversation that took place seemed to me could be nothing more than someone flirting with you.

Specific the language the conversation that you had with Professor Hill at the time, Anita Hill at the time, that the words could have been simply a way of flirting, not terribly serious in their content other than engaging. Would you comment on that?

MR. DOGGETT: I never perceived Anita to be flirting with me. I perceived her to, as a man, be indicating that if I was interested in getting to know her better that she would be interested.

SENATOR BROWN: You thought the words were quite serious, not--

MR. DOGGETT: Sir, the comments that she made at going away party, to me, seemed to be very, very serious and that is how I took them.

SENATOR BROWN: Mr. Stewart, one thing, Professor Hill here indicated that it was you who made the comment about Judge Thomas being, at least my recollection is that Judge Thomas being so well suited for the Court and wasn't it wonderful and so on. And that rather than her instigating those remarks, that she merely maintained a politeness during that period without formally objecting but without her uttering those words.

Are you quite certain that those words came from Professor Hill?

MR. STEWART: I am absolutely certain that not only did they come from Ms. Hill but that they were surrounded by euphoria and a continuation of kudos for Judge Thomas that lasted more than a few minutes, that lasted almost over 30 minutes.

The one thing Anita Hill and I had in common was Judge Thomas. That was the subject of conversation. There were no negatives, there were all positives and Mr. Grayson was there and he had not met Ms. Hill before that very instant.

SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to yield back but if I could just make a note about the legal research that Senator Simpson did in law school.

We had a student in Colorado's law school, it was not Yale but it was Colorado who did legal research, I understand with Playboy, because he took certain pictures out of Playboy and appended them to his answer in torts and in two or three places he received the highest grade in the class.

I will yield back.

SENATOR BIDEN: It is time to end this panel. Thank you, very much.

SENATOR SIMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have something to enter into the record because my friend from Vermont talked about Lavita Coleman in a rather negative way and I wish that he had finished the sentence.

She also said that she neither, nor the other students were offended by his amusing comments about pornographic material and then she said, Ms. Coleman, now a lawyer in Washington continued, "Indeed we would have been hypocrites to have been offended since very few of us failed to attend one or more similar films that were shown on the Yale University campus while we were in school."

We did not even do that in Laramie. So that shows you how far behind the curve we were, but then she went on to say and I end with this sentence, she called, this is the same woman about this pornographic stuff, she called him, calling Clarence Thomas, "Particularly sensitive and caring regarding the professional and personal concerns of the women he knows and with whom he has worked and she seriously doubted that he harassed Professor Hill."

That is what is wrong with this process, right there.

SENATOR LEAHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I should, as the Senator from Wyoming knows, I preface that with saying that Ms. Coleman is a very strong supporter of Clarence Thomas. And the only reason I brought up and sent the whole newspaper is that it would be in context for Professor Kothe because he had said that he just could not imagine under any circumstances Judge Thomas going to an X-rated movie. That was the sole point of it. But as I have also stated, Ms. Coleman is a strong supporter and has written to me strongly in support of Judge Thomas.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you, gentlemen. I truly appreciate your willingness to be here as long as you have. There is only one consolation you all have, is there is as panel of nine people to follow you. Just be thankful you're not among them.

Thank you very much.

SENATOR THURMOND: We thank you very much for your appearance.

SENATOR BIDEN: Our next and last panel--it is almost inappropriate to say "welcome" at this hour of the night, but I thank you all very much for your willingness to be here, and particularly for your willingness to be here at this late hour.

As I indicated to you a moment ago, we are going to insist on the 3-minute rule that was announced beforehand, notwithstanding the fact, I am told, there are two witnesses who were going to be here, and for understandable and appropriate reasons, in light of the hour, are not here.

But let me ask the timekeeper, when the clock goes on, will the yellow light go on, with one minute to go? So, when the amber light goes on, you will have a minute. One of you asked me how will you know when we are getting near 3 minutes, and Ms. Johnson indicated to me that she was pregnant and due at any moment, and so I strongly urge my colleagues not to have it that they be responsible for her being here any longer than is necessary. If I can't convince you, on my behalf, to stop questioning, I hope that you will have some consideration for Ms. Johnson, who has not asked for any. I am using you as a ploy, Ms. Johnson, to try and see if we can move this thing along.

Now, our panel is made up of Patricia Johnson, Director of Labor Relations at the EEOC; Pamela Talkin, former Chief of Staff for Clarence Thomas at the EEOC; Janet Brown, former Press Secretary for Senator John Danforth; Linda Jackson, Research Associate, Department of Education; Nancy Altman, formerly of the Department of Education; Anna Jenkins, a former Secretary at the EEOC; Lori Saxon, former Assistant for Congressional Relations of the Department of Education; and Connie Newman, Director, Office of Personnel Management.

Thank you all very much.

Now, I was asked by the panel, they apparently have decided how they would like to proceed, and I would just yield to the panel to proceed in 3-minute intervals seriatim, and we will finish.

I beg your pardon, I am required to swear you all in, I am sorry.

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?

MS. JOHNSON: I do.

MS. TALKIN: I do.

MS. BROWN: I do.

MS. NEWMAN: I do.

MS. JACKSON: I do.

MS. ALTMAN: I do.

MS. JENKINS: I do.

MS. SAXON: I do.

SENATOR BIDEN: Thank you very much.