Call for Peace

In the Name of Allah,

the Most Gracious, and the Most Merciful

بسم اللہ الرحمٰن الرحیم

Supreme Court Nominations

Analysis of Nomination Proceedings

Judge Clarence Thomas

Brothers and Sisters!

Assalam o Alleyykum!

Alhamdu’lillah! Project: Call for Peace was following the Nomination
Proceedings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh where he was defending the accusation of Dr Blasey Ford that she was being sexually assaulted by him in the early 80s at a house party.
In the year 1991same kind of allegations were made by Professor Anita Hill when she was interviewed by the FBI who was conducting an investigation of Judge Clarence Thomas when he was to be nominated as ‘Associate Justice’ of the Supreme Court USA, that Judge Clarence Thomas Sexually harassed her when she was rendering services at EEOC under the supervision of Judge Clarence Thomas.
When Judge Kavanaugh was defending the allegations against him there was news that similar situation emerged when Judge Thomas was nominated by President H W Bush to fill the vacancy where Judge Thurgood Marshall retired in the year 1991. In case of Judge Clarence Thomas it was Professor Anita Hill who accused him sexually harassing her.
There appeared to be similarities in defence between Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Clarence Thomas so project: Call for Peace warranted to listen to the nomination proceeding of Judge Thomas and make analysis whether Professor Anita Hill’s allegations were false or true.

ALLEGATIONS BY PROFESSOR ANITA HILL

Brothers and Sisters! As below are the details of allegations by Professor Anita Hill copied from her testimony that was published on Google Network:

After approximately three months of working there, he asked me to go out socially with him. What happened next, and telling the world about it, are the two most difficult things-experiences of my life.

It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration and sleepless nights that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my close friends.

I declined the invitation to go out socially with him and explained to him that I thought it would jeopardize at – what at the time I considered to be a very good working relationship. I had a normal social life with other men outside the office. I believed then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill-advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so.

I thought that by saying no and explaining my reasons, my employer would abandon his social suggestions. However, to my regret, in the following few weeks, he continued to ask me out on several occasions.

He pressed me to justify my reasons for saying no to him. These incidents took place in his office or mine. They were in the form of private conversations, which not-would not have been overheard by anyone else.

My working relationship became even more strained when Judge Thomas began to use work situations to discuss sex. On these occasions he would call me into his office for reports on education issues and projects, or he might suggest that because of the time pressures of his schedule we go to lunch to a government cafeteria.

After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with
animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes.

He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess.

Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about this subject. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs.

My efforts to change the subject were rarely successful.

Throughout the period of these conversations, he also from time to time asked me for social engagements. My reaction to these conversations was to avoid them by eliminating opportunities for us to engage in extended conversations.

For my first months at the EEOC where I continued to be an assistant to Judge Thomas, there were no sexual conversations or overtures. However, during the fall and winter of 1982, these began again. The comments were random and ranged from pressing me about why I didn’t go out with him to remarks about my personal appearance. I remember his saying that someday I would have to tell him the real reason that I wouldn’t go out with him.

He began to show displeasure in his tone and voice and his demeanour and his continued pressure for an explanation. He commented on what I was wearing in terms of whether it made me more or less sexually attractive. The incidents occurred in his inner office at the EEOC.

One of the oddest episodes I remember was an occasion in which Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office. He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, “Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?”

In the spring of 1983, and opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. I participated in a seminar, taught an afternoon session in a seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in further pursuing a career in teaching beginning at Oral Roberts University. I agreed to take the job, in large part because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC due to Judge Thomas.

When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him. I told him that I still preferred not to do so. At some time after that meeting, he asked if he could take me to dinner at the end of the term. When I declined, he assured me that the dinner was a professional courtesy only and not a social invitation. I reluctantly agreed to accept that invitation but only if it was at the very end of a working day.

On, as I recall, the last day of my employment at the EEOC in the summer of 1983, I did have dinner with Clarence Thomas. We went directly from work to a restaurant near the office. We talked about the work I had done, both at Education and at the EEOC. He told me that he was pleased with all of it except for an article and speech that I had done for him while we were at the Office for Civil Rights. Finally he made a comment that I will vividly remember. He said that if I ever told anyone of his behaviour that it would ruin his career. This was not an apology, nor was it an explanation. That was his last remark about the possibility of our going out or reference to his behaviour.

