News Coverage Misrepresents The Attitude of African Americans Toward Thomas Nomination
Phone Call to Seidman Misrepresents Rumor About Sexual Harassment Allegations
Conversation Falsely Implies Hill Reluctant to Bring To light her Allegations of Sexual Harassment
Fictitious Phone Call Between Hill and Seidman During Hearing
Hill-Seidman Conversation Leaves out Hill’s Initial Refusal to Submit to FBI Interview
Hill-Seidman Conversation Omits Hill’s Efforts To Lodge Anonymous Complaint
Hill-Seidman Conversation Repeats False Theme that Thomas Mistreated Many Women at EEOC
Hill-Seidman Conversation Pushes Narrative of Multiple Victims
Hill-Seidman Conversation Falsely Depicts Hill as Immediately Cooperating
Hart-Seidman Conversation Falsely Suggests the Judiciary Committee Wasn’t Interested in Hill’s Allegations
Omission of Hoerchner Call to Committtee Staff
Thomas Had Been Through Three Full FBI Background Checks
Biden-Hart Conversation Falsely Suggests That Hill Did Not Want To Talk About Rumor.
Anita Hill’s “Affidavit”
Hill-Hart Conversation Misrepresents Role of Hill’s Statement to the Committee
Hill’s Bizarre Statements about FBI
Omission of Damaging Content in Hill’s Interview with FBI
Movie Suggests That Biden’s Chronology Was Biased
Movie Suggests That Biden’s Chronology Was Biased
Seidman-Hart Conversation About Leak Ignores Role of Jim Brudney
Fictitious White House Aide Makes Sexist Comments About Hill
Anita Hill Press Conference Used To Bolster Narrative That Hill Had No Political Motive
Anita Hill Press Conference Used To Bolster False Narrative About Hill’s Interactions with the Judiciary Committee
Movie Lies About Hill Not Having Legal Counsel
False Claim that Hill Had Not Spoken with Ogletree When She Arrived in Washington
Hill-Ogletree Conversation Includes Contradicted Claim That Hill Could Not Stand to Be Around Thomas
Hill-Ogletree Conversation Used To Refute Phone Logs
Misleading Depiction of Biden’s Scheduling of Witnesses
Seidman Makes False Statement About Hill Having Four Friends Who Could Corroborate Her Allegations
Misleading Depiction of Biden’s Issue with Using Hill’s Statement
Biased Use of Hill’s Testimony About Following Thomas To Another Job
Problems with Hill’s Testimony About the Coke Can Incident
Includes Testimony Contradicted By FBI Agents
Repeats Hill’s Lie That She Did Not Inform Anyone of Her Allegations
Hill’s Misleading Testimony About Informing the Committee
Dishonest Editing of Biden’s Questioning
Hill Alleges that Thomas Talked About Pornography
Dishonest Selection of Specter’s Questioning
Dishonest Editing of Specter’s Questioning
Dishonest Portrayal of Specter Questioning
Dishonest Representation of Phone Log Exchange
Dishonest Portrayal of Thomas’ “High-Tech Lynching”
False Portrayal Of Thomas’ Opening Statement
Dishonest Portrayal of Biden Recessing Hearing after Thomas’ Opening Speech.
Dishonest Portrayal of Angela Wright’s Interview
Dishonest Portrayal to Make Angela Wright More Credible
Dishonest Suggestion that Wright Was Totally Forthcoming in Her Interview
Dishonest Portrayal of Biden’s Skepticism
Dishonest Portrayal Of Rose Jourdain, Angela Wright’s So-Called Corroborating Witness
Another Dishonest Reference to Hill’s Four Alleged “Corroborating” Witnesses
Kennedy statement to Biden to reign these guys in.
Dishonest Scene About Scheduling Angela Wright
Angela Wright Denies Using a Homophobic Slur
Janet Napolitano Calls Angela Wright a “Credible Witness” Getting “Smeared”
Ricki Seidman Blames Joe Biden for Polls that Support Thomas
Trumping Up the Lie-Detector Test
Hill’s Witnesses testify
Trying to Make Susan Hoerchner More Credible
Dishonest Portrayal of Ellen Wells
Dishonest Representation of Ted Kennedy Speech
Failure to Provide Context to the Polygraph
Portrayal of Thomas’ witnesses
Silence Regarding Role of Nancy Fitch
Dishonest Use of Report Alleging that Republican Senators Are Trying to Prevent Wright from Testifying
Alleged Concerns about Joel Paul
Democratic Senators Discuss Getting Thomas’ Alleged Porn Records
Fictional Bathroom Scene Between Biden and Danforth
Fictional Scene Implying Biden is Bowing to Blackmail
Fictitious Scene Showing Letter Presented to Angela Wright
Thomas’ Witnesses at the End of the Hearing
Hill Reading Letters Praising Her “Standing Up” for Women
Either use the left column “play button” to (1) have the notes play along with the film or (2) use the up and down arrows to navigate through the notes manually.
