clarence thomas is a fighter. i remember meeting with him i don't remember the circumstance but is any of this true? >> know it's not. that's all i need to know. and the day he would respond to the charges of anita hill before he would walk down the hallway into the hearing room. i walked down the hallway with him and there were all the cameras and we can see way down at the end of the hall that there were a chance and noise to be made i thought this will be a tough tough day. as we got closer it wasn't who we saw there like the hearings for judge kavanaugh people screaming to stop those committee hearings from going forward. there were tourist. those that had saved for many years to bring their family here they couldn't get a ticket to the hearing but they knew judge thomas would be responding to the charges and they were at the end of the hall and they started a party to yell out his name we are praying for you. and then to sit down at the chair and confronted the senators. [applause] i would love to read to you

when clarence thomas was nominated by president george h.w. bush in 1991, his former assistant, a lawyer named anita hill, notified the senate judiciary committee who was considering his nomination that when she worked for judge thomas, he had sexually harassed her. now, whether or not that would be considered a crime, whether or not that was considered to be within the statute of limitations for any conceivable crime related to those charges, that wasn't the point. the allegation was, instead, relevant as a factor in his background check. it was relevant to the assessment of judge thomas as a potential supreme court nominee. and when the judiciary committee received that information from anita hill, that information got sent to the fbi. the judiciary committee sent that information to the white house on september 23rd, 1991. that same day, september 23rd, the white house counsel for president bush, c. boyden gray, papi bush's lawyer for all four years he was president, they asked him to reopen the fbi investigation of judge thomas to look into

aware from the press that some questions have been raised about conversations i had with judge clarence thomasr i left the eeoc. from 1983 until today, i have seen judge thomas only twice. on one occasion i needed to get a reference from him, and on another, he made a public appearance in tulsa. on one occasion he called me at home, and we had an inconsequential conversation. on one occasion he called me without reaching me, and i returned the call without reaching him, and nothing came of it. i have, on at least three occasions, been asked to act as a conduit to him for others. i knew his secretary, diane holt. we had worked together at both eeoc and education. there were there were occasions on which i spoke to her, and on some of the these occasions, undoubtedly, i passed on some casual comment to then-chairman thomas. there were a series of calls in the first three months of 1985 occasioned by a group in tulsa, which wished to have a civil rights conference. they wanted judge thomas to be the speaker and enlisted my assistance for this purpose. i did call in january and february, to no eff

clarence thomas lost 40 votes when he was accused of sexual harassment. how many votes will brett kavanaugh lose after being accused of attempted rape? professor ford will be testifying more than a year after the me too movement which saw fox news host bill o'reilly lose, and harvey weinstein charged with criminal rape and a long list of prominent men, most recently ceo les moonves knocked offtrack, knocked off their career paths. fired on the basis of sexual harassment or some form of sexual assault accusations. after more than a year and a half specifically republican senators susan collins and lisa murkowski, how will they decide that there still should be some safe employment havens left for men accused of sexual assault, and that those two safe havens should be the white house and the united states supreme court? is that what they will decide? we now have the only president in history who has publicly confessed to sexual assault and described his preferred methods of sexual assault. >> i'm automatically attracted to people, and just start kissing the

i tried to warn clarence thomas. what i had tried to do is to take into an account all of those things been being better and more productive. it has been work, it has been hard work. it helped me bring some kind of closure to it. and put it in perspective. it has been hard but it's also been rewarding. i have seen potential that i did not know i have. and in some ways i think this book is a testament to that. and in some ways i would never have lived those potentials that i not had those hearings. it was a mixed bag. you're doing it for money. i will make money off this book. i was very embarrassed by that. but i'm not i'm not embarrassed. i think in a lot of ways the people that didn't want to speak for fees. working under ways. they did not want to hear what i have to say. i think i have to write this book. i hope that people will read and understand. i'm not trying to redo the hearing. i'm really trying to explain what happened to me and what has happened in society since those hearings. i'm very proud very proud