DEFENSE BY JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS

Brothers and Sisters! The testimony in his defence by Judge Clarence Thomas can be read under the Option: Judge Thomas Testimony. As below is an extract from testimony from the video on website: www.youtube.com the ID is:

Worst of The Clarence Thomas Hearings

Time starts 7.15 minutes

Chairman: Judge! Tough day, tough night, I know. Let me ask you anything you like to say before we begin. I understand that your preference is which totally and completely understandable that we got one hour tonight, 30 minutes on each side. Am I correct?

Judge! That’s correct.

Chairman! Tell us what you would like to tell.

Judge Clarence Thomas! Senator! I would like to start by saying unequivocally, and categorically that I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested anyone that I had conversation of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill that I even attempted to date her that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her
or that I in any way ever harassed her.

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas has married twice and has one child. So this proves that he is a ‘Man’. By ‘Man’ it is construed that he has all the ‘Sexual’ powers i.e. sexual urge emerges when ‘Man’ even thinks about a young beautiful woman let alone when he comes across a young woman and there is continuous contact with a young attractive beautiful woman.

Brothers and Sisters! In short, to satisfy sexual urge is such an element that man and woman do not consider about their status. There are a number of examples that head of the states, priests, bio – logical relatives and otherwise have abused their powers to satisfy their sexual urge. As below are some examples:

President Bill Clinton

Brothers and Sisters! When the affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky came on the Judge Brett Kavanaugh was the among the Starr team who investigated the affair and suggested following questions:

Mr. Kavanaugh listed 10 possible questions based on Ms. Lewinsky’s testimony, saying that he would “leave the best phrasing to others.” Among them were these:

“If Monica Lewinsky says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?”

“If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”

“If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trash can in your secretary’s office, would she be lying?”

Brothers and Sisters! Please read the complete news Under:

Option: Judge Kavanaugh

Link: Kavanaugh’s Graphic…

Brothers and Sisters! Bill Clinton was President of the USA but he did not care for his status and satisfied his sexual urge even masturbating in his Secretary’s Office, presumably in the presence of Monica Lewinsky let alone having sexual intercourse and oral sex.

Priests

Brothers and Sisters! As below is news where Priests sexually abused children and otherwise:

No 1

Catholic priest sexually abused FIVE sisters as young as 18months-old in front of their parents

Father Augustine Giella’s sick abuse even happened at the kitchen table, but it was often carried out in ways the girls’ mum and dad “couldn’t see”

No 2

German Catholic priests abused thousands of children’

A study commissioned by the Catholic Church in Germany says clerics abused thousands of children over a 70-year period

More than 3,600 children in Germany were assaulted by Roman Catholic priests between 1946 and 2014, a leaked report has revealed.

No 3

Alleged sexual abuse victims testify against Pope Francis’s top financial adviser

Cardinal George Pell appeared at Melbourne Magistrates Court Credit: AP

A high-ranking Catholic Church member has appeared in court charged with multiple historical sexual offences relating to several complainants.

Cardinal George Pell, 76, Pope Francis’s former finance minister, is the most senior Vatican official ever charged in the Catholic Church sex abuse crisis.

No 4 Incest

Man jailed for nine years for rape of teenage daughter

A man has been jailed for nine years for the rape of his daughter who later took her own life.

Brothers and Sisters! You can see that even the head of the state, high ranking priests and bio – logical father did not care about their status and abused their powers to satisfy their sexual urge.

Brothers and Sisters! As the sexual urge is very demanding, to allow marrying up to four women in Deen e Islam is one of the reasons that men do not indulge in illegal sexual intercourse.

Brothers and Sisters! Incidentally, the West is critical of Islamic provision having up to four wives but in the West though man can only one wife but there is chain of their illegal sexual intercourse before and after marriage

Subject Matter

Brothers and Sisters! The subject matter is make analysis how Judge Clarence Thomas’s testimony can be true?

Brothers and Sisters! By denying the allegation of sexual harassment to Professor Anita Hill Judge Thomas is defying the nature. Professor Anita Hill was young, beautiful and attractive woman. How can he proclaim:

I would like to start by saying unequivocally, and categorically………….that I even attempted to date her that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her…….

Brothers and Sisters! No doubt Judge Clarence Thomas is an intelligent man where at the age of 43 he was nominated for ‘Associate Justice’ of the Supreme Court of USA.