The movie includes coverage of black leaders’ opposition to the Thomas nomination, but fails to note that 70% of blacks supported the nomination.
The movie falsely implies that there were rumors throughout the summer of 1991 that Thomas mistreated many women who worked for him. The only rumor of this type going around Washington was about Anita Hill, and Hill likely started this rumor on the day of his nomination.
Hill tells her friend Shirley Wiegand that she intends to do “[n]othing” about her allegations. In reality, Hill swiftly put the allegations in play by purportedly releasing Susan Hoerchner from a vow of silence about the allegations (see Hoerchner interview). She also called law school classmate and well-connected lawyer Gary Liman Phillips, with whom she had not spoken in months, to tell him for the first time that Thomas sexually harassed her ten years earlier (see Phillips interview).
This scene is false. Hill received calls from two Senate staffers (one of whom was Seidman who spoke with her twice) before the hearings began, but she offered no specific description of any sexual harassment during those calls. Instead, Seidman connected Hill with Jim Brudney, a staffer for Senator Metzenbaum who had known Hill at Yale Law School and was a longtime opponent of Thomas (see Fleming Report). Brudney spoke with Hill multiple times, collaborating on how to lodge her charges and suggesting to Hill that she could prompt Thomas to quietly withdraw merely by filing a confidential charge. Hill repeatedly denied these conversations under oath, but eventually reversed course, prompting Senator Specter to accuse her of perjury.
When Hill first contacted the Judiciary Committee after her discussions with Brudney, she demanded complete anonymity. She would not even allow Thomas to be given her name. It was only after a one-week standoff that she backed off this demand and allowed the Committee to investigate her allegations (see Biden Chronology and Fleming Report).
The movie doubles-down on the false rumors that Thomas mistreated multiple young women at the EEOC in Seidman’s call with Hill. But no such rumors existed. Based on this Hill rumor, Senate staff reached out to two women who had worked with Thomas, and both did not mention any inappropriate conduct by Thomas (see Fleming Report). In fact, twelve women who had worked with Thomas testified that Thomas was extraordinarily respectful of women.
Seidman asks Hill whether she was “one of the victims of his unwanted advances,” again advancing a false narrative of rumors about multiple women.
The movie falsely shows Hill giving Seidman details immediately, but in reality Hill never told Seidman any of the details of her allegations. The movie also omits her multiple phone calls with Brudney, and her standoff over a demand for anonymity.
Leaving aside the fact that it was Jim Brudney, not Seidman, who brought the allegations to the Judiciary Committee (and the character of Carolyn Hart is a fictitious stand-in for real-life Biden staffer Harriet Grant), this conversation misleadingly suggests that the Committee was not interested in Hill’s allegations. In truth, the Committee initially refused to consider them only because Hill would not allow her name to be known to the Committee or submit to an FBI interview.
The judge Hart mentions as Hill’s “corroborating witness” was Susan Hoerchner, but this scene does not tell the whole story. Hill asked Hoerchner to call the Judiciary Committee to corroborate her allegations, and Hoerchner did so, requesting anonymity. According to contemporaneous notes of her call, Hoerchner reported to the Committee that Hill told her of Thomas’ alleged conduct in the Spring of 1981, many months before Hill even worked for Thomas. (See Biden Chronology). The movie omits this fact, in favor of the suggestion that Hoerchner must have been a credible corroborating witness because she was a judge. Hoerchner had many other problems with her testimony and staff interview (see Hoerchner interview and backgrounder)
In the movie, Biden mentions that Thomas had been approved for three federal jobs since the alleged harassment with Hill occurred, but omits mention of the three full FBI background checks Thomas underwent for those appointments. Former employees were interviewed, and no such allegations were ever raised in those investigations.
Hart tells Biden that Hill was contacted by Judiciary and did not want to come forward. But the truth is that Anita Hill did reach out and tell a friend in Washington about her allegations against Thomas and her actions likely put the rumor into play. (See Phillips interview)
The movie repeatedly refers to Hill’s statement as an “affidavit,” but it was not notarized and is therefore simply a statement. She also had to retype a new version because the original had several typographical and grammatical errors.