when clarence thomas was nominated by george h.w. bush, his former assistant, anita hill, notified the senate judicial committee which confirmed her nomination that when he worked for thomas, he sexually harassed her. whether or not that considered to be in the statue of limitations or conceivable crimes weulated related to char. it was relevant to the judge as a potential supreme court nominee. when the judiciary committee receives that information from anita hill, that information got sent to the fbi. the judiciary committee sent that information to the white house on september 23rd, 1991. . a man named boyden gray asked the fbi to reopen of judge coll clarence thomas to look into this sexual harassment case made by anita hill. the white house tells the fbi hey look into this. that was not the stop the presses moment in the anita hill/clarence controversy. there was not any big fight about this. the white house learned there were new allegations of derogatory information about coll clarence thomas since the fbi looked antonio the no

witnesses, even those most opposed to this domination, had one disparaging comment to make about clarence thomas is moral character. on the contrary, witness after witness spoke of the impeccable character, abiding honesty, and professionalism with -- which judge thomas has shown throughout his career. in conclusion, i want to comment briefly about the allegations that have been raised by professor hill. the harassment she describes .ook place 10 years ago during that time, she continued to initiate contact with judge thomas in a friendly manner. chose to hill publicize her allegations the day before the senate would have voted to confirm judge thomas. i fully intend to maintain an open mind. say that the timing of these statements raises a tremendous number of questions which must be dealt with. i can assure always misses -- all witnesses that we will be outstanding in our efforts to ascertain the truth. >> before i swear judge thomas, i asked a police officer to go to the front of the door while judge thomas is speaking. let anyone in or out. he's entitled to absolute quiet in this room. don't

she believed she had information, anita hill did, about clarence thomas that the committee might want to know, but she did not want to come forward publicly. that presented a challenge for the committee because they were faced with the question of as joe biden described it at the time, could we take secret information, in effect, about a nominee and would the nominee never get a chance to confront the accuser, in effect, by cross testifying as they ultimately ended up doing. the committee has this challenge again tonight a question of what do we do about someone who has something that is negative information about a nominee but that person doesn't want to come forward publicly. >> lawrence, you said you knew about this letter friday. >> friday afternoon. >> and do you any about the content of the letter? >> i know more about content than has been publicly revealed. but it's all been in this kind of box. i would say i don't have that much more, the indication that i have on it is that it occurred when both brett kavanaugh and the complainant were minors. that's consistent with some of

i really do. >> after clarence thomas and anita hill. and the numbers in '92, before the '92 election, there were two women in the u.s. senate. after, there were six. call that one the year of the women. the number of candidates out there, just certainly dwarfs that. stay with us. we're going to be right back. as well as promised we have it up and trod go. democratic senator tammy duckworth on the late west kavanaugh. stay with us. but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands? before discovering nexium 24hr to treat her frequent heartburn, lucy could only imagine enjoying a slice of pizza. now it's as easy as pie. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? for all-day, all-night protection. at&t

she voted yes to confirm clarence thomas. thanks so much for joining us.. >> i'm happy to be able to talk about it. although, i don't have inside information. >> we know you would give us all the inside information if you did have it. listen, what did you learn from the clarence thomas confirmation process and the anita hill testimony? >> well, i think there is one similarity that is equally intense in both. it was sprung at the very last moment by the democrats in both cases. and it was something not known by, i assume, most members of the committee in both instances in the anita hill clarence thomas hearing and in this one. however, in the earlier hearing, anita hill was an extremely credible witness. she had told friends about it, but she -- what had happened, it was a case of this happening suddenly without any real knowledge about it beforehand. and the same thing in this instance. although, evidently not wishing to be known, she had sent a letter to senator feinstein. i guess my own view at this point is it shows how emotionally intense the political

or knows clarence thomas or has a relationship socially with clarence thomas knows he is a good man. everybody. except this one woman. >> he is a very strong decent man. >> and you believe him? >> yeah, i sure do. >> you believe the beingaccuser all? >> i think she is mistaken. i think she is mistaken something. but i don't know. i mean, i don't know her. >> 27 years later, the world has changed. but have lawmakers. let's start there. alice is a republican strategist, maria democratic strategist. i've been looking forward to this conversation. and maria, i want to begin with you, anita hill went back to that phrase they just don't get it. referring to the male senators at the time and dealing with her sexual harassment case. that was '91. this is 2018. do you think get it today? >> absolutely not. look, what i thought when you just played that clip of senator hatch and even earlier today when senator danforth was on with jim acosta, my thought was wow, male white privilege does not dull with age. >> i was watching as well. play the clip. >> i think -- what i thought back in the

