Watch Live: Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford Testify At Senate Hearing | NBC News


>>GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WE’RE COMING UP TO BRING YOU THE MEGYN KELLY. CHUCK GRASSLEY OF IOWA, 85, HAS BEEN A SENATOR AND A MEMBER DURING THE CLARENCE THOMAS HEARINGS IN 1991. THE DIANNE FEINSTEIN WILL MAKE HER OPENING STATEMENT, ALSO, 85, FEINSTEIN ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1992. SO-CALLED YEAR OF THE WOMAN IN THE WAKE OF THE THOMAS HEARINGS.>>IT’S FEELING A LOT LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN. AFTER THE SENATORS MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENTS FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE’LL HEAR PUBLICLY FROM CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CAMERA. SHE’S A PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSOR, A RESEARCHER AND SHE SAYS CRUCIALLY THAT WHEN SHE WAS 15 IN THE EARLY 1980s, SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY A TEENAGE BRETT KAVANAUGH. WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THERE, WE GO TO HALLIE JACKSON. SHE’S IN POSITION. GOOD MORNING TO YOU. >>Reporter: GOOD MORNING, SAVANNAH AND LESTER. DR. FORD HAS ARRIVED, CURRENTLY IN A HOLDING AREA OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM WHERE THIS ALL WILL HAPPEN. IT’S NOTICEABLY SMALLER THAN WE SAW FROM THE INITIAL CONFIRMATION HEARINGS AT THE REQUEST OF DR. FORD’S TEAM, THERE IS SIMPLY FEWER MEDIA, FEWER PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESENT. THEY WANTED TO PREVENT THIS FROM TURNING INTO A CIRCUS-LIKE ATMOSPHERE. YOU TICKED THROUGH HOW THIS IS GOING TO UNFOLD. THE OPENING STATEMENTS FROM GRASSLEY AND SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND DR. FORD WILL HAVE HER TIME TO DELIVER HER OPENING STATEMENT. SHE’S EXPECTED TO BE LED BY HER TWO ATTORNEYS AND IN HER PREPARED REMARKS, TALK ABOUT HOW HE’S A RELUCTANT WITNESS HERE. WHO DID NOT WANT HER NAME REVEALED AND STRUGGLED WITH THIS TERRIBLE CHOICE. STAY PRIVATE OR GO PUBLIC AND SHARE HER STORY. SHE SAYS SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE HERE TODAY. SHE ACTUALLY SAYS SHE IS TERRIFIED IN THESE PREPARED REMARKS BUT BELIEVES IT’S HER CIVIC DUTY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT SHE SAYS HAPPENED TO HER. JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH WILL HAVE HIS OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO DELIVER AN OPENING STATEMENT BUT ANSWER SENATORS IN THE ROOM AND SHOULD BE NOTED RACHEL MITCHELL, THE VETERAN PROSECUTOR HERE WITH DECADES OF SEX CRIMES EXPERIENCE TALKING ABOUT THIS WILL LIKELY BE THE ONE TO BE ASKING DR. FORD ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLICANS ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. THERE’S A LOT AT STAKE HERE. DR. FORD, A LOT OF FOLKS ARE WATCHING TO SEE, IS SHE CREDIBLE, COMPELLING? THEY WANT TO SEE JUDGE KAVANAUGH MORE INDIGNANT THAN HE WAS EARLIER THIS WEEK AND VEHEMENTLY DENY THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM BUT HE HAS TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO LOOK LIKE HE’S GOING ON ATTACK AGAINST DR. FORD GIVEN THE MOMENT WE ARE IN. WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL BE WATCHING. HE’S ACTUALLY IN NEW YORK THIS MORNING WRAPPING UP AT THE UNITED NATIONS BUT WILL BE IN TRANSIT TRAVELING TO WASHINGTON. HE IS NOW OPENED THE DOOR TO POTENTIALLY WITHDRAWING KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION DEPENDING HOW THIS GOES TODAY. >>HALLIE, STAND BY THERE, OF COURSE. >>WE WANT TO BRING KASIE HUNT WITH LATE REPORTING HERE.>>Reporter: LESTER, WE’VE SEEN AS THIS UNFOLDS, THE AUDIENCE THAT MATTERS IS A SMALL UNIVERSE OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO ARE CURRENTLY UNDECIDED. THIS HEARING WOULD NOT BE GOING FORWARD IF MITCH McCONNELL HAD THE 50 VOTES. HE’S THE REPUBLICAN LEADER TO ACTUALLY PASS THIS NOMINATION THROUGH THE SENATE. WHILE WE’VE BEEN FOCUSING VERY CAREFULLY ON TWO WOMEN, SUSAN AND LISA MURKOWSKI AS WELL AS JEFF FLAKE OF ARIZONA, MY SOURCES ARE TELLING ME THAT THIS HEARING COULD ACTUALLY INFLUENCE A WIDER UNIVERSE OF REPUBLICANS AND IF, IN FACT, DR. FORD COMES ACROSS AS CREDIBLE AND ESPECIALLY IF IT SEEMS TO REPUBLICANS AS THOUGH JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS LIED AT SOME POINT DURING THIS PROCESS OR HASN’T TOLD THEM THE TRUTH, THAT THIS COULD REALLY SWING AGAINST HIM AND MITCH McCONNELL’S PUBLIC STRATEGY AND YOU’VE HEARD HIM SAY THIS OVER AND OVER IS TO PUSH THROUGH FAST AS POSSIBLE WITH THIS NOMINATION PROCESS. THEY’VE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED A COMMITTEE VOTE ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH FOR 9:30 TOMORROW MORNING. THEY’VE TALKED ABOUT KEEPING THE SENATE IN THROUGH THE WEEKEND SO THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A FINAL VOTE AS EARLY AS MONDAY OR TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK. BUT I’M TOLD THAT ONE THING TO LOOK FOR AS THIS UNFOLDS IS WHETHER REPUBLICANS START TO SAY AMONG THEMSELVES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT’S JUST TOO FAST FOR US. WE’RE NOT CONVINCED YET. WE NEED TO TALK TO SOME MORE PEOPLE, POTENTIALLY OPEN THE INVESTIGATION MORE WIDELY. SUSAN COLLINS EXPRESSED SOME INTEREST IN SUBPOENAING MARK JUDGE WHO IS THE PERSON THAT DR. FORD PLACES IN THAT ROOM. SO AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT AT STAKE HERE AND MANY MINDS THAT COULD BE CHANGED. LESTER?>>KASIE, THANK YOU. >>WE SHOULD MENTION, IT’S THE REPUBLICANS WHO HIRED THIS SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, SOMEBODY WHO HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH SEX CRIMES TO DO SOME OF THE QUESTIONING TODAY. MEANWHILE, THE PRESIDENT, WE KNOW WILL BE WATCHING. HE HAD A NEWS CONFERENCE YESTERDAY AND SAID HE BELIEVED THESE ALLEGATIONS TO BE FALSE, ALSO HAD AN OPEN MIND AND COULD BE CONVINCED AND BRINGS US RIGHT TO KRISTEN WELKER, FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.>>Reporter: I SPOKE WITH A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL MOMENTS AGO WHO TELLS ME THE MOOD HERE TODAY, READY AND FOCUSED. THIS IS A CRITICAL MOMENT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND AS YOU SAY, HE CONTINUES TO STAND BY HIS NOMINEE, BUT ALSO SAID DURING THAT WIDE RANGING NEWS CONFERENCE YESTERDAY, IF FORD’S TESTIMONY IS CONVINCING, IT COULD CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT KAVANAUGH. I ALSO SPOKE WITH TOP ADVISER KELLY ANNE CONWAY WHO SAID THE PRESIDENT IS NOT EYEING A REPLACEMENT FOR KAVANAUGH BUT FOCUSED ON THE HEARING. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS SOME CONCERN WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE WAKE OF THAT INTERVIEW THAT KAVANAUGH DID EARLIER THIS WEEK AND HE WASN’T STRONG ENOUGH IN SOME OF HIS ANSWERS. THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY IS GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR HIM NOT ONLY TO BE FIRM IN HIS DENIALS BUT SPEAK AS A FATHER AND AS A JUDGE AND SAY SEXUAL ASSAULT CANNOT BE TOLERATED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. MR. TRUMP LIKES TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT HE GOT ELECTED IN PART BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME COURT. SO FOR HIM, THE STAKES COULDN’T BE HIGHER AND COULD, OF COURSE, HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MIDTERMS AS WELL, SAVANNAH. >>THANK YOU, KRISTEN.>>LET ME START WITH ANDREA MITCHELL. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING IN A VACUUM. WE’RE HEARING ONE ACCUSER’S TESTIMONY BUT WE’VE HEARD BITS AND PIECES ABOUT BACKGROUND, ABOUT PARTIES, ABOUT DRINKING. HOW IS THIS ALL GOING TO PLAY?>>IT REALLY WILL DEPEND ON THE PRESENTATION OF THESE TWO PEOPLE. HOW THEY RESPOND, SHE CERTAINLY HAS NO EXPERIENCE IN THIS KIND OF A PUBLIC SETTING. HE HAS A LOT, A PRACTICED LITIGATOR. IF YOU THINK BACK TO 27 YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS COVERING THOMAS AND ANITA HILL, AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF TESTIMONY WITH ANITA HILL GOING FIRST, THE PUBLIC AND CERTAINLY THE MEDIA FELT SHE HAD BEEN COMPELLING BUT THEN THE WHITE HOUSE REALLY ORCHESTRATED JUDGE THOMAS COMING IN AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT NIGHT AND THEN ALL DAY THE NEXT DAY AND IT MOVED QUICKLY. THE HIGH-TECH LYNCHING COMMENT AND BY THE TIME WE DID “MEET THE PRESS” SUNDAY MORNING, THE OVERNIGHT POLLING PERSUADED THE DEMOCRATS TO BACK OFF AND NOT BRING IN A CORROBORATING WITNESS FROM ANITA HILL OR HER POLYGRAPH EXAM. THEY DECIDED THE PUBLIC HAD MADE THEIR DECISION ON A HE SAID/SHE SAID MOMENT AND WELL COULD BECOME, WHO LOOKS AUTHENTIC? DOES HE SAY TOO FAR? DOES HE DENY TOO MUCH? A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LOOK TO THE FOX INTERVIEW THOUGHT HE SAID TOO MUCH ABOUT HIS HIGH SCHOOL AND IT WAS INCREDIBLE GIVEN A LOT OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND INFORMATION THAT THIS WAS A DRINKING CROWD AT GEORGETOWN PREP. HE SHOULD NOT DENY EVERYTHING IF THAT’S THE PRESENTATION AND HOW NERVOUS IS SHE IN THIS ATMOSPHERE?>>SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE. IT’S NOT A LEGAL PROCEEDING PER SE, IT’S POLITICS. SO THAT BRINGS ME TO YOU, CHUCK.>>THAT’S THE TROUBLING THING ABOUT TODAY IS IT’S NOT A FACT FINDING MISSION. WE ARE NOT, THERE IS GOING TO BE AN IRRECONCILABLE FEELING TO THIS HEARING FOR MANY AMERICANS. THIS IS GOING TO BE A TEST. MAYBE IT’S COMPELLING AND BREAKS THIS POLARIZING CYCLE BUT I HAVE TO SAY, THE FACT THAT WE’RE, THAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT PERFORMANCE RATHER THAN THE SUBSTANCE ITSELF SHOULD BE A LITTLE TROUBLING, BUT THIS IS OUR POLITICS IN 2018.>>MEGYN IS OUR LAWYER HERE AND IN COURTS OF LAW EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, CREDIBILITY IS WEIGHED. YOU HAVE AN ACCUSER AND YOU HAVE THE ACCUSED AND IN SOME SENSE, THAT IS WHAT WE’RE GOING TO ALL BE JUDGING TODAY. >>THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT THIS IS NOT A TRIAL BECAUSE IF IT WERE, SHE WOULD LIKELY LOSE. HE WOULD BE AFFORDED THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND SHE WOULD HAVE TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SHE HAS NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES AND SHE HAS A JURY AS DOES BRETT KAVANAUGH WHO HAS MADE HIS MIND. THIS WOULD BE A NIGHTMARE CRIMINAL TRIAL BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS IS. IT IS ABOUT ADVICE AND CONSENT AND THE SENATE’S DUTY TO DO THAT, ON THE PRESIDENT’S CHOSEN SUPREME COURT PICK. THEIR GOAL, THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL MISSION IS TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER BRETT KAVANAUGH IS QUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE SUPREME COURT. IF YOU’VE GOT SOME GUY WHO’S A SERIAL SEXUAL HARASSER, YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY MAKE THE CASE THAT HE’S NOT BUT MY OWN TAKE ON IT IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DETERMINED TO BELIEVE HE’S NOT AND TO HANG THAT DECISION ON THE ABSENCE OF HARD PROOF AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE MINDED.>>YOU KNOW, POLITICALLY, IT’S POSSIBLE IF KAVANAUGH GETS CONFIRMED AND BENEFITS THE DEMOCRATS IN THE MIDTERM AND IF KAVANAUGH TODAY GOES BADLY AND FORCED TO WITHDRAW, IT COULD SERVE AS A RALLYING POINT ON THE RIGHT AND HELP REPUBLICANS IN THE MIDTERM. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANITA HILL AND CLARENCE THOMAS AND TODAY IS THE TIMING. WE WEREN’T SIX WEEKS AWAY FROM AN ELECTION. THEY ARE LESS THAN SIX WEEKS AWAY. WE ACTUALLY WERE 13 MONTHS FROM AN ELECTION. >>WE AWAIT THE HEARING AT 10:00 A.M. EASTE>>>WELL, EARLIER THIS MORNING, WE HEARD FROM A FORMER CLASSMATE OF CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD. SAMANTHA GARY. SHE SPOKE ABOUT FORD’S STATE OF MIND AS SHE GOES INTO THE HEARING THIS MORNING.>>SHE IS FIERCE AND DETERMINED AND UNDAUNTED. SO WE SHOULDN’T UNDERESTIMATE HER. WHEN SHE SHOWS UP THIS MORNING, SHE’LL BE READY. >>I WANT TO BRING IN PETE WILLIAMS NOW, OUR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT. PETE, WE KNOW THE TESTIMONY OF ONE, BUT WHAT ABOUT OTHER EVIDENCE? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN TERMS OF STATEMENTS, IN TERMS OF A POLYGRAPH TEST THAT WOULD GO ON THE RECORD HERE?>>THERE IS A POLYGRAPH TEST THAT WAS ADMINISTERED TO DR. FORD AND HER LAWYERS HAVE RELEASED IT. THE POLYGRAPH SAID SHE WAS TRUTHFUL. THAT’S ONE THING UNDOUBTEDLY DEMOCRATS WILL BRING UP. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MAJORITY STAFF SAID THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE SHE SAYS WERE AT THE PARTY HAVE SINCE SAID THEY DON’T REMEMBER ANYTHING LIKE THIS. A COUPLE OF THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED TO COME AND TESTIFY SAID THEY HAVE NOTHING TO ADD, THAT THEY DON’T REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. AND THEN, OF COURSE, BEYOND SIMPLY THE ALLEGATIONS OF DR. FORD, THERE ARE TWO OTHERS THAT LURK IN THE BACKGROUND HERE. DEBRA RAMIREZ WHO SAYS THAT BRETT KAVANAUGH EXPOSED HIMSELF TO HER AND JULIE SWEATNICK WHO SAID IN HER WORDS WAS PRESENT AT A PARTY IN WHICH SHE WAS GANG RAPED AND THEN THERE HAVE BEEN THREE, JUST SINCE, THE FOURTH ALLEGATION CAME OUT, THREE OTHER ANONYMOUS CLAIMS ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH FROM PEOPLE IN COLORADO, RHODE ISLAND, AND CALIFORNIA AND ANOTHER WRINKLE HERE, LESTER, LAST NIGHT, THE COMMITTEE MAJORITY STAFF SAID THAT IN THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS, TWO MEN HAVE COME FORWARD INDEPENDENTLY TO SAY THEY THINK THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS TALKING ABOUT, NOT BRETT KAVANAUGH. SO ALL OF THAT LURKS IN THE BACKGROUND AND REMEMBER, LESTER, WE’RE JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL SUPREME COURT WHOSE TERM BEGINS ON MONDAY AND ISSUES A NEW SET OF CASES THEY’LL BE HEARING IN THE COMING TERM. SO THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE OPEN FOR BUSINESS ON MONDAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO BRETT KAVANAUGH. >>PETE, THANKS. AS YOU GO THROUGH THAT, I THINK ALL BUT ONE OF THESE CASES, THERE WERE MULTIPLE PEOPLE SUPPOSEDLY PRESENT BUT YET WE HEAR FROM NONE OF THEM TODAY. >>I THINK THAT’S BEEN SOMETHING SUSAN COLLINS HAS BROUGHT UP. THAT TROUBLES HER THAT THEY HAVEN’T DECIDED, IF MARK JUDGE, HIS FRIEND, NAMED MULTIPLE TIMES, HE SHOULD BE INTERVIEWED IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER. NOT NECESSARILY A PUBLIC HEARING PERHAPS BUT AT LEAST PRIVATELY AND THAT’S, I THINK, TODAY, DEPENDING ON, IN MANY WAYS, IT COULD BE A FOCUS GROUP OF ONE BUT DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH WE KNOW OR DON’T KNOW, IF SHE SAYS, I WANT TO KNOW MORE, THEY MAY BE COMPELLED TO HAVE TO GO TO THE JUDGE. >>BUT THE COMPLAINING ACCUSERS IN THESE CASES ARE THE ONES, THE NAMES THEY HAVE GIVEN HAVE COME FORWARD TO THE PRESS AND SAY, THEY DIDN’T REMEMBER THAT AT ALL. IT’S NOT THAT THESE ARE, OTHER THAN MARK JUDGE, NOT A FIELD OF WITNESSES SAYING I’D LOVE TO TELL YOU MY STORY AND BACK HER UP AND THE REPUBLICANS IGNORED THEM. THEY’RE NOT THERE. THEY SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. >>AND MARK JUDGE, I BELIEVE, SUBMITTED A STATEMENT TO THE RAE REPUBLICANS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BUT HE WASN’T SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY. AND IF THERE’S NOT A HUGE UNIVERSE OF PEOPLE TO TESTIFY, DOES THAT NOT STRAIN MARK JUDGE?>>THAT’S THE ONE THING THAT STANDS OUT HERE. THE EYEWITNESS, EVEN IF HE WAS TOO DRUNK TO REMEMBER, SOMETHING HAPPENED. IN THE PREPARED STATEMENTS GOES BEYOND WHAT SHE TOLD “THE WASHINGTON POST” AND SPECIFIC DETAILS, TALKS ABOUT GOING UP THE STAIRS TO GO TO THE BATHROOM, COMING FROM A SWIM MEET AT THE COUNTRY CLUB NEARBY, GOING UP THE STAIRS TO GO TO THE BATHROOM AND THEN BEING GRABBED AND DRAGGED INTO THIS ROOM. SO IT’S MUCH MORE GRAPHIC AND LITERAL. I JUST WANT TO SAY, THERE’S OTHER SENATORS INVOLVED HERE. THE COMMITTEE, BY THE WAY, THEY COULD TIE IF THOMAS WAS A 7-7 TIE REPORTED OUT UNFAVORABLY. THERE’S WAYS TO ADJUST THE COMMITTEE RULES. THERE’S OTHER SENATORS THOUGH, THERE’S A REPUBLICAN WHO’S BEEN REALLY SILENT. SHELLY MOORE CAPITO. DIFFERENT ERA BUT THE — >>WHERE CHRISTINE FORD WENT TO.>>CIRCLING AROUND STRONGLY. SHE’LL BE UNDER ENORMOUS PRESSURE FROM HER OWN ROOTS FROM THAT SCHOOL TO BREAK AWAY. >>WE WAIT, ABOUT 12 MINUTES AWAY IF THEY START ON TIME. THE CENTER OF THE POLITICAL >>>WELCOME BACK TO NBC NEWS LIVE COVERAGE. SENATE JUDICIARY HEARING WHERE CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD WILL TELL HER STORY UNDER OATH HERE. THE HEARING IS SCHEDULED TO GET UNDER WAY IN ABOUT 9 MINUTES OR SO. LET’S GO TO HALLIE JACKSON RIGHT NOW WHO CAN SET THE SCENE. I KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF NEGOTIATIONS LEADING UP TO THE MOMENT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF CAMERAS AND HOW THINGS ARE PLACED. DESCRIBE THE SCENE FOR US. >>WHO GOES FIRST AND WHO GOES WHEN, DR. FORD’S TEAM HAD MADE SOME REQUESTS, SOME DEMANDS, IF YOU WILL, FOR HOW THIS WILL GO. THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL ACCOMMODATE SOME BUT NOT OTHERS. THE ORDER THIS MORNING WAS A QUESTION FOR DAYS LEADING UP TO THIS. WHO GOES FIRST? BRETT KAVANAUGH OR CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD? SHE WANTED HIM TO GO FIRST, ULTIMATELY, SHE WILL BE SPEAKING FIRST. BUT WHAT WAS ACCOMMODATED, THE TWO OF THEM ARE NOT SHARING SPACE IN THE ROOM. THEY HAVE A HOLDING AREA WHERE THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH THESE HEARINGS. DR. FORD IS HERE ON THE HILL, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS NOT ARRIVED. IT WILL BE SEVERAL HOURS BEFORE HE HAS HIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK GIVEN THAT THE QUESTIONING WILL BEGIN WITH DR. FORD. AS FOR THE ROOM ITSELF, LESTER, I THINK BACK TO WHEN YOU AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HEARINGS OVER THE SUMMER WHEN THERE WAS A SCENE IN THE ROOM. BROADCASTING LIVE, FOR EXAMPLE, OVERLOOKING FROM A BALCONY WHERE JUDGE KAVANAUGH WAS SEATED, SOME 50 PLUS STILL PHOTOGRAPHERS GATHERED IN THE WELL IN FRONT OF THE DESK SNAPPING PICTURES. THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TODAY. DR. FORD’S TEAM DID NOT WANT THAT KIND OF AN ATMOSPHERE. SHE IS, AS TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, HAVING SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. SHE’S NERVOUS, SCARED, TALKED ABOUT THAT IN HER PREPARED REMARKS AND AT THE SAME TIME, HER FRIENDS SAY SHE’S GATHERING STRENGTH AND READY FOR THIS MOMENT BUT DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE THIS CIRCUS FEELING HERE. THAT’S WHY YOU’LL SEE A MAXIMUM OF 8 PHOTOGRAPHERS IN THE ROOM COMPARED TO 50 OF KAVANAUGH HEARINGS INITIALLY AND THE PRESS, 150 MEDIA MEMBERS IN THE ROOM OVER THE SUMMER AND NOW LIMITED TO FEWER THAN 50, ROUGHLY 48 REPORTERS WHO WILL BE ABLE TO BE THERE AND WITNESS THESE PROCEEDINGS ON WHAT IS AN HISTORIC DAY. THE DETAILS ARE OBVIOUSLY WORKED OUT. IT WAS NOT AN EASY AND QUICK PROCESS. IT WAS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, CHUCK GRASSLEY AND HIS STAFF AND DR. FORD’S TEAM. SHE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE HER ATTORNEYS SEATED NEXT TO HER. WE UNDERSTAND HER HUSBAND WILL NOT BE HERE BUT SHE DOES HAVE OTHERS IN THE ROOM WITH HER.>>ALL RIGHT, HALLIE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE SHOULD NOTE, WE SAW A PICTURE A MOMENT AGO OF RACHEL MITCHELL. SHE IS THE PROSECUTOR WHO WILL BE DOING THE QUESTIONING ON BEHALF OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR.>>BEFORE I TURN TO MEGYN KELLY, A TWEET FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN. REPUBLICANS DIDN’T LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES OF THE ANITA HILL HEARING AND ARE MAKING NEW ONES. BLOCKING AN FBI INVESTIGATION, NO OUTSIDE WITNESSES, HAVING A PROSECUTOR EXAMINE DR. BLASEY FORD AND SCHEDULING A VOTE BEFORE HER TESTIMONY ARE AMONG THEIR BAD DECISIONS. THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PERHAPS PREVIEWING THE OPENING MARKS SHE’LL MAKE IN A FEW MINUTES BUT ON THE SUBJECT, MEGYN, OF THIS PROSECUTOR, THIS EXPERIENCED PROSECUTOR. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HEAR THAT WORD AND SAY, BOY, IS SHE GOING TO GO IN THERE AND CROSS EXAMINE THIS WITNESS BUT A SEX CRIMES CHARGE IS GENERALLY ON THE PERSON ON THE SIDE OF THE ACCUSER. SO HOW DO YOU THINK SHE PLAYS THIS? SHE’S BEEN HIRED BY THE REPUBLICANS. >>A WORD ON THE FEINSTEIN TWEET, OF COURSE, SHE HAD THESE ALLEGATIONS BROUGHT TO HER WEEKS AGO AND SAT ON THEM. THEY REMAINED ANONYMOUS BUT SHE DID NOTHING UNTIL THE EVE OF THE VOTE, SO THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION ABOUT HER INDIGNATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BUT SECONDLY ON THE SUBJECT OF RACHEL MITCHELL, SOME PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS A GIFT TO DR. FORD BECAUSE SHE WILL BE MORE IDEOLOGICALLY ALIGNED WITH THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAVING BEEN A PROSECUTOR AND A TALENTED ONE IN MARICOPA COUNTY FOR YEARS. SHE’S AWARD WINNING IN PUTTING BAD GUYS AWAY WHO ABUSED WOMEN AND SO ON. THE CRITICISM FROM SOME REPUBLICANS HAS BEEN PROSECUTORS WIND UP SETTLING OR GETTING DEALS IN 90 PLUS, SO SHE MAY NOT BE EXPERIENCED A CROSS EXAMINER AS PEOPLE OTHERWISE THINK AND HIS DEFENDERS WANT TO SEE HER PRESS DR. FORD ROBUSTLY ON HER CLAIMS BECAUSE EVERYONE ACCUSED.>>BY THE WAY, WHAT RHYTHM CAN YOU GET, IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS HERE TODAY, SHE’LL GET FIVE MINUTES TO QUESTION IF THE REPUBLICAN SENATOR YIELDS AND THEN OVER TO THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS THERE AND THEN BACK TO HER PRESUMABLY FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES. >>SOME REPUBLICAN SENATORS MIGHT SAY, HANG ON, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID HE WOULD DO THAT.>>ABOUT THE TONE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE, WATCHING THE ANITA HILL THING BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TONE OF DEMOCRATS HERE? DO THEY HAVE TO CHALLENGE HER PERHAPS MORE STRONGLY THAN THEY’D WISH?>>THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THIS DOESN’T LOOK LIKE A PILE-ON EITHER AND LITIGATING TEENAGE BEHAVIOR. PART OF IT, HE MAY HAVE OPENED HIMSELF UP TO A LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT I DO THINK IS GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING LINE THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE TO WALK. HE’S BEEN, YOU COULD ARGUE, OVERDENIED ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR PERHAPS, OR WE DON’T KNOW IF HE’S OVERDENIED BUT NOT, LIKE, I DID DRINK TOO MUCH. A LITTLE BIT. BUT THE QUESTION IS, IF DEMOCRATS LOOK LIKE THEY’RE HARPING ALMOST TOO MUCH ON IT, THAT, I THINK IS.>>HE DID AN INTERVIEW WITH FOX NEWS WHERE HE ASKED IF HE’D BEEN BLACK OUT DRUNK AND SAID, HE HAD NOT. THE LEGAL DRINKING AGE WAS 18. I WAS FOCUSED ON SCHOOL AND MY CHURCH AND MY SERVICE ACTIVITIES AND SOME HAVE SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, DOES THAT OPEN UP THE FLOOD GATES TO EVIDENCE HE WAS ANYTHING BUT THE CHURCH BOY PORTRAYED THERE?>>AS DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ALSO WANT TO KNOW, DEMOCRATS IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN SAYING, IT’S JUST NOT CREDIBLE. HIS STORY DOESN’T ADD UP BECAUSE OF OTHER THINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THE HEARING. POLICY ISSUES, POLICY DISAGREEMENTS. THEY REALLY HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT TODAY. THIS IS FOCUSED ON THESE TWO PEOPLE. JUST ABOUT DIANNE FEINSTEIN TO CLARIFY WHAT HER STATEMENT IS AND THERE HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS AS WELL WHO ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THE WAY SHE HANDLED IT. SHE’S SAYING IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHEN DR. FORD DEMANDED CONFIDENTIALITY, SHE FELT TO SHARE IT EVEN WITH HER DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WOULD INEVITABLY LEAD TO LEAKS BUT I KNOW SHE’S VERY VULNERABLE ON THIS. I’M JUST SAYING THAT IS HER POSITION THAT UNTIL SHE WAS WILLING TO COME FORWARD, SHE FELT SHE DID NOT DISCLOSE. >>WE’RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES SENATE HAS BEEN BROKEN. OKAY, WE ARE HERE BECAUSE HARRY REID AND MITCH McCONNELL WENT ON A GAME OF CHICKEN OF HOW TO DO JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS. WE WOULD NOT BE HERE IF NOT FOR THE FILIBUSTER. I BELIEVE THAT. IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.>>MITCH McCONNELL STOOD UP AND SAID, YOU WILL RUE THE DAY YOU DID THIS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS WILL NOT ALWAYS BE IN CHARGE.>>IN TERMS, THE FILIBUSTER NEEDED 60 VOTES TO MOVE THE JUDICIAL NOMINATION INSTEAD OF 50. >>IT WAS SET AT 50. HARRY REID SAID THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, HE WAS FRUSTRATED BECAUSE HE THOUGHT MITCH McCONNELL WAS HOLDING UP OBAMA JUDGES AND WHEN McCONNELL CAME IN, HE SAID, FINE. I’LL GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER TOO AND EVERYBODY DECIDED TO PARTISANIZE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS INTO THIS 51-49 WORLD WE LIVE IN AND I THINK WE’RE FINDING OUT HOW THIS IS A WAY TO BREAK THE JUDICIARY IF YOU’RE NOT.>>AND TO BREAK CONGRESS AND THAT’S GOING TO BE THE REACTION VERY LIKELY OF THE PUBLIC.>>AND IF SOMEHOW THIS CONFIRMATION, THIS NOMINATION FAILS, WE’RE BACK HERE AGAIN, THE RULES ARE THE SAME. ALMOST A HIGHER STANDARD AGAINST THE NEXT NOMINEE.>>YES, AND NO. YOU REMEMBER, AFTER A HIGH PROFILE FIGHT, SOMETIMES EVERYONE WANTS TO PULL BACK.>>TAKE A DEEP BREATH. >>I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE DEMOCRAT’S PLAN. I THINK THIS IS ALL PART OF A PLAN TO GET RID OF KAVANAUGH AND THEN TRY TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE SENATE IN THE MIDTERMS AND GET A MORE DEMOCRATIC FRIENDLY NOMINATION. >>WE WANT TO PAUSE FOR JUST A MOMENT NOW AS WE ARE JOINED BY MORE OF OUR NBC STATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.>>GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. 10:00 A.M. IN THE EAST, 7:00 A.M. IN THE WEST AND THEN IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS, A WOMAN NAMED CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, A Ph.D. AND PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSOR WILL COME IN AND OFFER TESTIMONY AGAINST JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH WHO IS SEEKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT. SHE’S ACCUSED HIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT WHEN THEY WERE TEENAGERS AND THIS MORNING, THE HE SAID/SHE SAID WILL BE POURED RIGHT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC ARENA WITH SENATORS LIKE THE ONES YOU’RE SEEING ON YOUR SCREENS RIGHT THERE SITTING IN JUDGMENT.