When Hill’s faxed statement arrives, the movie depicts Hart stating, “You did not need to do this, we have agents coming to interview you.” What the movie leaves out is that Hill made the submission of this statement a condition of her willingness to move forward with the FBI interview, and the real Harriet Grant was standing by the fax machine waiting for it to arrive, as agreed upon with Hill.
Hill states that, because the FBI reports to the White House, it was important to file her own statement with the Committee so there is no misunderstanding. The FBI does not report to the White House on investigations. The suggestion that the FBI is somehow incapable of impartially investigating presidential nominees—one of its routine responsibilities—is absurd.
The movie shows Hill about to meet with FBI agents, but fails to mention the ways in which that interview severely damaged her credibility. It leaves out, for example, that Hill gave the FBI the names of two women who she claimed would corroborate her claims, but both women flatly denied Hill’s allegations to the FBI (see Fleming Report). One of those women, Nancy Fitch, later testified for Thomas and specifically said she did not believe Hill’s allegations.
The movie depicts Biden ordering his aide to draw up a chronology to show that it was not his fault that the allegations had not been made public. The filmmakers appear to want to discredit this document because it was devastating to Hill’s credibility. It showed her attempts to file an anonymous charge and to escape an FBI interview, all of which delayed investigation of the charges. (See Fleming Report, which confirms the facts in the Biden Chronology).
The movie depicts Biden o###rdering his aide to draw up a chronology to show that it was not his fault that the allegations had not been made public. The filmmakers appear to want to discredit this document because it was devastating to Hill’s credibility. It showed her attempts to file an anonymous charge and to escape an FBI interview, all of which delayed investigation of the charges. (See Fleming Report, which confirms the facts in the Biden Chronology).
The movie depicts Seidman angrily reproaching Hart about Hill’s statement leaking to the press, but once again omits Senate staffer Jim Brudney who was the likely source of that leak. Hill had faxed Brudney an unsigned copy of her statement, a fact she omitted in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The evidence in the Fleming Report suggests that Brudney leaked this statement to the press.
In this fictitious scene, a White House aide makes a sexist comment about “girls looking cheap.” The script initially attributed this comment to then-White House attorney Mark Paoletta, who and threatened HBO with a defamation suit. Paoletta’s name is no longer in this movie, but this fictitious scene is still designed to make the White House staff look mean and sexist.
The movie includes Hill’s claim during her press conference that she was not part of any political ploy, subtly adopting the narrative that Hill lacked any political bias. This was a constant drumbeat during the hearings—with the press and her witnesses going so far as to claim that Hill was a Republican, Reaganite, and Bork supporter. The truth of the matter, of course, is that Hill was a lifelong Democrat with political grounds to oppose Thomas.
The movie includes Hill’s false claim during that press conference that she was approached by the Judiciary Committee, but the Fleming Report later established that Brudney told Hill that she had to contact the Judiciary Committee to lodge her complaint and that she had done so. (See Fleming Report)
The movie includes a scene in which Biden asks Hill whether she has secured legal counsel, and Hill responds, “Why would I have done that? I had no idea I needed it.” The truth is that Hill had spoken with Susan Deller Ross before she even submitted her statement. The idea that this Yale-educated lawyer did not know she needed legal representation is absurd.
The movie includes a scene in which Wiegand mentions Ogletree, and Hill says that Emma Jordan had tried him and he was not available because he was up for tenure, and Harvard would not appreciate the controversy. Hill had in fact already been getting advice from Ogletree when she arrived in Washington.
In the movie, Hill tells Ogletree that she could not stand to be around Thomas, but many witnesses testified that Hill in fact always sought to be close to Thomas and spoke warmly of him both during and after her employment.
In response to Ogletree’s questions about the phone logs, Hill states that she called Thomas on professional matters. But the messages in the phone log disprove that claim. One such message was: “Just called to say hello. Sorry [I] didn’t get to see you last week.” The movie also conveniently omits the fact that Hill’s first response when confronted with the claim that she had called Thomas was to deny it, stating she had never initiated such a call. It was only after the phone logs were introduced that she admitted to making the calls. (Read more about the phone logs here).
The movie perpetuates the myth that Hill was told she would testify first and Danforth pressured Biden to switch the order at the last minute. That is not true. Biden gave Thomas the choice, and Thomas chose to go first.
