The skanner., March 30, 2011, Page 7, Image 7

News
Clarence Thomas’ Ex Expounds on Steamy Memoir
Lillian McEwen talks about her book, ‘D.C. Unmasked & Undressed’
by Kam Williams, Special to The Skanner News
R
etired Justice Lillian McEwen was born, raised and
educated in Washington, D.C. Her stellar legal career
there spanned several decades, including stints as a
prosecutor, Capitol Hill staff counsel, criminal defense
attorney, law professor and federal judge. Judge McEwen
recently published her memoir, “D.C. Unmasked &
Undressed,” a steamy tell-all chronicling her sexually-
adventurous private life, paying particular attention to her
longtime relationship with a prominent colleague, U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
In the process, McEwen belatedly resurrects the reputa-
tion of Anita Hill by offering proof that the disgraced law
professor was telling the truth 20 years ago when she testi-
fied against Thomas during his controversial confirmation
hearings.
Kw: Why so?
le: There came a time during his tenure
as Chairman of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that he
began to complain vociferously about the
behavior of Anita Hill at the office. He
would whine about it every day. He even
asked me on several occasions to come to
the office to wait for him, because “Anita
Hill has to see that I have another woman
in my life now. It has to be made plain to
her that we don’t have the same type of
relationship we once had.”
Kw: So, do you think Anita testified out
of bitterness as a woman scorned?
le: I think it’s more complicated than
that. I think Anita Hill never imagined that
she would be the only person testifying
against the man who had given her her
job, who had been at her beck and call,
and who had made sure that she was a suc-
cessful attorney.
Kw: Have you had any contact with her?
le: No, other than being introduced to
her when Clarence became Chairman of
the EEOC, and the times when I went sat
around the office to send her a message for
him. [Chuckles]
Kw: Have you considered leaving a
message on her answering machine like
Clarence’s wife, Ginny, did last fall?
LE: That’s never occurred to me.
Lillian McEwen
Read the rest of this story online at www.theskanner.com
Kam williams: Hello, Your Honor, thanks for the inter-
view. How are you?
lillian Mcewen: Hi Kam. I’m good.
Kw: How’d you like my review of the book?
le: [Chuckles] My PR guy loved it, and we both thank
you.
Kw: That sounds like you had some issues with it, but I
have so many questions from readers, I better get right to
them rather than pursue that line of questioning. Harriet
Pakula Teweles asks: ‘What’s it all about Lillie?’ Why now?
Why not then, when Dr. Hill needed your support in her tes-
timony against Clarence Thomas?
le: I was counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee
under Joe Biden, so I knew pretty much what the process
was. What happens when people make offers to testify, the
committee’s role is to advise and consent as part of its
Constitutional mandate. Typically, these letters are anony-
mous, and they’re taken to the nominee who then has a
choice of withdrawing their name from nomination or oth-
erwise risk having that person testify against you at the
hearing. Quite frankly, the reason that I didn’t come for-
ward at the time that Clarence’s name was before the com-
mittee was because I knew from my experience on Capitol
Hill that it really wouldn’t make any difference. What hap-
pens is that the party in power will nominate whomever
they want. In Clarence’s case, he was nominated, of course,
as a result of our having a Republican president. And nei-
ther Joe Biden nor any of the other Democratic senators
wanted to risk being labeled as racist or thought of as being
against a black nominee after Clarence played the race card.
Kw: That leads me to a question from Kola Boof: Why
didn’t you go to the media back then when the case was
such a media circus? We all know that the Democrat males
were just as sexist and fearful as the Republicans of sexual
harassment being taken seriously. So, they all, as men, took
Clarence’s side. Lillian, your story would have gotten
Clarence dismissed because having a person of your stature
speak up at that time in the heat of it would have been too
damaging.
le: Because it wouldn’t have made any difference
whether I went to the media or not. But most importantly,
Clarence and I had a conversation before he was nominated
in which he informed me that it was his desire that I always
say “No comment!” and not give any interviews at all. I
regarded that wish as something I pretty much owed him as
a friend and as someone who cared about him. My hope
was that he would have a conscience and be compassionate
while on the bench of the Supreme Court.
KW: With legal minds who might have approached
Thurgood Marshall’s greatness, why did you stand by and
let someone be appointed who will be remembered for less
rather than more of what Justice Marshall represented in
this court’s history.
le: First of all, I had no power to prevent him from being
appointed. I didn’t have a vote. And secondly, I hoped that
he would transform himself back into a person who did the
right thing. Besides, there were many other witnesses avail-
able to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I did write a
note to Senator Biden around the time of the hearing him
reminding him that I had had a close relationship with
Clarence Thomas. I would have appeared, had I been sub-
poenaed to testify.
Kw: Attorney Bernadette Beekman asks: Why didn’t you
approach Anita Hill to support her allegations in her time of
need? Were you afraid of possible repercussions respecting
your career?
le: There were other individuals who had worked with
Clarence who were willing to testify at the confirmation
hearings. So, I wasn’t the only one who could have corrob-
orated Anita Hill’s testimony. Furthermore, long before the
nomination, I was utterly convinced that she and Clarence
had had a sexual relationship.
march 30, 2011 The Portland Skanner Page 7