hill publicly accused clarence thomas of sexual harassment. angela wright shannon testified to congress behind closed doors, interviewed by the fbi about her experiences with thomas, who was her boss at the equal employment opportunity commission. you were not allowed to testify in the public hearing, correct? >> that is correct. i was only allowed to enter my statement in the record and that was a statement that they took before they subpoenaed me to come to washington. >> and as you look at what's happening now -- we'll get to your opinion of the merits of this case versus what was going on with clarence thomas in a moment. i think people will be surprised, maybe, by your opinion on this. the fact that in this case there are not going to be any additional witnesses allowed to testify, does that remind you of the failure to allow your public testimony? >> yes, it does. and it's very disturbing to me that we would still have a judicial committee that is allowing to suppress information. the vote will be what it is. the american public needs to

we are in the middle of a me too movement. 27 years ago clarence thomas was confirmed to the supreme court not withstanding the testimony of annetta hill. the facts of the story are out of nowhere and we don't know who is telling the truth. >> grassly does not seem inclined to delay. members of the committee staff, both republicans and democrats, what grassly wants them to do is talk to kavanaugh and ford today. we don't know if the democrats will agree to it exactly. where do you see this going? >> i think it's crucial both of those individuals get a chance to talk to the senators, and the senators get to hear them. there's a question do they talk to the staff or senators also, but right now we have christine ford through her interview at the washington post and through her letter, both of which are public now, and we have that one general statement from judge kavanaugh, both of them are going to have to, you know, in an individual way make their cases known and that, i think, will unfold rapidly today and probably into tomorrow, but we had so little information about their credibil

that was part of the issue facing clarence thomas in 1991.ll facing off against a committee that was made exclusively of male senators. we're about to hear two senators. the female accuser was worried about the risk of stepping forward. today, we are seeing that played out in all kinds of attacks. there's also the question whether the alleged conduct cast doubt on whether that person, thomas or kavanaugh, should be held basically to a position where they decide on the life and death of other individuals. tonight, kavanaugh's defenders insist to the contrast. hill was accusing thomas of conduct when he was a 33-year-old attorney. kavanaugh faces allegations that would have occurred when he was about 17, if true. hill's allegations involved repeat instances, whereas, at this hour, and the story is moving quickly, kavanaugh's defenders are saying that he has gone through a vetting and this is a single accusation regarding a single incident. those are the comparisons of the two cases. there's also no doubt the environment we have today is changed

but it was the high tech lynching moment with clarence thomas that did turn public opinion and the momentum in thomas' favor. and this may well have done the same. >> anina totenberg, you've covered the supreme court. you've seen many a supreme court confirmation hearing. this one was unlike any we've seen before. your reaction to what you saw today. >> well, this was such a more political defense that kavanaugh undertook on his own behalf. putting aside his great emotion and passion, which is to some extent understandable if you have been falsely accused, which he maintains has been been falsely accused, that he did not do this, that this never happen. but just for a second, put that aside and remember that he's going to become, if he's confirmed, a justice on the united states supreme court for decades. and as much as cabinet appointments can be very political, supreme court nominations are political sub rosa. the nominee isn't posed to engage in partisan politics, but he sounded like he was in a campaign, and he in fact said this was the revenge of the clintons going back i suppose to hi

the senate judiciary committee has the same option now as it did for clarence thomas.an slow down the process and reopen the confirmation hearing if judge kavanaugh's accuser changes her mind and is willing to reveal herself publicly and testify about what she said in a confidential letter to a member of congress about what brett kavanaugh did to her when they were both in high school. "the new york times" and "the new yorker" revealed more of the details about that letter today, writing in "the new yorker," ronan farrow and jane mayer report, in the letter, the woman alleged that during an encounter at a party, kavanaugh held her down and that he attempted to force himself on her. she claimed in the letter that kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. she was able to free herself. in recent months, the woman had told friends that kavanaugh's nomination had revived the pain of the memory and that she was grappli