Seidman’s statement about four witnesses is simply false. Of Hill’s four corroborating witnesses, one claimed Hill told him of the harassment years after it occurred, and both he and another witness could not even swear that Hill used Thomas’ name. Another witness testified that Hill merely told her Thomas behaved inappropriately, without any further discussion about specifics. The sole witness who testified that Hill told her at the time that Thomas was sexually harassing her was Susan Hoerchner, who repeatedly told Senate staff that this conversation occurred months before Hill even claimed the harassment occurred until she privately met with Hill’s counsel during this interview and then changed her recollection. (see Hoerchner interview).
The movie depicts Biden as hamstrung in questioning Thomas because Hill had not yet testified. But Hill had already submitted a statement to the Committee, and Biden was free to use it. He merely caved to Hill’s demand that the Committee not use her first statement, as it did not have the over-the-top graphic allegations she unveiled for the first time during her live testimony.
In her opening statement as depicted in the movie, Hill claims the harassment stopped at the first job and that is why she traveled with Thomas to another job. In reality, when pressed, she gave three reasons that were either flatly contradicted or clearly implausible. Hill said she would lose her job (she was a career federal employee with total job protection), she did not know who Thomas’ successor would be (he sat down the hall from her for 4-6 weeks before Thomas left), and that the entire Department would be abolished (ridiculous). There was a great deal of questioning on these implausible answers, none of which is in the movie.
Hill’s testimony about the coke can incident was not in her original statement or in her interview with the FBI, and she gave implausible explanations about why she added it in front of the Committee. But the movie not only fails to note the evolving nature of her allegations, it suggests the opposite. The depiction of her conversation with Seidman and faxed affidavit leaves the impression that she told a single consistent story. This was a major point of contention in the hearings and severely undermined Hill’s credibility.
The film includes Hill’s testimony that Thomas said to her that if she ever told anyone it would ruin his career. According to the FBI agents who had interviewed her, Hill told them that Thomas said that if she ever told anyone, he would ruin her career (see statements by FBI Agents Jameson and Luton).
To further its narrative of Hill as a reluctant witness, the movie includes Hill’s claim that she did not take the initiative to inform anyone of her experience. But, as noted, Hill did take the initiative to inform others.
Hill claims that she was asked by a representative of the Committee to report her experience, and she called them to report allegations. In reality, in her first calls with Senate staff, she was cagey and evasive and did not give any information about Thomas’ alleged conduct. She tried to file an anonymous complaint, initiating a weeklong standoff.
The movie misrepresents Biden’s questioning of Hill. It shows him asking the questions in this scene first, but he did not. In reality he asked about her background, and why she followed Thomas to another agency. Her implausible responses are what raised serious questions about her credibility, which is why only 26% of women polled after her testimony believed her.
Anita Hill remains the only person then or since to claim Thomas talked about pornography at work.
The filmmakers falsely portray Specter’s first question to Hill. In reality, Specter’s first question was about whether she agreed with the statements of two people who said that Hill had expressed happiness about Thomas’ nomination, and Specter’s second question was about her comments denying knowing a former colleague mentioned in the press. These lines of questioning established that there were many people who flatly contradicted Hill’s statements, yet they were not included in the movie.
The filmmakers dishonestly edit out the devastating cross-examination of Anita Hill by Specter that exposed her implausible explanations and damaged her credibility, including her explanations for following Thomas to another agency and her repeated denials of discussing with Brudney the scenario that Thomas might withdraw upon her lodging an anonymous charge.
Returning to Specter’s questioning, this scene once again leaves out his devastating cross-examination of Hill that led the America people to believe Thomas by a 2-1 margin, with only 26% of women believing Hill.
When first confronted with the fact that she had called Thomas many times after she left the agency, Hill lied and said she never initiated a call to Thomas. When confronted with the irrefutable evidence of the phone logs, she called them “garbage.” This exchange is selectively edited to protect her reputation (read more about the phone logs here).
The movie presents Thomas’ demeanor to be calculating and tactical when he accuses the Senate of a “high-tech lynching.” Clarence Thomas was genuinely furious at how he had been treated, and there was raw anger in his delivery. Wendell Pierce’s demeanor, tone, and delivery reflect the filmmakers’ agenda – not the real Clarence Thomas.