>>HERE WITH US RIGHT NOW, ANDREA MITCHELL, CHUCK TODD AND MEGYN KELLY. HALLIE JACKSON, THIS IS SET TO BEGIN ANY MOMENT. >>Reporter: ANY SECOND AND IN THE ROWS BEHIND WHERE CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD WILL SIT AT THE TABLE FLANKED BY HER ATTORNEYS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT ABOUT TWO DOZEN OF HER FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS ARE IN THE ROOM INCLUDING ONE OF HER HIGH SCHOOL CLASSMATES. DR. FORD ARRIVED ON CAPITOL HILL WITHIN THE LAST 20 MINUTES OR SO. SHE IS IN A HOLDING ROOM, BRETT KAVANAUGH IS EXPECTED TO BE ELSEWHERE ON THE HILL. THESE TWO ARE NOT GOING TO BE INTERACTING AT THE REQUEST OF DR. FORD, SO THE LOGISTICS TODAY, YOU’LL SEE THE OPENING STATEMENTS FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY, AND THEN SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND THEN DR. FORD AND SHE HAS PREPARED REMARKS ALREADY. IN THOSE, SHE WILL DESCRIBE STRUGGLING WITH WHETHER TO SHARE HER STORY PUBLICLY, ONCE HER NAME ENDED UP OUT THERE. SHE HAD HOPED TO KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL AT FIRST BUT SAYS IT IS MY CIVIC DUTY TO DO THIS AND ALSO SAYS FOR THOSE ACCUSING HER OF HAVING SOME SORT OF PARTISAN POLITICAL MOTIVATION, SHE IS NO ONE’S PAWN. SAID SHE’S FIERCELY INDEPENDENT AND ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HER KNOWS THAT ABOUT HER. STEPPING BACK BIG PICTURE, THERE IS INTENSE PRESSURE ON JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH TODAY. THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME YESTERDAY THAT THERE IS A SCENARIO UNDER WHICH HE WOULD WITHDRAW BRETT KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAD SEEN THE DOOR OPEN LIKE THAT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, UP UNTIL THAT POINT, EVERYTHING INDICATED HE WAS STANDING BY HIS MAN. NOW, IT DEPENDS ON KAVANAUGH’S PERFORMANCE AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT EVERYBODY AT THE WHITE HOUSE IS WATCHING THIS. THE PRESIDENT IS IN NEW YORK AT THE UNITED NATIONS BUT HE’S EXPECTED TO BE FOCUSED ON THIS AS IS VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. SEEING HOW KAVANAUGH WILL DO AND WANT HIM TO BE MORE FORCEFUL THAN HE HAS BEEN EARLIER THIS WEEK. IT IS A FINE LINE FOR KAVANAUGH TO WALK COMING OUT AND EXPRESSING HIS ANGER AT WHAT HE HAS DESCRIBED AS A FALSE ACCUSATION WITHOUT IN THIS SORT OF BROADER CULTURAL ME TOO MOMENT PERCEIVED AS GOING AFTER DR. FORD. >>THANK YOU, HALLIE JACKSON. THE PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGED, MANY PEOPLE WONDERED, HE’D SEE THESE THINGS IN THE LAND OF HIS OWN EXPERIENCE OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE WORLD OF SEXUAL ABUSE. >>HE’LL REMAIN AND SEE IF HE’LL BE CONVINCED WHILE SAYING HE BELIEVES THESE ALLEGATIONS TO BE FALSE. LET’S GET RIGHT TO NBC’S KASIE HUNT, ON CAPITOL HILL AND THEN A NARROW MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REPUBLICANS TO SEE THIS CONFIRMATION GET THROUGH. >>Reporter: THAT’S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, SAVANNAH. THEY HOLD ON TO THE SENATE BY JUST THAT ONE EXTRA VOTE. MITCH McCONNELL NEEDS 50 REPUBLICAN VOTES TO GET THIS THROUGH. THAT MEANS HE CAN’T LOSE TWO OF HIS COLLEAGUES. WE’VE BEEN WATCHING LISA MURKOWSKI, SUSAN COLLINS AND JEFF FLAKE EXTRAORDINARILY CLOSELY AND I’LL WRAP UP BECAUSE DR. FORD HAS ENTERED THE HEARING ROOM. >>WE’RE SEEING HER NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME AND SHE TAKES THE SEAT, PRESUMABLY HER COUNSEL NOW.>>A COUPLE OF ADVISERS, MICHAEL BROMWICH AND KATZ. SHE’S RELEASED, AS MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES, THIS OPENING STATEMENT WHICH SHE WILL DELIVER, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME AMERICA IS GETTING A LOOK AT THE WOMAN WHO HAS ACCUSED BRETT KAVANAUGH, A FEDERAL JUDGE, SITTING FEDERAL JUDGE, OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING HER AS A YOUNG WOMAN AND NOW AT LEAST TWO OTHER ACCUSERS WILLING TO GO ON THE RECORD AND PUT THEIR NAMES TO ACCUSATIONS OF A DIFFERENT BUT SOMEWHAT RELATED NATURE AND THIS MORNING, THE SENATORS WHO ARE THERE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND MANY SENATORS WHO WILL JUST BE WATCHING FROM THEIR OFFICES, SOME SENATORS HAVE CANCELLED OTHER HEARINGS SO THEY CAN WATCH THIS TESTIMONY, THEY WILL BE ASSESSING HER CREDIBILITY, HOW DOES SHE SOUND AND DOES SHE SOUND CONVINCING? WHAT KIND OF CORROBORATION CAN SHE OFFER AND MEGYN, AS ONE OF THE LAWYERS HERE ON THIS PANEL, YOU KNOW THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN COURTS OF LAW ALL DAY LONG.>>YOU KNOW, YOU’VE GOT TO FEEL FOR HER. YOU KNOW, THIS PERSON WAS NOT IN THE PUBLIC EYE UP UNTIL A MONTH AGO. HER FIRST LETTER TO DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND LOCAL CONGRESSWOMAN SUGGESTED SHE WANTED TO STAY ANONYMOUS BUT OF COURSE, THAT DIDN’T REMAIN POSSIBLE. FEINSTEIN REFERRING IT TO THE FBI, IT BECAME PUBLIC AND WITHIN A DAY, SHE OUTED HERSELF IN THE “WASHINGTON POST.” BUT LOOK, SHE’S ABOUT TO GET PUT THROUGH IT, RIGHT? AND I WILL SAY, WOMEN ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, IN STATES AND FEDERAL COURTS STAND UP AND DO THIS EVERY DAY AND THEY DON’T ENJOY IT. THERE’S NO JOY IN IT, BUT THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT’S IMPORTANT.>>THIS MORNING, WE CONTINUE OUR HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SERVES AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON OUR SUPREME COURT. WE WILL HEAR FROM TWO WITNESSES, DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THANKS, OF COURSE, TO DR. FORD AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH FOR ACCEPTING OUR COMMITTEE’S INVITATION TO TESTIFY AND ALSO THANK THEM FOR THEIR VOLUNTEERING TO TESTIFY BEFORE WE EVEN INVITED. BOTH DR. FORD AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAVE BEEN THROUGH A TERRIBLE COUPLE OF WEEKS. THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES HAVE RECEIVED VILE THREATS. WHAT THEY HAVE ENDURED OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED BY ALL OF US AS UNACCEPTABLE AND A POOR REFLECTION ON THE STATE OF CIVILITY IN OUR DEMOCRACY. SO I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU BOTH FOR THE WAY YOU’VE BEEN TREATED AND I INTEND, HOPEFULLY FOR TODAY’S HEARING, TO BE SAFE, COMFORTABLE, AND DIGNIFIED FOR BOTH OF OUR WITNESSES. I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL JOIN ME IN THIS EFFORT OF A SHOW OF CIVILITY. WITH THAT SAID, I LAMENT THAT THIS HEARING, HOW THIS HEARING HAS COME ABOUT. ON JULY THE 9th, 2018, THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS SERVED ON THE MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT FOR 12 YEARS. BEFORE THAT, HE HELD SOME OF THE MOST SENSITIVE POSITIONS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE PRESIDENT ADDED JUDGE KAVANAUGH TO HIS SHORT LIST OF SUPREME COURT MORE THAN NINE MONTHS AGO IN NOVEMBER 2017. AS PART OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT, THE FBI CONDUCTED ITS SIXTH FULL FIELD BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH SINCE 1993, 25 YEARS AGO. NOWHERE IN ANY OF THESE SIX FBI REPORTS, WHICH COMMITTEE INVESTIGATORS HAVE REVIEWED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, WAS THERE A WHIFF OF ANY ISSUE, ANY ISSUE AT ALL RELATED IN ANY WAY TO INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. DR. FORD FIRST RAISED HER ALLEGATIONS IN A SECRET LETTER TO THE RANKING MEMBER NEARLY TWO MONTHS AGO IN JULY. THIS LETTER WAS SECRET FROM JULY 30th, SEPTEMBER 13th, NO, JULY 30th UNTIL SEPTEMBER 13th WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT. THE RANKING MEMBER TOOK NO ACTION. THE LETTER WASN’T SHARED WITH ME OR COLLEAGUES OR MY STAFF. THESE ALLEGATIONS COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED IN A WAY THAT MAINTAINED THE CONFIDENTIALITY THAT DR. FORD REQUESTED. BEFORE HIS HEARING, JUDGE KAVANAUGH MET PRIVATELY WITH 65 SENATORS INCLUDING THE RANKING MEMBER, BUT THE RANKING MEMBER DIDN’T ASK JUDGE KAVANAUGH ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS WHEN SHE MET WITH HIM PRIVATELY IN AUGUST. THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD ITS FOUR-DAY PUBLIC HEARING FROM SEPTEMBER 4 TO SEPTEMBER 7th. JUDGE KAVANAUGH TESTIFIED FOR MORE THAN 32 HOURS IN PUBLIC. WE HELD A CLOSED SESSION FOR MEMBERS TO ASK SENSITIVE QUESTIONS ON THE LAST EVENING, WHICH THE RANKING MEMBER DID NOT ATTEND. JUDGE KAVANAUGH ANSWERED NEARLY 1300 WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR AT THE HEARING, MORE THAN ALL PRIOR SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. IN THIS PERIOD, WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE RANKING MEMBER’S SECRET EVIDENCE. THEN, ONLY AT AN 11th HOUR, ON THE EVE OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION, DID THE RANKING MEMBER REFER THE ALLEGATIONS TO THE FBI AND THEN, SADLY, THE ALLEGATIONS WERE LEAKED TO THE PRESS. AND THAT’S WHERE DR. FORD WAS MISTREATED. THIS IS A SHAMEFUL WAY TO TREAT OUR WITNESS WHO INSISTED ON CONFIDENTIALITY AND, OF COURSE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHO IS HEAD TO ADDRESS THESE ALLEGATIONS IN THE MIDST OF THE MEDIA CIRCUS. WHEN I RECEIVED DR. FORD’S LETTER ON SEPTEMBER THE 13th, MY STAFF AND I RECOGNIZED THE SERIOUSNESS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THEN IMMEDIATELY BEGAN OUR COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THE COMMITTEE HAS HANDLED SUCH ALLEGATIONS IN THE PAST. EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, THE DEMOCRAT SIDE REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION AS FAR AS I KNOW ON ALL OF OUR JUDGESHIPS THROUGHOUT AT LEAST THE LAST FOUR YEARS, OR THREE YEARS, THAT’S BEEN THE WAY IT’S BEEN HANDLED. AFTER DR. FORD’S IDENTITY BECAME PUBLIC, MY STAFF CONTACTED ALL THE INDIVIDUALS SHE SAID ATTENDED THE 1982 PARTY DESCRIBED IN THE “WASHINGTON POST” ARTICLE. JUDGE KAVANAUGH IMMEDIATELY SUBMITTED TO AN INTERVIEW UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY FOR ANY KNOWINGLY FALSE STATEMENTS. HE DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS CATEGORICALLY AND DEMOCRATIC STAFF WAS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE AND COULD HAVE ASKED ANY QUESTIONS THEY WANTED TO BUT THEY DECLINED, WHICH LEADS ME THEN TO WONDER IF THEY’RE REALLY CONCERNED WITH GOING TO THE TRUTH, WHY WOULDN’T YOU WANT TO TALK TO THE ACCUSED? THE PROCESS AND PROCEDURE IS WHAT THE COMMITTEE ALWAYS DOES WHEN WE RECEIVE ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING. MY STAFF REACHED OUT TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS ALLEGEDLY AT THE PARTY. MARK JUDGE, PATRICK SMITH, LELAND KAISER, ALL THREE SUBMITTED STATEMENTS TO THE SENATE UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY, DENYING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD. DR. FORD’S LIFELONG FRIEND, MISS KAISER, STATED SHE DOESN’T KNOW JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND DOESN’T RECALL EVER ATTENDING A PARTY WITH HIM. MY STAFF MADE REPEATED REQUESTS TO INTERVIEW DR. FORD DURING THE PAST 11 DAYS, EVEN VOLUNTEERING TO FLY TO CALIFORNIA TO TAKE HER TESTIMONY, BUT HER ATTORNEYS REFUSED TO PRESENT HER ALLEGATIONS TO CONGRESS. I NEVERTHELES HONORED HER REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING SO DR. FORD TODAY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT HER ALLEGATIONS UNDER OATH. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS ABLE TO CONDUCT THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGATIONS, OR THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS INTO ALLEGATIONS. SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES CONSISTENT STATED DESIRES TO PROCESS BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, PUSH FOR FBI INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE ALLEGATIONS. BUT I HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO FORCE THE BRANCH AGENCY TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO A MATTER IT CONSIDERS TO BE CLOSED. MOREOVER, ONCE THE ALLEGATIONS BECOME, BECAME PUBLIC, IT WAS EASY TO IDENTIFY ALL THE ALLEGED WITNESSES AND CONDUCT OUR OWN INVESTIGATIONS. CONTRARY TO WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN LED TO BELIEVE, THE FBI DOESN’T PERFORM ANY CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENTS OR VERIFY THE TRUTH OF ANY EVENTS IN THESE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS. I’LL QUOTE THEN CHAIRMAN JOE BIDEN DURING JUSTICE THOMAS’ CONFIRMATION HEARING. THIS IS WHAT SENATOR BIDEN SAID, QUOTE, THE NEXT PERSON WHO REFERS TO AN FBI REPORT AS BEING WORTH ANYTHING OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. THE FBI EXPLICITLY DOES NOT IN THIS OR ANY OTHER CASE REACH A CONCLUSION, PERIOD. THEY SAID HE SAID, SHE SAID, THEY SAID, PERIOD. SO WHEN PEOPLE WAVE AN FBI REPORT BEFORE YOU, UNDERSTAND THEY DO NOT, THEY DO NOT REACH CONCLUSIONS, THEY DO NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. END OF SENATOR BIDEN’S QUOTE. THE FBI PROVIDED US WITH THE ALLEGATIONS. NOW IT’S UP TO THE SENATE TO ASSESS THEIR CREDIBILITY, WHICH BRINGS US TO THIS VERY TIME. I LOOK FORWARD TO A FAIR AND RESPECTFUL HEARING. THAT’S WHAT WE PROMISED DR. FORD. SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE FACT THAT AN EXPERT ON THIS SIDE IS INVESTIGATING SEX CRIMES WILL BE QUESTIONING THE WITNESS. I SEE NO BASIS FOR COMPLAINT OTHER THAN JUST PLAIN POLITICS. THE TESTIMONY WE WILL HEAR TODAY CONCERNS ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY COMPLEX AND SENSITIVE SUBJECT TO DISCUSS. IT’S NOT AN EASY ONE TO DISCUSS. THAT IS WHY THE SENATORS ON THIS SIDE OF THE DICE BELIEVE AN EXPERT WHO HAS DEEP EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING IN INTERVIEWING VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND INVESTIGATING SEXUAL ASSAULT-LED ALLEGATION SHOULD BE ASKING QUESTIONS. THIS WILL BE A STARK CONTRAST TO THE GRANDSTANDING AND CHAOS WE SAW FROM THE OTHER SIDE DURING THE PREVIOUS FOUR DAYS IN THIS HEARING PROCESS. I CAN THINK OF NO ONE BETTER EQUIPPED TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES THAN RACHEL MITCHELL. MS. MITCHELL IS A CAREER PROSECUTOR, CIVIL SERVANT WITH DECADES OF EXPERIENCES INVESTIGATING AND PROSECUTING SEX CRIMES. SHE HAS DEDICATED HER CAREER TO SEEKING JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS OF SEX-RELATED FELONIES. MOST RECENTLY, RACHEL WAS A DIVISION CHIEF OF THE SPECIAL VICTIMS DIVISION, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WHICH PROSECUTES SEX CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE. THEN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR JANET NAPOLITANO PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED HER AS THE OUTSTANDING ARIZONA SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTOR OF THE YEAR. AND SHE HAS SPENT YEARS INSTRUCTING PROSECUTORS, DETECTIVES AND CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS ON HOW TO PROPERLY INTERVIEW VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND ABUSE. WITH HER AID, I LOOK FORWARD TO A FAIR AND PRODUCTIVE HEARING. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER PUBLIC ALLEGATIONS. TODAY’S HEARING WAS SCHEDULED TO, IN CLOSE CONSULTATION WITH DR. FORD’S ATTORNEYS AND HER TESTIMONY WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING. WE’VE BEEN TRYING TO INVESTIGATE OTHER ALLEGATIONS. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NOT HAD COOPERATION FROM ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING OTHER CLIENTS, AND THEY HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIMS. MY STAFF HAS TRIED TO SECURE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE FROM ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH DEBRA RAMIREZ AND JULIE SWEATNICK. MY STAFF MADE EIGHT REQUESTS, YES, EIGHT REQUESTS FOR EVIDENCE FROM ATTORNEYS FOR MS. RAMIREZ AND SIX REQUESTS FOR EVIDENCE FOR ATTORNEYS FOR MS. SWEATNICK. NEITHER ATTORNEY HAS MADE THEIR CLIENTS AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEW. THE COMMITTEE CAN’T DO AN INVESTIGATION IF ATTORNEYS ARE STONE WALLING. I HOPE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS WE DO A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THERE’S HOLES IN WHAT WE CALL THE B.I. REPORTS. ADDITIONALLY, ALL THE WITNESSES SHOULD KNOW, ALL THE WITNESSES SHOULD KNOW THEY HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER SENATE RULE 25 TO ASK THAT THE COMMITTEE GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION IF A QUESTION REQUIRES AN ANSWER THAT IS A CLEAR INVASION OF THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY. IF THEY FEEL SENATE RULE 26.5 SHOULD BE INVOLVED, THEY SHOULD SIMPLY SAY SO. SENATOR FEINSTEIN. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. I’LL MAKE JUST A BRIEF COMMENT ON YOUR REFERENCES TO ME. YES, I DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM DR. FORD. IT WAS CONVEYED TO ME BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS ANA ESHU. THE NEXT DAY, CALLED THE DOCTOR FORD AND SPOKE ON THE PHONE. SHE REITERATED SHE WANTED THIS HELD CONFIDENTIAL AND I HELD IT CONFIDENTIAL, UP TO A POINT WHERE THE WITNESS WAS WILLING TO COME FORWARD AND I THINK, AS MY MAKE MY REMARKS, PERHAPS YOU’LL SEE WHY BECAUSE HOW WOMEN ARE TREATED IN THE UNITED STATES WITH THIS KIND OF CONCERN IS REALLY WANTING A LOT OF REFORM AND I’LL GET TO THAT FOR A MINUTE BUT IN THE MEANTIME, GOOD MORNING, DR. FORD. THANK YOU FOR COMING FORWARD AND BEING WILLING TO SHARE YOUR STORY WITH US. I KNOW THIS WASN’T EASY FOR YOU, BUT BEFORE YOU GET TO YOUR TESTIMONY AND THE CHAIRMAN CHOSE NOT TO DO THIS, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE YOU’RE PROPERLY INTRODUCED.>>I WAS GOING TO INTRODUCE HER BUT IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE HER, I’LL BE GLAD TO HAVE YOU DO THAT, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW, I DIDN’T FORGET TO DO THAT BECAUSE I WOULD DO THAT AS SHE WAS ABOUT TO SPEAK. >>THANK YOU. I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I SAW YOUR CV, I WAS EXTREMELY IMPRESSED. YOU HAVE A BACHELOR’S DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL, TWO MASTER’S DEGREES, ONE FROM STANFORD AND ONE FROM PEPPERDINE AND A Ph.D. FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, BETTER KNOWN TO SENATOR HARRIS AND I AS USC. YOU ARE A PROFESSOR AFFILIATED WITH BOTH STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND PALO ALTO UNIVERSITY. YOU HAVE PUBLISHED OVER 65 PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AND HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS AWARDS FOR YOUR WORK AND RESEARCH AND AS IF THAT WERE NOT ENOUGH, YOU ARE A WIFE, A MOTHER OF TWO SONS, AND A CONSTITUENT FROM CALIFORNIA, SO I AM VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR STRENGTH AND YOUR BRAVERY IN COMING FORWARD. I KNOW IT’S HARD, BUT BEFORE I TURN IT OVER, I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT IS TO BE DISCUSSED TODAY AND WHERE WE ARE AS A COUNTRY. SEXUAL VIOLENCE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM AND ONE THAT LARGELY GOES UNSEEN. IN THE UNITED STATES, IT’S ESTIMATED BY THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, ONE IN THREE WOMEN AND ONE IN SIX MEN WILL EXPERIENCE SOME FORM OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THEIR LIFETIME. ACCORDING TO THE RAPE, ABUSE, AND INCEST NATIONAL NETWORK, 60% OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS GO UNREPORTED. IN ADDITION, WHEN SURVIVORS DO REPORT THEIR ASSAULTS, IT’S OFTEN YEARS LATER, DUE TO THE TRAUMA THEY SUFFERED AND FEARING THEIR STORIES WILL NOT BE BELIEVED. LAST WEEK, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM A 60-YEAR-OLD CALIFORNIA CONSTITUENT WHO TOLD ME THAT SHE SURVIVED AN ATTEMPTED RAPE AT AGE 17. SHE DESCRIBED AS BEING TERRIFIED AND EMBARRASSED. SHE NEVER TOLD A SOUL UNTIL MUCH LATER IN LIFE. THE ASSAULT STAYED WITH HER FOR 43 YEARS. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THESE REALITIES, AS WE HEAR FROM DR. FORD ABOUT HER EXPERIENCE. THERE’S BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ME TOO MOVEMENT TODAY VERSUS THE YEAR OF THE WOMAN ALMOST 27 YEARS AGO, BUT WHILE YOUNG WOMEN ARE STANDING UP AND SAYING “NO MORE,” OUR INSTITUTIONS HAVE NOT PROGRESSED IN HOW THEY TREAT WOMEN WHO COME FORWARD. TOO OFTEN, WOMEN’S MEMORIES AND CREDIBILITIES COME UNDER ASSAULT. IN ESSENCE, PUT ON TRIAL AND FORCED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND OFTEN REVICTIMIZED IN THE PROCESS. 27 YEARS AGO, I WAS WALKING THROUGH AN AIRPORT WHEN I SAW LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE GATHERED AROUND THE TV TO LISTEN TO ANITA HILL TELL HER STORY. WHAT I SAW WAS AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN IN A BLUE SUIT BEFORE AN ALL MALE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SPEAKING OF HER EXPERIENCE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. SHE WAS TREATED BADLY, ACCUSED OF LYING, ATTACKED, AND HER CREDIBILITY PUT TO THE TEST THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. TODAY, DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS COME FORWARD TO TELL HER STORY OF BEING ASSAULTED AND FEARING FOR HER LIFE WHEN SHE WAS A TEENAGER. INITIALLY, AS I SAID, DR. FORD DID NOT WANT TO MAKE HER STORY PUBLIC. THEN WITHIN 36 HOURS OF COMING FORWARD, REPUBLICANS SCHEDULED A HEARING WITHOUT TALKING TO HER OR EVEN INVITING HER TO TESTIFY. SHE WAS TOLD SHE HAD TO SHOW UP OR THE COMMITTEE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH A VOTE. IT TOOK A PUBLIC OUTCRY FROM THE MAJORITY, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE MAJORITY TO BACK DOWN AND GIVE HER EVEN A FEW DAYS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. REPUBLICANS ALSO SCHEDULED THIS HEARING WITH DR. FORD WITHOUT HAVING HER ALLEGATIONS INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI. IN 1991, ANITA HILL’S ALLEGATIONS WERE REVIEWED BY THE FBI, AS IS THE NORMAL PROCESS AND SQUARELY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION. HOWEVER, DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICANS HAVE REFUSED TO TAKE THIS ROUTINE STEP AND DIRECT THE FBI TO CONDUCT AN IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION. THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE THE BEST WAY TO ENSURE A FAIR PROCESS TO BOTH JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND TO DR. FORD. IN 1991, THE SENATE HEARD FROM 22 WITNESSES OVER THREE DAYS. TODAY, WHILE REJECTING AN FBI INVESTIGATION, REPUBLICANS ARE REFUSING TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM ANY OTHER WITNESS, INCLUDING MARK JUDGE, WHO DR. FORD IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN THE ROOM WHEN THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE. AND WE BELIEVE JUDGE SHOULD BE SUBPOENAED SO THE COMMITTEE CAN HEAR FROM HIM DIRECTLY. REPUBLICANS SHOULD ALSO REFUSE TO CALL ANYONE WHO COULD SPEAK TO THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SUPPORT OR REFUTE DR. FORD’S CLAIM AND NOT ONE WITNESS WHO COULD ADDRESS CREDIBILITY AND CHARACTER OF EITHER FORD OR KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN CALLED. WHAT I FIND MOST INEXCUSABLE IS THIS RUSH TO JUDGMENT, THE UNWILLINGNESS TO TAKE THESE KINDS OF ALLEGATIONS AT FACE VALUE AND LOOK AT THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE, A REAL QUESTION OF CHARACTER FOR SOMEONE WHO IS ASKING FOR A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT ON THE SUPREME COURT. IN 1991, REPUBLICANS BELITTLED PROFESSOR HILL’S EXPERIENCE SAYING, AND I QUOTE, IT WON’T MAKE A BIT OF A DIFFERENCE IN THE OUTCOME, END QUOTE. AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON PROFESSOR HILL. TODAY, OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING THIS IS A HICCUP. DR. FORD IS MIXED UP AND DECLARING, I’LL LISTEN TO THE LADY, BUT WE’RE GOING TO BRING THIS TO A CLOSE. WHAT’S WORSE, MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, THE SENATE WILL PLOW RIGHT THROUGH AND ENSURE JUDGE KAVANAUGH WOULD BE ELEVATED WITHIN A WEEK. IN FACT, ON TUESDAY, THE MAJORITY WENT AHEAD AND SCHEDULED THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION BEFORE WE HEARD ONE WORD OF TESTIMONY REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND MISCONDUCT BY BRETT KAVANAUGH. REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP EVEN TOLD SENATORS THEY SHOULD PLAN TO BE IN OVER THIS WEEKEND SO THE NOMINATION CAN BE PUSHED THROUGH WITHOUT DELAY. THIS IS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, TWO MORE WOMEN HAVE COME FORWARD WITH THEIR OWN SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT INVOLVING BRETT KAVANAUGH. THIS PAST SUNDAY, WE LEARNED ABOUT DEBBIE RAMIREZ, WHO WAS A STUDENT AT YALE WITH BRETT KAVANAUGH. SHE TOO DID NOT WANT TO COME FORWARD, BUT AFTER BEING APPROACHED BY REPORTERS, SHE TOLD HER STORY. SHE WAS AT A COLLEGE PARTY WHERE KAVANAUGH EXPOSED HIMSELF TO HER. SHE RECALLS PUSHING HIM AWAY AND THEN SEEING HIM LAUGHING AND PULLING HIS PANTS UP. AND THEN YESTERDAY, JULIE SWETNICK CAME FORWARD WITH AN EXPERIENCE OF BEING AT HOUSE PARTIES WITH BRETT KAVANAUGH AND MARK JUDGE. RECOUNTED SEEING KAVANAUGH ENGAGE IN, AND I QUOTE, ABUSIVE AND PHYSICALLY AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARDS GIRLS, END QUOTE, INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO, QUOTE, REMOVE OR SHIFT GIRL’S CLOTHING, END QUOTE, NOT TAKING, QUOTE, NO FOR AN ANSWER, GRABBING GIRLS, QUOTE, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, END QUOTE, AND TARGETING, QUOTE, PARTICULAR GIRLS SO THEY COULD BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, END QUOTE. EACH OF THESE STORIES ARE TROUBLING ON THEIR OWN AND EACH OF THESE ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI. ALL THREE WOMEN HAVE SAID THEY WOULD LIKE THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE, PLEASE DO SO. ALL THREE HAVE SAID THEY HAVE OTHER WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THEIR ACCOUNTS AND YET, REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO BLINDLY PUSH FORWARD. SO, TODAY, WE’RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A HEARING AND BEING ASKED TO ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF BRETT KAVANAUGH. HE’S MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS OF HOW HIS FOCUS WAS ON SCHOOL, BASKETBALL, SERVICE PROJECTS AND GOING TO CHURCH. HE DECLARED THAT HE, QUOTE, NEVER, END QUOTE, DRANK SO MUCH HE COULDN’T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED. AND QUOTE, ALWAYS TREATED WOMEN WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT, END QUOTE. AND WHILE HE’S MADE THESE DECLARATIONS, MORE AND MORE PEOPLE HAVE COME FORWARD CHALLENGING HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF EVENTS AND BEHAVIORS. JAMES ROACH, HIS FRESHMAN ROOMMATE AT YALE STATED, KAVANAUGH WAS, AND I QUOTE AGAIN, FREQUENTLY INCOHERENTLY DRUNK, END QUOTE. AND THAT WAS WHEN HE, QUOTE, BECAME AGGRESSIVE AND BELLIGERENT, END QUOTE, WHEN HE WAS DRUNK. LIZ SWISHER, A FRIEND OF HIS FROM YALE SAID, AND I QUOTE, THERE’S NO MEDICAL WAY I CAN SAY THAT HE WAS BLACKED OUT, BUT IT’S NOT CREDIBLE FOR HIM TO SAY THAT HE HAS NO MEMORY LAPSES IN THE NIGHTS THAT HE DRANK TO EXCESS, END QUOTE. LYNN BROOKS, A COLLEGE CLASSMATE, SAID THE PICTURE KAVANAUGH IS TRYING TO PAINT DOESN’T MATCH HER MEMORIES OF HIM, AND I QUOTE, HE’S TRYING TO PAINT HIMSELF AS SOME KIND OF CHOIR BOY. YOU CAN’T LIE YOUR WAY ON TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND WITH THAT STATEMENT OUT, HE’S GONE TOO FAR. IT’S ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE INSTITUTION, END QUOTE. ULTIMATELY, MEMBERS AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I REALLY THINK THAT’S THE POINT. WE’RE HERE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO EVALUATE THIS NOMINEE TO THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS COURT IN OUR COUNTRY. IT’S ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THAT INSTITUTION AND THE INTEGRITY OF THIS INSTITUTION. THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS WATCHING HOW WE HANDLE THESE ALLEGATIONS. I HOPE THE MAJORITY CHANGES THEIR TACTICS, OPENS THEIR MIND AND SERIOUSLY REFLECTS ON WHY WE ARE HERE. WE ARE HERE FOR ONE REASON, TO DETERMINE WHETHER JUDGE KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE ELEVATED TO ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL POSITIONS IN OUR COUNTRY. THIS IS NOT A TRIAL OF DR. FORD, IT’S A JOB INTERVIEW FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH. IS BRETT KAVANAUGH WHO WE WANT ON THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS COURT IN OUR COUNTRY? IS HE THE BEST WE CAN DO? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>I’M SORRY YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE WE’RE HERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LISTENING TO DR. FORD AND WILL CONSIDER OTHER ISSUES AT OTHER TIMES. I WOULD LIKE TO RISE SO I CAN SWEAR YOU. NOW, DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE BE SEATED AND BEFORE YOU GIVE YOUR STATEMENT, I WANT TO SAY TO EVERYBODY THAT SHE HAS ASKED FOR, ANY TIME YOU ASK FOR A BREAK, YOU GET A BREAK, ANY TIME THERE’S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED, YOU DON’T HAVE, JUST ASK US, AND YOU CAN HAVE AS MUCH TIME FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AS YOU WANT AND JUST GENERALLY, LET US KNOW IF THERE’S ANY ISSUES. PROCEED, PLEASE.