In an earlier article we talked about David Brock's confession regarding the hit pieces he wrote that so defamed Anita Hill and paved the way for that nasty, lying Clarence Thomas to soil the honorable position of Supreme Court Justice. Well, Mr. Brock is now coming forward with more information about that sorry episode and the right wing fanatics that were the supporting cast.
One of the questions that was never fully answered was just how he acquired a great deal of the information he used in that successful attempt to sully the reputations of Ms. Hill and Angela Wright, another woman who accused Thomas of making sexually crude comments to her. Many of the charges he leveled could only have arisen through knowledge of confidential hearsay information collected by the FBI.
Well, boys and girls, Brock is finally coming clean about that facet of the conservative intrigue as well. In fact, he is stating that he received that confidential information from the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican counsel, one Terry L. Wooten. Wooten was the person (term used loosely) who, first, tried to suppress the letter that Anita Hill wrote to the committee, outlining her charges against Thomas and who later was found to have done so the day before the committee was scheduled to vote on Thomas's confirmation. During the height of the scandal around Thomas, Wooten, Brock admits, handed him several pages of Ms Wright's FBI files which included FBI interviews with her employers and former co-workers.
The information in these files appeared in the American Spectator, that nasty little rag published by the behind the scenes leader and financial supporter of the Inquisition that passed for governing during the Clinton witch hunt, one Richard Mellon Scaife. A year later, the same file were a part of Brock's book, "The Real Anita Hill".
Now, one could make the case that this is all water under the bridge. I mean, the entire Thomas affair happened during the first Village Idiot's administration, right? What good could come of airing even more dirty Republican tricks and crimes at this late date?
Well, there's the fact that Wooten has somehow become a federal magistrate in Florence, S.C. There's also the fact that the ideal figure for all racists around the world, Sen. Strom Thurmond, is attempting to elevate Wooten to a U.S. District judgeship. In fact, it is that nomination to one of the legal system's most honored posts that must be spoken of and debated in open session.
Now, this isn't the only rabid right wing nominee to a federal office that Brock's charges held up. There was also the case of one Theodore B. Olson, President Chaney's nominee to the post of U.S. Solicitor General. Brock claimed that Olson was involved in another right wing scheme funded by that same little Nazi, Richard Mellon Scaife, known as the "Arkansas Project". This little mean spirited project had, as its only goal, to dig up dirt on then President Clinton. Naturally, with help from the weenie Senate Democrats, this little piece of muck was approved for the post.
Getting back to Wooten, when questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee, he denied ever supplying Brock with the FBI files. He acknowledged meeting with Brock during that time to talk about the book but claimed "I can't remember the details of the conversation."
It is thought that even a serious charge such as this stands little chance of derailing Wooten's nomination (although they would warrant a few million tax dollars wasted on an independent counsel is he had been nominated by Clinton). Instead, the question as to how proceed will be discussed by the chairman of the committee, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) when Congress reconvenes next week.
The Alliance for Justice has stated that any votes should be postponed until the truth of the matter is discovered since the post that is involved deserves only the most qualified and honorable person available. Until the truth is known, any action would be premature.
So there you have it. A case of "he said/he said". Whom are we to believe? Should we take the word of a conservative Republican who had every reason to do exactly as he is charged in his quest to discredit a witness that was interfering with the seating of hand picked but poorly qualified Supreme Court nominee? Or should we heed the sworn statement of a man who has admitted that he lied and misrepresented the facts due to his blind and slavish devotion to a cause he now recognizes as evil and false? Personally, I'll take Brock's word over any candidate that was nominated by that senile little racist Sen. Strom Thurmond. Fact of the matter is, I'd take just about anyone's word over Thurmond's. ( 1 )
Return To Front Page
Visit Our Unique Shops At:
The Progressive Mind
Impeach The Moron
Rosetta Stone - Your Name In Egyptian Hieroglyphs
Signs of the Zodiac Gifts