Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
March 22, 1998
Anita Hill: Judge Clinton Policies
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anita Hill says her case against
Clarence Thomas is different from charges made against
President Clinton and urges women to consider the bigger
issue of the administration's policies toward women
before judging his personal behavior.
Hill also joined feminist leader Gloria Steinem in
saying Sunday that Clinton's alleged advances to White
House aide Kathleen Willey, while improper and crude if
true, did not constitute sexual harassment.
Republicans have chided Democratic women and feminist
groups for not speaking out against President Clinton as
they did in the sexual impropriety cases of conservative
Supreme Court Justice Thomas or Republican Sen. Bob
Packwood.
``There is a sort of selective outrage here,'' said Rep.
Anne Northup, R-Ky., on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``I'm
worried that women support groups are really Democratic
support groups.''
But law professor Hill, who almost brought down Thomas'
1991 nomination to the Supreme Court with her claims he
repeatedly made lewd remarks to her, said on NBC's
``Meet the Press' that her case was ``very different.''
Clinton is an elected official chosen twice by a nation
that knew of allegations of past sexual scandals, she
said, while Thomas was being nominated to a lifetime
court position that would deal directly with cases
involving sexual harassment.
Asked if a double standard exists in how women were
looking at Clinton's actions, she said: ``It is a
reality that we have to deal with. We live in a
political world, and the reality is there are larger
issues other than just individual behavior.''
Many women see Clinton as being strong on women's
issues, and ``I don't think that most women have come to
the point where we've said, 'Well, this is so bad that
even if he is better on the bigger issues, we can't have
him as president.'''
``The reality here is that the president does have the
bona fides as a supporter of women in the workplace,''
said Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill., on ABC's ``This
Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.''
Hill said she didn't think Paula Jones, who has charged
Clinton in a lawsuit with sexual harassment, has a very
good case because of a lack of evidence that her job was
affected by her refusing alleged sexual advances by
Clinton.
She noted that Willey too has made no claims that she
suffered on the job because of the alleged incident.
``We aren't talking about sexual harassment, at least
based on the facts that we have in front of us,'' Hill
said.
Steinem agreed in an essay in Sunday's New York Times.
She said if the allegations are true Clinton might be a
candidate for sex addiction therapy, but he is not
guilty of sexual harassment. Willey ``pushed him away,
she said, and it never happened again. In other words,
President Clinton took 'no' for an answer.''
Patricia Ireland of the National Organization of Women,
who in the last few weeks has been vocally critical of
Clinton, said on NBC that the alleged unwanted touching
of a woman in the workplace may go beyond sexual
harassment. ``That's pretty serious stuff, and that's
why I said initially it may not be sexual harassment --
it may be sexual assault,'' she said.
Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said it's
important for women lawmakers to speak out in Mrs.
Willey's behalf and against White House efforts to
undermine her credibility. ``If we women who are
officeholders remain quiet, it sends a terrible message
to those women,'' she said on CBS' ``Face the Nation.''
But Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas said
Democratic women are being consistent. ``We simply
wanted Anita Hill to be heard,'' she said on Fox. ``You
can be assured that Kathleen Willey and others are being
heard.''
Other Republican leaders also kept up the pressure on
Clinton to give the nation a detailed explanation of his
relationships with former White House intern Monica
Lewinsky and with Mrs. Willey.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., on NBC,
predicted that Clinton will refuse to testify before the
grand jury looking into whether he committed perjury in
denying a sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky. ``I
think that will hurt him'' because people will conclude
he is hiding something, Lott said.
Asked about reports that the president has invoked
executive privilege to keep some aides from answering
certain questions before a grand jury, Lott said, ``I
think they've made a mistake by doing that. I think it
will damage the credibility. It looks like they are
hiding something. ... Surely they understand it is not
going to be well-received.''
The White House has declined to acknowledge that Clinton
has formally invoked executive privilege, though sources
close to the investigation, speaking on condition of
anonymity, confirm that the president has asserted the
claim.
Asked about executive privilege again after his
appearance on NBC, Lott told reporters, ``I think for
the first time they're doing some things that looks like
what happened in Watergate and they may wish they had
not done that before it's over.''
President Nixon claimed executive privilege to avoid
releasing tapes of his Oval Office conversations, but
the Supreme Court ruled they had to be turned over to
investigators.
For his part, Starr did not use the phrase executive
privilege in brief, measured remarks on his driveway
Sunday, but said the pace of his investigation may be
slowed somewhat by recent developments.
``There have been invocations of certain privileges and
those are matters that will have to be resolved in the
courts,'' Starr said. ``If I had complete control over
the timetable and I had all witnesses cooperating with
the grand jury, it would go even more quickly.''
While most polls show the president still getting high
marks among voters on job performance, House Republican
Whip Tom DeLay of Texas saw a danger. It could get to a
point, DeLay said, where ``the American people could
lose faith in their president and their government.''
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