>>THANK YOU, SENATOR GRASSLEY. I THINK AFTER I READ MY OPENING STATEMENT, I ANTICIPATE NEEDING SOME CAFFEINE IF THAT IS AVAILABLE.>>OKAY. CAN YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU, IF YOU PLEASE. CAN THE WHOLE BOX GO A LITTLE BIT CLOSER?>>I’M TRYING, SENATOR.>>I’LL LEAN FORWARD. OKAY, IS THIS GOOD?>>YEAH.>>OKAY, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY AND RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD. I’M A PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY AT PALO ALTO UNIVERSITY AND A RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST AT THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE. I WON’T DETAIL MY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND SINCE IT’S ALREADY BEEN SUMMARIZED. I HAVE BEEN MARRIED TO RUSSELL FORD SINCE 2002 AND WE HAVE TWO CHILDREN. I AM HERE TODAY NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO BE, I AM TERRIFIED. I AM HERE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS MY CIVIC DUTY TO TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WHILE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND I WERE IN HIGH SCHOOL. I HAVE DESCRIBED THE EVENTS PUBLICLY BEFORE. I SUMMARIZED THEM IN MY LETTER TO RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN AND AGAIN IN THE LETTER TO CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY. I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF YOUR HEARING FROM ME DIRECTLY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME AND THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS HAD ON MY LIFE AND ON MY FAMILY. I GREW UP IN THE SUBURBS OF WASHINGTON, DC. I ATTENDED THE HOLTON ARMS SCHOOL IN BETHESDA, MARYLAND, FROM 1978 TO 1984. HOLTON ARMS IS AN ALL GIRLS SCHOOL THAT OPENED IN 1901. DURING MY TIME AT THIS SCHOOL, GIRLS AT HOLTON ARMS FREQUENTLY MET AND BECAME FRIENDLY WITH BOYS FROM ALL BOY SCHOOLS IN THE AREA, INCLUDING THE LANDON SCHOOL, GEORGETOWN PREP, GONZAGA HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL AS OUR COUNTRY CLUBS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE KIDS AND FAMILIES SOCIALIZED. THIS IS HOW I MET BRETT KAVANAUGH, THE BOY WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ME. DURING MY FRESHMAN AND SOPHOMORE SCHOOL YEARS WHEN I WAS 14 AND 15 YEARS OLD, MY GROUP OF FRIENDS INTERSECTED WITH BRETT AND HIS FRIENDS FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I HAD BEEN FRIENDLY WITH A CLASSMATE OF BRETT’S FOR A SHORT TIME DURING MY FRESHMAN AND SOPHOMORE YEAR AND IT WAS THROUGH THAT CONNECTION THAT I ATTENDED A NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT BRETT ALSO ATTENDED. WE DID NOT KNOW EACH OTHER WELL BUT I KNEW HIM AND HE KNEW ME. IN THE SUMMER OF 1982, LIKE MOST SUMMERS, I SPENT MOST EVERY DAY AT THE COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB IN CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND, SWIMMING AND PRACTICING DIVING. ONE EVENING THAT SUMMER, AFTER A DAY OF DIVING AT THE CLUB, I ATTENDED A SMALL GATHERING AT A HOUSE IN THE BETHESDA AREA. THERE WERE FOUR BOYS I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY BEING AT THE HOUSE. BRETT KAVANAUGH, MARK JUDGE, A BOY NAMED PJ, AND ONE OTHER BOY WHOSE NAME I CANNOT RECALL. I ALSO REMEMBER MY FRIEND LELAND ATTENDING. I DO NOT REMEMBER ALL OF THE DETAILS OF HOW THAT GATHERING CAME TOGETHER LIKE MANY THAT SUMMER, IT WAS ALMOST SURELY A SPUR OF THE MOMENT GATHERING. I TRULY WISH I COULD BE MORE HELPFUL WITH MORE DETAILED ANSWERS TO ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE AND WILL BE ASKED ABOUT HOW I GOT TO THE PARTY AND WHERE IT TOOK PLACE AND SO FORTH. I DON’T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS AND I DON’T REMEMBER AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT THE DETAILS ABOUT THAT NIGHT THAT BRING ME HERE TODAY ARE THE ONES I WILL NEVER FORGET. THEY HAVE BEEN SEARED INTO MY MEMORY AND HAVE HAUNTED ME EPISODICALLY AS AN ADULT. WHEN I GOT TO THE SMALL GATHERING, PEOPLE WERE DRINKING BEER IN A SMALL LIVING ROOM FAMILY ROOM TYPE OF AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. I DRANK ONE BEER. BRETT AND MARK WERE VISIBLY DRUNK. EARLY IN THE EVENING, I WENT UP A VERY NARROW SET OF STAIRS LEADING FROM THE LIVING ROOM TO A SECOND FLOOR TO USE THE RESTROOM. WHEN I GOT TO THE TOP OF THE STAIRS, I WAS PUSHED FROM BEHIND INTO A BEDROOM ACROSS FROM THE BATHROOM. I COULDN’T SEE WHO PUSHED ME. BRETT AND MARK CAME INTO THE BEDROOM AND LOCKED THE DOOR BEHIND THEM. THERE WAS MUSIC PLAYING IN THE BEDROOM. IT WAS TURNED UP LOUDER BY EITHER BRETT OR MARK ONCE WE WERE IN THE ROOM. I WAS PUSHED ON TO THE BED AND THEN BRETT GOT ON TOP OF ME. HE BEGAN RUNNING HIS HANDS OVER MY BODY AND GRINDING INTO ME. I YELLED, HOPING THAT SOMEONE DOWN STAIRS MIGHT HEAR ME AND I TRIED TO GET AWAY FROM HIM BUT HIS WEIGHT WAS HEAVY. BRETT GROPED ME AND TRIED TO TAKE OFF MY CLOTHES. HE HAD A HARD TIME BECAUSE HE WAS VERY INEBRIATED AND BECAUSE I WAS WEARING A ONE PIECE BATHING SUIT UNDERNEATH MY CLOTHING. I BELIEVED HE WAS GOING TO RAPE ME. I TRIED TO YELL FOR HELP. WHEN I DID, BRETT PUT HIS HAND OVER MY MOUTH TO STOP ME FROM YELLING. THIS IS WHAT TERRIFIED ME THE MOST AND HAD THE MOST LASTING IMPACT ON MY LIFE. IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO BREATHE AND I THOUGHT THAT BRETT WAS ACCIDENTALLY GOING TO KILL ME. BOTH BRETT AND MARK WERE DRUNKENLY LAUGHING DURING THE ATTACK. THEY SEEMED TO BE HAVING A VERY GOOD TIME. MARK SEEMED EMBLENT AT TIMES AND TELLING HIM TO STOP. A COUPLE OF TIMES, I MADE EYE CONTACT WITH MARK AND THOUGHT HE MIGHT TRY TO HELP ME BUT HE DID NOT. DURING THIS ASSAULT, MARK CAME OVER AND JUMPED ON THE BED TWICE WHILE BRETT WAS ON TOP OF ME. AND THE LAST TIME THAT HE DID THIS, WE TOPPLED OVER AND BRETT WAS NO LONGER ON TOP OF ME. I WAS ABLE TO GET UP AND RUN OUT OF THE ROOM DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE BEDROOM WAS A SMALL BATHROOM. I RAN INSIDE THE BATHROOM AND LOCKED THE DOOR. I WAITED UNTIL I HEARD BRETT AND MARK LEAVE THE BEDROOM LAUGHING AND LOUDLY WALKED DOWN THE NARROW STAIRWAY, PINBALLING OFF THE WALLS ON THE WAY DOWN. I WAITED AND WHEN I DID NOT HEAR THEM COME BACK UP THE STAIRS, I LEFT THE BATHROOM, WENT DOWN THE SAME STAIRWELL THROUGH THE LIVING ROOM AND LEFT THE HOUSE. I REMEMBER BEING ON THE STREET AND FEELING AN ENORMOUS SENSE OF RELIEF THAT I HAD ESCAPED THAT HOUSE AND THAT BRETT AND MARK WERE NOT COMING OUTSIDE AFTER ME. BRETT’S ASSAULT ON ME DRASTICALLY ALTERED MY LIFE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I WAS TOO AFRAID AND ASHAMED TO TELL ANYONE THESE DETAILS. I DID NOT WANT TO TELL MY PARENTS THAT I, AT AGE 15, WAS IN A HOUSE WITHOUT ANY PARENTS PRESENT, DRINKING BEER WITH BOYS. I CONVINCED MYSELF BECAUSE BRETT DID NOT RAPE ME, I SHOULD JUST MOVE ON AND JUST PRETEND THAT IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. OVER THE YEARS, I TOLD VERY, VERY FEW FRIENDS THAT I HAD THIS TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE. I TOLD MY HUSBAND BEFORE WE WERE MARRIED THAT I HAD EXPERIENCED A SEXUAL ASSAULT. I HAD NEVER TOLD THE DETAILS TO ANYONE, THE SPECIFIC DETAILS, UNTIL MAY 2012 DURING A COUPLE’S COUNSELLING SESSION. THE REASON THIS CAME UP IN COUNSELLING IS THAT MY HUSBAND AND I HAD COMPLETED A VERY EXTENSIVE, VERY LONG REMODEL OF OUR HOME AND I INSISTED ON A SECOND FRONT DOOR, AN IDEA HE AND OTHERS DISAGREED WITH AND COULD NOT UNDERSTAND. IN EXPLAINING WHY I WANTED A SECOND FRONT DOOR, I BEGAN TO DESCRIBE THE ASSAULT IN DETAIL. I RECALL SAYING THAT THE BOY WHO ASSAULTED ME COULD SOME DAY BE ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND SPOKE A BIT ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND AT AN ELIIST ALL BOYS SCHOOL AT BETHESDA, MARYLAND. MY HUSBAND RECALLS I NAMED MY ATTACKER AS BRETT KAVANAUGH. AFTER THAT MAY 2012 THERAPY SESSION, I DID MY BEST TO IGNORE THE MEMORIES OF THE ASSAULT BECAUSE RECOUNTING THEM CAUSE CAUSEED ME TO RELIVE THE EXPERIENCE AND CAUSE PANIC AND ANXIETY. OCCASIONALLY, I WOULD DISCUSS THE ASSAULT IN THE INDIVIDUAL THERAPY SESSION BUT TALKING ABOUT IT CAUSED MORE RELIVING OF THE TRAUMA, SO I TRIED NOT TO THINK ABOUT IT OR DISCUSS IT, BUT OVER THE YEARS, I WENT THROUGH PERIODS WHERE I THOUGHT ABOUT THE ATTACK. I HAD CONFIDED IN SOME CLOSE FRIENDS THAT I HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT. OCCASIONALLY, I STATED THAT MY ASSAILANT WAS A PROMINENT LAWYER OR JUDGE BUT DID NOT USE HIS NAME. I DO NOT RECALL EACH PERSON I SPOKE TO ABOUT BRETT’S ASSAULT AND SOME FRIENDS HAVE REMINDED ME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE “WASHINGTON POST” STORY ON SEPTEMBER 16th, 2018. BUT UNTIL JULY 2018, I HAD NEVER NAMED MR. KAVANAUGH AS MY ATTACKER OUTSIDE OF THERAPY. THIS CHANGED IN EARLY JULY 2018. I SAW PRESS REPORTS STATING THAT BRETT KAVANAUGH WAS ON THE SHORT LIST OF A LIST OF VERY QUALIFIED SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. I THOUGHT IT WAS MY CIVIC DUTY TO RELAY THE INFORMATION I HAD ABOUT MR. KAVANAUGH’S CONDUCT SO THAT THOSE CONSIDERING HIS NOMINATION WOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS ASSAULT. ON JULY 6th, I HAD A SENSE OF URGENCY TO RELAY THE INFORMATION TO THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE A NOMINEE WAS SELECTED. I DID NOT KNOW HOW SPECIFICALLY TO DO THIS. I CALLED MY CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND LET HER RECEPTIONIST KNOW THAT SOMEONE ON THE PRESIDENT’S SHORT LIST HAD ATTACKED ME. I ALSO SENT A MESSAGE TO THE ENCRYPTED “WASHINGTON POST” CONFIDENTIAL TIP LINE. I DID NOT USE MY NAME BUT I PROVIDED THE NAMES OF BRETT KAVANAUGH AND MARK JUDGE. I STATED THAT MR. KAVANAUGH HAD ASSAULTED ME IN THE 1980s IN MARYLAND. THIS WAS AN EXTREMELY HARD THING FOR ME TO DO, BUT I FELT THAT I COULDN’T NOT DO IT. OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS, I TOLD A COUPLE OF CLOSE FRIENDS ON THE BEACH IN CALIFORNIA THAT MR. KAVANAUGH HAD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ME. I WAS VERY CONFLICTED AS TO WHETHER TO SPEAK OUT. ON JULY 9th, I RECEIVED A RETURNED PHONE CALL FROM THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSWOMAN ANA ESHU AFTER MR. KAVANAUGH HAD BECOME THE NOMINEE. I MET WITH HER STAFF ON JULY 18th AND WITH HER ON JULY 20th, DESCRIBING THE ASSAULT AND DISCUSSING MY FEARS ABOUT COMING FORWARD. LATER, WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF SENDING A LETTER TO RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN WHO IS ONE OF MY STATE SENATORS DESCRIBING WHAT OCCURRED. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT REPRESENTATIVE ESHU’S OFFICE DELIVERED A COPY OF MY LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S OFFICE ON JULY 30th. THE LETTER INCLUDED MY NAME BUT ALSO A REQUEST THAT IT BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. MY HOPE WAS THAT PROVIDING THE INFORMATION CONFIDENTIALLY WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE SENATE TO CONSIDER MR. KAVANAUGH’S SERIOUS MISCONDUCT WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE MYSELF, MY FAMILY OR ANYONE’S FAMILY VULNERABLE TO THE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INVASIONS OF PRIVACY THAT WE HAVE FACED SINCE MY NAME BECAME PUBLIC. IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 31st, SENATOR FEINSTEIN WROTE THAT SHE WOULD NOT SHARE THE LETTER WITHOUT MY EXPLICIT CONSENT AND I APPRECIATED THIS COMMITMENT. SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHEN AND WHETHER THEIR PRIVATE EXPERIENCES MADE PUBLIC. AS THE HEARING DATE GOT CLOSER, I STRUGGLED WITH A TERRIBLE CHOICE. DO I SHARE THE FACTS WITH THE SENATE AND PUT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY IN THE PUBLIC SPOTLIGHT, OR DO I PRESERVE OUR PRIVACY AND ALLOW THE SENATE TO MAKE ITS DECISION WITHOUT KNOWING THE FULL TRUTH OF HIS PAST BEHAVIORS? I AGONIZED DAILY WITH THIS DECISION THROUGHOUT AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2018. THE SENSE OF DUTY THAT ORIGINALLY MOTIVATED ME TO REACH OUT CONFIDENTIALLY TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” AND TO ANA ESHU’S OFFICE WHEN THERE WAS STILL A LIST OF EXTREMELY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES AND TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN WAS ALWAYS THERE, BUT MY FEARS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPEAKING OUT STARTED TO EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE. DURING AUGUST 2018, THE PRESS REPORTED THAT MR. KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION WAS VIRTUALLY CERTAIN. PERSONS PAINTED HIM AS A CHAMPION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND EMPOWERMENT AND I BELIEVED THAT IF I CAME FORWARD, MY SINGLE VOICE WOULD BE DROWNED OUT BY A CHORUS OF POWERFUL SUPPORTERS. BY THE TIME OF THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, I HAD RESIGNED MYSELF TO REMAINING QUIET AND LET THE SENATE AND COMMITTEE MAKE THEIR DECISION WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT MR. KAVANAUGH HAD DONE TO ME. ONCE THE PRESS STARTED REPORTING ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE LETTER I HAD SENT TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, I FACED MOUNTING PRESSURE. REPORTERS APPEARED AT MY HOME AND AT MY WORKPLACE DEMANDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE LETTER IN THE PRESENCE OF MY GRADUATE STUDENTS. THEY CALLED MY BOSSES AND COWORKERS AND LEFT ME MANY MESSAGES, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT MY NAME WAS INEVITABLY BE RELEASED TO THE MEDIA. I DECIDED TO SPEAK OUT PUBLICLY TO A JOURNALIST WHO HAD ORIGINALLY RESPONDED TO THE TIP I HAD SENT TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” AND WHO HAD GAINED MY TRUST. IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO DESCRIBE THE DETAILS OF THE ASSAULT IN MY OWN WORDS. SINCE SEPTEMBER 16th, THE DATE OF THE “WASHINGTON POST” STORY, I HAVE EXPERIENCED AN OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FROM PEOPLE IN EVERY STATE OF THIS COUNTRY. THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD THEIR LIVES DRAMATICALLY ALTERED BY SEXUAL VIOLENCE HAVE REACHED OUT TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE AND HAVE THANKED ME FOR COMING FORWARD. WE HAVE RECEIVED TREMENDOUS SUPPORT FOR OUR FRIENDS AND OUR COMMUNITY. AT THE SAME TIME, MY GREATEST FEARS HAVE BEEN REALIZED AND THE REALITY HAS BEEN FAR WORSE THAN WHAT I EXPECTED. MY FAMILY AND I HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF CONSTANT HARASSMENT AND DEATH THREATS AND I HAVE BEEN CALLED THE MOST VILE AND HATEFUL NAMES IMAGINABLE. THESE MESSAGES, WHILE FAR FEWER THAN THE EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT, HAVE BEEN TERRIFYING AND HAVE ROCKED ME TO MY CORE. PEOPLE HAVE POSTED MY PERSONAL INFORMATION AND THAT OF MY PARENTS ONLINE ON THE INTERNET. THIS HAS RESULTED IN ADDITIONAL E-MAILS, CALLS, AND THREATS. MY FAMILY AND I WERE FORCED TO MOVE OUT OF OUR HOME. SINCE SEPTEMBER 16th, MY FAMILY AND I HAVE BEEN VISITING IN VARIOUS SECURE LOCALES, AT TIMES SEPARATE AND AT TIMES TOGETHER WITH THE HELP OF SECURITY GUARDS. THIS PAST TUESDAY EVENING, MY WORK E-MAIL WAS HACKED AND MESSAGES WERE SENT OUT TRYING TO RECANT MY DESCRIPTION OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT. APART FROM THE ASSAULT ITSELF, THESE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS HAVE BEEN THE HARDEST OF MY LIFE. I’VE HAD TO RELIVE THIS TRAUMA IN FRONT OF THE WORLD AND I HAVE SEEN MY LIFE PICKED APART BY PEOPLE ON TELEVISION, ON TWITTER, OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA, OTHER MEDIA AND IN THIS BODY WHO HAVE NEVER MET WITH ME OR SPOKEN WITH ME. I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ACTING OUT OF PARTISAN POLITICAL MOTIVES. THOSE WHO SAY THAT DO NOT KNOW ME. I AM INDEPENDENT PERSON AND I AM NO ONE’S PAWN. MY MOTIVATION IN COMING FORWARD WAS TO BE HELPFUL AND TO PROVIDE FACTS ABOUT HOW MR. KAVANAUGH’S ACTIONS HAVE DAMAGED MY LIFE SO THAT YOU COULD TAKE INTO A SERIOUS CONSIDERATION AS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED. IT IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER MR. KAVANAUGH DESERVES TO SIT ON THE SUPREME COURT. MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. I UNDERSTAND THAT A PROFESSIONAL PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN HIRED TO ASK ME QUESTIONS AND I’M COMMITTED TO DOING MY VERY BEST TO ANSWER THEM. I’VE NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED BY A PROSECUTOR AND I WILL DO MY BEST. AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL BE JUDGING MY CREDIBILITY, I DO HOPE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE DIRECTLY WITH EACH OF YOU AND AT THIS POINT, I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND REQUEST SOME CAFFEINE.>>A COKE OR SOMETHING?>>THAT SOUNDS GOOD. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.>>BEFORE MY FIVE MINUTES OF QUESTIONING, I THOUGHT THAT I TRIED TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES AND IN THIS CASE, MS. MITCHELL AS WELL THAT THE FIVE MINUTES, THE WAY I TRADITIONALLY HAVE DONE, IF YOU ASK A QUESTION BEFORE YOUR TIME RUNS OUT AND EVEN THOUGH YOU GO OVER YOUR TIME AS LONG AS YOU AREN’T FILIBUSTERING, I’LL LET YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION AND I’M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH DR. FORD AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, I KNOW YOU’RE GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS FULLY BEYOND THAT FIVE MINUTES BUT WHEN THAT, EITHER DR. FORD OR JUDGE KAVANAUGH GETS DONE, THEN WE IMMEDIATELY GO TO THE NEXT PERSON. SO I HOPE THAT THAT WILL BE DONE IN, AND DR. FORD, I’M TOLD YOU WANT A BREAK RIGHT NOW AND IF YOU DO, THAT’S FINE.>>I’M OKAY. I GOT THE COFFEE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK I CAN PROCEED ON THE COFFEE. >>NOBODY CAN MIX UP MY COFFEE RIGHT, SO YOU’RE PRETTY FORTUNATE. SO WITH THAT, MISS MITCHELL, YOU HAVE MY FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS.>>GOOD MORNING, DR. FORD.>>HI.>>WE HAVEN’T MET. MY NAME IS RACHEL.>>NICE TO MEET YOU. >>THE FIRST THING THAT STRUCK ME WITH YOUR STATEMENT THIS MORNING WAS THAT YOU WERE TERRIFIED AND I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I’M VERY SORRY. THAT’S NOT RIGHT. I KNOW THIS IS STRESSFUL AND I WOULD LIKE TO SET FORTH SOME GUIDELINES THAT MAYBE WILL ALLEVIATE THAT A LITTLE BIT. IF I ASK YOU A QUESTION THAT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, PLEASE ASK ME TO CLARIFY IT OR ASK IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. WHEN I ASK QUESTIONS SOMETIMES, I’LL REFER BACK TO OTHER INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED. IF I DO THAT AND I GET IT WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME.>>OKAY.>>I’M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO GUESS. I KNOW IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. IF YOU DO ESTIMATE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOU’RE ESTIMATING.>>FAIR.>>WE’VE PUT BEFORE YOU AND I’M SURE YOU HAVE FIVE PIECES OF INFORMATION, AND I WANTED TO GO OVER THEM. THE FIRST IS A SCREEN SHOT OF A WHAT’S APP TEXTING BETWEEN YOU AND SOMEBODY AT THE “WASHINGTON POST.” DO YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU?>>YES.>>THE FIRST TWO TEXTS WERE SENT BY YOU ON JULY 6th, IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>THE LAST ONE SENT BY YOU IS ON JULY 10th?>>CORRECT.>>ARE THOSE THREE COMMENTS ACCURATE?>>I WILL READ THEM AGAIN. SO THERE’S ONE CORRECTION. I’VE MISUSED THE WORD BYSTANDER AS AN ADJECTIVE. BYSTANDER MEANS SOMEONE THAT IS LOOKING AT AN ASSAULT AND THE PERSON NAMED PJ WAS NOT TECHNICALLY A BYSTANDER. I WAS WRITING VERY QUICKLY WITH A SENSE OF URGENCY, SO I WOULD NOT CALL HIM A BYSTANDER. HE WAS DOWN STAIRS AND WHAT I REMEMBER OF HIM IS HE WAS A TALL AND VERY NICE PERSON. I DIDN’T KNOW HIM WELL BUT HE WAS DOWN STAIRS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE EVENT.>>OKAY.>>I’D LIKE TO TAKE THAT WORD OUT IF POSSIBLE. >>THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THE SECOND IS THE LETTER THAT YOU WROTE TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN DATED JULY 30th OF THIS YEAR. DID YOU WRITE THE LETTER YOURSELF?>>I DID. >>AND SINCE IT’S DATED JULY 30th, DID YOU WRITE IT ON THAT DATE?>>I BELIEVE SO. I WAS IN DELAWARE AT THE TIME. I COULD LOOK AT MY CALENDAR AND TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT.>>WAS IT WRITTEN ON OR ABOUT THAT DATE?>>YES, I THINK I TRAVELED THE 20th OF JULY TO DELAWARE WHICH MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I WROTE IT FROM THERE. >>IS THE LETTER ACCURATE?>>LET ME READ IT. I CAN READ FAST.>>TAKE YOUR TIME.>>OKAY, SO I HAVE THREE AREAS THAT I’D LIKE TO ADDRESS.>>OKAY.>>IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, WHERE IT SAYS THE ASSAULT OCCURRED IN A SUBURBAN MARYLAND AREA HOME.>>YES.>>AT A GATHERING THAT INCLUDED ME AND FOUR OTHERS, I CAN’T GUARANTEE THAT THERE WEREN’T A FEW OTHER PEOPLE THERE, BUT THEY ARE NOT IN MY PURVIEW OF MY MEMORY. >>WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THERE WERE AT LEAST FOUR OTHERS?>>YES.>>WHAT’S THE SECOND CORRECTION?>>OH, OKAY. THE NEXT SENTENCE BEGINS WITH KAVANAUGH PHYSICALLY PUSHED ME INTO THE BEDROOM. I WOULD SAY, I CAN’T PROMISE THAT MARK JUDGE DIDN’T ASSIST WITH THAT. I DON’T KNOW. IT WAS PUSHING FROM BEHIND SO I DON’T WANT TO PUT THAT FULLY ON HIM.>>MS. MITCHELL, I DON’T KNOW IF THIS WAS FAIR FOR ME TO INTERRUPT BUT I WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE WITHIN FIVE MINUTES. IS THAT A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR YOU IN THE MIDDLE OF THE QUESTION? BECAUSE WE’VE GOT, I’VE GOT TO TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME.>>I UNDERSTAND THAT.>>CAN I GO TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN OR?>>YES, SIR. SORRY, I DIDN’T SEE THE LIGHT WAS RED. PLEASE DO.>>FOR THE BENEFIT OF DR. FORD, I THINK SHE’LL CONTINUE THAT AFTER THE FIVE MINUTES THERE.>>OKAY.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I’D LIKE TO BEGIN BY PUTTING SOME LETTERS IN THE RECORD.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION TO ORDER.>>THANK YOU. >>YOU WANT TO TELL ME?>>140 LETTERS FROM FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS OF THE WITNESS AND A THOUSAND FEMALE PHYSICIANS ACROSS THE THE COUNTRY. THOSE ARE WHAT THE LETTERS ARE. I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I KNOW HOW VERY, IS. WHY — WHY HAVE YOU HELD IT WHY HAVE YOU HELD IT TO YOURSELF ALL THESE YEARS? CAN YOU INDICATE WHAT THE REASONS ARE?>>I HAVEN’T HELD IT ALL THESE YEARS. I DID DISCLOSE IT IN THE CONFINES OF THERAPY WHERE I FELT LIKE IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO COPE WITH SEQUELA OF THE EVENTS. >>CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IMPACT THE EVENTS HAD ON YOU?>>WELL, I THINK THAT THE SEQUELA OF SEXUAL ASSAULT VARIES BY PERSON. SO FOR ME PERSONALLY, ANXIETY, PHOBIA, AND PTSD-LIKE SYMPTOMS ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS I’VE BEEN COPING WITH. MORE SPECIFICALLY, CLAUSTROPHOBIA, PANIC AND THAT TYPE OF THING.>>IS THAT THE REASON FOR THE SECOND DOOR, FRONT DOOR IS CLAUSTROPHOBIA?>>CORRECT. OUR HOUSE DOES NOT LOOK AESTHETICALLY PLEASING FROM THE CURB. >>I SEE. DO YOU HAVE THAT SECOND FRONT DOOR?>>YES. IT NOW IS A PLACE TO HOST GOOGLE INTERNS, BECAUSE WE LIVE NEAR GOOGLE. >>TU TELL US, IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY THIS HAS AFFECTED YOUR LIFE?>>THE PRIMARY IMPACT WAS IN THE INITIAL FOUR YEARS AFTER THE EVENT. I STRUGGLED ACADEMICALLY. I STRUGGLED VERY MUCH IN CHAPEL HILL IN COLLEGE WHEN I WAS 17 AND WENT OFF TO COLLEGE, I HAD A VERY HARD TIME, MORE SO THAN OTHERS FORMING NEW FRIENDSHIPS AND ESPECIALLY FRIENDSHIPS WITH BOYS. AND I HAD ACADEMIC PROBLEMS.>>WHAT WERE THE — WHEN WE SPOKE AND IT BECAME VERY CLEAR HOW DEEPLY YOU FELT ABOUT THIS AND THE NEED THAT YOU WANTED TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT?>>YES. SO I WAS WATCHING CAREFULLY THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER — MY ORIGINAL INTENT, I WANT TO REMIND, WRAS TO COMMUNICATE WITH EVERYONE WHEN THERE WAS STILL A LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO ALL SEEMED TO BE JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FROM WHAT I COULD READ, EQUALLY QUALIFIED AND I WAS IN A HURRY TO TRY TO GET THE INFORMATION FORWARD BUT DIDN’T QUITE KNOW HOW DO THAT, HOWEVER, ONCE HE WAS SELECTED AND IT SEEMED LIKE HE WAS POPULAR AND IT WAS A SURE VOTE, I WAS CALCULATING DAILY THE RISK BENEFIT FOR ME OF COMING FORWARD AND WONDERING WHETHER I WOULD JUST BE JUMPING IN FRONT OF A TRAIN THAT WAS HEAD TODAY WHERE IT WAS HEADED ANYWAY. AND I WOULD JUST BE PERSONALLY ANNIHILATED.>>HOW DID YOU DECIDE TO COME FORWARD?>>ULTIMATELY, BECAUSE REPORTERS WERE SITTING OUTSIDE OF MY HOME TRYING TO TALK TO MY DOG THROUGH THE WINDOW. TO CALM THE DOG DOWN. AND A REPORTER APPEARED IN MY GRADUATE CLASSROOM AND MISTOOK HER FOR A STUDENT AND SHE CAME UP TO ASK ME A QUESTION. AND I THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS A STUDENT. IT TURNED OUT THAT SHE WAS A REPORTER. SO AT THAT POINT I FELT ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH. PEOPLE WERE CALLING MY COLLEAGUES AT STANFORD AND LEAVING MESSAGES ON THEIR VOICE MAILS AND E-MAIL SAYING THEY KNEW MY NAME. CLEARLY, PEOPLE KNEW MY ADDRESS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. THE MOUNTING PRESSURE SEEMED LIKE IT WAS TIME TO JUST SAY WHAT I NEEDED TO SAY. >>I WANT TO ASK YOU ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE ATTACK ITSELF. YOU WERE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE ATTACK, BEING PUSHED INTO THE ROOM YOU SAY YOU DON’T KNOW QUITE BY WHOM BUT THAT IT WAS BRETT KAVANAUGH THAT COVERED YOUR MOUTH TO PREVENT YOU FROM SCREAMING AND THEN YOU ESCAPED. HOW ARE YOU SO SURE THAT IT WAS HE?>>THE SAME WAY THAT I’M SURE THAT I’M TALKING TO YOU RIGHT NOW. SO JUST BASIC MEMORY FUNCTIONS. AND ALSO JUST THE LEVEL OF NOR EPINEPHRINE AND EPINEPHRINE IN THE BRAIN THAT, AS YOU KNOW EN CODES MEMORIES AND TRANSMITTERS INTO THE HIPPOCAMPUS AND SO THE TRAUMA-RELATED EXPERIENCE IS KIND OF LOCKED THERE, WHEREAS OTHER DETAILS KIND OF DRIFT. >>WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US IS THAT THIS COULD NOT BE A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY?>>ABSOLUTELY NOT.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MISS MITCHELL, FOR SENATOR HATCH.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WHEN WE WERE STOPPED, YOU WERE GOING TO TELL US A THIRD CORRECTION THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE ON THAT STATEMENT OR I’M SORRY SHALL THE LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN.>>IT WASN’T A CORRECTION. I WANTED TO COMMENT ON IT SINCE WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS LETTER THAT I DID SEE MARK JUDGE ONCE UP AT A SAFEWAY AFTER THE TIME OF THE ATTACK. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL WITH ANYONE’S RESOURCES IF — TO FIGURE OUT WHEN HE WORKED THERE, IF PEOPLE ARE WANTING MORE DETAILS FROM ME ABOUT WHEN THE ATTACK OCCURRED. IF WE COULD FIND OUT WHEN HE WORKED THERE, THEN I COULD PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED TIMELINE AS TO WHEN THE ATTACK OCCURRED. >>SO THAT IS NOT A CORRECTION IN YOUR STATEMENT?>>NO.>>YOU ALSO WROTE OUT A HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE CALLIGRAPHER WHEN YOU TOOK YOUR POLYGRAPH TEST, IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES. >>I SEE CORRECTIONS WHERE YOU CROSSED OUT. SO I WILL GO ON TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” ARTICLE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 16th OF THIS YEAR.>>SHOULD I JUST NOT LOOK AT THIS FOR ACCURACY? ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE — >>WE MAY COME BACK TO IT IF YOU NEED TO REFER TO IT.>>OKAY. >>ON THE “WASHINGTON POST” ARTICLE, DID YOU SUBMIT TO AN INTERVIEW BY A REPORTER WITH THE “WASHINGTON POST” FOR THAT ARTICLE TO BE WRITTEN?>>CORRECT.>>OKAY. AND FINALLY, WAS THE STATEMENT THAT YOU PROVIDED THIS MORNING, I ASSUME THAT, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, THAT THAT WAS ACCURATE?>>THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS ACCURATE?>>NO, NO. THE STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE THIS MORNING. >>YES.