>> the conversation was very vivid. >> >> reporter: in 1991 when anita hill said her boss, clarence thomaslted her in the '80s, she offered details. >> he talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts. on several occasions thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. >> this is a circus. it's a national disgrace. >> reporter: thomas forcefully denied it all. >> and from my standpoint as a black american, as far as i'm concerned, it is a high tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way dein to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. >> reporter: brett kavanaugh's accuser, christine blaise ford, is laying out details. she said he pushed me into a bedroom, tried to disrobe me. kavanaugh is saying this is a completely false allegation. i have never done anything like what the accuser describes. the day began with the roy moore revelation and it ends with charlie rosa cuesed of sexual harassment. >> reporter: so what's different? the times above else. on the roaring tide of the

and he presided over the confirmation hearings over supreme court justice clarence thomas at the timeat's where anita hill's accusations against the then nominee took senator center stage. >> hill has long been critical of biden's approach to the hearings. last week, she said she had yet to receive a direct apology from the former vice president. here's joe biden's reply. >> i'm sorry, i couldn't have stopped the kind of attacks that came to you. but i never attacked her. i supported her. i believed her from the beginning. and i voted against clarence thomas. >> that episode, which draws parallels to the kavanaugh confirmation process, in the midst of sexual assault allegations, it looms over biden as he considers the presidential run for 2020. >>> i want to recap the story we have been tracking out of iran, the country is launching new accusations after a deadly terror attack. the state media reports the gunmen opened fire on saturday at a military parade in southwestern iran. >> at least 29 people were killed here. officials blame separatists, but they also say the attackers had for

even those most bitterly opposed to this nomination, had one disparaging comment to make about clarence thomas' moral character. on the contrary, witness after witness spoke of the impeccable character, abiding honesty and consummate professionalism which judge thomas has shown throughout his career. in conclusion, i want to comment briefly about the allegations that have been raised by professor hill. the alleged harassment she describes took place some 10 years ago. during that time, she continued to initiate contact with judge thomas in an apparently friendly manner. in addition, professor hill chose to publicize her allegations the day before the full senate would have voted to confirm judge thomas. while i fully intend to maintain an open mind during today's testimony, i must say that the timing of these statements raises a tremendous number of questions which must be dealt with, and i can assure all the witnesses that we shall be unstinting in our efforts to ascertain the truth. thank you, mr. chairman. senator biden: thank you. now, before i swear judge thomas, i ask that the police off

that chairman of the judiciary committee joe biden during the clarence thomas preceding. well, my colleagues would do well to remember this commonsense principle. after all, this is america. every american understands the presumption of innocence. i'm glad the chairman grassley, staffing committee investors have worked so hard to clean up this mess, clean up this mess and put together a fair process. and i'm encouragedco by the committees choice of rachel mitchell, a career prosecutor with decades of experience and sensitive investigations, who was recognized with an award by arizona been a democratic goverr janet napolitano to lead expertise to this important process. it's time, mr. president for senators to from both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh under oath.

>> no, i know clarence thomas. i have known him for 11 years. >> do you think that this in any way is going to derail his nomination? >> no. he's a straight-shooting, honest guy. i think when people listen to him, they'll know that he's all right. >> and i'm not opposed to anita hill. i think it is apparent that she believes what she is saying. >> reporter: do you think that any of these claims are legitimate? >> no, i don't. i think that -- i think this woman, whoever she is, is mixed up. >> sounds pretty similar back then to today, jill. >> it does. it sounds woefully similar. and oren hatch was part of a very determined back-then republican minority of senators who just from the moment anita hill began to testify -- >> what is judge kavanaugh's -- >> and i was sitting in that hearing room in 1991, and i mean they hurled everything they could at her to destroy her credibility. oren hatch sent lawyers who work for him on the judiciary committee into the bowels of the d.c. libraries to come up with passages from ""

the kind of challenge we have not seen since clarence thomas' confirmation. you know, i used to be good at this. then you turn 40 and everything goes. tell me about it. you know, it's made me think, i'm closer to my retirement days than i am my college days. hm. i'm thinking... will i have enough? should i change something? well, you're asking the right questions. i just want to know, am i gonna be okay? i know people who specialize in "am i going to be okay." i like that. you may need glasses though. yeah. schedule a complimentary goal planning session today with td ameritrade. >>> things were looking bad enough for the republicans with just 53 days left until the mid-term congressional elections. now president trump's campaign chairman has pleaded guilty and become a cooperating witness and the supreme court faces a new accusation of sexual assault when he was a teenager. joining our discussion the republican strategist, how to find millennial's and urban voters. the republican party needs to survive. evan, from the republican perspective, the polling is ab