Brothers and Sisters! From the testimony of Professor Anita Hill it can be construed that Judge Clarence Thomas:

viewed pornographic materials
watched ‘Blue Movies’ and Movies where women have sex with animals

etc.etc

Brothers and Sisters! It is natural phenomenon that pornographic material is viewed and ‘Blue Movies’ are watched to satisfy the sexual urge and also to arouse the sexual urge by talking about it to seduce a man or woman.

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas seems to be clever. He did not made sexual advances but he talked about pornographic materials, women having sex with animals, his own sexual prowess etc. etc. to arouse Professor Anita Hills sexual urge and that she herself move forward to be seduced by him.

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas was clever to judge the Psychology of Professor Anita Hill that she would not share this information with the third party as she is enthusiastic to build her career and she would not want to be looked upon as cheap woman in the society.

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas was married with Kathy Ambush from the year 1971 and divorce took place in the year 1984. The period of service between Judge Thomas and Anita Hill is while Professor Anita Hill was rendering her services under his supervision from the year 1981 to 1983 as per testimony of Professor Anita Hill:

In 1981, I was introduced to now-Judge Thomas by a mutual friend.

In July of 1983 I left the Washington, D. C. area, and I’ve had minimal contacts with Judge Clarence Thomas since.

Brothers and Sisters! As Judge Thomas was enjoying his matrimonial life between the year 1981 and 1983 so he was satisfying his sexual urge with his wife which used to be aroused by the looks of Professor Anita Hill.

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas appeared to have accepted Professor Anita Hill’s reason of not going out with her socially as it will jeopardise the professional relationships. However, the urge to date with Professor Anita Hill was on top of his mind because when she left EEOC to join Oral Robert University and informed him his comments were:

When I informed him that I was leaving in July, I recall that his response was that now I would no longer have an excuse for not going out with him.

CONCLUSION

Brothers and Sisters! In view of the above observations it is safe to conclude that Judge Clarence Thomas was not truthful under oath in his testimony that:

Brothers and Sisters! There appears to be a proof that Judge Clarence Thomas
not truthful under oath. As per profile of Professor Anita Hill on Google Network:

Hill agreed to take a polygraph test. While senators and other authorities noted that polygraph results cannot be relied upon and are inadmissible in courts, Hill’s results did support her statements. Thomas did not take a polygraph test.

Brothers and Sisters! It appears professor Anita Hill did take Polygraph test as indicated by:

……….. Hill’s results did support her statements

And

Thomas did not take a polygraph test.

Brothers and Sisters! Fair enough, ‘polygraph’ test are not admissible in the court of law but the hearing was conducted by the Judiciary Senate Committee to confirm Judge Clarence Thomas for ‘Associate Justice’ of the Supreme Court of USA and ‘polygraph’ test should have been done. Professor Anita Hill did appear to have taken ‘Polygraph’ test because she was truthful and that:

……….. Hill’s results did support her statements

Brothers and Sisters! Professor Anita Hill’s testimony and results of ‘Polygraph’ test did prove that she was sexually harassed by Judge Clarence Thomas and Judge Clarence Thomas was not truthful in his testimony under oath:

Brothers and Sisters! Incidentally, Judge Brett Kavanaugh opined that ‘Polygraph’ test is important law enforcement tool. As below is the Extract from Judge Brett Kavanaugh profile on Google Network:

Sexual assault allegations Christine Blasey Ford

Ford also took a polygraph test which was paid for by Ford’s attorneys and administered by a former FBI agent. The test concluded she was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate. According to the American Psychological Association, there is little scientific evidence for the validity of polygraph tests. In 2016, Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel of his court that polygraphs were an important “law enforcement tool.”

Brothers and Sisters! In view of the opinion of Judge Brett Kavanaugh ‘Polygraph’ test is important Law enforcement tool, so Judiciary Senate Committee should have asked Judge Clarence Thomas to take ‘Polygraph’ test to judge the credibility of Judge Clarence Thomas, although:

According to the American Psychological Association, there is little scientific evidence for the validity of polygraph tests

Brothers and Sisters! However, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion was written in the year 2016 so it cannot have retrospective effect. But ‘Polygraph’ test was in force in the year 1991 when Professor Anita Hill did appear to have taken the ‘Polygraph’ test.

Brothers and Sisters! There were four female witnesses to support Professor Anita Hill’s credibility but they were not called upon. As below is extract from the profile of Professor Anita Hill on Google Network:

Four female witnesses reportedly waited in the wings to support Hill’s credibility, but they were not called, due to what the Los Angeles Times described as a private, compromise deal between Republicans and the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Democrat Joe Biden. According to Time magazine, one of the witnesses, Angela Wright, may not have been considered credible on the issue of sexual harassment because she had been fired from the EEOC by Thomas.