>>I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE DAY THAT THIS HAPPENED LEADING UP TO THE GATHERING.>>OKAY. >>IN YOUR STATEMENT THIS MORNING, HAVE YOU TOLD US EVERYTHING THAT YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THE DAY LEADING UP TO THAT?>>YES. >>LET ME ASK JUST A FEW QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE YOU’VE THOUGHT OF EVERYTHING, OKAY? YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE AT THE COUNTRY CLUB SWIMMING THAT DAY?>>THAT’S MY BEST ESTIMATE OF HOW THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED.>>OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY BEST ESTIMATE, IS THAT BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU SAID YOU WENT THERE PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY?>>UH-HUH. >>IS THAT A YES?>>YES.>>DO YOU RECALL PRIOR TO GETTING THERE — SO I’M ONLY TALKING ABOUT UP TO THE GATHERING. >>OKAY. >>HAD YOU HAD ANYTHING TO DRINK?>>NOT AT ALL. >>WERE YOU ON ANY SORT OF MEDICATION?>>NONE. >>DO YOU RECALL KNOWING BEFORE YOU WENT WHO WAS GOING TO BE AT THAT GATHERING?>>I RECALL THAT — EXPECTING THAT MARK JUDGE AND LELAND WOULD BE AT THAT GATHERING.>>OKAY DO YOU RECALL AN EXPECTATION THAT BRETT KAVANAUGH WOULD BE THERE?>>I DON’T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT I EXPECTED THAT. >>LET’S TALK ABOUT THE GATHERING. FROM THE TIME YOU ARRIVED UNTIL RIGHT WHEN YOU WENT UP THE STAIRS, JUST THAT PERIOD OF TIME, OKAY? WHAT WAS THE ATMOSPHERE LIKE AT THE GATHERING?>>MR. KAVANAUGH AND MR. JUDGE WERE EXTREMELY INEBRIATED. THEY HAD CLEARLY BEEN DRINKING AND OTHER PEOPLE AT THE PARTY HAD NOT. >>CAN I ASK A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT. WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS CLEAR THAT THEY HAD BEEN DRINKING PRIOR, DO YOU MEAN PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU HAD GOTTEN THERE OR PRIOR TO THE TIME THEY HAD ARRIVED?>>PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THEY ARRIVED. I DON’T RECALL WHO ARRIVED FIRST, THOUGH. WHETHER IT WAS ME OR THEM.>>OKAY.>>PLEASE CONTINUE.>>OKAY. >>SO I RECALL THAT — I CAN SKETCH A FLOOR PLAN. I RECALL THAT IT WAS A SPARSELY FURNISHED, FAIRLY MODEST LIVING ROOM. AND IT WAS NOT REALLY A PARTY, LIKE THEY MADE IT SOUND. IT WAS JUST A GATHERING THAT I ASSUMED WAS GOING TO LEAD TO A PARTY LATER ON, THAT THOSE BOYS WOULD ATTEND BECAUSE THEY ATTENDED PARTIES LATER AT NIGHT THAN I WAS ALLOWED TO STAY OUT. SO IT WAS KIND OF A PRE-GATHERING.>>WAS IT LOUD?>>NO. NOT IN THE LIVING ROOM.>>BESIDES THE MUSIC THAT YOU’VE DESCRIBED THAT WAS PLAYING IN THE BEDROOM, WAS THERE ANY OTHER MUSIC OR TELEVISION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT WAS ADDING. >>NO. >>SO THERE WASN’T A STEREO PLAYING DOWNSTAIRS?>>NO. >>SENATOR LEAHY?>>DR. FORD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU KNOW, THE WAY TO MAKE THIS INQUIRY TRULY CREDIBLE IS TO DO WHAT WE’VE ALWAYS DONE WITH NEW INFORMATION ABOUT A NOMINEE COMES TO LIGHT. TO USE YOUR WORDS THIS MORNING, YOU WANT TO REACH THE TRUTH. THE EASY WAY TO DO THAT IS ASK THE FBI TO INVESTIGATES. IT’S WHAT WE’VE ALWAYS DONE. LET THEM INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK TO US. THE SAME APPLIES TO THE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS MADE BY DEBORAH RAMIREZ AND JULIE SWETNICK. LET’S HAVE A NONPARTISAN PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATION AND THEN TAKE THE TIME TO HAVE THE WITNESSES TESTIFY. CHAIRMAN, WE WERE BOTH HERE 27 YEARS AGO. AT THAT TIME THE SENATE FAILED ANITA HILL. I SAID I BELIEVED HER. BUT I’M CONCERNED THAT WE’RE DOING A LOT LESS FOR THESE THREE WOMEN TODAY. THAT’S MY PERSONAL VIEW. DR. FORD, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS HEARING TODAY, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS NOMINATION, I KNOW AND I HEAR FROM SO MANY OF MY OWN STATE OF VERMONT, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OUT THERE WHO HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY YOUR COURAGE. I AM. BRAVERY IS CONTAGIOUS. INDEED, THAT’S THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE ME TOO MOVEMENT. AND YOU SHARING YOUR STORY IS GOING TO HAVE A LASTING, POSITIVE IMPACT ON SO MANY SURVIVORS IN OUR COUNTRY. WE OWE YOU A DEBT OF GRATITUDE FOR THAT, DOCTOR. NOW, SOME HAVE SUGGESTED THAT YOU WERE SIMPLY MIXED UP ABOUT WHO ASSAULTED YOU. JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND THE WHITE HOUSE PROMOTED A WILD THEORY ABOUT A KAVANAUGH LOOK ALIKE. YOU IMMEDIATELY REJECTED THAT THEORY. AS DID THE INNOCENT MAN WHO HAD BEEN CALLED THAT LOOK-ALIKE. IN FACT, HE SENT A LETTER TO THIS COMMITTEE FORCEFULLY OBJECTING THAT THEORY. I ASK TO ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION. SO ORDERED.>>HOW DID YOU KNOW BRETT KAVANAUGH AND MARK JUDGE? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU WOULD MIX THEM UP WITH SOMEBODY ELSE?>>NO, IT IS NOT. THE PERSON THAT WAS BLAMED FOR THE INCIDENT IS ACTUALLY THE PERSON WHO INTRODUCED ME TO THEM ORIGINALLY. SO HE WAS A MEMBER OF COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB AND I DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT HIM BECAUSE I THINK IT’S UNFAIR. BUT HE IS THE PERSON THAT INTRODUCED ME TO THEM. >>BUT YOU WOULD NOT MIX UP SOMEBODY ELSE WITH BRETT KAVANAUGH, IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>OR MARK JUDGE. >>CORRECT.>>THEN LET’S GO BACK TO THE INCIDENT. WHAT IS THE STRONGEST MEMORY YOU HAVE, STRONGEST MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT? SOMETHING YOU CANNOT FORGET. TAKE WHATEVER TIME YOU NEED.>>INDELIBLE IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS IS THE LAUGHTER, THE UPROARIOUS LAUGHTER BETWEEN THE TWO AND THEIR HAVING FUN AT MY EXPENSE.>>YOU NEVER FORGOTTEN THAT LAUGHTER? YOU NEVER FORGOTTEN THEM LAUGHING AT YOU?>>THEY WERE LAUGHING WITH EACH OTHER.>>AND YOU WERE THE OBJECT OF THE LAUGHTER?>>I WAS UNDERNEATH ONE OF THEM WHILE THE TWO LAUGHED. TWO FRIENDS HAVING A REALLY GOOD TIME WITH ONE ANOTHER.>>LET ME ENTER INTO THE RECORD A STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. >>A LETTER FROM 24 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES URGING THE COMMITTEE TO USE THE TRAUMA AND — APPROACH IN QUESTIONING DR. FORD. LETTER FOR ANOTHER 116 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE ASKING TO DELAY UNTIL ALL THIS HAS BEEN HEARD. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.>>AND DR. FORD, HAS AT TIMES BEEN CRITICIZED FOR WHAT SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER FROM 36 YEARS AGO. WE HAVE NUMEROUS EXPERTS, INCLUDING A STUDY BY THE U.S. ARMY MILITARY SCHOOL OF BEHAVIOR SCIENCES EDUCATION THAT LAPSES OF MEMORY ARE WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH A BIGGER TRAUMA AND STRESS OF ASSAULT. I WOULD ASK THAT BE ENTERED.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. >>DR. FORD, I CONCLUDE WITH THIS. YOU DO REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED, DO YOU NOT?>>VERY MUCH SO.>>THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>NOW, MS. MITCHELL FOR SENATOR GRAHAM AND THEN IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT’S WHERE YOU’D LIKE TO TAKE A BREAK.>>DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU AS WELL?>>WE’RE HERE TO ACCOMMODATE YOU. NOT TO ACCOMMODATE US. >>I’M USED TO BEING COLLEGIAL.>>MISS MITCHELL FOR SENATOR GRAHAM. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU TOLD SENATOR FEINSTEIN IN YOUR LETTER THAT YOU AND FOUR OTHERS WERE PRESENT. YOU’VE CORRECTED THAT TODAY TO SAY IT WAS AT LEAST FOUR OTHERS. WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE “WASHINGTON POST” YOU SAID THAT THERE WERE FOUR BOYS PRESENT AT THE PARTY. AND THEN IN YOUR POLYGRAPH STATEMENT YOU SAID THERE WERE FOUR BOYS AND TWO GIRLS. WHEN YOU SAY TWO GIRLS, WAS THAT YOU AND ANOTHER OREGON TWO OTHER GIRLS. >>THAT WAS ME AND ONE OTHER GIRL. >>THAT OTHER GIRL’S NAME. >>LELAND. >>LELAND KAISER NOW?>>CORRECT.>>THEN WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY AT LEAST P.J., BRETT KAVANAUGH, MARK JUDGE, LELAND INGRAM AT THE TIME AND YOURSELF WERE PRESENT AND POSSIBLY OTHERS?>>AND ONE OTHER BOY. THERE WERE FOUR BOYS. I JUST DON’T KNOW THE NAME OF THE OTHER BOY.>>HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY ANYBODY SAYING, HEY, I WAS AT THE THAT PARTY, TOO?>>NO, I HAVEN’T TALKED WITH ANYONE FROM THAT PARTY.>>OKAY. NOW, YOU’VE BEEN DETAILED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ONCE YOU GOT UP THE STAIRS. SO I DON’T NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN. I’M SORRY, GO AHEAD. >>I JUST REALIZED THAT I SAID SOMETHING THAT WAS INACCURATE. I SAID I HADN’T SPOKEN WITH ANYONE FROM THE PARTY SINCE THEN. I’VE SPOKEN WITH LELAND. >>THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU’VE GONE INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU WENT UP THE STAIRS. I DON’T FEEL IT’S NECESSARY TO GO OVER THOSE THINGS AGAIN. >>OKAY. THANK YOU.>>HAVE YOU TOLD US EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO REMEMBER ABOUT IT?>>I BELIEVE SO. BUT IF THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS, I CAN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THEM.>>OKAY. YOU SAID THAT THE MUSIC WAS SOLELY COMING FROM THAT ROOM, IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>OKAY. AND IT WAS TURNED UP ONCE THE THREE OF YOU WERE INSIDE THAT ROOM, CORRECT?>>YES. AT SOME POINT DO YOU RECALL IT BEING TURNED DOWN?>>I DON’T REMEMBER IF IT WAS TURNED DOWN ONCE I WAS LEAVING THE HOUSE. I DON’T REMEMBER.>>OKAY.>>LIKELY, SINCE I COULD HEAR THEM WALKING DOWN THE STAIRS VERY CLEARLY FROM THE BATHROOM. >>OKAY. THE BATHROOM DOOR WAS CLOSED WHEN YOU HEARD THIS, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I COULD HEAR THEM VERY CLEARLY HITTING THE WALLS GOING DOWN THE STAIRWELL. >>IN FACT, IN YOUR LETTER YOU SAID THAT THEY WENT DOWN THE STAIRS AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE.>>CORRECT. >>WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR THAT CONVERSATION?>>I WAS NOT ABLE TO HEAR THAT CONVERSATION. BUT I WAS AWARE THAT THEY WERE DOWNSTAIRS AND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO WALK PAST THEM TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE.>>NOW, LET ME MAKE SURE WE’RE ON THE SAME PAGE. WERE YOU NOT ABLE TO HEAR THE CONVERSATION OR NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONVERSATION?>>I COULDN’T HEAR THE CONVERSATION. I WAS UPSTAIRS.>>HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WAS A CONVERSATION?>>I’M JUST ASSUMING SINCE IT WAS A SOCIAL GATHERING, PEOPLE WERE TALKING. I DON’T KNOW. I HEARD THEM TALKING AS THEY WENT DOWN THE STAIRWELL. THEY WERE LAUGHING. >>IN YOUR LETTER, YOU WROTE BOTH LOUDLY STUMBLED DOWN THE STAIRWELL AT WHICH POINT OTHER PERSONS AT THE HOUSE WERE TALKING WITH THEM. DOES THAT RING A BELL?>>YES. I HAD TO WALK PAST EVERYONE TO LEAVE THE HOUSE.>>YOUR LETTER — >>NOT UNDERSTANDING, I’M SORRY.>>IN THE NEXT SENTENCE. LET ME TRY TO CLARIFY THIS. AFTER YOU SAID OTHER PERSONS IN THE HOUSE WERE TALKING WITH THEM, THE LETTER GOES ON WITH THE NEXT SENTENCE, I EXITED THE BATHROOM, RAN OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE AND WENT HOME. >>CORRECT.>>YOU SAID THAT YOU DO NOT REMEMBER HOW YOU GOT HOME, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I DO NOT REMEMBER. OTHER THAN I DID NOT DRIVE HOME.>>I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU IF SOMEBODY COULD PROVIDE TO YOU A MAP OF THE VARIOUS PEOPLE’S HOUSES AT THE TIME AND IF YOU COULD VERIFY IF THIS IS WHERE YOU WERE LIVING AT THE TIME.>>WHERE I WAS LIVING AT THE TIME?>>YES.>>. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THESE DOCUMENTS?>>WE DO NOT HAVE A COPY. BUT I PRESUME IF YOU WANT ONE, I CAN GET YOU ONE. >>BEFORE THE QUESTIONS BEGIN SO WE CAN FOLLOW THE TESTIMONY. >>>MY STAFF SAID WE SHOULD NOT PROVIDE THE COPY.>>NO, WE WILL PROVIDE THE COPY.>>SPEAK PLAINLY WITH ME, PLEASE. >>YOU HAVE ANOTHER 30 SECONDS NOW BECAUSE I WAS RUDELY INTERRUPTED.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, SENATOR HARRIS, WE DO HAVE A BLOWN-UP COPY OF THIS FOR THE MEMBERS TO VIEW, IF THAT’S HELPFUL.>>OKAY. I’M GOING TO PUT CHECK MARKS NEXT TO HOMES THAT I CAN CONFIRM ARE THE CORRECT LOCATIONS AND THAN AN X OR QUESTION MARK WHEN I DON’T KNOW WHERE THE PEOPLE LIVE. >>I’M ONLY ASKING YOU TO CONFIRM IF IT’S WHERE YOU LIVED.>>I CAN’T SEE THE STREET NAME BUT I’M HAPPY TO REFER TO THE ADDRESS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >>OKAY. COULD YOU TELL US THAT. >>IT’S RIVER FALLS. NEAR THE — LIKE WHAT IS THE PLACE CALLED. THE NAVAL RESEARCH CENTER ON CLARA BARTON PARKWAY. >>WAS THAT A HOUSE OR APARTMENT?>>IT WAS MY PARENTS’ HOME.>>OKAY.>>DURBIN. >>I ASK CONSENT TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR DR. FORD FROM HER CLASSMATES AT HOLTON-ARMS SCHOOL. 1200 ALUMNI OF THE SCHOOL. 195 OF YOUR COLLEAGUES, STUDENTS AND MENTORS. 1400 WOMEN WHO — AND MEN WHO ATTENDED D.C. SCHOOLS AND 50 MEMBERS OF THE YALE LAW SCHOOL FACULTY CALLING FOR A FULL FBI INVESTIGATION. I ASK CONSENT TO ENTER THESE INTO THE RECORD. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. >>DR. FORD, AS DIFFICULT AS THIS IS, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT YOUR COURAGE IN COMING FORWARD HAS GIVEN COUNTLESS AMERICANS THE STRENGTH TO FACE THEIR OWN LIFE-SHATTERING PAST AND BEGIN TO HEAL THEIR WOUNDS. BY EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE BROUGHT MANY FAMILIES INTO AN HONEST AND SOMETIMES PAINFUL DIALOG THAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED A LONG TIME AGO. I’M SORRY FOR WHAT THIS HAS DONE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. NO ONE, NO ONE SHOULD FACE HARASSMENT, DEATH THREATS AND DISPARAGING COMMENTS BY CHEAP SHOT POLITICIANS SIMILE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. — SIMPLY FOR TELL THE TRUTH. YOU SHOULD KNOW FOR EVERY SKUR LSU CHARGE AND PATHETIC TWEET, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS, WOMEN AND MEN WHO BELIEVE YOU, SUPPORT YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE. WATCHING YOUR EXPERIENCE, IT’S NO WONDER THAT MANY SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS HIDE THEIR PAST AND SPEND THEIR LIVES SUFFERING IN SILENCE. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GAIN BY BRINGING THESE FACTS TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TESTIFYING HERE TODAY TERRIFIED THOUGH YOU MAY BE, THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE CALLED FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION OF THIS INCIDENT, THE FACT THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO NAME BOTH JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND EYEWITNESS MARK JUDGE STANDS IN SHARP CONTRAST TO THE OBSTRUCTION WE’VE SEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE. THE FBI SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED YOUR CHARGES AS THEY DID IN THE NITA HILL HEARING, BUT THEY DID NOT. >>HE WAS IN HIS BETHANY BEACH HIDEAWAY AND REQUIRED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. JUDGE KAVANAUGH IF HE TRULY BELIEVES THERE’S NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES THAT CAN PROVE YOUR CASE SHOULD BE JOINING US AND DEMANDING A THOROUGH FBI INVESTIGATION. BUT HE HAS NOT. TODAY YOU COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND BEFORE THIS NATION ALONE. I KNOW YOU’RE JOINED BY COUNSEL AND FAMILY. THE PROSECUTOR ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE WILL CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO TEST YOUR MEMORY AND VERACITY. AFTER SPENDING DECADES TRYING TO FORGET THAT AWFUL NIGHT, IT’S NO WONDER YOUR RECOLLECTION IS LESS THAN PERFECT. A POLISHED LIAR CAN CREATE A SEAMLESS STORY. BUT A TRAUMA SURVIVOR CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO REMEMBER EVERY PAINFUL DETAIL. THAT’S WHAT SENATOR LEAHY MENTIONED EARLIER. ONE QUESTION IS CRITICAL. IN JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S OPENING TESTIMONY, WHICH WE’LL HEAR AFTER YOU LEAVE, THIS IS WHAT HE SAYS. I NEVER HAD ANY SEXUAL OR PHYSICAL ENCOUNTER OF ANY KIND WITH DR. FORD. I AM NOT QUESTIONING THAT DR. FORD MAY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY SOME PERSON IN SOME PLACE AT SOME TIME. LAST NIGHT THE REPUBLICAN STAFF OF THIS COMMITTEE RELEASED TO THE MEDIA A TIMELINE THAT SHOWS THAT THEY’VE INTERVIEWED TWO PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY WERE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ASSAULTED YOU. I’M ASKING YOU TO ADDRESS THIS NEW DEFENSE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY DIRECTLY. DR. FORD, WITH WHAT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY DO YOU BELIEVE BRETT KAVANAUGH ASSAULTED YOU?>>100%.>>100%. IN THE LETTER WHICH YOU SENT TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, I HAVE NOT KNOWINGLY SEEN KAVANAUGH SINCE THE ASSAULT. I DID SEE MARK JUDGE WEDNESDAY AT THE POTOMAC VILLAGE SAFEWAY WHERE HE WAS EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE IN SEEING ME. WOULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THAT ENCOUNTER AT THE SAFEWAY WITH MARK JUDGE AND WHAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE HE WAS UNCOMFORTABLE. >>YES. I WAS GOING TO THE POTOMAC VILLAGE SAFEWAY. THIS IS ON FALLS AND RIVER ROAD. I WAS WITH MY MOTHER AND I WAS A TEENAGER. I WANTED HER TO GO IN ONE DOOR AND ME GO IN THE OTHER. I CHOSE THE WRONG DOOR BECAUSE THE DOOR I CHOSE WAS THE ONE WHERE MARK JUDGE WAS — LOOKED LIKE HE WAS WORKING THERE. AND ARRANGING THE SHOPPING CARTS. AND I SAID HELLO TO HIM. AND HIS FACE WAS WHITE AND VERY UNCOMFORTABLE SAYING HELLO BACK. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN FRIENDLY AT THE TIMES WE SAW EACH OTHER OVER THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS, ALBEIT NOT VERY MANY TIMES. WE HAD ALWAYS BEEN FRIENDLY WITH ONE ANOTHER. I WOULDN’T CHARACTERIZE HIM AS NOT FRIENDLY. HE WAS NERVOUS AND NOT WANTING TO SPEAK WITH ME. HE LOOKED A LITTLE BIT ILL. >>HOW LONG DID THIS OCCUR AFTER THE INCIDENT?>>I WOULD ESTIMATE SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>>BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK, I CAN’T LET WHAT DURBIN — SENATOR DURBIN SAID. BY THE WAY, HE’S MY FRIEND. WE WORK ON A LOT OF LEGISLATION TOGETHER. BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION FROM THE OTHER SIDE. I CANNOT LET IT GO BY WHAT YOU’VE HEARD ME SAY SO MANY TIMES THAT BETWEEN JULY 30th AND SEPTEMBER 13th THAT WERE 45 DAYS, THIS COMMITTEE COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING THIS SITUATION AND HER PRIVACY WOULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED. SO SOMETHING HAPPENED HERE IN BETWEEN ON YOUR SIDE THAT THE WHOLE COUNTRY — NOT THE WHOLE COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN — WE SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED IT. WE’LL TAKE A BREAK NOW FOR 15 MINUTES.>>>WE’VE BEEN WATCHING CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD FOR THE FIRST TIME UNDER OATH ANSWERING QUESTIONS BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. NO DOUBT EARLY IN THIS DAY, EARLY IN HER TESTIMONY AND QUESTIONING. PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS ABOUT HER CREDIBILITY AND HER DEMEANOR AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. AS I BRING ON OUR PANEL, CHUCK TODD AND MEGAN TALLY AND SAVANNAH. ONE THING I’VE NOTED IS THE FORMAT. IF YOU’VE WATCHED THE PREVIOUSLY TESTIMONY WHERE WE GO FROM REPUBLICANS TO DEMOCRATS AND NOW WE’RE SEEING THE QUESTIONING FROM A SEASONED PROSECUTOR, RACHEL MITCHELL, WHO WAS HIRED BY THE REPUBLICANS. CLEARLY, SHE WANTS — SEEMS TO BE TRYING TO DO A LINEAR. >>I’M FRUSTRATED AS A VIEWER. >>THEY’RE DOING POLITICAL QUESTIONING. I DON’T KNOW IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO SAY POOL TOGETHER OUR MINUTES AND GIVE THEM TO THIS PROSECUTOR AND LET HER GET A LITTLE FLOW GOING. THAT’S NOT WHAT’S HAPPENING. I’M SURE IT’S FRUSTRATING FOR THE PROSECUTOR AND THE WITNESS TOO. >>SHE’S ALL ABOUT THE FACTS. SHE’S TRYING TO DRIVE HOLES IN THE WITNESS’S MEMORY. YOU DON’T REMEMBER THIS, YOU SAID THAT. IT’S FAR LESS EFFECTIVE WHEN YOU CAN’T STREAM A NARRATIVE. IT’S TOO CHOPPY TO FOLLOW. >>IT DOES COME DOWN TO PEOPLE’S IMPRESSIONS OF HER, THE WITNESS WHOM WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM BEFORE AND HOW SHE’S PRESENTING HERSELF AND THIS WAS CERTAINLY AN EMOTIONAL TESTIMONY.>>IT WAS A POWERFUL OPENING STATEMENT. NOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR HOW IS HE GOING TO RESPOND?>>THAT’S THE THING. YOU LISTEN TO CHRISTINE FORD. FOR ME, THE MOMENT THAT WILL STAY WITH ME WAS WHEN SHE DESCRIBED HAVING A MEMORY OF BEING IN THAT ROOM AND LOOKING OVER AT MARK JUDGE AND HAVING EYE CONTACT WITH HIM AND ASKING HERSELF, WILL HE SAVE ME? AND HE DIDN’T. I MEAN, IT WAS JUST — IT WAS EMOTIONAL. >>IT WAS AN EMOTIONAL MOMENT. >>THE QUESTION WAS THE MOST VIVID MEMORY. SHE SAID THE UPROARIOUS LAUGHTER AND HAVING FUN AT MY EXPENSE. I MEAN, LOOK, IF SHE IS AN ACTRESS, SHE’S REALLY GOOD. REALLY GOOD. >>WE — IT’S DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC FROM HIM. >>WE’VE PULLED SOME OF THE SOUND FROM THAT. >>WHAT IS THE STRONGEST MEMORY YOU HAVE, STRONGEST MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT, SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT FORGET? TAKE WHATEVER TIME YOU NEED.>>INDELIBLE IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS IS THE LAUGHTER, THE UPROARIOUS LAUGHTER BETWEEN THE TWO AND THEIR HAVING FUN AT MY EXPENSE.>>YOU NEVER FORGOTTEN THAT LAUGHTER? YOU NEVER FORGOTTEN THEM LAUGHING AT YOU?>>THEY WERE LAUGHING WITH EACH OTHER.>>AND YOU WERE THE OBJECT OF THE LAUGHTER?>>I WAS UNDERNEATH ONE OF THEM WHILE THE TWO LAUGHED. TWO FRIENDS HAVING A REALLY GOOD TIME WITH ONE ANOTHER.>>I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP AT THE TABLE HERE. I FORGOT WHO BROUGHT IT UP. LAUGHTER IS ONE OF THE THINGS AS A TEENAGER — >>THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT. THAT HAS THE HALLMARK OF AUTHENTICITY. IS THERE ANYTHING MORE MORTIFYING THAN HAVING BOYS LAUGH AT YOU. HAVE A LAUGH AT YOUR EXPENSE. THAT’S ALL WHEN YOU’RE SIZING UP THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS, IT’S ALL OF THESE THINGS, IT’S DEMEANOR, IT’S SPEECH. YES, IT’S CAN YOU REMEMBER DETAILS. BUT IT’S A WHOLE CONSTELLATION OF OTHER THINGS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT BEARS THOSE HALLMARKS AND THE BADGE OF TRUTH. THAT’S THE DIFFICULTY, THAT’S THE DECISION THAT’S BEFORE SENATORS. SOMETHING LIKE THAT STICKS WITH YOU. BECAUSE I THOUGHT WHEN HE ASKED THAT, WHAT’S GOING TO BE THE INDELIBLE THING, I WOULD SAY MAYBE THE HAND OVER HER MOUTH. NO FOR A TEENAGE GIRL, IT’S THE IDEA OF BOYS LAUGHING AT HER. >>HOW ABOUT HER DESCRIPTION OF RUNNING INTO MARK JUDGE, THAT WAS A POWERFUL MOMENT. HER SAYING I WENT INTO THE WRONG DOOR, BY THE WAY WITH THE TEENAGE GOING I’M EXPERIENCING THAT MYSELF THESE DAYS, I DON’T WANT TO GO INTO THE SAME DOOR AS YOU, DAD. ALL OF A SUDDEN RUNNING INTO HIM AND HER DESCRIPTION OF HIM. IT’S THOSE LITTLE DETAILS THAT ARE GIVING HER CREDIBILITY. >>THERE’S A QUESTION STILL TO REMEMBER, THERE’S ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS. ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS EXACTLY AS SHE SAYS. WHETHER HER EXPERIENCE OF IT NOW, HER MEMORY OF IT MATCHES UP WITH HOW IT WENT DOWNMENT WHETHER HER MEMORY FILLS IN GAPS SHE HAD AROUND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF IT THAT IS MORE HELPFUL TO HER STORY AND MORE DAMAING TO BRETT KAVANAUGH. SHE’S A SYMPATHETIC WITNESS AND CLEARLY BELIEVES THIS HAPPENED TO HER. DOES SHE KNOW ALL THESE YEARS LATER? YOU HAVE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO ARE BLUSTERING ABOUT AND YOU’VE GOT GRASSLEY, MY STAFF — IT’S A JARRING JUXTAPOSITION TO HEAR HIM AND THEN HER. THE QUESTION IS, WILL THEY BELIEVE IT AMOUNTS TO ANYTHING. WAS THIS A PERSON WHO IS MISREMEMBERING OR WHO WAS WHAT WE CALL A — THEY CAN WALK AWAY SAYING OH, WAS THIS JUST SOME GUY WHO MADE A BAD MOVE AND SHE MADE MORE OF IT IN HER HEAD. >>THE PROBLEM IS BRETT KAVANAUGH HAS SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN AT ALL. IT LEAVES THEM IN THAT POSITION.>>HE LEFT HIMSELF SOME WIGGLE ROOM OR I WAS YOUNG AND DRANK TOO MUCH, I’M SORRY IF SOMETHING HAPPENED. I DON’T THINK THIS WOULD HAVE REACHED THIS STAGE. I THINK IT IS THAT HE SET HIMSELF UP TO BE QUESTIONED NOT JUST ON HIS CHARACTER AND BEHAVIOR BACK THEN BUT WHETHER HE LIED TO THE COMMITTEE. >>WE SHOULD REMIND FOLKS ALSO, SHE’S A PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSOR. SOME OF HER ANSWERS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HER MEMORY, LET’S SAY SHE’S USING BEYOND LAYMAN’S TERMS. >>IT’S INDELIBLE IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS. WHICH YOU STARTED GOOGLING. >>I COME BACK TO WHAT CHUCK SAID, SHE GOES THE SAFEWAY A FEW WEEKS LATER, DIDN’T WANT TO GO IN THE SAME ROOM WITH HER MOM BEING A TEENAGER AND RUNS INTO ANOTHER KID THAT SHE THINKS SHE REMEMBERS BEING PART OF THE ATTACK. ACCORDING TO HER STORY. I COME BACK TO THE POLITICS. THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS, OTHER REPUBLICANS AND WHAT ARE THEY THINKING ABOUT THE POLITICAL IMPACT OF TAKING ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER? THEY HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH DOES. THEY’RE GOING TO BE WORRIED ABOUT — >>IN FAIRNESS GOT SENATORS, I THINK THEY’RE ALSO PROBABLY — THEY HAVE KIDS THAT ARE ABOUT THE SAME AGE AS A LOT OF THE — [ OVERLAPPING TALKING ]. >>ON THIS, ANY REFERENCES AS KIDS — THIS IS PAINFUL TO WATCH AS A PARENT OF A TEENAGER. IT IS A — I WOULDN’T SAY YES, THERE’S POLITICS INVOLVED AND I WOULDN’T DOUBT THAT BE VERY CURIOUS HOW HE RESPONDS TO THIS, ALONG WITH JEFF FLAKE. WE’VE GOTTEN WORDS ABOUT HOW INTENTLY THEY’VE BEEN LISTENING.>>THEY’RE HEARING THINGS AT HOME FROM CONSTITUENTS AND HEARING FROM THEIR KIDS, THEIR PARENTS, THEIR SIBLINGS OR SPOUSES. >>BUT THEIR CONSTITUENTS SO FAR, THE REPUBLICAN BASE DOES NOT BELIEVE HER OR IF THEY BELIEVE HER, THEY DON’T CARE. I MEAN, THEY HAVE BEEN FIRED UP SAYING THIS IS A DEMOCRAT HIT JOB, A DEMOCRATIC HIT JOB ON A NOMINEE WHO THEY HAD BEFORE THEM FOR 31 HOURS OF TESTIMONY. THEY HAD THESE ALLEGATIONS IN HAND, THEY DIDN’T RAISE THEM. THEY WAITED UNTIL THE EVE. SHE COMES FORWARD AFTER 36 YEARS WITH GAPS IN HER MEMORY AND ANOTHER WOMAN COMES FORWARD WITH NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES AND THEY DROP THAT AT THE LAST MINUTE AND THE AVENATTI HAT TRICK THE NIGHT BEFORE. THEY SEE THIS AS A BIG SETUP OF THEIR NOMINEE. I’VE HEARD REPUBLICANS SAY THIS MAY HAVE HAPPENED TO HER. THE PROOF ISN’T THERE TO CONVINCE ME IT’S BRETT KAVANAUGH. IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO SCURRY A SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENT. >>WE WANT TO GO TO CAPITOL HILL RIGHT NOW WHERE THEY’RE MEASURING REACTIONS FROM SENATORS WHO HAVE THE FINAL SAY WHETHER THE CONFIRMATION GOES FORWARD. CASEY. >>I THINK THAT THE CONVERSATION YOU’VE BEEN HAVING IS THE RIGHT ONE. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE — I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE THREE PEOPLE WE’VE BEEN FOCUSED ON. LISA MURKOWSKI, JUROR JEFF FLAKE. HE WAS LISTENING INTENTLY. HE WAS LOOKING PAINED AS THE STATEMENT UNFOLDED. I GOT A NOTE FROM A TOP REPUBLICAN AIDE WHO SAID EVERYBODY NEEDS TO NOT RUSH TO JUDGMENT. WE NEED TO HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THAT’S IMPORTANT. IT ALSO SAYS IT’S CLEAR THAT THEY REALIZE THAT THE INITIAL JUDGMENT OF DR. FORD IS ONE OF CREDIBILITY AND ONE THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO BODE WELL FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH ULTIMATELY SITTING ON THE SUPREME COURT. EVERYONE IS AT THIS POINT KEEPING THEIR INITIAL THOUGHTS VERY CLOSE TO THE VEST BEYOND, OF COURSE, THE OBVIOUS UNDERSTANDINGS THAT WE HAVE OF THIS PARTISANSHIP. I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS IDEA. THE SENATORS WHO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION, THEY’RE HUMAN BEINGS, TOO. THE DECISION THAT THEY MAKE HERE, IF THEY’RE FORCED TO VOTE ON THIS NOMINATION IS GOING TO BE ONE THAT IS GOING TO DEFINE THEM FOR YEARS TO COME. AND IF YOU ARE ESPECIALLY A FEMALE SENATOR LIVING THROUGH THIS CULTURAL MOMENT THAT WE ARE IN OF ME TOO AND LISTENING TO THIS WOMAN WHO CAME FORWARD, CLEARLY TRAUMATIZED, CLEARLY EMOTIONAL AS SHE RELATES THIS STORY, ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO STAND ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND SAY I DON’T BELIEVE HER, I BELIEVE HIM? WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM HIM FIRST. THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS GOING THROUGH PEOPLE’S MINDS. I CAN TELL YOU THERE’S ALREADY TREPIDATION ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HEADING INTO THIS HEARING AND STANDING HERE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HEARD AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT FROM HER. I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT, IT IS INCREASING, NOT DECREASING. >>GOOD PERSPECTIVE. NONE OF THIS IS EASY. IT’S ABOUT LISTENING. THEY’RE IN A BREAK RIGHT NOW. WE’LL COME BACK AND CONTINUE TO LISTEN. >>AS A REMINDER, WE’VE ALL WATCHED ONE PIECE OF THIS. WE’VE WATCHED AN OPENING STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONING OF THE WITNESS. THERE’S A JUDGMENT AS TO THAT. HIS CREDIBILITY AND HIS DEMEANOR WILL BE-SIZED UP AS WELL. FOR THOSE WHO ARE JUST JOINING AND PERHAPS MISSED IT, CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD GAVE A PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT, ONE WE’RE TOLD SHE WROTE HERSELF. TOOK ABOUT 20 MINUTES. WE WANTED TO PLAY YOU A PORTION OF IT.>>WHEN I GOT TO THE SMALL GATHERING, PEOPLE WERE DRINKING BEER IN A SMALL LIVING ROOM, FAMILY ROOM TYPE AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. I DRANK ONE BEER. BRETT AND MARK WERE VISIBLY DRUNK. EARLY IN THE EVENING, I WENT UP A VERY NARROW SET OF STAIRS LEADING FROM THE LIVING ROOM TO A SECOND FLOOR TO USE THE RESTROOM. WHEN I GOT TO THE TOP OF THE STAIRS, I WAS PUSHED FROM BEHIND INTO A BEDROOM ACROSS FROM THE BATHROOM. I COULDN’T SEE WHO PUSHED ME. BRETT AND MARK CAME INTO THE BEDROOM AND LOCKED THE DOOR BEHIND THEM. THERE WAS MUSIC PLAYING IN THE BEDROOM. IT WAS TURNED UP LOUDER BY EITHER BRETT OR MARK ONCE WE WERE IN THE ROOM. I WAS PUSHED ON TO THE BED, THEN BRETT GOT ON TOP OF ME. HE BEGAN RUNNING HIS HANDS OVER MY BODY AND GRINDING INTO ME. I YELLED HOPING THAT SOMEONE DOWNSTAIRS MIGHT HEAR ME. AND I TRIED TO GET AWAY FROM HIM, BUT HIS WEIGHT WAS HEAVY. GROPED ME AND TRIED TO TAKE OFF MY CLOTHES. HE HAD A HARD TIME BECAUSE HE WAS VERY INEBRIATED AND BECAUSE I WAS WEARING A ONE PIECE BATHING SUIT UNDERNEATH MY CLOTHING. I BELIEVED HE WAS GOING TO RAPE ME. I TRIED TO YELL FOR HELP. WHEN I DID, BRETT PUT HIS HAND OVER MY MOUTH TO STOP ME FROM YELLING. THIS IS WHAT TERRIFIED ME THE MOST AND HAS HAD THE MOST LASTING IMPACT ON MY LIFE. IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO BREATHE AND I THOUGHT THAT BRETT WAS ACCIDENTALLY GOING TO KILL ME. BOTH BRETT AND MARK WERE DRUNKENLY LAUGHING DURING THE ATTACK. THEY SEEMED TO BE HAVING A VERY GOOD TIME. MARK SEEMED AMBIVALENT, AT TIMES URGING BRETT ON AND AT TIMES TELLING HIM TO STOP. A COUPLE OF TIMES I MADE EYE CONTACT WITH MARK AND THOUGHT HE MIGHT TRY TO HELP ME. BUT HE DID NOT. DURING THIS ASSAULT, MARK CAME OVER AND JUMPED ON THE BED TWICE WHILE BRETT WAS ON TOP OF ME. THE LAST TIME THAT HE DID THIS, WE TOPPLED OVER AND BRETT WAS NO LONGER ON TOP OF ME. I WAS ABLE TO GET UP AND RUN OUT OF THE ROOM. DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE BEDROOM WAS A SMALL BATHROOM. I RAN INSIDE THE BATHROOM AND LOCKED THE DOOR. I WAITED UNTIL I HEARD BRETT AND MARK LEAVE THE BEDROOM LAUGHING AND LOUDLY WALKED DOWN THE NARROW STAIRWAY PINBALLING OFF THE WALLS ON THE WAY DOWN. I WAITED AND WHEN I DID NOT HEAR THEM COME BACK UP THE STAIRS, I LEFT THE BATHROOM, WENT DOWN THE SAME STAIRWELL THROUGH THE LIVING ROOM AND LEFT THE HOUSE. I REMEMBER BEING ON THE STREET AND FEELING AN ENORMOUS SENSE OF RELIEF THAT I ESCAPED THAT HOUSE AND THAT BRETT AND MARK WERE NOT COMING OUTSIDE AFTER ME.>>THAT WAS CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IN SOME OF HER PREPARED OPENING REMARKS TODAY DESCRIBING THE WAY IT — HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM HER VOICE.>>NOW, OF COURSE, WE’LL HEAR THE CONTINUING OF THE QUESTIONING. I GET THE FEELING THAT RACHEL MITCHELL, THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS HIRED BY REPUBLICANS HASN’T EVEN GOTTEN PAST THE INTRODUCTIONS AT THIS POINT. >>ONE WAY OR ANOTHER — IT FEELS LIKE THE WAY A LAWYER WOULD PREPARE A WITNESS. YOU WOULD START WITH SOME PREDICATE THINGS AND GET SOME STUFF OUT OF THE WAY AND IT WOULD LEAD UP TO SOMEWHERE. IT’S HARD TO KNOW WHERE IT’S LEADING BECAUSE IT’S INTERRUPTED EVERY FIVE MINUTES. >>SO FAR SHE’S NOT LAID A GLOVE ON CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD. >>MAYBE SHE’S BUILDING UP TO THAT. >>SHE IS A PROSECUTOR BY TRADE. THE QUESTION IS SHE ACTING IN THAT ROLE HERE NOW?>>LOOK, I WOULD JUST SAY, I GET THE POLITICAL DECISION THAT THEY MADE. THEY DID NOT WANT CHUCK GRASSLEY, GET OFF MY LAWN, QUESTIONING HER. THAT WE ALL GET. THEY DIDN’T THINK THE FIVE-MINUTE THING THROUGH. THIS IS NOT WORKING FOR THEM. I MEAN, WE’VE DISCUSSED THIS HERE. I ALMOST FEEL LIKE I NEED TO REWATCH IT JUST WITH HER QUESTIONS AND SUPPLIES IT AND CUT IT SO YOU CAN SEE THE CONTINUING QUESTIONS. >>DURING THIS BREAK, THEY GOT TOGETHER AND SAID HEY, WHAT IF WE POOL OUR RESOURCES. >>SHE WAS TRYING TO SAY DID YOU HEAR THEM TALKING AS YOU CAME DOWN THE STAIRS. SHE’S QUESTIONING EACH RECOLLECTION IN THIS OPENING STATEMENT, COMPARING IT TO THE LIE DETECTOR TEST AND TRYING TO GET, TO POKE HOLES. I THINK SHE’S SETTING THE STAGE.>>THAT’S ALL SHE’S DONE. >>WHEN DID YOU HEAR THEM TALKING. DID YOU HEAR CONVERSATIONS DOWNSTAIRS OR NOT. COULD YOU HEAR THEM. THAT IS NOT EFFECTIVE IN THIS KIND — >>IT ISN’T. AGAIN, THAT IS LEGAL QUESTIONING. WHAT WE’RE SEEING IS POLITICAL QUESTIONING. THE LEGAL QUESTIONING USUALLY LAY THE GROUNDWORK, YOU GET THE EVIDENCE IN, IT ADDS UP AND YOU GET TO PULL IT ALL TOGETHER FOR A JURY IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS. NO ONE GETS TO PULL IT TOGETHER FOR THE SENATORS. THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT. >>YOU WONDER — THE REPUBLICANS WHO INSISTED ON THIS, THE WITNESS SAID PLEASE DON’T — DO NOT DO THIS — >>THEY WERE BEATING UP ON HER — >>LET’S SEE WHETHER RACHEL MITCHELL IS BUILDING TO A CRESCENDO WHERE SHE’S GOT SOMETHING. I DON’T THINK SHE IS. WHAT COULD SHE POSSIBLY HAVE? UNLESS CHRISTINE FORD HAS AN ISSUE WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT WITH THIS STORY AND SHE’S GOING TO SPRING IT ON US, THE WHOLE DEFENSE ON WHEN RACHEL MITCHELL IS OUT THERE, IS MEMORY LANCES. >>– LAPSES. >>IF SHE WANTED TO, SHE COULD SAY YOU DON’T REMEMBER HOW YOU GOT THERE, YOU DON’T REMEMBER ONE OF THE GUYS THAT’S THERE, YOU DON’T KNOW HOW YOU GOT HOME, YOU NEVER SAID ANYTHING FOR 30 YEARS. THIS GUY WAS — THERE’S LIKE A MILLION WAYS TO DO IT. I’M NOT SUGGESTING THEY DO. IF YOU WANTED TO GO HARD AT AN ACCUSER LIKE THAT, THERE’S A WAY TO DO IT.>>NO WIN PROPOSITION FOR HER. SHE’S BEEN BROUGHT IN PRECISELY TO AVOID THAT KIND OF INTERROGATION. BECAUSE OF THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE, WHICH WAS SET — THEY COULD HAVE BROUGHT HER IN AND SAID, A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. >>THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE NEGOTIATED THAT. AT A MINIMUM. THE OTHER PART, THOUGH, DEMOCRATS AT SOME POINT GOT TO LOOK LIKE THEY WANT TO GET TO FIND OUT THE FACTS, TOO. RIGHT NOW, IT’S BEEN HEY, WE WANT TO SUBMIT THESE LETTERS. IT’S MORE OF THEY’RE COMING ACROSS AS A SUPPORT GROUP. POLITICALLY, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY’RE DOING. I THINK IF THEY WANT THIS TO BE MORE CREDIBLE AND ESPECIALLY CONFRONTATIONAL QUESTIONING WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THEY WOULD HAVE MORE CREDIBILITY IF THEY CAME ACROSS THAT THEY WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH. >>YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS ENTITLED TO A ROBUST CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HIS ACCUSER IF WE WERE IN A COURTROOM OF ANY KIND. CIVIL OR CRIMINAL. HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THAT. OUR WHOLE SYSTEM DEPENDS ON THE ADVERSARY NATURE OF IT AND ROBUST CROSS-EXAMINATION. I THINK IT SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT. WE’LL SEE WHETHER RACHEL MITCHELL GOES THERE. TO ME, IT SUGGESTS THEIR MINDS ARE MADE UP. THEY’RE NOT LOOKING FOR A ROBUST CROSS OF THIS WITNESS. >>NOT ONLY IS BRETT KAVANAUGH ENTITLED TO A CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT’S ADVERSARIAL, IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO THIS WITNESS. SHE SHOULD TAKE ON THOSE HARD QUESTIONS AND SHE PROBABLY IS ABLE TO ANSWER THEM IN A WAY THAT MAY BE COMPELLING AND SHE DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHY I DON’T REMEMBER –>>PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF THESE REPUBLICANS GO AFTER HER OR EVEN IF RACHEL MITCHELL DOES IT, THERE’S GOING TO BE BLOWBACK. HOW CAN YOU ATTACK A WOMAN?>>IT UNDER SCORES THE ABSURDITY. >>LET ME FINISH. MOST WOMEN TELL THE TRUTH. MOST WOMEN DO. I BELIEVE THAT AS SOMEONE INVOLVED IN THE ME TOO MOVEMENT. BUT NOT ALL DO. THE WHOLE GOAL WHEN SOMEBODY IS ACCUSED IS TO WITH AN OPEN MIND AND IN A FAIR SETTING GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT’S — >>DR. FORD CONTINUING IN THE SESSION. >>WE SCHEDULED A BREAK FOR 12:05. I DIDN’T CALL IT AT THE RIGHT TIME. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE AT 12:50. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO GO FROM NOW UNTIL 12:40 WITHOUT A BREAK?>>YES. >>OKAY. NOW, IT IS SENATOR CORNYN’S TIME. PROCEED, MS. MITCHELL. >>THANK YOU, SENATOR. I HAVE A BLOW-UP HERE TO MY RIGHT OF THE MAP THAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU. THE ADDRESS INDICATED ON HERE AS BELONGING TO YOUR FAMILY IS WHAT ALL THE PROPERTY TAX RECORDS SHOWED AS BEING YOUR ADDRESS.>>OKAY. >>JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, I’D LIKE TO SHOW YOU A FURTHER OUT, ZOOMED-OUT PICTURE SO THAT WE CAN PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. SO WE CAN SHOW THE GREATER WASHINGTON AREA. OF COURSE, YOU CAN SEE THE BELTWAY ON THAT. THE BELTWAY AREA. >>OKAY. >>THE NUMBER 3, IF WE COULD LOOK AT THAT. WE DREW A ONE-MILE RADIUS AROUND THE COUNTRY CLUB AND THEN WE CALCULATED FROM THE FURTHER — >>MR. CHAIRMAN, WE DON’T HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS.>>NO. WE’RE NOT. SHE SHOWED THREE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THEY DEPICT THREE DIFFERENT THINGS. SO WE’D LIKE TO SEE ALL THREE DOCUMENTS PLEASE TO FOLLOW ALONG. >>PROCEED, PLEASE.>>OKAY. LOOKING AT NUMBER — THE THIRD THING HERE. WE CALCULATED THE DISTANCE FROM THE CLOSEST POINT TO YOUR HOUSE FROM A MILE RADIUS OF THE COUNTRY CLUB AND THEN THE FURTHEST POINT. IT’S 6.2 AND 8.2 MILES. YOU’VE DESCRIBED THIS AS BEING NEAR THE COUNTRY CLUB WHERE THIS HOUSE WAS, IS THAT RIGHT?>>I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN MY HOUSE AND THE COUNTRY CLUB, IN THAT VICINITY THAT’S SHOWN IN YOUR PICTURE. AND THE COUNTRY CLUB IS ABOUT A 20-MINUTE DRIVE FROM MY PARENTS’ HOME. >>20-MINUTE DRIVE. I’VE MARKED AS THE CROW FLIES.>>WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT SOMEBODY DROVE YOU SOMEWHERE EITHER TO THE PARTY OR HOME FROM THE PARTY?>>CORRECT.>>HAS ANYONE COME FORWARD TO SAY TO YOU, HEY, REMEMBER I WAS THE ONE THAT DROVE YOU HOME?>>NO.>>OKAY. IN YOUR JULY 6th TEXT TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” THAT YOU LOOKED AT EARLIER, YOU SAID THAT THIS HAPPENED IN THE MID-’80s. IN YOUR LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, YOU SAID IT OCCURRED IN THE EARLY ’80s. IN YOUR POLYGRAPH STATEMENT, YOU SAID IT WAS HIGH SCHOOL SUMMER IN ’80s. YOU HAD WRITTEN IN, THIS IS ONE. CORRECTIONS I REFERRED TO EARLY AND YOU CROSSED THAT OUT. LATER IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH THE “WASHINGTON POST,” YOU WERE MORE SPECIFIC. YOU BELIEVED IT OCCURRED IN THE SUMMER OF 1982 AND YOU SAID THE END OF YOUR SOPHOMORE YEAR. >>YES. >>YOU SAID THE SAME THING IN YOUR PREPARED STATEMENT, I BELIEVE. HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO NARROW DOWN THE TIME FRAME?>>I CAN’T GIVE THE EXACT DATE AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE MORE HELPFUL ABOUT THE DATE AND IF I KNEW WHEN MARK JUDGE WORKED AT THE POTOMAC SAFEWAY, I WOULD BE ABLE TO BE MORE HELPFUL IN THAT WAY. I’M JUST USING MEMORIES OF WHEN I GOT MY DRIVER’S LICENSE. I WAS 15 AT THE TIME. I DID NOT DRIVE HOME FROM THAT PARTY OR TO THAT PARTY. AND ONCE I DID HAVE MY DRIVER’S LICENSE, I LIKED TO DRIVE MYSELF.>>I ASSUME THE LEGAL DRIVING AGE WAS 16. >>YES.>>NOW, YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT ATTENDING THERAPY. IN YOUR TEXT TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” DATED 7/6, SO THAT’S THE VERY FIRST STATEMENT WE HAVE FROM YOU, YOU PUT IN THERE, “HAVE THERAPY RECORDS TALKING ABOUT IT.” I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT. DID YOU ALREADY HAVE YOUR THERAPY RECORDS AT THAT TIME?>>I HAD LOOKED AT THEM ONLINE TO SEE IF THEY EXISTED, YES. >>OKAY. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO YOU VIA A COMPUTER LIKE A PATIENT PORTAL?>>ACTUALLY, NO. I WAS IN THE OFFICE OF A PROVIDER.>>OKAY.>>SHE HELPED ME GO THROUGH THE RECORD TO LOCATE WHETHER I HAD HAD RECORD OF THIS CONVERSATION THAT I HAD REMEMBERED.>>DID YOU SHOW A FULL OR PARTIAL SET OF THOSE MARRIAGE THERAPY RECORDS TO THE “WASHINGTON POST”?>>I DON’T REMEMBER. I REMEMBER SUMMARIZING FOR HER WHAT THEY SAID. SO I’M NOT QUITE SURE IF I ACTUALLY GAVE HER THE RECORD. >>OKAY. SO IT’S POSSIBLE THAT THE REPORTER DID NOT SEE THESE NOTES?>>I DON’T KNOW IF SHE — I CAN’T RECALL WHETHER SHE SAW THEM DIRECTLY OR IF I TOLD HER WHAT THEY SAID. >>HAVE YOU SHOWN THEM TO ANYONE ELSE BESIDES YOUR COUNSEL?>>JUST THE COUNSEL.>>OKAY. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT BRETT KAVANAUGH’S NAME IS NOT LISTED IN THOSE NOTES?>>HIS NAME IS NO, SIR NOT LISTED IN THOSE NOTES. >>WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE THERAPIST NOTES SAY THAT THERE WERE FOUR BOYS IN THE ROOM?>>IT DESCRIBES THE SEXUAL ASSAULT AND IT SAYS ERRONEOUSLY BY FOUR BOYS. SO THE THERAPIST GOT THE CONTENT OF IT WRONG.>>AND YOU CORRECTED THAT TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” REPORTER, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>SENATOR WHITE HOUSE?>>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU DR. BLASE I FORD. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE PROUD OF YOU TODAY. FROM A PROSECUTOR’S EYE VIEW, ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS TO SPEAK TO SOMEBODY WHO HAS COME FORWARD WITH AN ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE CAN’T PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE TO GO FORWARD TO TRIAL. IT’S A HARD DAY FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO DO THAT. SO BOTH BECAUSE MAKING A SINCERE AND INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT IS AN IMPORTANT CONSOLATION TO THE VICTIM IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. BECAUSE IT’S WHAT YOU’RE OBLIGED TO DO PROFESSIONALLY. SINCERE AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IS CRITICAL TO THESE CLAIMS IN A PROSECUTOR’S WORLD. IT MAY BE THE MOST BASIC THING THAT WE OWE A VICTIM OR WITNESS COMING FORWARD IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE THEM A FULL, THOROUGH AND SINCERE INVESTIGATION. YOU HAVE MET ALL OF THE STANDARDS OF WHAT I MIGHT CALL PRELIMINARY CREDIBILITY WITH YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT. YOU HAVE VIVID SPECIFIC AND DETAILED RECOLLECTIONS. SOMETHING PROSECUTORS LOOK FOR. YOUR RECOLLECTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH KNOWN FACTS. YOU MADE PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS. SOMETHING ELSE PROSECUTORS AND LAWYERS LOOK FOR. YOU ARE WILLING TO AND DID TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST. AND YOU’RE WILLING TO TESTIFY HERE. HERE YOU ARE. SUBJECT TO PROFESSIONAL CROSS-EXAMINATION BY A PROSECUTOR. SO YOU’VE MET ANY CONDITION ANY PROSECUTOR SHOULD EXPECT TO GO FORWARD. YET, THERE HAS BEEN NO SINCERE OR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF YOUR CLAIMS. YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION, DID YOU NOT?>>YES.>>AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT WHEN THE FBI BEGINS INVESTIGATING, THEY MIGHT FIND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND THEY MIGHT FIND EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE?>>I DON’T KNOW WHAT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IS.>>NOT HELPFUL TO YOUR RECOLLECTIONS AND VERSION OF EVENTS. HELPFUL TO THE ACCUSED. >>UNDERSTOOD, YES. >>SO IT COULD GO EITHER WAY.>>YES. >>AND YOU ARE STILL NOT JUST WILLING BUT INSISTENT THAT THE FBI SHOULD INVESTIGATE YOUR RECOLLECTION AND YOUR CLAIM?>>YES, I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD — I COULD BE MORE HELPFUL IF THAT WAS THE CASE IN PROVIDING SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT MAYBE PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT.>>AS WE KNOW, THEY DIDN’T. I SUBMIT THAT NEVER, NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS HAS AN INVESTIGATION NOT BEEN PURSUED WHEN NEW, CREDIBLE, DEROGATORY INFORMATION WAS BROUGHT FORWARD ABOUT THE NOMINEE OR THE CANDIDATE. I DON’T THINK THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS. MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN PROVE ME WRONG. BUT IT’S WILDLY UNUSUAL AND OUT OF CHARACTER. AND IN MY VIEW, IT IS A GRAVE DISSERVICE TO YOU AND I WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THAT. AND TO REPORT TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE LISTENING THAT WHEN SOMEBODY IS WILLING TO COME FORWARD, EVEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN HAVING BEEN NOT GIVEN THE MODICUM OF COURTESY AND SUPPORT. YOU’VE SHOWN YOURSELF PARTICULARLY PROUD IN DOING THAT. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECISION TO HAVE BE I THINK THE ONLY BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION IN HISTORY TO BE STOPPED AS DEROGATORY INFORMATION CAME FORWARD BELONGS WITH 13 MEN. THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR REY OF THE FBI AND THE 11 MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE. AS TO THE COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION, THE FACT THAT MR. KAVANAUGH’S ALLEGED ACCOMPLICE HAS NOT BEEN SUBPOENAED, HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AND CROSS-EXAMINED UNDER OATH, HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE FBI TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HOW CREDIBLE THIS IS. THE BARE MINIMUM THAT A PERSON WHO COMES FORWARD IS OWED IS SINCERE AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND YOU’VE BEEN DENIED THAT AND I WILL MAKE A PERSONAL PLEDGE TO YOU HERE, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES, IN WHATEVER FORMIC DO IT, WHENEVER IT’S POSSIBLE, I WILL DO WHATEVER IS IN MY POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CLAIMS GET A FULL AND PROPER INVESTIGATION AND NOT JUST THIS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.>>THANK YOU.>>SINCE THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP SO MANY TIMES, I’D LIKE TO COMMENT. THE NEW YORKER PUBLISHED AN ANONYMOUS ACCOUNT ON SEPTEMBER 14th, TWO DAYS LATER, DR. FORD IDENTIFIED HERSELF AS THE VICTIM IN A POST ARTICLE DETAILING HER ALLEGATIONS. I IMMEDIATELY DIRECTED MY STAFF TO INVESTIGATE. SEPTEMBER 17th, DR. FORD’S COUNSEL WENT ON SEVERAL TELEVISION SHOWS REQUESTING THAT HER CLIENT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL HER STORY. THE SAME DAY, I SCHEDULED A HEARING FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24th. GIVING DR. FORD A WEEK TO PREPARE HER TESTIMONY AND COME TO WASHINGTON, D.C. ON SEPTEMBER 17th, COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIVE STAFF REACHED OUT TO DR. FORD AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH TO SCHEDULE FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS WITH REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT INVESTIGATORS. JUDGE KAVANAUGH ACCEPTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE INVESTIGATORS UNDER CRIMINAL PENALTY. DR. FORD DECLINED. IN HIS INTERVIEW ON SEPTEMBER 17th, JUDGE KAVANAUGH DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS AND REQUESTED A HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. DEMOCRATIC STAFF REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT INTERVIEW. THE NEXT DAY, SEPTEMBER 18th, COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIVE STAFF CONTACTED MARK JUDGE REQUESTING AN INTERVIEW. COMMITTEE STAFF ALSO LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF TWO OTHER ALLEGED PARTY-GOERS AND REQUESTED INTERVIEWS. MARK JUDGE SUBMITTED A STATEMENT UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY. DENYING KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTY DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD AND STATES THAT HE NEVER SAW BRETT AT THE — IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD. AND I CAN GO ON AND ON ABOUT THAT. BUT WE GOT TO REALIZE THAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE ALL OF THE TIME YOU DONE IN THIS CASE ALL THE TIME YOU GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI. THEN IT COMES TO US, AND THERE’S ALWAYS SOME HOLES IN IT THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW UP ON. AND BESIDES. >>MR. CHAIRMAN. >>WE’RE RESPONDING TO DR. FORD’S REQUEST TO TELL HER STORY. THAT’S WHY WE’RE HERE. >>MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MS. MITCHELL. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT TO SUPPORT WHAT SENATOR WHITEHOUSE SAID, IN THE ANITA HILL CASE, GEORGE BUSH ORDERED THAT THE INVESTIGATION BE OPENED AGAIN.>>MS. MITCHELL WILL YOU PROCEED FOR SENATOR LEE.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DR. FORD, “THE WASHINGTON POST” REPORTED IN THEIR SEPTEMBER 16th ARTICLE THAT YOU DID SHOW THEM THERAPIST NOTES. IS THAT INCORRECT?>>I DON’T REMEMBER PHYSICALLY SHOWING HER A NOTE. >>OKAY.>>PERHAPS MY COUNSEL DID. I DON’T REMEMBER PHYSICALLY SHOWING HER MY COPY OF THE NOTE.>>OKAY. I JUST DON’T REMEMBER. I’M SORRY. I HAVE RETRIEVED A PHYSICAL COPY OF THOSE MEDICAL RECORDS.>>OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU ALSO ATTENDED INDIVIDUAL THERAPY, DID YOU SHOW ANY OF THOSE NOTES TO THE REPORTER FROM THE “WASHINGTON POST”?>>AGAIN, I DON’T REMEMBER IF I SHOWED HER LIKE SOMETHING THAT I SUMMARIZED OR IF I JUST SPOKE ABOUT IT OR IF SHE SAW IT IN MY COUNSEL’S OFFICE. I CAN’T — I DON’T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I CERTAINLY SPOKE WITH HER ABOUT THE 2013 RECORD WITH THE INDIVIDUAL THERAPIST.>>AND BRETT KAVANAUGH’S NAME IS NOT IN THOSE NOTES, IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>OKAY. IN READING “THE WASHINGTON POST” ARTICLE, IT MENTIONS THAT THIS INCIDENT THAT WE’RE HERE ABOUT CONTRIBUTED TO ANXIETY AND PTSD PROBLEMS WITH WHICH YOU HAVE STRUGGLED. THE WORD CONTRIBUTED, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THAT HAVE ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO ANXIETY AND PTSD?>>I THINK THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THE IDEOLOGY OF ANXIETY AND PTSD IS MULTIFACTORIAL, SO THAT WAS CERTAINLY A CRITICAL RISK THAT WE WOULD CALL IT A RISK FACTOR IN SCIENCE, SO THAT WOULD BE A PREDICTOR OF THE SYMPTOMS THAT I NOW HAVE. IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN MY LIFE WOULD HAVE — WOULD MAKE IT WORSE OR BETTER, THERE ARE OTHER RISK FACTORS AS WELL. >>SO HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER THINGS, THEN, THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANXIETY AND PTSD THAT YOU SUFFERED?>>WELL, I THINK THERE’S SORT OF BIOLOGICAL PREDISPOSITIONS THAT EVERYONE IN HERE HAS FOR PARTICULAR DISORDERS, SO I CAN’T RULE OUT THAT I WOULD HAVE SOME BIOLOGICAL PREDISPOSITION TO BE ANXIOUS TYPE PERSON. >>WHAT ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL?>>ENVIRONMENTALLY, NOT THAT I CAN THINK OF.>>OKAY.>>CERTAINLY NOTHING AS STRIKING AS THAT EVENT. >>OKAY. IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH “THE WASHINGTON POST,” YOU SAID THAT YOU TOLD YOUR HUSBAND EARLY IN YOUR MARRIAGE THAT YOU HAD BEEN A VICTIM OF, AND I QUOTE, PHYSICAL ABUSE. IN YOUR STATEMENT YOU SAID THAT BEFORE YOU WERE MARRIED YOU TOLD HIM THAT YOU HAD EXPERIENCED QUOTE, A SEXUAL ASSAULT. DO THESE TWO THINGS REFER TO THE SAME INCIDENT?>>YES.>>AND AT EITHER POINT ON THESE TWO TIMES, DID YOU USE ANY NAMES?>>NO.>>OKAY. MAY I ASK DR. FORD, HOW DID YOU GET TO WASHINGTON?>>IN AN AIRPLANE. >>OKAY. I ASK THAT BECAUSE IT’S BEEN REPORTED BY THE PRESS THAT YOU WOULD NOT SUBMIT TO AN INTERVIEW WITH THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF YOUR FEAR OF FLYING. IS THAT TRUE?>>WELL, I WAS WILLING — I WAS HOPING THAT THEY WOULD COME TO ME, BUT THEN I REALIZED THAT WAS AN UNREALISTIC REQUEST. >>IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A QUICKER TRIP FOR ME.>>YES. SO THAT WAS CERTAINLY WHAT I WAS HOPING WAS TO AVOID HAVING TO GET ON AN AIRPLANE, BUT I EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO GET UP THE GUMPTION WITH THE HELP OF SOME FRIENDS AND GET ON THE PLANE. >>WHEN YOU WERE HERE IN THE MID ATLANTIC AREA BACK IN AUGUST, END OF JULY, AUGUST, HOW DID YOU GET HERE?>>ALSO BY AIRPLANE. I COME HERE ONCE A YEAR DURING THE SUMMER TO VISIT MY FAMILY.>>OKAY.>>I’M SORRY, NOT HERE. I GO TO DELAWARE.>>OKAY. IN FACT, YOU FLY FAIRLY FREQUENTLY FOR YOUR HOBBIES AND YOU’VE HAD TO FLY FOR YOUR WORK, IS THAT TRUE?>>CORRECT. UNFORTUNATELY.>>YOU WERE A CONSULTING BISTATISTICIAN IN SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA. >>I HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR AUSTRALIA, BUT THE COMPANY I WORK FOR IS BASE INSTEAD AUSTRALIA AND THEY HAVE AN OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. I DON’T THINK I WILL MAKE IT TO AUSTRALIA. >>IT IS LONG. I ALSO SAW ON YOUR CV YOU LIST INTERESTS OF SURF TRAVEL, AND SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS AND FRENCH YOUR INTERESTS INCLUDE OCEANOGRAPHY, HAWAIIAN CULTURE, DID YOU TRAVEL BY AIR TO THOSE INTERESTS. >>CORRECT. . IT’S EASIER FOR ME TO TRAVEL GOING THAT DIRECTION WHEN IT’S A VACATION.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE DR. FORD. IN MY OLD JOB AS A PROSECUTOR, WE INVESTIGATED REPORTS LIKE THIS, SO IT GAVE ME A WINDOW ON THE TYPES OF CASES THAT HURT WOMEN AND HURT ALL OF US. AND I WOULD ALWAYS TELL THE WOMEN THAT CAME BEFORE US THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL THEIR STORY BEFORE A JURY BOX OF STRANGERS, AND YOU’VE HAD TO TELL YOUR STORY BEFORE THE ENTIRE NATION. FOR SO MANY YEARS, PEOPLE SWEPT CASES LIKE YOURS UNDER THE RUG. THEY’D SAY WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE A HOUSE DIDN’T BELONG IN THE COURTHOUSE. WELL, THE TIMES HAVE CHANGED, SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING FORWARD TODAY, AND FOR SHARING YOUR REPORT WITH US. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’VE TAKEN A POLYGRAPH TEST. DR. FORD, THAT FOUND THAT YOU WERE BEING TRUTHFUL WHEN YOU DESCRIBED WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU. CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOU DECIDED TO TAKE THAT TEST?>>I WAS MEETING WITH ATTORNEYS. I WAS INTERVIEWING VARIOUS ATTORNEYS AND THE ATTORNEYS ASKED IF I WAS WILLING TO TAKE IT, AND I SAID ABSOLUTELY. THAT SAID, IT WAS ALMOST AS ANXIETY PROVOKING AS AN AIRPLANE FLIGHT.>>OKAY. AND YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT YOUR RECOLLECTIONS AND SEEING MARK JUDGE AT THAT SAFEWAY. IF THERE HAD BEEN AN APPROPRIATE REOPENING OF THIS BACKGROUND CHECK AND FBI INTERVIEWS, WOULD THAT HELP YOU FIND THE TIME PERIOD IF YOU KNEW WHEN HE WORKED AT THAT SAFEWAY. >>I FEEL LIKE I COULD BE MUCH MORE HELPFUL IF I COULD BE PROVIDED WITH THAT DATE THROUGH EMPLOYMENT RECORDS OR THE IRS OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP. >>I WOULD ASSUME THAT’S TRUE. DR. FORD, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND I DON’T EXPECT YOU TO KNOW THIS, BUT STATEMENTS MADE TO MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MORE RELIABLE. THERE’S A FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THIS. YOU TOLD YOUR COUNSELOR ABOUT THIS BACK IN 2012, IS THAT RIGHT?