. >> now, clarence thomas shares his view on the law, politics, and the judicial process. spoke at an event hosted by the federalist society in fort worth, texas. on the appeals court, we do not get much of an opportunity to speak, so have to restrain talk to a i could wall for an hour, but you are not a wall, and you don't want to hear me for an hour. i could talk about greg coleman for a while. i'm honored to be at this occasion. seriesgurate the lecture for the federalist society. greg was an early and avid member of the federalist society. one of the women at dinner was saying that he was one of the first people she met at washington. when she was just hired by the fed stock. -- soc. and what a nice fellow he was and all the great impressions he had made. i want to start out by asking a question of you all. how many of you personally remember the robert confirmation hearings? how many of you were not even born during? [laughter] that is fewer than i would have thought, but what this reveals is that this is a very young audience. and this is what the federalist society

now, clarence thomas shares his view on the law, politics, and the judicial process. he spoke at an event in fort worth, texas. >> >> one of the women >> at dinner was saying that he was one of the first women she met at washington. and what a nice fellow he was and all the great impressions he had made. saying --start out by asking a question of you all. how many of you personally remember the robert confirmation hearings? how many of you were not even born during? [laughter] is fewer than i would have thought, but what this reveals is that this is a very young audience. and this is what the federalist society has done. it has inspired to generations of lawyers who did not find a sympathetic, traditionalist voice in the law schools. and given coherence and an opportunity to debate and think about the important issues that face us as a nation in the legal world. so proud that we have five in fact,s on airport they have raised the bar for the fifth circuit since i got on. andbut one are here today, that is thanks to the federalist society, two letter, to gene in the au

in 1991 the fbi did investigate anita hill's claims against clarence thomas. that process took three days. it didn't seem to make things any easier for anita hill. >> i must ask you to describe once again and more fully, the behavior that you have alleged he engaged in. >> reporter: in 1991 went anita hill came forward with harassment claims against clarence thomas she was killed by the senators, including chairman senator joe biden. >> i remember two occasions these incidents occurred at lunch. >> do you remember which of those were at lunch? let me ask this -- >> senator specter downplayed some offensive words. >> you intensified this morning in response to the senator that the most embarrassing question involved women's large breasts. >> reporter: while speaking to clarence thomas orrin hatch held up the book "the exorcist." >> ever read this book? >> no, senator. >> reporter: cash accused anita hill of using a scene from the book in her complaint. >> there is a lot more sensitivity now especially because of the "me too movement" >> reporter: she is a lawye

and while he might've gone clarence thomas confirmed it was not a good political optic to have.is something republicans sensitive of. keep in mind republicans thought having brett kavanaugh the court and his nomination that it would be something to get the voters and it may backfire when supporters of president trump, republican woman in the suburbs, they do not really like what's going on in this confirmation process and it could blow up in their face. kristin: chad pergram, thank you for your expertise. never a done deal. never a sure thing but it looks like we will have a huge hearing on thursday. leland: all right, the political applications obviously go way beyond the confirmation or the lack thereof. her judge kavanaugh to the supreme court. we'll talk about that we are bringing in josh from south carolina. robert from atlanta, josh on the left, robbed on -- robert is on the right. take a listen. >> i was a prosecutor, defense attorney and a judge. for every woman that comes forward regarding an allegation like this, god only knows how many never come forward. also know th

that said, this is not like anita hill and clarence thomas.workplace, some kind of harassment as adults. these are long time ago against a man who has, as mollie points out, he has had unquestioned integrity and character witnesses galore throughout his entire career. has been vetted by the fbi six times and this has come up suddenly. it is true the reporting backs up what her lawyer said that she didn't intend to come forward. and was outed. but, i would still question why her story was brought forward before she decided to come forward and with the motivation that's behind that we don't know what these hearings are going to be like. we don't know what their stories are going to be like. as chris said, it's going to be very brutal i think democrats and republicans on both sides need to conduct themselves in the most statesman like way possible because, as brit said, i do think, it might come dawn to we don't know who to believe. >> bret: subjective what you think about the testimony in this public hearing. >> the character witnesses that have

