About Me

Whats New

Autograph Collection

Dream Theater

Music Page

Sports Links

Social Issues


E-mail Me


Last Updated :
September 21, 2008

Anita Hill Vs. Paula Jones

Is There A Double Standard???

A Scorecard on the Anita Hill and Paula Jones Cases

Anita Hill
Paula Jones
LIAR Paula Jones

The Defendants

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ´ President Bill Clinton ´

The Charges

Making crude remarks around the office. Inviting Anita Hill to dinner and other social events. Using a State Trooper to bring Paula Jones to his hotel suite under the guise of offering her possible career advancement. Asking Jones to perform specific sexual acts. Sliding his hand up her skirt and exposing his genitals to her.

Length of Time Elapsed Before Making Charges

Ten Years Three Years

Stated Reasons for Making Charges

Did not want Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Says he had many philosophical and ideological differences with Thomas. Jones´ name was mentioned in a magazine article this year as a willing sexual partner of Bill Clinton´s. Jones says she did not have sexual relations with Bill Clinton and wants to clear her name. She also requested an apology from Clinton for his unwanted and obscene sexual advances. Clinton refused to apologize, which Hones says is the reason she felt she had no choice but to file the lawsuit.

Other Incidents That May Show a "Pattern of Behavior"

No one other than Anita Hill has ever accused Judge Thomas of using the kind of language Hill described. Numerous witnesses testified under oath that Thomas always behaved like a perfect gentleman Clinton´s womanizing and unfaithfulness to his wife is will documented. Gennifer Flowers recorded Clinton on tape instructing her to lie about their affair if questioned by reporters. Arkansas State Troopers have testified that Clinton used them regularly to find women for him willing to engage in sex.

Corroborating Witnesses

Hill produced no witnesses to corroborate her story. Several witnesses, including Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson and two of Jones´ co-workers, Pamela Blackard and Debra Ballentine, have independently confirmed major portions of Jones´ account

Reaction of the Accused

Thomas denied all charges. Answered all questions asked of him by liberals Senators opposed to his nomination in a nationally televised Congressional hearing. Presented witness after witness to back up his account, including witnesses who said Hill was pursuing Thomas. Clinton refused to answer questions pertaining to Jones´ charges. Retained super lawyer Robert Bennett to defend him. Ordered Justice Department to argue for Presidential immunity form Jones´ lawsuit. Started "Legal Defense Fund" to play Clinton´s legal bills.

Congressional Reaction

Extensive high profile televised hearings. Humiliation of the nominee by Senators opposed to the nomination. No Response. No hearings.

Media Reaction

Massive national coverage in print and broadcast media. Refusal to seriously consider victim´s charges. Later forced to provide some coverage when matter became public record in Jones´ lawsuit against the president

Liberal Special Interest Reaction

Without any evidence or witnesses to back-up charges, feminist groups launched a vicious media attack and smear campaign against Thomas demanding his withdrawal as nominee. Suggested that even if Hill could not prove her charges, the fact that the charges were being made at all is grounds enough to reject Thomas´ nomination. Despite three witnesses to corroborate Jones´ story, her lawsuit is belittled by liberals as politically motivated

Financial Interest

Anita Hill receives $25,000 per speech on feminist issues and the topic of sexual harassment. So far she has been paid more than $300,000 for speeches. She also has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in advances for books on the subject. Paula Jones has stated publicly that she will donate any money she receives from the lawsuit to charity. She says she´ll drop the suit if she receives an apology fro Clinton for his indecent behavior. She also say she wants to clear her name, which was besmirched in a magazine article about Clinton´s womanizing before she ever went public. She says the magazine article incorrectly portrayed her as a willing sexual partner of Clinton´s..

Last Updated : September 21, 2008