>>MY THERAPIST, MY INDIVIDUAL THERAPIST, CORRECT.>>RIGHT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR HUSBAND WAS ALSO PRESENT WHEN YOU SPOKE ABOUT THIS INCIDENT IN FRONT OF A COUNSELOR, AND HE RECALLS YOU USING JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S NAME, IS THAT RIGHT?>>YES, I JUST HAVE TO SLOW DOWN A MINUTE. I MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONFUSING. THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE INCIDENTS WHERE IT’S REFLECTED IN MY MEDICAL RECORD. I HAD TALKED ABOUT IT MORE THAN THOSE TWO TIMES. BUT THERAPISTS DON’T TYPICALLY WRITE DOWN CONTENT AS MUCH AS THEY WRITE DOWN PROCESS. THEY USUALLY ARE TRACKING YOUR SYMPTOMS AND NOT YOUR STORY AND THE FACTS. I JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE IT IN MY RECORD TWICE. SO THE FIRST TIME IS IN 2012 WITH MY HUSBAND IN COUPLES THERAPY WITH QUIBBLING OVER THE REMODEL, AND THEN IN 2013 WITH MY INDIVIDUAL THERAPIST. >>OKAY. SO IF SOMEONE HAD ACTUALLY DONE THE INVESTIGATION, YOUR HUSBAND WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SAY YOU NAMED HIS NAME AT THAT TIME. >>CORRECT. >>OKAY. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH YOUR PRIVACY THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. AND YOU FIRST REQUESTED THAT YOUR ACCOUNT BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL, CAN YOU BRIEFLY TELL US WHY?>>YES. SO AS I STATED BEFORE, ONCE I WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN GETTING MY INFORMATION TO YOU BEFORE THE CANDIDATE WAS CHOSEN, MY ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO GET THE INFORMATION WHEN THERE WAS STILL A LIST OF OTHER CANDIDATES AVAILABLE. AND ONCE THAT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND I SAW THAT PERSONS WERE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE NOMINEE, I TRACKED IT ALL SUMMER, AND REALIZED THAT WHEN I WAS CALCULATING THAT RISK/BENEFIT RATIO THAT IT LOOKED LIKE I WAS GOING TO JUST, YOU KNOW, SUFFER ONLY FOR NO REASON. >>OKAY. YOU KNOW, FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH MEMORY, I REMEMBER DISTINCTLY THINGS THAT HAPPENED TO ME IN HIGH SCHOOL OR HAPPENED TO ME IN COLLEGE, BUT I DON’T EXACTLY REMEMBER THE DATE. I DON’T EXACTLY REMEMBER THE TIME. I SOMETIMES MAY NOT EVEN REMEMBER THE EXACT PLACE WHERE IT OCCURRED, BUT I REMEMBER THE INTERACTION. AND MANY PEOPLE ARE FOCUSSED TODAY ON WHAT YOU’RE NOT ABLE TO REMEMBER ABOUT THAT NIGHT. I ACTUALLY THINK YOU REMEMBER A LOT. I’M GOING TO PHRASE IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU DON’T FORGET ABOUT THAT NIGHT.>>THE STAIRWELL, THE LIVING ROOM, THE BEDROOM, THE BED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROOM, AS YOU WALK INTO THE ROOM. THERE WAS A BED TO THE RIGHT. THE BATHROOM IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. THE LAUGHTER, THE UPROARIOUS LAUGHTER, AND THE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO ESCAPE, AND THE FINAL ABILITY TO DO SO.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DR. FORD.>>DR. FORD, I WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD, BUT IT’S NOT SOMETHING THAT I’M SAYING THAT YOU STATED WRONGLY BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN’T THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR US TO GO TO CALIFORNIA AS A COMMITTEE OR INVESTIGATORS TO GO TO CALIFORNIA TO TALK TO YOU, WE DID IN FACT OFFER THAT TO YOU, AND WE HAD THE CAPABILITY OF DOING IT, AND WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ANYWHERE OR ANYTIME. SO. >>THANK YOU.>>AND MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD I PUT THE POLYGRAPH RESULTS ON THE RECORD, PLEASE. THE POLYGRAPH RESULTS IN THE RECORD. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION?>>LET US SEE THE CHART. >>THE POLYGRAPH, YOU WANT TO ALL SEE IT?>>CAN YOU HOLD JUST A MINUTE, PLEASE. >>I THINK YOU MAY HAVE IT.>>CAN WE HAVE THE UNDERLYING CHARTS, TOO. >>THE UNDERLYING CHARTS? I HAVE THE POLYGRAPH RESULTS THAT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PUT IN THE RECORD. I’LL DEAL WITH THE CHARTS AFTER THAT. COULD I PUT THE POLYGRAPH TEST IN THE RECORD?>>MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WERE GOING — WE HAD PROPOSED HAVING THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER TESTIFY, AS YOU KNOW, IF THAT HAD HAPPENED, THE FULL MATERIALS THAT HE HAD SUPPORTING HIS EXAMINATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. YOU REJECTED THAT REQUEST SO WHAT WE DID PROVIDE WAS THE POLYGRAPH REPORT, WHICH IS WHAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE CURRENTLY HAVE.>>AND ON SEPTEMBER 26th, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS WAS ACTUALLY SENT TO YOUR CHIEF COUNSEL, AND I JUST WANT TO SHARE IT WITH AMERICA SO THAT THEY HAVE THIS REPORT AS WELL.>>OKAY. WE WILL ACCEPT WITHOUT OBJECTION WHAT YOU INCLUDE BUT WE’RE ALSO REQUESTING AND EXPECT THE OTHER MATERIALS THAT I’VE JUST STATED.>>BUT MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU WOULDN’T ALLOW THE UNDERLYING WITNESS WHO PERFORMED THE POLYGRAPH TEST TO TESTIFY, NOR WOULD YOU ALLOW MARK JUDGE TO TESTIFY. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THIS REPORT IN THE RECORD. THAT IS THE REASON WE DON’T HAVE THE UNDERLYING INFORMATION FOR YOU. >>YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED. I THINK YOU WOULD BE SATISFIED. >>I AM SATISFIED WITH THAT, THANK YOU.>>SENATOR. >>GO AHEAD. >>WHEN WAS THE POLYGRAPH ADMINISTERED?>>IT WAS ADMINISTERED ON AUGUST 7th, 2018, AND IT WAS THE DATE OF THE REPORT IS AUGUST 10th, 2018. >>WHEN WAS IT PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE?>>LET’S JUST SEE IF WE CAN’T DO THIS IN A MORE ORDERLY WAY. >>HE WAS ASKING AND I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE, AND YOU HAVE IT AS WELL AS SEPTEMBER 26th. >>WE’VE ACCEPTED IT.>>MS. MITCHELL, FOR SENATOR CRUZ. >>THANK YOU. DR. FORD, WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THE DAY AND THE NIGHT THAT YOU’VE DESCRIBED IN THE SUMMER OF 1982, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO DO THAT. I KNOW IT’S DIFFICULT. I’D LIKE TO SHIFT GEARS AND DISCUSS THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.>>OKAY.>>IN YOUR STATEMENT YOU SAID THAT ON JULY 6th, YOU HAD A QUOTE, SENSE OF URGENCY TO RELAY THE INFORMATION TO THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT. DID YOU CONTACT EITHER THE SENATE OR THE PRESIDENT ON OR BEFORE JULY 6th?>>NO, I DID NOT. I DID NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.>>OKAY. PRIOR TO JULY 6th, HAD YOU SPOKEN TO ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND WHEN I SAY CONGRESS, I MEAN THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR ANY CONGRESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERS ABOUT YOUR ALLEGATIONS?>>NO.>>WHY DID YOU CONTACT “THE WASHINGTON POST,” THEN, ON JULY 6th?>>SO I WAS PANICKING BECAUSE I KNEW THE TIME LINE WAS SHORT FOR THE DECISION, AND PEOPLE WERE GIVING ME ADVICE ON THE BEACH, PEOPLE WHO DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE PROCESS. BUT THEY WERE GIVING ME ADVICE, AND MANY PEOPLE TOLD ME, YOU NEED TO HIRE A LAWYER, AND I DIDN’T DO THAT. I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHY I WOULD NEED A LAWYER. SOMEBODY SAID CALL “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” CALL “THE WASHINGTON POST.” PUT IN AN ANONYMOUS TIP. GO TO YOUR CONGRESSPERSON, AND WHEN I WEIGHED THOSE OPTIONS, I FELT LIKE THE BEST OPTION WAS TO TRY TO DO THE CIVIC ROUTE, WHICH IS TO GO TO MY CONGRESSPERSON WHO HAPPENS TO BE ANNA ESHU, SO I CALLED HER OFFICE AND I ALSO PUT IN THE ANONYMOUS TIP TO THE “WASHINGTON POST,” AND NEITHER — UNFORTUNATELY NEITHER GOT BACK TO ME BEFORE THE SELECTION OF THE NOMINEE.>>YOU TESTIFIED THAT CONGRESSWOMAN ESHU’S OFFICE CONTACTED YOU ON JULY 9th, IS THAT RIGHT?>>THEY CONTACTED ME THE DATE THAT THE NOMINEE WAS ANNOUNCED SO THAT SEEMS LIKELY. >>HAD YOU TALKED TO — ABOUT YOUR ALLEGATIONS WITH ANYONE IN HER OFFICE BEFORE THE DATE OF JULY 9th?>>I TOLD THE RECEPTIONIST ON THE PHONE.>>OKAY. ON JULY 10th, YOU TEXTED “THE WASHINGTON POST” AGAIN, WHICH WAS REALLY THE THIRD TIME, IS THAT RIGHT? SECOND DATE, THIRD TIME. >>LET’S SEE. CORRECT. >>AND YOU TEXTED BEEN ADVISED TO CONTACT SENATORS OR “NEW YORK TIMES,” HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM “WASHINGTON POST.” WHO ADVISED YOU TO CONTACT SENATORS OR “THE NEW YORK TIMES.” >>BEACH FRIENDS COMING UP WITH IDEAS OF HOW I COULD TRY TO GET TO PEOPLE BECAUSE PEOPLE WEREN’T RESPONDING TO ME VERY QUICKLY, SO VERY QUICKLY THEY RESPONDED TO THAT TEXT FOR WHAT UNKNOWN REASON. ONCE I SENT THAT ENCRYPTED TEXT, THEY RESPONDED VERY QUICKLY.>>DID YOU CONTACT “THE NEW YORK TIMES.” >>NO. >>WHY NOT?>>I WASN’T INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE MEDIA ROUTE, PARTICULARLY. SO I FELT LIKE ONE WAS ENOUGH, “THE WASHINGTON POST.” AND I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT DOING THAT. MY PERFORMANCE WAS TO TALK WITH MY CONGRESSPERSON. >>OKAY. “THE WASHINGTON POST” TEXTED BACK THAT SOMEONE WOULD GET IN TOUCH — GET YOU IN TOUCH WITH A REPORTER. DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY TALK TO A REPORTER WITH THE “WASHINGTON POST.” >>YES, UNDER THE ENCRYPTED APP. AND OFF THE RECORD.>>OKAY. WHO WAS THAT REPORTER?>>EMMA BROWN. >>OKAY. THE PERSON WHO ULTIMATELY WROTE THE STORY ON SEPTEMBER 16th?>>CORRECT.>>OKAY. DID YOU TALK TO ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, AND AGAIN, REMEMBER CONGRESS INCLUDES THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR ANY CONGRESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERS ABOUT YOUR ALLEGATIONS BETWEEN JULY 10th AND JULY 30th, WHICH WAS THE DATE OF YOUR LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN. >>YES, I MET WITH CONGRESSWOMAN ESHU’S STAFF, AND I THINK THAT’S JULY 18th, ON THE WEDNESDAY, AND THEN ON THE FRIDAY, I MET WITH THE CONGRESSWOMAN HERSELF.>>WHEN YOU MET WITH HER, DID YOU MEET WITH HER ALONE OR DID SOMEONE COME WITH YOU?>>I WAS ALONE. SHE HAD A STAFF PERSON.>>OKAY. WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT WITH CONGRESSWOMAN ESHOO AND HER STAFF ON JULY 18th AND THE 20th?>>I DESCRIBED THE NIGHT OF THE INCIDENT, AND WE SPENT TIME SPEAKING ABOUT THAT. AND I ASKED HER HOW TO, WHAT MY OPTIONS WERE IN TERMS OF GOING FORWARD AND HOW TO GET THAT INFORMATION RELAYED FORWARD, AND ALSO TALKED TO HER ABOUT FEARS OF WHETHER THIS WAS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, AND SHE DISCUSSED THE CONSTITUENT CONFIDENTIALITY PRINCIPLE.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT, WHY DIDN’T KAVANAUGH ACCUSER COME FORWARD EARLIER. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION. >>DR. FORD, I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU FOR COMING TO TESTIFY IN FRONT OF US TODAY. YOU CAME FORWARD WITH SERIOUS AND RELEVANT INFORMATION ABOUT A NOMINEE FOR A LIFETIME POSITION ON OUR SUPREME COURT. YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO, AND I KNOW YOU’VE DONE IT AT GREAT PERSONAL COST. THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I’M GRATEFUL TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM YOU DIRECTLY TODAY. I’D LIKE TO JUST FIRST FOLLOW UP ON THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING. MS. MITCHELL WAS FOLLOWING BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T REALIZE THAT YOU CHOSE TO COME FORWARD WITH YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH BEFORE HE WAS NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT. DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT WHEN YOU FIRST REACHED OUT TO CONGRESSWOMAN ESHOO AND TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” TIP LINE, THAT WAS WHEN HE WAS ON THE SHORT LIST BUT BEFORE HE WAS NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT, IS THAT RIGHT?>>CORRECT. >>AND IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR TESTIMONY EARLIER, IT’S THAT YOU WERE MOTIVATED BY A SENSE OF CIVIC DUTY AND FRANKLY A HOPE THAT SOME OTHER HIGHLY QUALIFIED NOMINEE MIGHT BE PICKED NOT OUT OF A MOTIVATION AT A LATE STAGE TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE FINAL DECISION?>>CORRECT. I FELT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO GET THE INFORMATION TO YOU, BUT I DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO DO IT WHILE THERE WAS STILL A SHORT LIST OF CANDIDATES.>>THANK YOU, DOCTOR.>>ACCORDING TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DATA, ABOUT 2/3 OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS DON’T REPORT THEIR ASSAULTS. BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, I’D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM YOU ABOUT THIS BECAUSE YOU BORE THIS ALONE. YOU BORE THIS ALONE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE WAYS THAT THAT’S IMPACTED YOUR WHOLE LIFE.>>WELL, IT’S IMPACTED ME AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MY LIFE, SO THE IMMEDIATE IMPACT WAS PROBABLY THE WORST, SO THE FIRST FOUR YEARS, I THINK I DESCRIBED EARLIER A FAIRLY DISASTROUS FIRST TWO YEARS OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES AT UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WHERE I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO PULL MYSELF TOGETHER, AND THEN ONCE COPING WITH THE IMMEDIATE IMPACTS, THE SHORT-TERM IMPACTS, I EXPERIENCED LIKE LONGER-TERM IMPACTS OF ANXIETY AND RELATIONSHIP CHALLENGES.>>THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. AND YET YOU WENT ONTO GET A Ph.D. FROM USC IS THAT CORRECT. >>CORRECT.>>AS YOU PREDICTED THERE WAS A WIDE RANGE OF RESPONSES TO YOUR COMING FORWARD. SOME THOUSANDS OF SURVIVORS HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED AND INSPIRED BY KRR COURAGE. OTHERS HAVE BEEN CRITICAL. AS I’VE REVIEWED THE WIDE RANGE OF REACTIONS, I’VE BEEN TROUBLED BY THE EXCUSE THAT THIS WAS A HIGH SCHOOL INCIDENT AND BOYS WILL BE BOYS. TO ME THAT’S JUST FAR TOO LOW A STANDARD FOR THE CONDUCT OF BOYS AND MEN IN OUR COUNTRY. IF YOU WOULD, I’D APPRECIATE YOUR REACTION TO THE EXCUSE THAT BOYS WILL BE BOYS.>>I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR HOW IT HAS IMPACTED ME GREATLY FOR THE LAST 36 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH I WAS 15 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE YOUNGER YOU ARE WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN, IT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE WORSE IMPACT THAN WHEN YOU’RE A FULL — WHEN YOUR BRAIN IS FULLY DEVELOPED AND YOU HAVE BETTER COPING SKILLS THAT YOU HAVE DEVELOPED.>>YOU KNOW, EXPERTS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT HOW IT’S COMMON FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS TO REMEMBER SOME FACTS ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE VERY SHARPLY AND VERY CLEARLY, BUT NOT OTHERS AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH A SURVIVAL MODE THAT WE GO INTO IN EXPERIENCING TRAUMA. IS THAT ARE YOUR EXPERIENCE, AND IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN HELP THE LAYPERSON UNDERSTAND?>>YES, I WAS DEFINITELY EXPERIENCING THE FIGHT OR FLIGHT MODE, IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO? I WAS DEFINITELY EXPERIENCING THE SURGE OF ADEN LIN AND CORTISOL AND NOR EPINEPHRINE AND CREDIT THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR MY ABILITY TO GET OUT OF THE SITUATION, AND ALSO SOME OTHER LUCKY EVENTS THAT OCCURRED THAT ALLOWED ME TO GET OUT OF THE EVENT. >>DR. FORD, WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT YOU CAME THROUGH IT, THAT YOU SHARED YOUR ACCOUNT WITH US AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND I THINK YOU HAVE PROVIDED IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR MEETING YOUR CIVIC DUTY. I WISH WE COULD HAVE PROVIDED FOR YOU A MORE THOROUGH HEARING TODAY. I THINK ASKING FOR THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THIS MATTER THOROUGHLY WAS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH. I THINK ASKING TO HAVE THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED IN YOUR ASSAULT, MARK JUDGE, APPEAR BEFORE US TODAY WAS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH. I’M GRATEFUL YOU CAME FORWARD AND I’M THANKFUL FOR YOUR COURAGE WHICH SET AN IMPORTANT EXAMPLE. THANK YOU, DR. FORD. >>MS. MITCHELL FOR SENATOR SASS. >>DR. FORD, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT YOU MEETING IN JULY WITH CONGRESSWOMAN ESHOO, DID YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR ALLEGATIONS WITH ANY REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR CONGRESSIONAL STAFF?>>I DID NOT. WHERE I LIVE, THE CONGRESSWOMAN IS A DEMOCRAT. >>OKAY. WAS IT COMMUNICATED TO YOU BY YOUR COUNSEL OR SOMEONE ELSE THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD ASKED TO INTERVIEW YOU AND THAT THEY OFFERED TO COME OUT TO CALIFORNIA TO DO SO?>>WE’RE GOING TO OBJECT, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO ANY CALL FOR PRIVILEGED CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN COUNSEL AND DR. FORD.>>COULD YOU VALIDATE THE FACT THAT THE OFFER WAS MADE WITHOUT HER SAYING A WORD?>>IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THAT QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED WITHOUT VIOLATING ANY COUNSEL RELATIONSHIPS?>>CAN I SAY SOMETHING TO YOU, DO I MIND IF I SAY SOMETHING TO YOU DIRECTLY? I JUST APPRECIATE THAT YOU DID OFFER THAT. I WASN’T CLEAR ON WHAT THE OFFER WAS IF YOU WERE GOING TO COME OUT TO SEE ME, I WOULD HAVE HAPPILY HOSTED YOU, AND BEEN HAPPY TO SPEAK WITH YOU OUT THERE. IT WASN’T CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT WAS THE CASE. >>DOES THAT TAKE CARE OF YOUR QUESTION. >>YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>PROCEED THEN.>>BEFORE JULY 30th, THE DATE ON YOUR LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN. HAD YOU RETAINED COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO THESE ALLEGATIONS?>>NO, I DIDN’T THINK — I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHY I WOULD NEED LAWYERS, ACTUALLY. I JUST DIDN’T KNOW. >>A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE THAT FEELING. LET’S TALK ABOUT THE LETTER THAT YOU WROTE ON JULY 30th. YOU ASKED SENATOR FEINSTEIN TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY, QUOTE, UNTIL. >>WAIT UNTIL SHE RETRIEVES IT.>>OH, I’M SORRY. >>STOP THE CLOCK, WILL YOU.>>IN THERE SOME PLACE. HERE IT IS. >>OH, I FOUND IT. SORRY.>>OKAY. YOU ASKED SENATOR FEINSTEIN TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY UNTIL WE HAVE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, AND YOU WERE VACATIONING IN THE MID ATLANTIC UNTIL AUGUST 7th, IS THAT CORRECT?>>THE LAST LINE, I’M JUST CATCHING UP WITH YOU. I’M AVAILABLE TO SPEAK FURTHER. I WAS IN DELAWARE UNTIL AUGUST 7th. AND AFTER THAT I WENT TO NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THEN BACK TO CALIFORNIA.>>DID YOU TALK WITH ANYBODY ABOUT THIS LETTER BEFORE YOU SENT IT?>>I TALKED WITH ANNA ESHO O’s OFFICE.>>OKAY. THEN WHY DID YOU TALK TO CARDIOLOGY — CONGRESSWOMAN ESHO O’s OFFICE. >>BECAUSE THEY WERE WILLING TO HAND DELIVER IT TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN. >>DID ANYONE HELP YOU WRITE THE LETTER?>>NO.>>OKAY. AFTER YOU SENT YOUR LETTER, DID YOU OR ANYONE ON YOUR BEHALF SPEAK TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN PERSONALLY OR WITH ANY SENATE STAFFER?>>YES. >>OKAY.>>I HAD A PHONE CALL WITH SENATOR FEINSTEIN. >>OKAY. AND WHEN WAS THAT?>>THAT WAS WHILE I WAS STILL IN DELAWARE, SO BEFORE AUGUST 7th.>>OKAY. AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH SENATOR FEINSTEIN?>>ONCE.>>OKAY. WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT?>>SHE ASKED ME SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INCIDENT, AND I ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS.>>OKAY. WAS THAT THE EXTENT OF THE — GIST OF THE CONVERSATION. >>YES, IT WAS A FAIRLY BRIEF PHONE CALL.>>OKAY. DID YOU EVER GIVE SENATOR FEINSTEIN OR ANYONE ELSE THE PERMISSION TO RELEASE THAT LETTER?>>NOT THAT I KNOW OF, NO. >>OKAY. BETWEEN THE LETTER DATE, JULY 30th, AND AUGUST THE 7th, DID YOU SPEAK WITH ANY OTHER PERSON ABOUT YOUR ALLEGATIONS?>>COULD YOU SAY THE DATES AGAIN. >>BETWEEN THE LETTER DATE OF JULY 30th, AND AUGUST 7th, SO WHILE YOU WERE STILL IN DELAWARE, DID YOU SPEAK WITH ANY OTHER PERSON ABOUT YOUR ALLEGATIONS?>>I’M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT DATES.>>YOU’RE ASKING HER — >>WITH LAWYERS SHE WOULD HAVE SPOKEN WITH, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>I THINK CORRECT THEN. I WAS INTERVIEWING LAWYERS. I WAS NOT SPEAKING PERSONALLY ABOUT IT. >>ASIDE FROM LAWYERS THAT YOU WERE SEEKING TO POSSIBLY HIRE TO REPRESENT YOU, DID YOU SPEAK TO ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT IT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. >>NO.>>OKAY.>>I WAS STAYING WITH MY PARENTS AT THE TIME. >>DID YOU TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT?>>DEFINITELY NOT.>>OKAY. SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU RETAINED COUNSEL DURING THAT TIME PERIOD OF JULY 30th TO AUGUST 7th?>>I CAN’T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT WAS — I WAS INTERVIEWING LAWYERS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME SITTING IN THE CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY AND IN THE WALGREENS PARKING LOT IN DELAWARE AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE WHOLE SYSTEM WORKS INTERVIEWING LAWYERS AND HOW TO PICK ONE, ET CETERA.>>YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT YOU HAD — YOU DIDN’T SEE THE NEED FOR LAWYERS, AND NOW YOU’RE TRYING TO HIRE THEM. WHAT MADE YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND?>>IT SEEMED LIKE MOST OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT I HAD TOLD, WHICH THE TOTAL NUMBER WAS NOT VERY HIGH, BUT THOSE PERSONS ADVISED ME TO AT THIS POINT GET A LAWYER FOR ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER TO PUSH FORWARD OR TO STAY BACK. >>DID THAT INCLUDE CONGRESSWOMAN ESHOO, AND SENATOR FEINSTEIN IN. >>NO.>>OKAY.>>I WANT TO THANK DR. FORD FOR WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE HAD SAID WE’D COME TO CALIFORNIA. SENATOR BLUMENTHAL.>>THANKS MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO JOIN IN THANKING YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY, AND JUST TELL YOU I HAVE FOUND YOUR TESTIMONY POWERFUL AND CREDIBLE, AND I BELIEVE YOU. YOU’RE A TEACHER, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>WELL, YOU HAVE GIVEN AMERICA AN AMAZING TEACHING MOMENT, AND YOU MAY HAVE OTHER MOMENTS IN THE CLASSROOM, BUT YOU HAVE INSPIRED AND YOU HAVE ENLIGHTENED AMERICA. YOU HAVE INSPIRED AND GIVEN COURAGE TO WOMEN TO COME FORWARD AS THEY HAVE DONE TO EVERY ONE OF OUR OFFICES AND MANY OTHER PUBLIC PLACES. YOU HAVE INSPIRED AND YOU HAVE ENLIGHTENED MEN IN AMERICA TO LISTEN RESPECTFULLY TO WOMEN SURVIVORS AND MEN WHO HAVE SURVIVED SEXUAL ATTACK. AND THAT IS A PROFOUND PUBLIC SERVICE REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS NOMINATION. AND SO THE TEACHERS OF AMERICA AND PEOPLE OF AMERICA SHOULD BE REALLY PROUD OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. LET ME TELL YOU WHY I BELIEVE YOU, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE POLYGRAPH TEST AND YOUR REQUEST FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION AND YOUR URGING THAT THIS COMMITTEE HEAR FROM OTHER WITNESSES WHO COULD CORROBORATE OR DISPUTE YOUR STORY BUT ALSO YOU HAVE BEEN VERY HONEST ABOUT WHAT YOU CANNOT REMEMBER, AND SOMEONE COMPOSING A STORY CAN MAKE IT ALL COME TOGETHER IN A SEAMLESS WAY, BUT SOMEONE WHO IS HONEST, I SPEAK FROM MY EXPERIENCE AS A PROSECUTOR AS WELL, IS ALSO CANDID ABOUT WHAT SHE OR HE CANNOT REMEMBER. THE SENATORS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE BEEN SILENT. THIS PROCEDURE IS UNPRECEDENTED IN A CONFIRMATION HEARING. BUT I WANT TO QUOTE ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM IN A BOOK THAT HE WROTE IN 2015 WHEN HE WAS DESCRIBING HIS OWN SERVICE AND VERY DISTINGUISHED NAVAL SERVICE AS A TRAVELER. I’M NOT UNDER OATH. HE SAID QUOTE, OF HIS PROSECUTIONS OF RAPE CASES, I LEARNED HOW MUCH UNEXPECTED COURAGE FROM A DEEP AND HIDDEN PLACE IT TAKES FOR A RAPE VICTIM OR SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILD TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEIR ASSAILANT. I LEARNED HOW MUCH COURAGE FROM A DEEP AND HIDDEN PLACE IT TAKES FOR A RAPE VICTIM OR SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILD TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEIR ASSAILANT. IF WE AGREE ON NOTHING ELSE TODAY, I HOPE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS WE CAN AGREE ON HOW MUCH COURAGE IT HAS TAKEN FOR YOU TO COME FORWARD, AND I THINK YOU HAVE EARNED AMERICA’S GRATITUDE. NOW, THERE’S BEEN SOME TALK ABOUT YOUR REQUESTING AN FBI INVESTIGATION, AND YOU MENTIONED A POINT JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT YOU COULD BETTER ESTIMATE THE TIME THAT YOU RAN INTO MARK JUDGE, IF YOU KNEW THE TIME THAT HE WAS WORKING AT THAT SUPERMARKET. THAT’S A FACT THAT COULD BE UNCOVERED BY AN FBI INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD HELP FURTHER ELUCIDATE YOUR ACCOUNT. WOULD YOU LIKE MARK JUDGE TO BE INTERVIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND THE SERIOUS CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU’VE MADE?>>THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. I’M NOT SURE IT’S REALLY UP TO ME, BUT I CERTAINLY WOULD FEEL LIKE I COULD BE MORE HELPFUL TO EVERYONE IF I KNEW THE DATE THAT HE WORKED AT THE SAFEWAY SO I COULD GIVE A MORE SPECIFIC DATE OF THE ASSAULT. >>WELL, IT’S NOT UP TO YOU. IT’S UP TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND HIS FAILURE TO ASK FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION, IN MY VIEW, IS TANTAMOUNT TO A COVERUP. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>MS. MITCHELL FOR SENATOR FLAKE. >>THANK YOU. AND WE’VE HEARD THIS MORNING SEVERAL TIMES THAT YOU DID TAKE A POLYGRAPH AND THAT WAS ON AUGUST THE 7th, IS THAT RIGHT?>>I BELIEVE SO. IT WAS THE DAY I WAS FLYING FROM BWI TO MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.>>OKAY. WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH?>>I DIDN’T SEE ANY REASON NOT TO DO IT.>>WERE YOU ADVISED TO DO THAT?>>AGAIN, YOU’RE SEEMING TO CALL FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN COUNSEL AND CLIENT. I DON’T THINK YOU MEAN TO DO THAT. IF YOU DO, SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT.>>COUNSEL, COULD YOU LET HER ANSWER THE EXTENT TO WHICH SHE DOESN’T VIOLATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND DR. FORD?>>BASED ON THE ADVICE OF THE COUNSEL I WAS HAPPY TO UNDERGO THE POLYGRAPH TEST, ALTHOUGH I FOUND IT EXTREMELY STRESSFUL. MUCH LONGER THAN I ANTICIPATED. I TOLD MY WHOLE LIFE STORY, I FELT LIKE, BUT I ENDURED IT. IT WAS FINE.>>I UNDERSTAND THEY CAN BE THAT WAY. HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN ANY OTHER POLYGRAPHS IN YOUR LIFE?>>NEVER.>>OKAY. YOU WENT TO SEE A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF JEREMIAH HANNIPHAN TO SERVE AS THE POLYGRAPHER, DID ANYONE ADVISE YOU ON THAT CHOICE?>>YES, I BELIEVE HIS NAME WAS JERRY.>>JERRY HANIPHAN.>>YES. >>DID ANYONE ADVISE YOU ON THAT CHOICE?>>I DIDN’T CHOOSE HIM MYSELF. HE WAS THE PERSON THAT CAME TO DO THE POLYGRAPH TEST.>>OKAY. HE ACTUALLY CONDUCTED THE POLYGRAPH NOT IN HIS OFFICE IN VIRGINIA BUT ACTUALLY AT THE HOTEL NEXT TO BALTIMORE WASHINGTON AIRPORT, IS THAT RIGHT?>>CORRECT.>>WHY WAS THAT LOCATION CHOSEN FOR THE POLYGRAPH?