this is worse than clarence thomas, ididn't this is worse than clarence thomas, i didn't think you could worse than that. this is a national disgrace, the way you are being treated. and in the middle of it all, we have judge treated. and in the middle of it all, we havejudge kavanaugh, a man who until two weeks ago was a pillar of the legal communities. there has been no whisper of misconduct about him by the time —— in the time he has been a judge. what we have are uncorroborated, unsubstantiated claims from his teenage years! claims that every alleged eyewitness has either denied or failed claims that every alleged eyewitness has either denied orfailed to corroborate. i do not mean to minimise the seriousness of the claims. they have been serious claims, but the search for truth has to involve more than their assertions. by dr ford, judge kavanaugh assertions. by dr ford, judge kava naugh deserves assertions. by dr ford, judge kavanaugh deserves fair assertions. by dr ford, judge kava naugh deserves fair treatment. he was an immature high school or, so were we he was an immature high s

then the thing about clarence thomas, that was almost the same deal. you say it is not the same time but the thing is, democrats have been sitting on this forever. now they will bring it up right before the confirmation. and i'mit is sickening really disgusted with democrats. i think all the republicans should get out and vote to protect the few republicans against the media and the democratic party. me if i'm wrong, senators michalski and collins, where they part of the group that called for al franken to resign? how does that play out? guest: to the caller's point, the me to movement is lumped sometimes as one generic thing. it is nothing like that. these are complicated and individual questions and they are different is surrounding each one. franken was knocked out of the senate very surprisingly. john conyers, longest-serving -- longest-serving member of the house, a few months before franken. has gone after members of both parties depending on the circumstances. there happens on republicans and some democrats and people have fallen again from both

>> if we think back to the clarence thomas situation, although clarence thomas was nominated, his nomination caused a a number of incumbents their seat. alan dixon lost his primary in the subsequent primary. even if kavanaugh gets confirmed election,rse of the the democrats might still be the beneficiaries. >> richard, thank you for taking the time to speak with us. iran is bowing revenge after an attack on a military parade on saturday that left close to 25 people dead. it is the country's worst terror attack in a decade. funerals are underway in the southwestern city. speaking at once ceremony, the head of iran's revolutionary guard pointed the finger at what he called the triangle. saudi arabia, israel, and the u.s. iran's president also use -- also accused the u.s. of being involved. >> it is absolutely clear to us who has done this. which group it is and to whom they are affiliated. the americans are inside the. >> france 24's -- is covering the story. he told us more. >> i do not think there is any hopepe thingngs will cool down. is thenk the impression tension willll not escalate much

made in 1991 when anita hill also testified days after she was identified publicly of accusing clarence thomas of sexual harassment. the justice department signaling that they don't plan to reopen kavanaugh's fbi background check for now. republicans relenting and scheduling a public hearing after a dramatic day on capitol hill. >> the democrats have spent weeks and weeks searching for any possible reason that the nomination should be delayed. >> for too long women have made serious allegations of abuse and have been ignored or dragged through the mud. >> reporter: judge kavanaugh can only afford to lose two republican votes if all democrats vote against his nomination and a number of key republican senators have been calling for additional information before voting on his confirmation. >> if judge kavanaugh has lied about what happened, that would be disqualifying. >> i would have voted no. this week absent her being able to tell her story. >> reporter: president trump strongly defending his supreme court nominee, but choosing not to criticize ford like he has with other sexual assault accuse

hearings and they were startled to see something they didn't expect that was the support for clarence thomasng african-american voters surged after the hill/thomas hearings. he had higher support among black voters than he did among white voters. so democrats, particularly those up in 1992, a year later looked at that and said a major part of my constituency, voters i'm going to be relying on to get re-elected are for this nomination. therefore, i can't be against this nomination. those were the key votes, democratic votes that actually got clarence thomas confirmed in 1992. now where are we 27 years late centre where are we? we know where it is, the swing votes, we've known all along. on the democratic side, if anybody is going to be peeled off to vote for this, it's the red state democrats. the trump state democrats like manchin. like donnelly in indiana. calculation for them, we show the poll earlier. if it's 34-38 nationally. 34 support, 38 nationally in a place like west virginia, a place like indiana, those support numbers a lot higher. unless those numbers move more significantly in t