Brothers and Sisters! It appears that there had been compromise deal between Republicans and Democrat chairman Joe Biden not to pursue that matter further.

How?

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas was nominated by Republican President H W Bush and he had to be confirmed. If the Judiciary Senate Committee wanted to look at the allegation of sexual harassment by Professor Anita Hill, then Committee should have asked questions from Judge Clarence Thomas when he testified:

Questions to be asked:

Judge Thomas!

have you ever viewed Pornographic material?
have you ever watched ‘Blue’ movies?
have you ever watched movies where women having sex with animals?
did you have any girlfriends before you got married?
how did you satisfy sexual urge before you got married?
why did Professor Anita Hill not appeal to you sexually while she is young and attractive woman?
did you say to Professor Anita Hill while having dinner:

…….Finally he made a comment that I will vividly remember. He said that if I ever told anyone of his behaviour that it would ruin his career.
etc.

Brothers and Sisters! It is understandable that these types of questions are of private nature but in view of the subject matter these questions are bound to be asked because other party’s integrity is at risk as he was going to be Associate Justice of Supreme Court of USA.

WHY ANITA HILL MADE ALLEGATION AGAINST JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS?

Brothers and Sisters! The question emerges that how and why Professor Anita Hill made allegations of sexual harassment against Judge Clarence Thomas? As below is an extract from Anita Hill’s profile on Google network:

In 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a federal Circuit Judge, to succeed retiring Associate Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Senate hearings on his confirmation were initially completed with Thomas’s good character being presented as a primary qualification for the high court because he had only been a judge for slightly more than one year. There had been little organized opposition to Thomas’ nomination, and his confirmation seemed assured until a report of a private interview of Hill by the FBI was leaked to the press. The hearings were then reopened, and Hill was called to publicly testify. Hill said on 11 October 1991 in televised hearings that Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the EEOC.^[

Brothers and Sisters! It appears from the context of the highlighted part of the extract that when FBI interviewed Professor Anita Hill in respect of the investigation of Judge Clarence Thomas, then she felt her duty to disclose that she had been sexually harassed by Judge Clarence Thomas while she was rendering her services under his supervision at EEOC and otherwise. As below is an extract from professor Anita Hills’s testimony:

I declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when Senate
staff asked me about these matters, I felt I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.

It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. It took no initiative to inform anyone. I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent.

Brothers and Sisters! It appears that Professor Anita Hill may not have been aware of that Judge Clarence Thomas has been on the short list of being nominee to the Supreme Court of USA as Associate Justice and she only became aware of his nomination when FBI approached her to investigate Judge Clarence Thomas as she had rendered her services under his supervision at EEOC. It can be construed that had FBI not interviewed Professor Anita Hill in respect of investigation of Judge Clarence Thomas she would not have disclosed this matter. However, if she had remained silent about the sexual harassment she suffered from Judge Clarence Thomas she would have been negligent in her duty and responsibility as he was going to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of USA.

Brothers and Sisters! Professor Anita Hill remained silent about this issue until she was interviewed by FBI. She did not disclose this publically from year 1983 to year 1991 as it would not have achieved anything rather it would have affected her career which she highlighted in her Testimony to the Judiciary Senate Committee:

Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life, but it is very close to having to live through the experience that occasioned this meeting. I may have used poor judgment early on in my relationship with this issue. I was aware, however, that telling at any point in my career could adversely affect my future career, and I did not want early on, to burn all the bridges to the EEOC.

As I said, I may have used poor judgment. Perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I was in the agency or after I left it. But I must confess to the world that the course that I took seemed the better, as well as the easier, approach.

CONCLUSION

Brothers and Sisters! In short, Professor Anita Hill has suffered in both ways:

Not Disclosing Publically

Brothers and Sisters! When she did not disclose the facts publically between the years 1983 to the year 1991 she suffered mentally and psychologically as it has been revolving in her mind that she had been sexually harassed.

Disclosing It Publically

Brothers and Sisters! When she disclosed the facts publically she has not been believed by the Judiciary Senate Committee as Judge Clarence Thomas had been confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of USA. As she has not been believed so she has been suffering mentally and psychologically.

