25 years after Anita Hill our courts are flooded with political vendettas. Here's why

HBO sank to a new low this weekend with the premier of “Confirmation,” a movie that purports to accurately depict the events and circumstances surrounding Anita Hill’s widely rejected claims that she was sexually harassed by then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

The movie is nothing short of a transparent attempt to rewrite history and lend credibility to the liberals’ decades-long campaign attacking the character and integrity of Justice Thomas.

The HBO drama included conversations that never took place, introduced fictional characters with no basis in fact or reality and made up whole scenes in a clumsy effort to manufacture sympathy for its liberal heroine.

HBO, working with executive producer and liberal activist Kerry Washington, purposefully glossed over and whitewashed crucial facts and information about Justice Thomas’ accusers.

Thomas himself, the first black conservative Supreme Court nominee, described the organized attack against him as “a high-tech lynching.”

Washington’s version omitted the fact that Thomas fired one of his accusers, Angela Wright, for calling another employee “a faggot.” The truth of the matter is that Wright didn’t testify before the Senate committee because her own lawyer withdrew her as a witness. Washington’s failure to highlight simple facts, such as Wright’s homophobic track record, underscores the film’s intended goal.

Hill’s public performance during Thomas’ confirmation hearings ushered in a new era of agenda-driven political prosecutions and lawsuits that have become a growing problem for the U.S. courts.

The HBO film portrays this phenomenon as a positive change for the country. In the movie credits, Washington writes that “cases filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) doubled” in the year that followed Hill’s accusations. But should this dramatic increase in lawsuits be celebrated or condemned?

Twenty-five years after Hill’s failed show trial, our courts are flooded with political vendettas seeking to manipulate the judicial system for political gain.

Politically motivated lawsuits and prosecutions cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

It is now commonplace for liberal groups asserting phony environmental concerns to file suits against land developers.

Costs are doubled and construction times are extended by years when public projects like sports stadiums or water desalinization plants are targeted in multiple lawsuits by fringe interest groups.

Activists create nonprofits for the sole purpose of suing their enemies, collecting a settlement check and paying lawyers to find the next frivolous lawsuit.

More troubling than unscrupulous lawyers and activists filing nuisance lawsuits, however, is the growing trend of politicians posing as attorneys general or district attorneys who prosecute their political enemies using taxpayer dollars.

This charade can provide intense media exposure and fundraising opportunities for politicians looking to make names for themselves.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Brown, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay have all suffered political and reputational damage as a result of deceptive prosecutions brought by their political opponents. In all three cases, the accusations turned out to be false or highly exaggerated.

In New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is leading an 11-year civil prosecution against Hank Greenberg, the 90-year-old former chairman of AIG. The case focuses on the accounting treatment of two entirely legitimate transactions that were long ago proven to be legal and appropriate. Greenberg resigned from AIG years before the well-publicized bailout of his former company – and U.S. taxpayers enjoyed a hefty $23 billion profit from the controversial AIG backdoor bailout. Yet Schneiderman, a Democrat with political aspirations, is still using his public law enforcement office to prosecute a high-profile Republican donor.

Greenberg is not the only victim of Schneiderman’s political prosecution; taxpayers are footing the bill for this charade that provides a clear example of a betrayal of the public’s trust – all for Schneiderman’s personal political gain. 

In 2005, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was indicted by a federal grand jury in an obstruction of justice and perjury case stemming from the Iraq war. He was convicted of four of five counts.

Liberals contend that Libby was part of an orchestrated effort to out Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA operative in retaliation for her husband writing a New York Times opinion piece questioning the Iraq war. But Plame’s work at CIA headquarters was well-known around Washington, and her husband’s many media appearances about the matter, and the couple’s Vanity Fair photo shoot, suggest Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband Joe Wilson not only relished the media attention, but, moreover, used it to further their political careers. The faux outrage of the Libby prosecution and the Wilsons’ media circus attacking the Iraq war clearly illustrates the political nature of their endeavors and their ultimate goals.

The public should demand more of politicians who collect taxpayer-funded paychecks. Attorneys general, district attorneys and federal prosecutors have a responsibility to separate their politics from their law enforcement powers. Further, they should pursue corruption cases even when a target is someone from their own political party.

Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server that hosted classified material is not only a political issue; it is also a serious violation of federal law. If the Obama administration fails to indict the leading Democrat and presumptive presidential nominee, it will inflict permanent damage on the credibility of the U.S. justice system.

No one is above the law, and politicians posing as law enforcement officials should not be permitted to punish their political enemies. Yet that is what happens in the courts of this country every day.