The filmmakers excise the portion of Thomas’ opening remarks where he calls out the Senate staff for searching for sleaze and leaking it to the media. This selective editing deflects attention from Senate staffer Jim Brudney, who worked very closely with Hill and many believe leaked Anita Hill’s statement. The filmmakers also excise Thomas’ point that there was an FBI investigation that found the allegations unsubstantiated.
This scene is false. The committee did not recess at this point. In reality, Thomas was questioned for more than an hour after his opening statement.
This scene depicts Wright giving a telephonic interview to Senate Staff. Conspicuously left out of her answers is the fact that Angela Wright told Senate investigators that she did not believe that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her.
The movie does not mention that Wright told a friend in August 1991 that she wanted revenge on Thomas for firing her as set forth in an FBI report, or that she had made previously baseless allegations of racism to a Senate Committee considering a nomination of her former supervisor. Wright tried to sabotage that nomination in the same manner as she did that of Clarence Thomas (see “Facts About Angela Wright”).
The portrayal of Wright’s interview is dishonest, as it omits Wright’s refusal to discuss the baseless allegations of racism she had lodged against a previous supervisor, who had been nominated for a new position that, like Thomas’ nomination, required confirmation by the Senate (see “Facts About Angela Wright”).
Biden mentions that this kind of situation brings people like Wright “out of the woodwork,” and Hart disputes that. But the movie does not mention that Wright did come “out of the woodwork” in a similar situation to make a vindictive and baseless allegation to scuttle a a former supervisor’s nomination. It also leaves out that, according to an FBI report, Wright had told a friend in August 1991 that she still wanted to get revenge on Thomas for firing her (see Jay Morris’ letter and “Facts About Angela Wright”).
Hart states that Wright has a corroborating witness. That “corroborating witness” was Rose Jourdain, who Thomas had fired the same day as Angela Wright. Jourdain never saw any purported harassment, and her account of Wright’s reaction and comments do not square at all with Wright’s version of events. For example, Jourdain claimed Wright was afraid to be alone with Thomas and would come into her office in tears, whereas Wright said nothing of the sort in her interview. Finally, when offered the chance, Jourdain specifically requested not to have her interview under oath.
This is false. Hill did not tell one witness (Joel Paul) until four years later after alleged incidents. Both Paul and John Carr could not swear she referred to Thomas by name in their conversations. In Hoerchner’s interview, she first said she “thinks” Hill used the name Clarence but then became more certain after prodding by Democratic counsel. Ellen Wells testified that Hill never mentioned the exact nature of the conduct (see Hoerchner’s interview and more about the other witnesses on the ConfirmationBiased Blog).
This obvious attempt by the filmmakers to make Kennedy a relevant participant in these hearings is absurd. In reality, Kennedy’s sexual indiscretions – which Democrats had excused for so long – had caught up with him and he was useless to the Democrats at these hearings. Of course, Kennedy was the main instigator to smear Judge Bork when he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987.
This scene falsely portrays the Committee as intent on preventing Wright from testifying. In reality, Wright’s lawyer sent a note to Biden informing him that he would not let his client testify. Wright chose not to testify, and Biden vitiated the subpoena because Wright would have been a disaster for the Democrats and for Hill. It is ludicrous to suggest that Wright was prevented from testifying.
This scene shows Clarence Thomas testifying that he fired Angela Wright for calling a member of his EEOC staff a “faggot.” Wright, who is watching Thomas testify on television, responds: “That’s a lie. I did no such thing.” In reality, several people remember this comment, and at least once source confirmed it was directed at a gay staffer.
While watching Senator Simpson discuss Angela Wright with Thomas, Napolitano complains that Wright is “a credible witness that’ll testify that Thomas harassed her too, and they’re smearing her just like they smeared Anita.” The movie takes Wright’s “credibility” for granted but her glaring credibility problems – such as an expressed desire for revenge against Thomas and her checkered work history – are omitted. (See “Facts About Angela Wright”).
The American people watched the hearing unfiltered and did not believe Hill. But that’s not good enough for the filmmakers. They come up with the theory that Biden is somehow to blame for the American people supporting Thomas.
It is not true that this would have leaked, so Ogletree’s comment is self-serving. If a lie-detector test would necessarily have leaked, why didn’t Hill make her intent to take such a test public in advance, and why didn’t she allow someone neutral to select a technician? There have been many questions about the lie detector test and about this particular technician.
