Well, isn’t that interesting. Clarence Thomas didn’t watch Anita Hill’s Testimony either. (See page 160 of the transcript, here.) The transcript doesn’t convey Leahy’s evident surprise at Thomas’ response, which I remember noticing at the time. Later on tv some news commentators claimed that as an attorney Leahy would have known that this is usually taken as a sign of guilt by the lawyers in criminal proceedings; innocent defendants need to know what is said about them in order to rebut it, while guilty ones already know what the witness has to say.
I haven’t been able to find examples of this commentary online though; the internet’s memory is selective, and there are so very many hits on the subject of the Thomas-Hill hearings. I will continue to look for a source, but if you have one please do leave a comment.