WHY JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS WAS NOT TRUTHFUL IN HIS TESTIMONY?

Brothers and Sisters! The question emerges why Judge Clarence Thomas was not truthful in his testimony under oath?

Brothers and Sisters! In this scientific age and capitalist society everyone wants to be at higher status so he can enjoy power and he or she will be looked upon credible and otherwise.

Brothers and Sisters! As below is extract from Judge Clarence Thomas testimony from a video ID at website: www.youtube.com :

Judge Thomas ”This is a circus..

“I mean, just go on and kill me and get it over with,”

Senator! Orrin Hatch! Judge! Some people spreading the rumour perhaps you going to withdraw what’s (Inaudible)

Judge Clarence Thomas! I rather die than withdraw. If they going to kill me they can kill me.

Senator! So you still like to serve in the Supreme Court?

Judge Clarence Thomas! I rather die than withdraw from the process, not (Inaudible) purpose of serving on Supreme Court but for the purpose of not being driven out of the process. I will not be scared. I don’t like bullies. I never run from bullies. I never cry uncle, I am not going to cry uncle today whether I wait to be on Supreme Court or not.

Brothers and Sisters! It appears from the determination of Judge Clarence Thomas that to be confirmed by the Judiciary Senate Committee he did not care about if he was not being truthful under oath.

Brothers and Sisters! Incidentally, Oath is just a formality in the court of law. It is not time to go in detail how Oath is merely a ‘formality’. But lawyers acting on behalf of both plaintiff and defendant advise their clients how to strength their case by lying and manufacturing evidence.

HOW JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS DID PREPARE HIS TESTIMONY?

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas is an intelligent man where he earned a place as ‘Associate Assistance’ to the Supreme Court of USA.

Brothers and Sisters! The profile on Google Network reveals that Judge Clarence Thomas practiced as lawyer for number of years. Thereafter he rendered his services in the public sector:

Thomas grew up in Savannah, Georgia, and was educated at the College of the Holy Cross and at Yale Law School. He was appointed an Assistant Attorney General in Missouri in 1974, and subsequently practiced law there in the private sector. In 1979, he became a legislative assistant to Senator John Danforth (R–MO) and in 1981 was appointed Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed Thomas Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).

Brothers and Sisters! It appears that until 1990 Judge Clarence Thomas was rendering his services at EEOC as there is no mention about his services until President H W Bush nominated him on United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He served in that role for 16 months, and on July 1, 1991

Brothers and Sisters! In short, being a practising lawyer and judge, Judge, Judge Clarence Thomas was aware of how the lawyers on behalf of their clients; plaintiff and defendant prepare their ‘Witness Statements’ from the information they provide them. Moreover, when the case is referred to Court of Appeal, the case is usually had been heard by the County Courts, High Courts and otherwise. The Appeal Court Judge has to go through all the documentary evidence and Witness Statements by both plaintiff and defendant before hearing is conducted. Thereafter the Judge also listens to the arguments of the solicitors on behalf of their clients and questioning and cross questioning of both plaintiff and defendant.

Brothers and Sisters! As Judge Clarence Thomas was a defendant in relation to his confirmation process of being ‘Associate Justice’ of Supreme Court of USA so he had to prepare his case on the sound footings to defend the allegations of Sexual Harassments by Professor Anita Hill which she had to disclose when she was interviewed by FBI in relation to establish the credibility of Judge Clarence Thomas for ‘Associate Justice’ for the Supreme Court of USA.

Aggressive Tone

Brothers and Sisters! It has become a natural phenomenon that in the court of law the lawyers adopt ‘aggressive’ approach to present their case before the judge and Judiciary.

Brothers and Sisters! It can be seen that Judge Clarence Thomas was aggressive while giving his testimony before the Judiciary Senate Committee.

Base of Defence

Brothers and Sisters! As below is extract of Questions and Answers between Chairman Joe Biden and Judge Clarence Thomas on website: www.youtube.com ID:

Judge Thomas ”This is a circus..

“I mean, just go on and kill me and get it over with,”

Questions and Answers

Between Chairman Joe Biden

And

Judge Clarence Thomas

Time Starts 20.24 Minutes

Brothers and Sisters! Before the base of defence is established by Judge Clarence Thomas please read the extract: Question and Answers between Chairman Joe Biden and Judge Clarence Thomson.