and i voted against clarence thomas. he only got seven votes, seven yes and yes noes. a tie vote in the committee. i hope they understand what courage it takes for someone to come forward and relive what they believe happened to them and let them state it but treat her with respect. ask tough questions. ask substantive questions. where were you? who said what, et cetera. not the character assassination. >> it seems like you get it now versus back in '91. >> i think i got it in '91. well, people have their own opinion. that's why i wrote "the violence against women" act. i wrote it. during this period. and the second reason i insisted the next time out two women come on the committee. two women. they didn't want to come on the committee. i campaigned for karen moseley brown if she won to come on the committee. it's important. it's important that people understand and i think people do now, understand how hard it is to come forward. and i always say to men, they say why so hard? how about if you've been abused? you see "deliverance"? what about if you were the guy strapp

this is from clarence thomas and committee members. the opening statements are from clarence thomas and committee members. >> the meeting will come to order. let me ask the capitol police, if there is not decorum, we will ask those disrupting this to leave. today the committee is hearing charges made against judge clarence thomas who has been nominated to be an associate judge of the supreme court. i want to speak very briefly about the circumstances that has caused us to queen these -- convene these hearings. we are here today to hold open hearings on professor anita hill's allegations concerning judge thomas. this committee's handling of her charges has been criticized. professor hill has made two requests to this committee. first, she has asked us to investigate her charges against judge thomas, and, second, she had asked that these charges remain confidential, that they not be made public and not shared with anyone beyond this committee. i believe that we have honored both her requests. some have asked how could you have the u.s. s

yes, and 27 years ago looking at clarence thomas at the time, he is hearing all these accusations, hefiant. brett kava naugh accusations, he looked angry and defiant. brett kavanaugh had better bring a level of anger to make sure people will listen to him and believe his side of the story. my family and i have been the target of harassment and death threats and i have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. these messages, while far fewer than expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core. people have posted my personal information and that of my parents online. this has resulted in additional e—mails, calls, and threats. my family and i were forced to move out of our home. since the 16th of september might family have been staying in various secure hotels, at times separated, at times together, with the help of security guards. this past tuesday evening my work e—mailwas this past tuesday evening my work e—mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault. apart from the assault itself, these

clarence thomas was confirmed to the court. and remains to be seen if kavanaugh can also weather the storm. and come out on top. >> i'm joined by joan. the cnn supreme court analyst. good to have you with us. >> thank you. >> so as a journalist, author and lawyer. you have covered the supreme court since 1989. including clarence thomas in 1991. when hill testified. and now of course the parallels are drawn between nose events and the nomination hearing of brett kavanaugh. there are a number of differences too. this comes in the middle of the me too era. how likely is it the out come will be different? >> i think we just don't quite know. we'll know more much once his accuser has a chance to testify. and we get a chance to see what witnesses she. how does she present the allegations of his sexual attack she's alleged from a time when they were teenagers in maryland. and how does he counter it? you mention 1991, and i have to say that anita hill was quite a compelling witness. sofs clarence thomas and the senators couldn't break

hearings and they were startled to see something they didn't expect that was the support for clarence thomasmong african-american voters surged after the hill/thomas hearings. he had higher support among black voters than he did among white voters. so democrats, particularly those up in 1992, a year later looked at that and said a major part of my constituency, voters i'm going to be relying on to get re-elected are for this nomination. therefore, i can't be against this nomination. those were the key votes, democratic votes that actually got clarence thomas confirmed in 1992. now where are we 27 years late centre where are we? we know where it is, the swing votes, we've known all along. on the democratic side, if anybody is going to be peeled off to vote for this, it's the red state democrats. the trump state democrats like manchin. like donnelly in indiana. calculation for them, we show the poll earlier. if it's 34-38 nationally. 34 support, 38 nationally in a place like west virginia, a place like indiana, those support numbers a lot higher. unless those numbers move more significantly in

i would not say it's clarence thomas 2.0 because those were adults.ven that close in time to this. that was months and years before the allegation was aired. this was 35-plus years back to high school. >> two things. one, the way this is being dealt with is not ant basis of facts, not on the basis of right and wrong, not on the basis of what culturally, we should be requiring of our ourselves. that's why i bring up trump -- >> but we need to try to keep it -- >> i know, that's why i bring up trump jr. because he is the reflection of an ugliness that's going to be tried to be made manifest here. and did feinstein have a duty to give this suggestion of an allegation to the committee or to the fbi, even if it was done under the cloak of anonymity? >> i think she did. her role as a senator is to provide advice and consent to the nominees. these nominees go through a background check. the background check is there, not to only check for, you know, a criminal record, but about character and fitness. you're a lawyer. ken is a lawyer. we know that this is a p