The snippets chosen by the filmmakers are a dishonest portrayal of the testimony offered by Hill’s witnesses. Hoerchner said previously that she thought Hill referred to Clarence Thomas; and only after prodding by Democratic counsel becomes more certain, but the film makes no mention of her inconsistency. Nor does the film show her being confronted in a lie about her role in the filing of a recent a sexual harassment case. Similarly, the film ignores Carr’s concession to Senator Specter that he could not recall if Hill specifically referred to Clarence Thomas by name. (See Hoerchner’s interview and more about Hill’s witnesses on the ConfirmationBiased Blog)
Susan Hoerchner was by all accounts a terrible witness, but the filmmakers once again refuse to acknowledge that fact or address any of the inconsistencies in her statements to the Senate.
Anita Hill never told Ellen Wells about the specific nature of Thomas’ alleged conduct, only that she was led to believe it was sexual in nature. She said she could not and did not offer advice to Hill because she did not know what the conduct was. That Hill later contradicted this testimony in her memoirs six years later, claiming that the two spoke about how to get Thomas to stop his behavior, only raises further questions about it.
One of major themes, explored elsewhere, is that Hill had no political motive to attack Thomas because she was a conservative. In Kennedy’s real-life speech, he pursued this line of defense for Hill and claimed she was a Bork supporter and not a Democrat. This was all a big lie, so the filmmakers omit that part of Kennedy’s remarks.
The movie does not provide any context to the controversy surrounding Hill’s polygraph test and the person who administered it, Paul Minor. The polygraph was conducted in secret, the control questions were not released, the actual questions posed were poorly formulated, and the actual tape of the polygraph test was not released, making it difficult to know if the results were accurate. For his part, Minor had previously been involved in high-profile polygraph tests that proved inaccurate and raised questions about his competence. (See Los Angeles Times, “Effect of Hill’s Taking of Lie Test Uncertain”)
Twelve women, former co-workers of Thomas, testified on his behalf. Many of them had been victims of sexual harassment, many had also worked with Hill, and all them said they did not believe Hill. It was extraordinarily powerful testimony and it is largely left out of this film.
Nancy Fitch is sitting next to Diane Holt, but the movie is silent about her role. In her interview with the FBI, Anita Hill gave two names of women who would corroborate her allegations — Allyson Duncan and Nancy Fitch. Both flatly disputed Hill’s allegations and stated that they knew of no improprieties by Thomas. Fitch later gave very powerful testimony on behalf of Thomas, which the filmmakers ignore. (See Fleming Report)
The movie uses news reports to try to bolster it’s narrative about Wright, but we now know that Wright’s lawyer told Biden that he would not allow his client to testify. It is dishonest to use contrary news reports as if they were true.
Paul gave testimony about Hill’s political leanings, and in particular that she was 100% in agreement with Reagan civil rights policies and was a supporter of Bork, claims so erroneous and misleading that they raise questions about his entire testimony. The film makes no mention of this problem. (See more on Joel Paul here).
This owner of this store repeatedly changed his story and according to several journalists, given this troublesome sourcing, it was not a publishable story. That said, whatever Thomas did in his private life is absolutely irrelevant to how he treated women in the workplace. Senator Simon also stated as much. There is no other woman who has ever alleged Thomas spoke about pornography in the workplace.
This scene is fictional. It is used to help reinforce the lie that Wright was prevented from testifying. Wright chose not to testify, and signed a statement saying that was “completely satisfactory” to her (see Biden letter here).
In the tradition of Hollywood fiction, the filmmakers attempt to turn a letter memorializing a “completely satisfactory” agreement into some kind of conspiracy to block Wright from appearing (see the real-life letter here).
This fictitious scene tries to create the impression that Wright was essentially coerced into signing the letter, but it is by now well-established that Wright’s attorney sent a note to Biden saying he would not allow his client to testify before this letter was every presented to Wright.
Eight women testified at the end of the hearings on behalf of Thomas. Many had themselves been victims of sexual harassment, and they universally did not believe Anita Hill. The film leaves out all of their testimony, and under-represents them, only showing 3 women at the witness table (see more about the women who spoke up for Thomas here).
Presenting Anita Hill as a feminist icon is misleading. Within a few short years, Anita Hill began attacking any woman who claimed that she was sexually harassed or assaulted by Bill Clinton. She belittled Paula Jones’ claim against Clinton, even though Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000. In her infamous “Meet The Press” appearance in 1998, Hill dismissed Clinton’s mistreatment of women by saying people needed to look at “larger issues.” (See more on Hill’s defense of Bill Clinton here).
© 2017 Confirmation Biased . All rights reserved