>>I HAD LEFT MY GRANDMOTHER’S FUNERAL AT FORT LINCOLN CEMETERY THAT DAY, AND WAS ON A TIGHT SCHEDULE TO GET A PLANE TO MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, SO HE WAS WILLING TO COME TO ME, WHICH WAS APPRECIATED. >>SO HE ADMINISTERED A POLYGRAPH ON THE DAY THAT YOU ATTENDED YOUR GRANDMOTHER’S FUNERAL. >>CORRECT. OR IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE NEXT DAY. I SPENT THE NIGHT IN THE HOTEL, SO I DON’T REMEMBER THE EXACT DAY. >>HAVE YOU EVER HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE BESIDES YOUR ATTORNEYS ON HOW TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH?>>NEVER.>>AND I DON’T JUST MEAN COUNTER MEASURES, BUT I MEAN JUST ANY SORT OF TIPS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?>>NO. I WAS SCARED OF THE TEST ITSELF, BUT IT WAS COMFORTABLE THAT I COULD TELL THE INFORMATION AND THE TEST WOULD REVEAL WHATEVER IT WAS GOING TO REVEAL. I DIDN’T EXPECT IT TO BE AS LONG AS IT WAS GOING TO BE, SO IT WAS A LITTLE BIT STRESSFUL. >>HAVE YOU EVER GIVEN TIPS OR ADVICE TO SOMEBODY WHO WAS LOOKING TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH TEST?>>NEVER.>>OKAY. DID YOU PAY FOR THE POLYGRAPH YOURSELF?>>I DON’T — I DON’T THINK SO.>>OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHO DID PAY FOR THE POLYGRAPH?>>NOT YET, NO.>>YOU HAVE THE HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT THAT YOU WROTE OUT, DID ANYONE ASSIST YOU IN WRITING THAT STATEMENT?>>NO, BUT YOU CAN TELL HOW ANXIOUS I WAS BY THE TERRIBLE HANDWRITING.>>DID YOU — WE TOUCHED ON IT EARLIER, DID YOU KNOW THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED THE — NOT ONLY THE CHARTS FROM THE POLYGRAPH TEST BUT ALSO ANY AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDING OF THE POLYGRAPH TEST?>>NO.>>OKAY. WERE YOU AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDED WHEN YOU WERE TAKING THAT TEST?>>OKAY. SO I REMEMBER BEING HOOKED UP TO A MACHINE LIKE BEING PLACED ONTO MY BODY, AND BEING ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND CRYING A LOT. THAT’S MY PRIMARY MEMORY OF THAT TEST. I DON’T KNOW. I KNOW HE TOOK LABORIOUS DETAIL EXPLAINING WHAT HE WAS GOING TO BE DOING BUT I WAS JUST FOCUSSED ON KIND OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY AND MY FEAR ABOUT THAT. I WASN’T LISTENING TO EVERY DETAIL ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDED. >>WELL, YOU WERE IN A HOTEL ROOM, RIGHT?>>CORRECT.>>REGULAR HOTEL ROOM WITH A BED AND BATHROOM. >>NO, NO, NO. IT WAS A CONFERENCE ROOM, SO I WAS SITTING AT A CHAIR AND HE WAS BEHIND ME. >>DID YOU NOTE ANY CAMERAS IN THE ROOM?>>WELL, HE HAD A COMPUTER SET UP, SO I GUESS I ASSUMED THAT HE WAS SOMEHOW TAPING AND RECORDING ME.>>SO YOU ASSUMED YOU WERE BEING VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDED. >>CORRECT.>>BUT YOU DON’T KNOW FOR SURE. >>I DON’T KNOW FOR SURE. >>OKAY. THANK YOU.>>WE’RE GOING TO RECESS NOW FOR A HALF HOUR FOR LUNCH. THANK YOU, DR. FORD.>>I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO KEEP GOING UNTIL THE END.>>WELL, WE ARE MORE THAN HALFWAY THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DR. FORD BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND WE’RE BEGINNING TO SEE SOME FLOW NOW HERE, THE WAY DEMOCRATS ARE GETTING THEIR FIVE MINUTES AND REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO DEFER TO RACHEL MITCHELL WHO IS A ARIZONA PROSECUTOR WHO HAS BEEN HIRED BY THE REPUBLICANS TO DO THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING. SAVANNAH?>>I THINK RACHEL MITCHELL HAS SCORED SOME POINTS HERE AND THERE, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY ON CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD SAYING, I GUESS, TELLING THE XI SHE DIDN’T WANT TO COME TESTIMONY SOONER BECAUSE SHE WAS AFRAID TO FLY, AND RACHEL MITCHELL WANTED TO MAKE A POINT, SHE POSSIBLY SCORED A POINT THERE. UNCLEAR WHAT IT ADDS UP TO, BUT IT FEELS TO ME LIKE SHE’S MAKING — TAKING TINY LITTLE NICKS BUT WHETHER IT ADDS UP TO SOMETHING THAT TOTALLY UNDERCUTS THE STORY OR NARRATIVE, WE HAVEN’T HEARD HER GO HARD AFTER THAT IN TERMS OF WHY IS THERE NO CORROBORATION, WHY ISN’T ANYONE CONFIRMING YOUR VIEW OF EVENTS. >>I THINK SHE’S DONE A GREAT JOB OF EXPOSING THE DEMOCRATS PLAYING GAMES. AND IN THAT SENSE, AND IN SOME WAYS, THERE’S PART OF ME THAT THINKS, BOY, IF THIS DOES GO AS SOUTH AS SOME REPUBLICANS AND YOU SEE PEOPLE PANICKING IN SOME CORNERS RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT SHE’S MADE A BETTER CASE EXPLAINING HOW THE DEMOCRATS SAT ON THIS, HOW THEY DIDN’T SEEM — THEY SEEMED TO ALMOST, IT’S ALMOST AS IF DR. FORD WAS A VICTIM OF THE DEMOCRATS PLAYING POLITICS, BUT WHAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE IS REALLY UNDERCUT HER STORY.>>BUT SHE’S — I THINK SHE’S GONE FOR DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS. IT’S NICKING AWAY AT HER CREDIBILITY. THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THE REPUBLICANS WILL BE THERE’S BEEN NO NEW INFORMATION OFFERED BY DR. FORD. THERE’S BEEN NO NEW CORROBORATION. NO NEW FACTS. NO CORROBORATION WITNESS, THE MENTION OF THE ONE GIRL, WHO DR. FORD CLAIMS WAS WITH HER AT THE PARTY, LELAND KAISER SAYS SHE DOESN’T KNOW BRETT KAVANAUGH, HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF BEING AT A PARTY WITH HIM WITH OR WITHOUT DR. FORD, AND NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN REBUTTED. THIS PROSECUTOR SITS DOWN ACROSS FROM DR. FORD AND IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHAT, YOU DON’T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE THERE. YOU DON’T KNOW HOW YOU GOT HOME. YOU’RE NOT ENTIRELY SURE HOW OLD YOU WERE. YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER YOU GAVE YOUR PSYCHIATRIC NOTES TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” OR NOT. THEN SHE GOES FOR SORT OF YOU’VE MISLED US. YOU SAID YOU WERE TOO AFRAID TO FLY, BUT YOU’VE FLOWN FOR PLEASURE, YOU’VE FLOWN HERE, AND THERE, HOW DO WE BELIEVE YOU. AND GETS TO WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO BEFORE IS THE EGG SHELL PLAINTIFF ARGUMENT IS THAT DOESN’T WORK IN THE LAW. IF I HIT YOU IN THE HEAD AND YOU HAVE AN EGG SHELL HEAD, IT’S MY FAULT. I’M STILL GOING TO GET SUED AND PAY YOU OUT. IF THIS SETTING, IF THEY CAN PROVE TO THE SENATORS, CHRISTINE FORD, SHE SUFFERED FROM ANXIETY, SHE ADMITTED SHE WAS PREDISPOSED TO IT, SHE TOOK A SITUATION THAT MAYBE WASN’T THAT TRAUMATIC AND SHE BLEW IT UP, AND IT WAS A NORMAL HIGH SCHOOL EXCHANGE THAT SHE INVENTED OR INFLATED. >>YOU HAVE JUST PAINTED A MORE DEVASTATING PORTRAIT AND INDICTMENT AND A TAKE DOWN THAN ANYTHING THAT’S HAPPENING IN THIS HEARING. >>THAT’S WHAT I SEE HER GOING FOR. >>WHEN HE’S MAKING THAT CLOSING ARGUMENT, YOU COULD MAKE THAT CLOSING ARGUMENT, BUT SHE’S NOT, AND IF IT’S DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS MAYBE SHE’S AT FOUR OR FIVE CUTS. SHE NEEDS MORE. >>AGAIN, I GO BACK TO SHE’S BEEN MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AT INDICTING THE DEMOCRATS FOR LOOKING LIKE THEY PLAYED GAMES. >>BUT SHE POINTED OUT SHE FIRST BEGAN TO RAISE THIS BEFORE HE WAS OFFICIALLY NOMINATED. >>I THINK DR. FORD, IT IS I THINK VERY HARD TO SOMEHOW CLAIM SHE DOESN’T — TO SOMEHOW CLAIM SHE’S LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HER. SHE BELIEVES THIS HAPPENED TO HER, AND I DON’T THINK THEY’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO UNDERCUT THAT. THE BEST THEY CAN COME UP WITH IS MAYBE YOU OVER REMEMBER OR MAYBE YOU WERE MORE TRAUMATIC ABOUT IT. I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANYTHING TO SORT OF PERMANENTLY, SOMEHOW SHE’S MAKING THIS UP. >>AND THEN YOU PARTNERED WITH DEMOCRATS, WITH PARTISAN OPERATIVES AND MISLED THE COMMITTEE. >>LINDSEY GRAHAM IS WALKING ALONG. LET’S HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. >>I’VE REPRESENTED PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF THINGS THEY DIDN’T DO, AND THAT’S WHY I’M LISTENING, AND I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT ALL THE STUFF LEADING UP TO I’M REALLY VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE WAY OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WITHHELD THIS INFORMATION. I’M VERY SUSPICIOUS OF HOW THIS CAME OUT. ALL THE MEDIA CONTACTS, HIRING A LAWYER AND TAKING A POLYGRAPH MAKES ME MORE SUSPICIOUS, THIS WAS MEANT TO BE ANONYMOUS, SO THAT’S THE ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN DIFFERENT. >>DO YOU BELIEVE HER?>>I WANT TO HEAR WHAT HE’S GOT TO SAY. I DON’T BELIEVE THAT IT’S CREDIBLE THAT SHE DIDN’T KNOW WE OFFERED TO COME. I STILL WANT TO — I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING I DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE. SHE CAN’T SAY HOW SHE GOT THERE AND HOW SHE LEFT, AND I’M WANTING TO HEAR MORE DETAIL, AND I’VE GOT TO DECIDE I THINK LIKE ANYBODY IN ANY LEGAL SETTING WOULD, IS THERE ANY CORROBORATION TO THE ALLEGATION. THERE ARE PEOPLE WE KNOW THAT WERE THERE, WHAT DO THEY SAY, AND FILL IN THE GAPS, AND DO THE BEST YOU CAN. SHE SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THIS WOMAN, AND THE QUESTION FOR ME IS THAT I’VE GOT A MAN WHO’S LIVED I THINK AN INCREDIBLY PRODUCTIVE LIFE, ADAMANTLY DENYING IT, AND A LOT OF THE DETAILS, I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU FILL THEM IN. I DON’T KNOW HOW SHE GOT THERE. I DON’T KNOW HOW SHE LEFT, BUT SOMEBODY BROUGHT HER AND SOMEBODY TOOK HER AWAY, AND IF THE TRAUMA DID HAPPEN ON THAT DAY AND THAT PLACE, THAT’S AN IMPORTANT EVENT FOR ME.>>OKAY.>>THAT WAS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, NOW SENATOR LEAHY, DEMOCRAT ON THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. LET’S LISTEN. >>SHE’S VERY PROFESSIONAL. YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHY DON’T THEY ASK THEIR OWN QUESTIONS. >>WHY DO YOU THINK?>>I THINK THAT THEY LOOK MUTED. THEY’RE SITTING THERE, THEY LOOK LIKE THEY WANT TO RESPOND BUT THEY MADE A DECISION TO NOT REALLY DO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY AND PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING. THAT’S THEIR CHOICE. BUT WHAT I THINK THE BIG LESSON THAT CAME OUT OF THIS IS THAT THIS WOMAN IS EXTRAORDINARY. SHE’S CALM. SHE’S HONEST. AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE SEEING TODAY. >>WHAT ARE YOU HOPING TO HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH. >>I THINK SHE’S JUST DOING THE JOB SHE WAS GIVEN. SHE’S DOING THE JOB THEY ASKED HER TO DO. >>WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH. >>SENATOR LEAHY, SENATOR KLOBUCHAR SPEAKING TO REPORTERS IN THE HALLWAY. I THINK WE HAVE SENATOR COONS IN A DIFFERENT HALLWAY. LET’S LISTEN TO THAT. >>I THINK IT HELPS REDUCE THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE TWO COMPETING PARTIES SORT OF FIGHTING EACH OTHER THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE SENATORS AND ELEVATES THE SENSE THAT WHAT WE’RE HERE TO DO IS TO LISTEN TO DR. FORD SO I’M ENCOURAGED THAT AT LEAST THIS MORNING’S SESSION HAS BEEN RESPECTFUL, DELIBERATE, MEASURED MORE THAN NONE. I CAME THIS MORNING WITH REALLY GREAT TREPIDATION, CONCERN THAT WHAT WE WOULD SEE WAS THE PROSECUTION OF DR. FORD. THAT’S NOT WHAT WE HAVE SEEN. WE’VE SEEN MORE THAN NOT MEASURED QUESTIONS AND HER ANSWERING THEM IN A VERY CONCISE, FORTHRIGHT WAY. >>HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE REPUBLICAN — >>CASEY?>>I DON’T KNOW ANY MORE THAN I KNOW BEFORE. I DO KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN AT THE PARTY SAID NOTHING HAPPENED. I DON’T KNOW HOW SHE GOT HOME. AND I DON’T KNOW HOW SHE GOT THERE. I THINK SOMETHING HAPPENED TO DR. FORD, AND I’M GOING TO LISTEN TO BRETT KAVANAUGH WHO ADAMANTLY DENIES IT. I’M MORE UPSET THAN EVER BY THE WAY MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES HAVE HANDLED THIS. THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS IN JULY. THERE’S A POLYGRAPH AUGUST 10th. WE OFFERED TO GO OUT THERE. SHE SAID SHE COULDN’T COME HERE BECAUSE OF FEAR OF FLYING. NONE OF THAT IS HOLDING WATER. WE’LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.>>SENATOR, IF YOU BELIEVE HER, HOW COULD YOU VOTE YES, IF YOU BELIEVE HER, SENATOR?>>KASIE HUNT THERE WITH SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, AND SENATOR KLOBUCHAR AT ANOTHER MICROPHONEMENT THIS IS CAPITOL HILL, FOLKS, LET’S LISTEN. >>SO FAR THIS MORNING THAT CHANGES WHAT YOU WANT TO ASK OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH LATER TODAY?>>I DON’T THINK SO. SHE HAS BEEN VERY SOLID. I THINK TIME AND TIME AGAIN, MOST OF AMERICA MUST BE FRUSTRATED THAT WE DON’T HAVE THAT FBI BACKGROUND CHECK REOPENED. SHE SAID SHE COULD BETTER RECALL THE TIME PERIOD IF SHE KNEW WHEN MARK JUDGE WORKED AT THE SAFEWAY, AND HE’S HIDING OUT AT A BEACH HOUSE IN DELAWARE, AND SHE’S SIMPLY TRYING TO GET THAT INFORMATION, AND THE FBI COULD OPEN THAT UP AND EITHER THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ASKING THE PRESIDENT TO OPEN IT UP. THAT HASN’T HAPPENED. AND I THOUGHT THE OTHER INTERESTING THING WAS THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE SOME INITIAL OBJECTION TO EVEN PUTTING THE POLYGRAPH TEST IN WHEN THAT IS USED ALL THE TIME BY THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, BY THE FBI, BY THE CIA, FOR JOB INTERVIEWS AND THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW FOR THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, AND WE’RE SIMPLY TRYING TO PUT IN SOME RECORDS THAT SHOW HER TRUTHFULNESS. >>WHAT WAS HER POINT OF THOSE MAPS. >>I DON’T KNOW. I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TO FIND OUT. SHE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION HONESTLY. >>WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE OVERALL MOVEMENT? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR OTHER VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT WHEN SHE TESTIFIES LIKE THIS?>>AS I SAID, FOR SO LONG, THESE KINDS OF CASES JUST SWEPT UNDER THE RUG, AND THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN A HOUSE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE IN A COURTHOUSE, WELL, THAT’S DIFFERENT TODAY. THEY ARE IN THE COURTHOUSE OF AMERICA. AND THEY WILL MAKE A DECISION. THEY WILL HELP, I HOPE, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE CAN MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHO’S GOING TO SERVE IN THE HIGHEST COURTHOUSE OF THE LAND. ONE LAST THING. >>WHAT DO YOU THINK OF RACHEL MITCHELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK SHE’S DRIVING AT?>>WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO RUSH THROUGH.>>THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.>>SHE’S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.>>DO YOU FIND IT CHOPPY GOING FROM FIVE MINUTES OF HER TO FIVE MINUTES ON YOUR SIDE. >>THIS IS NOT A TRIAL. THIS IS A BASICALLY A JOB INTERVIEW OF BRETT KAVANAUGH FOR THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND I WOULD HOPE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA WOULD SEE THAT WE’RE BEING PROFESSIONAL. WE’RE NOT PONTIFICATING UP THERE AND USING ALL OUR TIME TO GIVE SOME SPEECH. WE’RE ASKING HER STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTIONS. THAT’S IT.>>THANK YOU, SENATOR.>>SENATOR KLOBUCHAR, OFFERING SOME OF THE DEMOCRATIC PERSPECTIVE. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PANEL AND DISCUSS ABOUT WHAT LINDSEY GRAHAM WAS HITTING UPON, TWO THINGS, IS THAT ISSUE OF THE GAPS IN HER MEMORY ABOUT HOW SHE GOT HOME BUT ALSO THIS PUTTING ON DEMOCRATS AND THAT’S WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. >>THE QUESTION IS THIS, RIGHT, IF IT’S ABOUT TRYING TO GET THE REPUBLICANS AND TO GET THE 50 OF THE 51, I THINK THEY’RE GOING TO LOSE ONE, LISA MURKOWSKI SEEMS TO BE THE ONE MOST LIKELY TO VOTE NO NO MATTER WHAT. THEN YOU PLAY THIS, THEN MAYBE THEY CAN MAKE THIS CASE, AND YOU ALMOST CAN HEAR LINDSEY GRAHAM TRYING TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT TO THE WAVERING REPUBLICANS, LOOK, YOU DON’T KNOW FOR SURE THAT IT WAS BRETT KAVANAUGH. NO DOUBT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO DR. FORD, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW THIS. DEMOCRATS ARE PLAYING GAMES HERE. YOU KNOW, THAT’S — YOU CAN SEE HOW BEHIND THE SCENES, HOW LINDSEY GRAHAM IS GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THE CASE TO JEFF FLAKE, TO BEN SASSE, WHOEVER MAY BE WAVERING BECAUSE OF THIS. YOU SEE WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO. THE QUESTION IS, THOUGH, IF YOU PLAY TOO MANY POLITICAL GAMES, DO YOU SORT OF OFFEND PEOPLE WHO DO LOOK AT DR. FORD AS A VICTIM.>>HE’S ALSO ATTACKING HER CREDIBILITY ON THIS ISSUE. >>A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE HE WAS MORE ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE LAWYERS AND OF THE DEMOCRATS. >>HE DIDN’T GO FOR THE JUGULAR THERE AS HE COULD HAVE. TO BE SAYING, LOOK, SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THIS WOMAN, GOD BLESS, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HER, BUT LOTS OF STUFF DOESN’T ADD UP. NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES, DOESN’T KNOW HOW SHE GOT HERE, AND WHAT’S SHE DOING TALKING TO A LAWYER, AND SITTING DOWN FOR A POLYGRAPH. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT ARGUMENT IS SHE DID REPORT THIS AT A TIME WHEN BRETT KAVANAUGH WAS NOT THE NOMINEE. I THINK THAT’S A FACTOR IN HER FAVOR IN TERMS OF CREDIBILITY IF YOU’RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE ARGUMENT OF SHE’S A PLOY, THIS IS A PLANT FOR THE DEMOCRATS, THIS IS A POLITICAL HIT JOB. SHE PUT THIS OUT THERE AND TRIED TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. HE WASN’T NOMINATED YET. >>HE’S TRYING TO SAY, LET’S NOT MAKE A SAINT OUT OF HER. HE’S SAYING SLOW DOWN BECAUSE I DON’T BELIEVE THAT IT’S CREDIBLE, HE SAID, THAT SHE DIDN’T KNOW WE OFFERED TO COME OUT TO CALIFORNIA. YOU DO HAVE TO WONDER. >>SHE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND IT. IT WAS CLEAR IN THE LETTER. >>EITHER SHE DIDN’T READ THE LETTER OR WASN’T WELL INFORMED BY HER PARTISAN LAWYERS WHO FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON HID THAT INFORMATION. HE’S TRYING TO SAY, AMERICA, LET’S SHOW DOWN. SHE IS A WITNESS, SHE’S NOT A SAINT AND THERE’S REASON TO DISBELIEVE PIECES OF HER TESTIMONY, LIKE THAT PIECE, LIKE THE PIECE ABOUT I COULDN’T COME ON MONDAY BECAUSE I WAS TOO AFRAID OF FLYING, THEY’RE PLANTING SEEDS OF DOUBT WHERE THEY FEEL THEY CAN. >>TO CHUCK’S POINT, AND MAYBE THAT’S ALL THEY NEED TO HOLD ONTO REPUBLICANS. THEY HAVE TO HOLD ONTO 50, AND VICE PRESIDENT PENCE COULD BE THE TIE BREAKER. >>IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE MIDDLE OF THE ELECTORATE SAYS. IT MATTERS WHAT SUSAN COLLINS, THE CASE YOU CAN MAKE TO JEFF FLAKE AND SUSAN COLLINS AND BOB CORKER. >>AND WHAT ABOUT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC? WHERE ARE WE ON THIS?>>AND THAT’S — >>IN TERMS OF JUDGMENTS BEING MADE, AND HOUSEHOLDS WATCHING THIS. >>THAT’S THE PART OF THIS THAT I’M NOT SURE ARE PEOPLE GOING TO JUST BE MORE IN THEIR SAME CORNERS, WERE THEY PREDISPOSED, IS IT THE — ARE THEY WATCHING WITH RED AND BLUE GLASSES. >>THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SENDING THAT CASE FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. >>YOU THINK YOU MIGHT COME OUT OF IT THIS WAY, THAT WAY A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE ELECTION IS FOUR WEEKS AWAY. THE GENDER GAP IS GIGANTIC. >>I THINK WE HAVE SENATOR GILLIBRAND, REPUBLICAN OF NEW YORK, I DON’T KNOW IF SHE’S JOINING AS OUR GUEST OR IS THAT A MICROPHONE. >>YOU’VE BEEN IN THE ROOM ALL MORNING AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT’S BEEN PRETTY POWERFUL FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO THIS?>>SHE IS UNBELIEVABLY, SHE HAS COURAGE. HER HONEST JUST COMES THROUGH.>>SENATOR HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ANOTHER REPORTER. NO OTHER WAY TO SAY IT. WE’RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY GET BACK TO HER. I THINK I HEARD THEM SAY THEY WERE GOING TO COME BACK AT 1:10 EASTERN TIME. SENATOR GILLIBRAND, ARE YOU WITH US?>>YES.>>ALL RIGHT.>>LESTER HOLT HERE ALONG WITH SAVANNAH GUTHRIE AND CHUCK AND MEGYN KELLY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. I WANT TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BECOME CLEAR HERE IS REPUBLICANS SEEM TO BE SEIZING UPON WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS DEMOCRATIC FOOT DRAGGING HERE, THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THIS A LAST MINUTE SURPRISE. CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT?>>WELL, I THINK FOR ANYONE WHO’S WATCHING HER AND LISTENING TO HER, SHE’S A HERO. SHE HAS SO MUCH COURAGE. SHE IS SPEAKING FROM THE HEART. SHE’S RELIVING THE WORST MOMENTS OF HER LIFE FOR THE WORLD. SHE’S SHOWN EXTRAORDINARY STRENGTH AND HER TESTIMONY IS POWERFUL. AND SO I DON’T THINK WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO DO IS — IT’S NOT HAVING ANY EFFECT BECAUSE SHE’S JUST TELLING HER STORY, AND SHE TOLD EVERYONE THAT SHE WANTED TO STAY CONFIDENTIAL. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING SHE WANTED TO DO. SHE DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE TO BE PUBLIC. AS TIME KEPT MOVING AND HE KEPT BEING NAMED AS A POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. SHE FELT SHE HAD TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE THAT TESTIMONY. >>SENATOR, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN AT SOME OF THE I GUESS PROBLEMS WITH HER TESTIMONY, PEOPLE MAY FEEL THAT SHE’S GIVEN A VERY COMPELLING ACCOUNT OF WHAT SHE REMEMBERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHE HAS SUPPLIED NAMES OF PEOPLE SHE SAYS WERE THERE, ALL OF WHOM SAY THEY DON’T RECOLLECT ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE YOU IN TERMS OF REASONABLE DOUBT? I KNOW IT’S NOT A COURT OF LAW. DOES THAT GIVE YOU ANY PAUSE?>>NO. AND IF THE REPUBLICANS WANTED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, WANTED THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD HAVE ALLOWED AND THIS PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE CALLED FOR A FULL FBI INVESTIGATION, THE FACT THAT THE FBI HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THEIR GROUND CHECK TO TUTELY ASK THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE AT THIS EVENT, EVEN NOT EVEN TO HAVE MARK JUDGE BE CROSS-EXAMINED, TO HAVE HIM TESTIFY UNDER OATH, IT IS OUTRAGEOUS, IT IS ABSURD AND WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING HER DO, BY THE HE SAID/SHE SAID, IT SHOWS HOW IMPROPER THE HEARING ACTUALLY. IS THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE CORROBORATING WITNESSES WHO HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO GIVE. THE FACT THAT SHE TOLD HER THERAPIST FIVE YEARS AGO, HER HUSBAND FIVE YEARS AGO, SEVERAL FRIENDS BEFORE HE WAS ACTUALLY NAMED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, REALLY GOES TO HER INTEGRITY, IT GOES TO HER HONESTY, IT GOES TO THE BELIEVABLITY OF THIS STORY. AND SO I DON’T THINK THEY’RE LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH. SO THE FACT THAT THEY DON’T REMEMBER, DON’T DENY IT, NONE OF THEM TESTIFIED UNDER OATH YET. SO NO, THAT IS NOT PERSUASIVE AT ALL. >>SPEAKING OF THE TRUTH, SENATOR, THIS AFTERNOON WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH, DO YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND? IS THERE ANYTHING HE COULD SAY IN THIS TESTIMONY THAT WOULD CONVINCE YOU THAT HE IS INNOCENT OF THESE CHARGES?>>WELL, I HAVE HEARD HIS TESTIMONY. HE IS ACTUALLY, WENT ON FOX NEWS, AND TOLD MEME THAT HE WAS FOCUSED AT THE TIME ON GOING TO CHURCH AND FOCUSED ON THE TIME ON STUDYING, AND HAVING FRIENDS, AND I THINK THE THINGS HE ACTUALLY HAS SAID, THAT HE NEVER REMEMBERED THE NIGHT BEFORE, FROM DRINKING, IS IN OPPOSITE TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, THE FACT THAT HIS COLLEGE ROOMMATE SAID HE WOULD COME HOME DRINK, THAT HE COULD COME HOME BELLIGERENT THE FACT THAT HIS BEST FRIEND MARK JUDGE WROTE A WHOLE BOOK ABOUT BLACKOUT DRINKING AND DRINKING TO EXCESS, I THINK THAT UNDERMINES HIS CREDIBILITY. >>SENATOR, AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OTHER ACCUSERS WHO WERE NOT A PART OF THIS HEARING TODAY. BUT THEIR STORIES ARE OUT THERE. DO THEY HELP OR HURT DR. FORD’S STORY?>>I DIDN’T QUITE HEAR YOUR QUESTION, BUT I THINK YOU SAID THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER WOMEN WHO HAVE COME FORWARD WITH I BELIEVE CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OF OTHER SEXUAL IMPROPRIETY, AND THEY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI. THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY. AND THEN CORROBORATING WITNESSES FOR EACH OF THESE SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY. >>SENATOR GILLIBRAND, THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING TO US. WE APPRECIATE IT. >>THANK YOU.>>LET’S GO OVER TO HALLE JACKSON, SHE IS ON THE HILL AND TAKING THE TEMPERATURE OF THE FOLKS SHE SEES THERE. >>Reporter: FOLKS, OVER AND NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE AS WELL, PEOPLE CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THERE IS A SENSE OF FRANKLY, I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS GRIMNESS FROM SOME FOLKS I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO, RELATED TO THE PROCESS AND HOW IT IS PLAYING OUT, WHEN IT COMES TO THE PERCEPTION NOW FOR REPUBLICANS, AND AS IT RELATES TO RACHEL MITCHELL, THESE FIVE-MINUTE POPS OF QUESTIONING, THERE IS A CONCERN THAT PERHAPS THIS IS NOT THE IDEAL FORMAT FOR THIS TO BE HAPPENING IN. WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT IS WATCHING THIS. WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE PRESS SECRETARY SARAH SANDERS SAYS HE IS SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS ROOM. HE HAS DELAYED THAT MEETING NOW WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN, HIS DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNTIL NEXT WEEK, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE WE HAD TALKED EARLIER IN THE WEEK ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SPLIT SCREEN MOMENT, THE MAN OVERSEEING THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, HIS JOB ON THE LINE, AT THE SAME TIME THAT ALL OF THIS WAS PLAYING OUT, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS INSTEAD CHOOSING TO PUT ALL OF HIS FOCUS ON WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE TODAY. YOU ALSO HAVE THE VICE PRESIDENT, WE HAVE JUST LEARNED, OFFERING UP HIS CEREMONIAL OFFICE HERE ON CAPITOL HILL FOR AND IF YOU THOUGHT REPUBLICANS, CONFIDENT REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO HOLD THE SENATE IN NOVEMBER, HE MIGHT HAVE CALLED TO TRY TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO PULL THIS, BUT I THINK THEY’RE IN THIS BOX AND HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO PURSUE THIS ONE.>>WE WILL GO TO KRISTEN WELKER AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WHAT MUST IT BE LIKE THERE TODAY?>>I CAN TELL YOU, LESTER, JUST TO PAINT THE PICTURE, EVERY TV IN THE PRESS OFFICE IS ON THE HEARING. ALL EYES ARE TRAINED ON THE HEARING. AND OF COURSE, WE WANT TO NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT JUST RETURNED FROM NEW YORK, WHERE HE WAS OF COURSE AT THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND WE DID OUR BEST TO SHOUT QUESTIONS AT HIM, TO TRY TO SEE IF HE FINDS DR. FORD’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE. NOT SURPRISINGLY, HE IGNORED ALL OF OUR SHOUTED QUESTIONS, LESTER. WORTH NOTING, HIS CHIEF OF STAFF WAS NOT FAR BEHIND, HE ALSO IGNORED OUR SHOUTED QUESTIONS. WE DO KNOW THAT HEADING INTO TODAY, SAVANNAH WAS JUST MENTIONING, HE WAS COMPLETELY DUG IN ON BRETT KAVANAUGH, SAVE SAYING, LOOK, IF DR. FORD IS CREDIBLE, THEN I MIGHT HAVE TO SHIFT GEARS. HAVING SAID THAT, I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO TOP OFFICIALS, AND HEADING INTO TODAY, THEY SAID, LOOK, HE DOESN’T HAVE ANOTHER LIST AT THE READY. SO HOW QUICKLY IF IN FACT HE DOES, BIG IF, DECIDE TO PULL THE NOMINATION, WOULD HE BE ABLE TO COME UP ANOTHER NAME? OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT HE HAD THAT NAME, THAT LIST OF NAMES CIRCULATED THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN. AND I WANT TO GO TO ONE OTHER POINT, WHICH IS THAT THERE IS THAT VOTE SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW. WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TOP OFFICIALS WHETHER IT IS PREMATURE TO HAVE A VOTE SCHEDULED WHEN THEY HAVEN’T HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES YET. WILL THAT DATE NEED TO SHIFT? WE ARE TRYING TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT AS WELL. I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO SOME OF THE PRESIDENT’S ALLIES, THEY SAY, LOOK, SO FAR, SHE HAS COME OUT VERY STRONG, ONE PERSON, NOTING WHAT SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM DID, WHICH IS THAT SHE COULDN’T REMEMBER HOW SHE GOT HOME THAT NIGHT, IS THERE SOME TYPE OF NARRATIVE THAT IS BEING BUILT WITHIN REPUBLICAN CIRCLES ALREADY. WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE ABOUT THAT. BUT THEY SAY THE STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER FOR BRETT KAVANAUGH, BECAUSE SO FAR, THEY BELIEVE SHE HAS BEEN VERY STRONG, LESTER. >>KRISTEN WELKER, THANK YOU. >>>WE ARE A FEW MINUTES AWAY FROM THE SCHEDULED RETURN FROM THE BREAK, AND FOR THIS HEARING TO RESUME AGAIN. >>SO THERE ARE A FEW MORE SENATORS, AND OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT RACHEL MITCHELL IS GOING TO GET HER CHANCE TO QUESTION AS WELL, AND THEN THERE WILL BE A LONGER BREAK, AND THEN IT IS BRETT KAVANAUGH’S TURN. HOW DO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH?