Updated Oct. 25 at 1 p.m.
Attorney General Curtis Hill got to tell his side of the story Thursday on the final day of a disciplinary hearing that could determine whether he keeps his law license.
Hill denied allegations he inappropriately touched four women at a party last year.
The Republican Attorney General was questioned by his legal team on the witness stand during the morning portion of the hearing Thursday. He described being, in his words, “shocked” and “troubled” last year when he learned people accused him of acting inappropriately.
Hill – unlike many of the witnesses who’ve testified – says he wasn’t drunk or impaired at the party in question, a celebration of the end of the 2018 legislative session. And he says while he put his hand on many people’s backs, he denies touching anyone inappropriately or in a sexual manner.
One of his accusers says he rubbed her back; another says he touched her butt. And a third, Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon (D-Munster), says Hill “grabbed a handful of ass.”
Hill also testified that, after a leak to the press of a confidential memo detailing the allegations, he began to suspect the whole thing was a political attack.
A new allegation had surfaced Wednesday that a former employee of Hill’s in Elkhart County says he made an explicit sexual advance – specifically, “We need to f*** because it would be hot.”
Hill said on the witness stand he never propositioned the woman. Instead, he says he told her, “We could have been f***ing hot,” referring, he says, to a dance they could’ve done together at a charity event a year earlier.
Disciplinary Commission attorney Seth Pruden focused, when questioning Hill Thursday, on a series of emails over the last year - messages between Hill, some of his employees and outside consultants. One chain references getting background information on members of the Disciplinary Commission. It also proposes pitching a story to conservative media outlets that “Holcomb cronies” and “liberals” are driving the inquiry into the Republican Attorney General.
There’s no timetable for a final decision in the disciplinary case.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story said “We should f*** because it would be hot.” That was incorrect. It is instead “We need to f*** because it would be hot.”
This post has been updated.
Contact Brandon at bsmith@ipbs.org or follow him on Twitter at @brandonjsmith5.