Brothers and Sisters! After Senator Orrin Hatch finished questioning Judge Clarence Thomas the chairman Joe Biden took over and questions and answers session started as below:

Chairman: Now we go down to go back and forth. Judge! I make sure I understand one thing. Do you believe that interested group went out and got Professor Hill to make up the story (inaudible) or do you believe Professor Hill had a story untrue from your perspective that as referred here group went out and found which do you believe?

Judge: Senator! I believe that someone, some interested group, I don’t care who it is, in combination came up with the story and used this process to destroy me.

Chairman: Got Professor Hill to make up the story?

Judge: I believe that in combination the story was developed or concoctive to destroy me.

Chairman: with Professor Hill? This is critical question. Are you saying with Professor Hill group…….. (That Senator was interrupted)

Judge: That is just my view Senator. I … (Chairman did not let Judge complete the answer)

Chairman: I am trying to make….. (Again the Chairman was interrupted)

Judge: I am not (inaudible) no details to anything else. The story developed. I do not believe story is not true. The allegations are false and my view is other put together developed this (inaudible)

Chairman: And put in Professor Hill’s name?

Judge: I don’t know. I don’t know how it got there. All I know is that the story is here and it was concocted.

Chairman: Well Judge! I know you believe that and I am not here to (inaudible) or attempt to this moment refute that. There has been assertion made. I want to know if you want to agree with it that it is important to first keep our (inaudible), either Professor Hill has a story that she told someone, it was taken advantage of by being leaked, that is one thing. She says that and the other story is to be (inaudible) not by you (inaudible) your belief is that a group sat down and decided to make up the story and found (inaudible) vessel in Professor Hill, and got her to say it. Now there you are fundamentally different things ……(Chairman was interrupted)

Judge: Senator…. (video ended so what was the answer it is not known)

Brothers and Sisters! The video ended

OBSERVATIONS

Brothers and Sisters! It is natural process that in normal daily life when there is dispute between the two parties each party blames another party bringing a third party that has been the cause of dispute between the two parties.

Brothers and Sisters! From the context of questions and answers it appears that Judge Clarence Thomas is not blaming Professor Hill to destroy him. Incidentally Professor Hill stated in her testimony that she does not have any personal vendetta against Judge Clarence Thomas:

I declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas is bringing the third party in it who wants to destroy him. In his testimony he aggressively states:

Charges were levelled against me from the (inaudible) charge of (inaudible) abuse. Anti – Semitism, wife beating, drug used by family members that I was (inaudible) confirmation (inaudible) and much much more.

Now this. I have complied with rules. I responded to a document that request that reduced 30,000 of pages documents and I have testified five full days under oath. I have been through ordeal for 103 days. Reporters are sneering in my garage, exam in books I read (inaudible) divorce papers, looking for dirt, unnamed people (inaudible) and damaging rumours, calls all over the country specifically Dirt. This is not America. This is (inaudible). It has got to stop. It must stop for the benefit of future nominees and our country.

Conclusion

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas knew that the allegations of Sexual Harassment by Professor Anita Hill are not false so he tried his best to hide it under the veil of third party who wanted to destroy his career.

WHY PROFESSOR ANITA HILL WOULD ALLEGATE JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

Brothers and Sisters! The question emerge why would Professor Anita Hill falsely allegate Judge Clarence Thomas of Sexual Harassment?

Spot light

Brothers and Sisters! It is natural phenomenon that when a renowned person or a person with high calibre is accused of something immoral the accuser comes into the ‘Spotlight’.

Brothers and Sisters! Professor Anita Hill was highly qualified and rendering her services to EEOC, Oral Robert University which were respectable posts. She was already in the ‘Spotlight’ due to her talents.

Brothers and Sisters! As below is extract from Judge Clarence Thomas’s testimony:

In 1981 I went to department of education as an assistant Secretary of the office of civil rights. One of my closest friends from both college and law school, Gill Hardy, brought Anita Hill to my attention. As I remember he indicated that she was distraught with the law firm and wanted to work in government. Based primarily if not solely on Gill’s recommendations I hired Anita Hill. During my tenure at the department of education Anita Hill was an Attorney advisor who worked directly with me. She worked on special projects as well as day to day matters.

Brothers and Sisters! As below is extract from Anita Hill’s Testimony:

In the spring of 1983, and opportunity to teach at Oral Roberts University opened up. I participated in a seminar, taught an afternoon session in a seminar at Oral Roberts University. The dean of the university saw me teaching and inquired as to whether I would be interested in further pursuing a career in teaching beginning at Oral Roberts University. I agreed to take the job, in large part because of my desire to escape the pressures I felt at the EEOC due to Judge Thomas.