but it will also be out there, you know, as it is with clarence thomas. we still talk about that 27 years later. did he commit sexual assault against or sexual harassment against anita hill or did he not? this will never go away. >> martha: you are so right. i think of the coke can. we talk about the odd things we discussed today. i still think of that reference in the anita hill hearings with clarence thomas and all the things discussed there. and they do unfortunately, they stick to a person because when you do see him, you do, it's part of the whole picture that you think of when you look at him. this will no matter what happens stick with brett kavanaugh to an extent. it's not something he will forget easily going through this. you said at the end of the last hour, not necessarily over yet. this whole saga. potential we could see more twists and turns. the vote process starts tomorrow. what do you think is possible? >> chris: the fact that the republicans on the committee decided they will vote, which seems to indicate they think they have all 11 vote

the woman who took her senator's job because he voted for clarence thomas. >>> one unmistakable trend about the upcoming midterm elections, there's a record number of women running for office. 1992 saw a surge in female candidates thanks in part to the clarence thomas nomination hearings which saw the five women elected to the united states senate, including a young african-american woman named carol mosley brawn. she primaried her democratic senator because he voted to confirm clarence thomas to the supreme court the year before. >> i thought clarence thomas was a decent man, and i did not agree with the view of those that thought that he would have done anything like anita hill claimed. so i'll be honest with you, as a lawyer, that was my view. i followed by conscience. and i paid the price. >> that price being his senate seat. brawn defeated the two-term incumbent. the former senator from illinois. carol moseley brawn. tell me what was going through your head watching the anita hill hearings back in 1991? >> thank you, chris, for that question. my entire life path was made possible

i am telling the truth. >> martha: that's not a clarence thomas type answer, judge.ter the senate judiciary committee and ripping them to shreds. >> that was a frustrating answering. if he says what i believe and what many of us watching believe, of course it's about roe v. wade. he opens up a can of worms for the democrats on the judiciary committee to interest. -- enter. he doesn't want to do this. i am sure he has thoughts on this, but he doesn't want to be seen publicly articulating them. tremendous self-discipline on his part. >> martha: your thoughts on rod rosenstein. there was discussion that he was leaving the office. there was a draft that came out of the doj which talks about what the succession man would be. that's not in effect as of right now. >> i am wondering if the white house hasn't telegraphed attorney general sessions to say that rod rosenstein's last day on the job will be thursday? jonathan swan has taken heat for things he reported. he reported about 7 or 8 minutes ago that attorney general sessions has drafted a statement which congratulates a

for clarence thomas.f you knew him, he would love him. he's a great person. >> i'm pretty sure he is a great guy. >> laura: i'm going to convince triana. by the time the end of the segment, i'm convincing you because triana is too cool. she has 12 kids she's raised with her husband, eight boys -- >> eight boys, focal girls. >> they should take care of her hotel. >> laura: what the heck? take care of triana. >> i didn't know -- >> laura: i think they got a little help for the hotel room. >> george soros, it's not surprising. george soros paid for the fake dossier. glenn simpson and fusion gps. so he's connected throughout all of the left-wing activities in this country and around the world. it doesn't surprise me. what i would like to see, maybe a little consistency from these protesters. maybe they can go out and talk about cory booker as a grover or maybe they can talk about keith ellison battering his girlfriend or may be senator carper from delaware who beat his wife, maybe we can have a conversation t

remember, clarence thomas called those allegations a high-tech lynching. this is also the me too movement and moment. walk us through it. >> sure. i remember so vividly. i'll mention those briefly. it was a woman who did not want to come forward initially, encouraged to come forward after there was a leak, sexual allegations, both of them, and the senate was approaching a key vote. what's different now, poppy and jim, is the fact that the me too movement atmosphere, also the nature of the allegations. anita hill and clarence thomas were both adults at the time of the alleged misconduct and here we have teenagers back in the early 80s. that's also different. and to stress the very partisan atmosphere that we have today. back in 1990, in the end, clarence thomas was confirmed, 52-48 with the help of 11 democrats. it's really hard to think that democrats would switch over irrespective of what allegations come forward. >> to be clear, in fairness, folks have made comparisons to thomas or clinton, those were multiple allegations over years. this is a very serio