Brothers and Sisters! In view of the context of the above extracts it can be construed that there was no reason that Professor Anita Hill needed to come in the Spotlight by allegating Judge Clarence Thomas of Sexual Harassment while she rendered her services under his supervision.

Financial Gains

Brothers and Sisters! There is another factor which leads to allegate a celebrity or a person in high office for financial gains where the story is sold to the media and otherwise.

Brothers and Sisters! It cannot be expected of Professor Anita Hill because she must be earning high salary, she was rendering services to high offices of the USA and she was and is a sober woman.

Enmity

Brothers and Sisters! As per Judge Clarence Thomas the allegations by Professor Anita Hill are false so it can be assumed that there was some grudge in the heart of Anita Hill against Judge Clarence Thomas so she availed the opportunity when he was nominated to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to stop his confirmation she made allegation of Sexual Harassment against him.

Brothers and Sisters! Judge Clarence Thomas was like ‘Patron’ for Professor Anita Hill on the following basis:

She was distraught with the law firm and wanted to work for the government. On the recommendation of his friend Gill Hardy he hired her to enjoin him in the education department.
When Judge Thomas became chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) in 1982, Hill went along to serve as his assistant.
When she was offered teaching job at Oral Robert University in 1983, Judge Clarence Thomas happily relieved her to build her career.

Brothers and Sisters! In view of the above considerations by Judge Clarence Thomas how element of enmity could emerge in the heart of Professor Anita Hill against Judge Clarence Thomas?

WHY PROFESSOR ANITA HILL DID NOT FEEL SEXUAL URGE?

Brothers and Sisters! Question arises why Professor Anita Hill aroused sexually when Judge Clarence Thomas was talking about the pornographic material, women having sex with animals, talking about his own sexual prowess and otherwise? Moreover, Judge Clarence Thomas was young and handsome and for social outing with the view that they will be promoted.

Brothers and Sisters! The context of the extracts as below from Google Network depict that Professor Anita Hill was concerned to secure knowledge as much as she can and distribute it to the people of the world:

After graduating as valedictorian from Morris High School, Oklahoma, she enrolled at Oklahoma State University
and received a bachelor’s degree in psychology with honours in 1977. She went on to Yale Law School, obtaining her Juris Doctor
degree with honours in 1980

Observation:

At the age of 24 years professor Anita Hill secured two graduation degrees and PhD degrees with Honours. This depicts how intelligent she is.

In 1995 Hill co-edited Race, Gender and Power in America: The Legacy of the Hill-Thomas Hearings with Emma Coleman Jordan. In 1997 Hill published her autobiography, Speaking Truth to Power, in which she chronicled her role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation controversy and wrote that creating a better society had been a motivating force in her life. She contributed the piece “The Nature of the Beast: Sexual Harassment” to the 2003 anthology Sisterhood Is Forever: The Women’s Anthology for a New Millennium, edited by Robin Morgan. In 2011 Hill published her second book, Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding Home, which focuses on the sub-prime lending crisis that resulted in the foreclosure of many homes owned by African-Americans. She calls for a new understanding about the importance of a home and its place in the American Dream. On March 26, 2015, the Brandeis Board of Trustees unanimously voted to recognize Hill with a promotion to Private University Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s Studies

Brothers and Sisters! There are cases where people devote their lives in securing ILM (knowledge) and keep on distributing it by:

teaching
editing magazines
writing books
and otherwise

Brothers and Sisters! When a person is dedicated to secure ILM sex becomes secondary issue. As their heart and mind is always occupied in analysing the inside out of the ILM they have secured and also looking for further outlets, the sex element is suppressed.

Brothers and Sisters! As below is extract from an interview of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor from website: www.youtube.com ID:

The Dating Life of a Supreme Court Justice | Oprah’s Next Chapter | Oprah Winfrey Network

Anchor! Why did your marriage fail? Obviously you are separated and remain friends, why you did that?

S Sotomayor!

I think when you marry young you run the risk that you grow in reasons, different directions. I was completely consumed with work when I started as a DA in Manhattan. I was not paying attention to him. I take full responsibility for that of the end.
But he also as he explained to me one time at the end of our marriage that he began to fear not being successful as I.

He is a very generous man. He said it to me very kind way. But he said: You know when we were at high school and you were doing, I just kept thinking just because she works at it and when I decided to work hard at it I will just as successful one day I woke up no matter how hard I work I am not be as successful as you and that led me to think that she really need me and it was difficult issue to discuss with me and hard for me to hear. I lived him and I know he loves me. But did I need him in the way that he wanted to need him.

Brothers and Sisters! In short, Associate Justice is very high calibre job and he or she has to keep on analysing the judicial structure, each and every clause of the constitution based upon the nature of the case and also keep up to date with new legislation or change or adaptation in the existing legislation. Therefore they have little time left to attend to the matrimonial affairs and sexual urge is suppressed by the burden of concentration towards the implementation of the high calibre job. This is why Associated Justice Sonia Sotomayor ended her matrimonial life although she loved her husband but could not discharge her responsibilities as a wife.

Associate Judge Elena Kagan

Brothers and Sisters! Elena Kagan is also Associate Justice. It appears he has not married at all. There is no mention of her marriage or any friendship with men in her profile on Google Network.

Childhood friend Margaret Raymond recalled that Kagan was a teenage smoker but not a partier. On Saturday nights, she and Kagan were “more apt to sit on the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and talk.” Kagan also loved literature and re-read Jane Austen‘s Pride and Prejudice every year. In her Hunter College High School yearbook of 1977, Kagan was pictured in a judge’s robe and holding a gavel. Next to her photo was a quote from former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: “Government is itself an art, one of the subtlest of arts.”

Brothers and Sisters! As Elena Kagan was not partier so it depicts she did not have interest in the opposite sex sexually.

Professor Anita Hill

Brothers and Sisters! The subject matter is Professor Anita Hill. Likewise Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan she was addicted to read and write to build her career and it appears she did not get married as there is no mention in her Profile on Google Network. So it can safely be assumed that when Judge Clarence Thomas tried to arouse her sexual urge by talking about pornographic material, women having sex with animals and about his own sexual prowess it did not appeal to her as she was lost in building career by the study of literature and otherwise. Moreover, there is no mention of her friendship with men in her profile on Google Network.

CONCLUSION

Brothers and Sisters! Alhamdu’lillah! From the above detailed analysis it can safely be deduced that the allegations of Sexual Harassment by Professor Anita Hill were and are true which she disclosed in her interview with FBI who were investigating the personality and character of Judge Clarence Thomas to be confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of USA. Professor Anita Hill felt her duty to disclose the truth as it was about the person who is going to be the Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of USA.

I declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt I had a duty to report.

I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the committee with information which it may regard as relevant.

It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. It took no initiative to inform anyone-I took no initiative to inform anyone.

But when I asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent.

Brothers and Sisters! It also appears that Judge Clarence Thomas was not truthful in his testimony before Senate Judiciary committee under oath.

Brothers and Sisters! However, Judge Clarence Thomas has composed a book: My Grandfather’s Son. As below is an extract about the review of the book:

Approximately a third of My Grandfather’s Son is spent discussing Thomas’s nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court. Thomas says he was initially reluctant to become a Justice, but that when President George H. W. Bush asked him he felt obliged to accept. When the hearings began on September 1, 1991, Thomas expected them to centre on race and claims to have had no advance information about Anita Hill‘s accusations. My Grandfather’s Son goes through the hearings day by day, with Thomas defending himself against his accusers and criticizing their motives.

Thomas says he learned of the accusations of sexual harassment by Hill over the weekend after the first five days of the hearings when a pair of FBI agents visited his home.

Brothers and Sisters! In view of the facts which reveal that Judge Clarence Thomas was not truthful in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee how could he in his book: My Grandfather’s Son defend himself against his accusers and criticising their motives.

My Grandfather’s Son goes through the hearings day by day, with Thomas defending himself against his accusers and criticizing their motives.

Thomas says he learned of the accusations of sexual harassment by Hill over the weekend after
the first five days of the hearings when a pair of
FBI agents visited his home.

Brothers and Sisters! However, it has become a history. But history reveals that to get a high calibre job one can pass every hurdle in his way even being untruthful under oath.

Wass’a’lam

[May Allah Bless You]

Naseer Aziz

Principal Call for Peace

Primary Links

Profile

Sponsorship

Analysis Nomination

Sexual assault allegations Christine Blasey Ford

The Dating Life of a Supreme Court Justice | Oprah’s Next Chapter | Oprah Winfrey Network