>>WELL, I MEAN THE PROCEEDING, LIKE TO ASSESS THE POSITION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH RIGHT NOW IS PREMATURE, BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD HALF THE STORY, RIGHT? WE ARE ONLY PARTIALLY THROUGH THIS SORT OF MINI TRIAL, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, ALTHOUGH THIS ACTUALLY LOOKS NOTHING LIKE AN ACTUAL TRIAL. SO YOU GENERALLY BELIEVE THE FIRST WITNESS WHO TESTIFIES, AND THE PERSON CROSS-EXAMINING HER ISN’T REALLY LAYING A LOT OF GLOVES ON HER, SO IT IS NATURAL FOR ALL OF US ALL TO BE SAYING WE BELIEVE HER, SHE IS A VERY STRONG WITNESS, AND KAVANAUGH IS IN A LOT OF TROUBLE. SO WE WILL SEE. THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENS AT TRIAL, TOO. HE WILL GET UP THERE, HE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT COMPELLING. HE IS GOING TO GET A LOT MORE INCOMING THAN SHE IS GETTING. THEY WILL FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE PUNCHING HIM IN THE FACE RHETORICALLY. THIS IS NOT A GUY, HE WASN’T SOME HAND TO HAND COMBAT LITIGATOR, SO I DON’T KNOW HOW HIGH OUR EXPECTATIONS SHOULD BE ON HIM. THE POLITICS IN IT ARE EVER-PRESENT. TO LISTEN TO SENATOR GILLIBRAND STAND UP THERE AND SAY THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH IS RICH. SHE SAID, BEFORE SHE EVEN HEARD HIM ON FOX NEWS, I BELIEVE HER. I BELIEVE HER. THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT OPEN-MINDED EITHER. THEY HAVE RUSHED TO DEFEND THIS WOMAN AND TO BELIEVE EVERY WORD SHE SAYS, AND THAT IS FINE, BUT DON’T COME OUT AND COMPLAIN THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS NOT OPEN-MINDED. BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH ON BOTH SIDES. THEY HAVE RETREATED TO THEIR PARTISAN CORNERS. I STILL BELIEVE THE GUY’S GOT A VERY GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING THROUGH. >>LET’S TALK ABOUT RACHEL MITCHELL AGAIN, AND THE QUESTIONING, SHE IS WORKING LIKE THE PROSECUTOR THAT SHE IS, BUT WITH A PROSECUTION, WE TEND TO BE LOOKING FOR THE AH-HA MOMENT. THIS FORMAT DOESN’T SEEM THAT IT WILL ALLOW HER, WE DON’T KNOW WHETHER SHE WILL GET TO THE POINT SHE WANTS TO GO. >>IN A FORMER LIFE, I SAT ALL DAY LONG COVERING TRIALS, AND LISTENING TO LAWYERS QUESTION WITNESSES, AND A LOT OF TIMES, IT WOULD BE HOURS UPON HOURS OF SEEMINGLY MONOTONOUS QUESTIONS THAT LED TO NOWHERE, AND IN THE LAW, YOU HAVE TO GET IN THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. YOU HAVE TO LAY THE EVIDENTIARY GROUND WORK BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO THE POINT AND SOMETIMES EVEN AFTER LISTENING ALL DAY, IT WOULDN’T EVEN BE TOTALLY CLEAR WHAT THE POINT WAS. YOU WOULD SAY, OKAY, I THINK THE PROSECUTOR, THE DEFENSE LAWYER IS TRYING TO SET UP AN ARGUMENT.>>AND THEN A CLOSING ARGUMENT. >>AND A CLOSING ARGUMENT. THERE WOULD BE WAYS TO GLEAN IT. AND IN THE CASE OF A LAY TRIAL, YOU ARE ASKING JURORS TO FOLLOW THE LINE OF QUESTIONS. AND SHE IS APPROACHING THIS AS A LAWYER. SHE IS GETTING INTERRUPTED EVERY FIVE MINUTES. SO SHE CAN NEVER QUITE GET IT GOING. AND EVEN IN THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE MAPS AND WHO LIVES WHERE, I THINK THAT WAS ALL TO SET UP THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS, YOU HAD TO GET A RIDE, DID ANYONE TAKE YOU. WELL, SHE DIDN’T NEED TO DO ALL OF THAT PREDICATE STUFF. SHE COULD HAVE JUST SAID HOW DID YOU GET HOME, DO YOU REMEMBER, WOULDN’T YOU HAVE REMEMBERED WHO TOOK YOU? SO I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE HER WHEELHOUSE, HER COMFORT, IS CLEARLY IN A COURTROOM, AND THE THINGS SHE IS DOING AND SAYING WOULD PROBABLY BE TOTALLY APPROPRIATE TO THAT. BUT THIS IS A POLITICAL BODY AND A POLITICAL SITUATION. >>LET ME ASK THE TWO QUESTIONS HERE. GIVEN SHE IS A PROSECUTOR, SHE IS USED TO HAVING INVESTIGATORS, RIGHT, THAT SOMEBODY HAS DONE SOME INVESTIGATIVE WORK FOR HER, IN THIS CASE SHE DIDN’T REALLY –>>SHE GOT THE ASSIGNMENT THREE DAYS AGO. >>THE OTHER THING AS A PROSECUTOR, YOU WOULD NEVER ASK A QUESTION TO WHICH YOU DID NOT ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER.>>AND IN THIS CASE, SHE HAS GONE FISHING A COUPLE OF TIMES AND COME UP WITH NOTHING. >>THAT IS NOT SOMETHING MY GUESS IS SHE IS USED TO. >>THE MEDIA WILL NOT WRITE THE CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR HER. THE MEDIA IS NOT EXACTLY IN KAVANAUGH’S CORNER. SO THEY WILL NOT TAKE THIS STRAIN THAT SHE HAS TRIED TO DEVELOP AND RUN WITH IT ON THE FRONT OF THE “WASHINGTON POST.” >>WHAT WERE HER MARCHING ORDERS? WHAT DID REPUBLICANS TELL HER TO DO? DID THEY SAY GO AFTER THE JUGULAR, GO GET EVERY INCONSISTENCY OR DID THEY SAY PROBE ON THIS ISSUE AND THAT ISSUE. IT IS UNCLEAR. SHE DIDN’T HAVE MUCH TIME TO PREP. AND IT IS UNCLEAR, THAT IS HER MISSION HERE? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, SHE IS HERE BECAUSE IN SOME SENSE, THE REPUBLICANS KNEW THAT IT WAS A BAD LOOK TO BE GOING AFTER AN ALLEGED VICTIM TOO VORACIOUSLY, SO I THINK SHE IS SORT OF AN IMPOSSIBLE POSITION. >>UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING IN HER BACK POCKET THAT WE HAVEN’T CREATE — YET SEEN. >>THERE HAS BEEN NO PERRY MASON MOMENT. >>EVEN THOUGH SHE IS UNCERTAIN, IT SEEMS TO COME FROM A PLACE OF CONFUSION. THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS. >>IT IS YET THAT YOU FEEL LIKE OH, SHE IS HIDING SOMETHING. SHE HAS COME ACROSS AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS HAD A TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE. AND IT FEELS LIKE SHE IS TRUTHFUL ABOUT THAT TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS ALSO, I THINK MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE PROSECUTOR. >>LET’S PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF HER TESTIMONY, WHERE SHE TALKS ABOUT THE OVERALL EFFECT ON HER WELL-BEING.>>I DON’T HAVE ALL OF THE ANSWERS, AND I DON’T REMEMBER AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO. BUT THE DETAILS ABOUT THAT NIGHT THAT BRING ME HERE TODAY ARE THE ONES I WILL NEVER FORGET. THEY HAVE BEEN SEARED INTO MY MEMORY AND HAVE HAUNTED ME EPED SOCALLY AS AN ADULT. — EPED SOCALLY AS AN ADULT. >>AND THE LATER QUESTIONING, FROM MS. MITCHELL, ABOUT THE FLYING AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS AND EVEN ASKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE CAUSED HER EMOTIONAL TRAUMA, SHE DIDN’T CONTINUE DOWN THAT ROAD BUT IT IS INTERESTING. >>SHE TOOK A STAB AT IT BUT AGAIN, I KEEP SAYING, SHE DIDN’T GO FOR THE ULTIMATE, BUT WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO LAY A LITTLE DOUBT ABOUT, MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED HER TRAUMA. >>SOME OTHER ISSUES.>>BUT EVERYTHING IS KIND OF WITH KID GLOVES WHICH I THINK IS RESPECTFUL, BUT THIS IS NOT, THIS IS SUCH A STRANGE CIRCUMSTANCE, IT IS NOT A TRUE ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, YOU BELIEVE AN ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING WILL ULTIMATELY ELICIT THE TRUTH BECAUSE BOTH SIDES ARE ZEALOUSLY ADVOCATING AND WHAT YOU DRAW OUT OF THAT, BUT THAT NOT WHAT WE SEE HERE. >>THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN SHAMED OUT OF DOING THAT. THEY HAVE BEEN SHAMED THANKS TO THE ME TOO MOVEMENT AND IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE WOMEN, YOU’RE A MISOGYNIST, YOU’RE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, THEY COMPLETELY PASSED THE BALL AND SAID BE CAREFUL. WE DO NEED TO BE RESPECT. . WE ARE IN A SEA CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY. WHERE WOMEN ARE FINDING THEIR VOICES AND COMING FORWARD IN WAYS THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM DO BEFORE. AND I THINK THAT IS PEOPLE SAYING, WHY WOULDN’T THEY HAVE DONE THIS TO GORSUCH? GORSUCH CAME BEFORE THE ME TOO MOVEMENT. AND EVERY JUSTICE WHO COMES AFTER THIS WILL BE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE IN TIME. AND I THINK THE DEMES CAN LOOK FORWARD TO THIS BEING DONE TO ANY NOMINEE THAT THEY PUT FORWARD AS WELL. WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEW PARADIGM WE ARE IN WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING DUE PROCESS AND A COMMITMENT TO AN ADVERSARIAL PROCESS WHICH WE AS AMERICA HAVE DECIDED IS THE BEST WAY FORWARD TO FINDING TRUTH. >>BUT WHAT IS THE GOAL OF A SUPREME COURT HEARING? IN THIS SENSE? WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WE ARE NOT GETTING — THIS IS ABOUT A CHARACTER TEST, RIGHT? THIS IS ULTIMATELY LA IS ON TRIAL. JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CHARACTER. HER CHARACTER AT FIRST, I THINK NOW THEY WILL HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERMINING HER CHARACTER AND NOW IT IS JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CHARACTER ESSENTIALLY ON TRIAL AND THAT’S WHAT MAKES THE WHOLE DUE PROCESS, REASONABLE DOUBT, IT GOES BACK TO WHAT YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING, THIS IS NOT A TRIAL, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THOSE RULES DON’T APPLY. ULTIMATELY, THIS IS A POLITICAL TEST. THIS IS JUST, THIS IS ULTIMATELY NOT A FACT-FINDING MISSION. THIS IS A POLITICAL TEST. >>WE ARE WAITING FOR THE COMMITTEE TO RETURN FROM THE AFTERNOON BREAK. LET ME GO TO CASEY, WORKING THE HALLS OF CONGRESS THERE, WHERE A LOT OF SENATORS HAVE HAD A LOT OF THINGS TO SAY. >>WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU’RE HEARING, CASEY?>>HI, LESTER. WE’RE IN THE BASEMENT OF THE RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WHERE I SPEND A LOT OF MY TIME DURING THE DAY AS SENATORS COME AND GO FROM THE CAPITOL HILL. AND WE’VE GOTTEN SOME TELLING RESPONSES AND SOME TELLING NONRESPONSES, AND WE SAW SENATOR JOHN CORNYN, WHO IS SITTING ON THAT COMMITTEE GO BY, SAYS HE HASN’T MADE UP HIS MIND YET, HE DOESN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT YET, WE ALSO SPOKE BRIEFLY WITH SENATOR ERNST OF IOWA, AS A WOMAN SENATOR, COULD BE A VOICE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND ONE OF THE PEOPLE WE TALKED TO WHO SAID SHE DOESN’T ACTUALLY WATCH THE HEARING AND DIDN’T HAVE A COMMENT. AND FORGIVE ME, IF I’M LOOKING OVER MY SHOULDER, WE ARE LOOKING TO SEE WHO IS COMING DOWN THE HALLWAYS. WE HAD A FIERY DEFENSE AND I THINK THE VIEWERS SAW IT EARLIER, FROM SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM. WHO SAYS IF THIS IS THE NEW STANDARD, THAT IS CREATED TODAY, EVERYONE SHOULD WORRY FOR THEIR NOMINEES. HE ASKED ME DIRECTLY WHY, HIS QUESTION WAS, WHY DON’T WE BELIEVE JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHY IS THE QUESTION, DO YOU BELIEVE DR. FORD. HE WAS VISIBLY AGITATED AND FRUSTRATED. AND I THINK BETWEEN THE NONRESPONSES OF SOME OF THESE REPUBLICANS, AND CLEARLY HOW EMOTIONAL SENATOR GRAHAM WAS, THIS IS NOT A MORNING THAT HAS GONE WELL FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPORTING JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE STARTING TO SWIRL PRIVATELY BEHIND THE SCENES ON CAPITOL HILL ARE NOT ABOUT HEY, HOW QUICKLY CAN WE HAVE A VOTE ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THEY ARE INSTEAD ABOUT DOES HE ACTUALLY ULTIMATELY END UP WITHDRAWING HIS NOMINATION, AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT IS STILL IN THE VERY PRELIMINARY STAGES OF CONVERSATION AND CLEARLY WE STILL HAVE A LOT TO GO TODAY, WE HAVE YET TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH, ON ALL OF THIS, SO CLEARLY, BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WANT TO WAIT AND HEAR ALL OF THAT OUT. BUT INITIALLY, I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY A SENSE THAT REPUBLICANS ARE BACK ON THEIR HEELS, KIND OF STRUCK A LITTLE BIT, BY THE CREDIBILITY. ORRIN HATCH ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SHE IS A VERY CREDIBLE WITNESS HERE. SO THE QUESTION THEN, AS CHUCK WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, IT IS GOING TO GO TO CHARACTER. BECAUSE THIS ISN’T A COURT OF LAW. THE STANDARDS ARE DIFFERENT. THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCEEDING. AND IT IS ONE THAT I CAN’T HELP BUT NOTICE THAT EVERYONE IS TUNED INTO. I AM EVEN RECEIVING NOTES FROM FAMILY MEMBERS WHO DON’T NECESSARILY TUNE IN TO THIS KIND OF THING REGULARLY, AND IT IS ON IN AIRPORTS, OR THEIR LOCAL RESTAURANT. IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ESCAPE. SO WHILE THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE BASE POLITICS OF THIS, I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY IN THIS BUILDING THAT WHAT DR. FORD HAD TO SAY CUT THROUGH. >>CASEY TRULY AT THE INTERSECTION OF POLITIC, WATCHING THE HALLS IN EVERY DIRECTION. BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. >>THERE ARE PEOPLE RIGHT NOW WATCHING THIS, AND YOU WONDER, IT IS NOT OVER, HOW MANY OPEN MINDS ARE LEFT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW? AS THIS PROGRESSES ALONG. >>THAT IS THE DANGER FOR US. IN THAT WE LIVE AND BREATHE IT. THE SENATORS LIVE AND BREATHE IT. WE SEE THIS AS A POLITICAL FIGHT, A POLITICAL ARGUMENT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS WHERE 330 MILLION AMERICANS ARE GOING TO HAVE A POLITICAL OPINION ON SOMETHING. NORMALLY, YOU KNOW HOW YOU DO A POLITICAL POLL AND 30% ARE UNDECIDED, NOT PAYING ATTENTION, NOT ON THIS ONE. AND SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE BEEN VERY CAUTIOUS, I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO LEAVE A MARK ON OUR POLITIC, BUT I’M NOT YET CONVINCED WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS ON THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THESE MOMENTS THE COUNTRY IS EXPERIENCING TOGETHER AND IT IS GOING TO BE A CULTURAL STAR IN SOME WAY. >>AND THE MATTERS ARE SO COMPLEX FOR PEOPLE, TOO. IT IS SO EASY FOR FOLKS IN WASHINGTON, TO SLOT IS INTO RED OR BLUE, AND YOU MAY HAVE VERY COMPLICATED FEELINGS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK MAY HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED HERE AND UNFORTUNATELY, OUR POLITICS AND OUR DEBATES REALLY DON’T DO COMPLEXITY FOR NUANCE ALL THAT WELL RIGHT NOW. >>YOU MAY NOT BE A POLITICAL PERSON BUT REALIZE THAT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAS REALLY GONE OFF THE RAIL AND THAT GIVES YOU A QUEASY FEELING.>>UNCOMFORTABLE. >>THINK ABOUT IT. THINK ABOUT IT. TWO INDIVIDUALS HERE, WITH DIVERGENT STORIES AND AGAIN, YOU MAY NOT BE POLITICAL, BUT YOU HAVE TO WALK AWAY WITH KIND OF AN ILL FEELING IN YOUR STOMACH. >>MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT WATCHING THIS, RIGHT? MOST AMERICANS ARE AT THEIR JOBS RIGHT NOW, TAKING CARE OF THEIR KIDS AND WILL SEE CLIPS IN THE EVENING NEWS. >>I DON’T BUY THAT ONE.>>I THINK PEOPLE, MORE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THIS THAN YOU THINK. >>NOT 330 MILLION. >>I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING ABOUT THEIR DAILY BUSINESS AND ALREADY DECIDED THIS IS A POLITICAL HIT JOB ON BRETT KAVANAUGH THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR OR WHETHER THIS WOMAN IS A HEROIN FOR THE ME TOO AGE WHO SOMEHOW FOUND THE COURAGE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH TO IN A WAY POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE BALANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT POTENTIALLY FOR JEFF. IF HISTORY IS ANY INDICATOR, THEY WILL GO TO THE NEWS TONIGHT. >>I WANT TO GET YOUR TAKE ON WHAT YOU SAW THIS MORNING. BUT ALSO, IF BRETT KAVANAUGH’S CONVERSATION DOES NOT COME THROUGH, ONE HAS TO WONDER, WHO MIGHT BE NEXT COMING DOWN THE PIKE. AND LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID PERHAPS YOU GET A JUSTICE OR A NOMINEE WHO MAY BE EVEN MORE IDE LOGICALLY CONSERVATIVE THAN BRETT KAVANAUGH. >>THAT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. KETHLEDGE MAY HAVE BEEN AS MODERATE AS HE WAS. HE HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY THE PRESIDENT TWICE. YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE IF THE KAVANAUGH NOMINATION GOES DOWN OR WITHDRAWN, IT IS AN AVERAGE OF 70 DAYS. SOME HAVE BEEN SHORTER, SOME WOULD BE LONGER, BUT GUESS WHAT WOULD BE TAKING LONGER THIS TIME, AN FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION. THAT IS WHAT IS MISSING, MANY PEOPLE SAY, ON THIS ONE, ONCE THESE ALLEGATIONS CAME THROUGH, AGAIN, AND YOU CAN BE CERTAIN THAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE FBI WILL BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL, AND I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE PERHAPS THE PROCESS LAST LONGER, BEFORE IT EVER GETS TO THE SENATE, TO LET THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE FBI — SO THE WHITE HOUSE, WITH THEIR ADVISERS WILL BE LOOKING AT THE IDEOLOGICAL MAKEUP, THAT SORT OF COURT DECISIONS HAS THIS POTENTIAL NOMINEE HAD, SPEECH, LAW REVIEW ARTICLES, THE USUAL THINGS THAT GO INTO A WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF A POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, BUT THEN THERE IS THIS WHOLE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE REMEMBER, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH’S COURT DECISIONS TODAY, OR HIS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A COMPLICATING FACTOR FOR ANYBODY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MAY HAVE TO TURN TO, AND INDEED, ANY FUTURE NOMINEES.>>PETE, HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE FBI BACKGROUND CHECKS LOOK LIKE. I PLENE DO THEY CALL UP YOUR FRIENDS AND SAY WAS HE A GOOD GUY? DO THEY REALLY, REALLY DIG DEEP?>>WELL, FOR A SUPREME COURT, NOW, REMEMBER, I THINK ONE COMPLICATING FACTOR HERE FOR KAVANAUGH IS HE HAS HAD THESE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE. WHEN HE WORKED FOR KEN STARR. WHEN HE WORKED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. THE PREVIOUS JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS. AND I THINK MAYBE FOR THAT REASON, THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR THE FBI TO SORT OF DUST HIM OFF AND CHECK ANYTHING FURTHER. BUT THEY DO, I MEAN I HAVE HAD BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS ON ME, AND HAVE TALKED TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE, BUT IT IS ESPECIALLY RIGOROUS FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE. THEY OBVIOUSLY LOOK AT THE LONG STANDARD FORM 86 THAT SOMEONE TURNS IN TO, WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO GO THROUGH ALL OF YOUR LIFE IN DETAIL. BUT ONE THING THAT IS NOT ON THAT FORM IS, TO GIVE THE ACCUSER HERE CREDIBILITY FOR A MOMENT, THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS, HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED A CRIME AND NEVER BEEN ARRESTED FOR IT. SO HOW WOULD THE FBI BE AWARE OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS? THEY TALK TO FRIENDS. THEY TALK TO NEIGHBORS. THEY TALK TO PEOPLE WHO GREW UP, THEY TALK TO CLASSMATES. BUT THEY TEND TO BE PEOPLE THAT THE NOMINEE GIVES THEM. THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, WHO ARE YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS? WHO COULD WE TALK TO? AND SO THESE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS TEND TO, IF THERE IS A SKEW, THEY TEND TO SKEW THAT WAY. HAVING SAID THAT, IT IS CLEAR THAT ALMOST ALL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR NOMINEES TO SERIOUS POSTS LIKE THIS, CABINET LEVELS, ALWAYS HAVE DEROGATORY INFORMATION IN THEM, BUT AS SENATOR GRASSLEY ACCURATELY SAID, IN MOST OF THE TIME, THE FBI SAYS LOOK, HERE IS WHAT PEOPLE SAY THAT IS GOOD, HERE IS WHAT PEOPLE SAY THAT IS BAD, THEY DON’T REACH A CONCLUSION, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. IT IS A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION.>>ALL RIGHT, PETE, THANK YOU SO MUCH.>>WAIT, WAIT, HOW DID HE DO ON HIS INVESTIGATION?>>HE PASSED WITH FLYING COLORS. HE GOT THE JOB. HE DID ALL RIGHT. >>I WANT TO KNOW MORE.>>RIGHT.>>SENATOR BLOOMENTHAL WE UNDERSTAND IS IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA.>>THAT IS A REALLY COMPELLING COMBINATION. >>DO YOU BELIEVE HER?>>I BELIEVE DR. BLASEY FORD. AFTER TODAY, SHE HAS ESTABLISHED THE TRUTH OF HER STORY, INSOFAR AS IT CAN BE REMEMBERED, BY ANYONE. SHE HAS GIVEN DETAIL THAT IS RIVETING. SHE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE PRECISE FACTS OF WHAT SHE KNOWS. AND SHE HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED WHAT SHE CAN’T REMEMBER. AND FOR US TO VOTE TOMORROW WOULD BE SUCH A DISGRACE, IT WOULD BE SHAMEFUL FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS SHE HAS DONE VERY, VERY CREDITBLY IS THERE IS NO DOUBT NOW THAT A FAILURE TO DO AN FBI INVESTIGATION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A COVERUP. IT IS IN EFFECT CONCEALING AND HIDING EVIDENCE, FAILING TO INTERVIEW MARK JUDGE, WHO HAS RELEVANT DETAILS, AS SHE HAS SAID TODAY, AND SHE SAID WHAT THOSE DETAILS ARE, SO THE WHITE HOUSE REVERSING TO ORDER AN INVESTIGATION IS TANT MOUNT TO A COVERUP. >>WE WANT TO KNOW WHY DEMOCRATS BELIEVE HER BUT THEY DON’T BELIEVE BRETT KAVANAUGH. >>SHE HAS COME FORWARD ASKING FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION, WITH WITNESSES WHO CAN CORROBORATE HER STORY, WHO SHOULD BE INTERVIEWED UNDER OATH. VERY FEW PEOPLE, IF ANY, COME FORWARD AND ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION IF THEY ARE FAILING TO TELL THE TRUTH WHEN A PENALTY IS PERJURY. I BELIEVE HER BECAUSE SHE IS SO POWERFUL IN HER DEMEANOR, HER DETAILS, HER PRECISION, AND FRANKLY, IN STATING WHAT SHE DOESN’T KNOW. AND ONE MORE FACT. SHE COMES ACROSS AS INCREDIBLY HUMAN. AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS ENDURED A LOT TO BE HERE, WHO HAS THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT WHETHER TO COME FORWARD, AND HAS DONE IT AT GREAT PERSONAL COST. JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS SEEKING A PROMOTION. HE IS SEEKING A NEW JOB.>>DO YOU THINK YOU ARE CONVINCED, OR SHE HAS CONVINCED YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE SENATOR GRAHAM STILL BLAMES YOU AND THE DEMOCRATS, SAYING IT IS A SHAM. >>WELL, IF IT IS A SHAM, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO FBI INVESTIGATION, WHICH WE HAVE REPEATEDLY DEMANDED. IN FACT, WE ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE. AND SO IS DR. BLASEY FORD. BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO TRAINED PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATION HERE. AND IF JUDGE KAVANAUGH REALLY WANTS TO CLEAR HIS NAME, AS HE SAID ON FOX NEWS, HE WOULD BE POUNDING THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR, AND SAYING I WANT AN FBI INVESTIGATION. I WANT THOSE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES TO BE CALLED IN. I WANT MARK JUDGE ON THE WITNESS STAND.>>BUT DO YOU THINK THAT IT HAS CONVINCED REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND MINDS HAVE BEEN CHANGED, ANY SIGNALS THAT SHE WAS EFFECTIVE IN THAT WAY?>>IF THEY HAVE ANY CONSCIENCE, OR CONVICTIONS ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING, THEY WILL AT LEAST POSTPONE THIS VOTE UNTIL THE FBI CAN INVESTIGATE, UNTIL WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER HEARING, WITH ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, UNTIL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. >>WILL YOU LISTEN TO BRETT KAVANAUGH TODAY WITH AN OPEN MIND?>>I WANT TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS CREDIBILITY. THE ISSUES FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH ARE GOING TO BE CONCEALMENT AND CREDIBILITY. WHY IS THE WHITE HOUSE HIDING DOCUMENTS? WHY ARE THEY REVERSING AN FBI INVESTIGATION — REFUSING AN FBI INVESTIGATION? WHY HAS HE MADE STATEMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY FACTS AND EVIDENCE? LIKE HIS HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK. AND I AM GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WILL GO TO HIS CREDIBILITY.>>I KNOW THAT YOU AND OTHERS WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER WITNESSES, BUT AS FAR AS TESTIMONY, IS IT ENOUGH WITHOUT THOSE OTHER WITNESSES ENOUGH, FOR YOU AT LEAST?>>I BELIEVE DR. BLASEY FORD. CHI NOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE HAVE A VOTE TOMORROW. I CERTAINLY COULD NOT VOTE FOR HIM. I BELIEVE THERE ARE STRONG REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST HIM. BASED ON HIS EVASIVE AND SEEMINGLY MISLEADING ANSWERS AT HIS TESTIMONY. AND BECAUSE OF HIS OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE, AND CREATING AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY, AND STRIKING DOWN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. >>SENATOR BLUMENTHAL, DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TAKING REPORTERS’ QUESTIONS IN THE HALLWAY BEFORE THEY RESUME THE SESSION. >>WE HAVE HEARD FROM A LOT OF SENATOR DURING THIS BREAK BUT NONE OF THOSE WHO WILL BE CRUCIAL WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO BRASS TAX SO LAY IT OUT, CHUCK, FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT AS HEARDY, AND LIVING AND DYING EVERY POLITICAL MOVE. WHO WILL IT COME DOWN TO?>>JEFF FLAKE. HE IS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THEY HAVE A ONE VOTE MARGIN, SO IF HE VOTED NO, IT WOULD MEAN HE WOULD COME OUT OF COMMITTEE WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE PRIVILEGE, MITCH McCONNELL OF BRINGING ANYTHING TO THE FLOOR HE WOULD WANT. IT IS NOT EVEN A NONRECOMMENDATION OR A NEGATIVE VOTE. EVEN IF THEY LOSE TWO VOTES, WOULD SOMEHOW STOP KAVANAUGH FROM BEING BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR.>>PRESUMABLY IF FLAKE VOTED AGAIN. >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>THE SENATORS I WANT TO HEAR FROM AND VERY EFFECTIVE AT HIDING FROM ALL OF THE REPORTERS, SUSAN COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI AND JEFF FLAKE AND BEN SASSE. AND I THINK THE UNDECIDED GROUP –>>SENATOR CORKER. >>SNORE ONE WHO HAS HAD HIS ISSUES WITH THE PRESIDENT AND YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HE MIGHT DO IN A MOMENT LIKE THIS. >>DO YOU SEE ANY RED STATE DEMOCRATS WHO COULD POTENTIALLY VOTE FOR KAVANAUGH AFTER ALL OF THIS?>>IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU JUST WANT TO LOOK AT POLITICAL TERMS, YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE TWO INCUMBENT DEMOCRATIC RED STATE SENATORS IN INDIANA, AND IN NORTH DAKOTA. I DON’T IMAGINE THAT HEIDI HIDEKAMP WILL BE SOMEBODY WHO IS RESPONSIBLE VOTING FOR HIM, AND WE DON’T KNOW AND HER OPPONENT HAS STEPPED IN IT A FEW TIMES HOW HE HANDLED THE MOMENT. JOE DONNELLY, YESTERDAY THE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR FROM INDIANA, INCUMBENT, A TOUGH RACE, HE ALREADY SAID HE HAS AN OPEN MIND ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH. HE SITS OUT THERE. HE IS ONE THAT I THINK IS CERTAINLY TRULY ON THE FENCE. >>IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN, SENATOR BLUMENTHAL JUST SAID SHE HAS WITNESSES WHO CAN CORROBORATE HER STORY. THAT IS NOT TRUE. IT JUST ISN’T TRUE. AND THIS REMAINS ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS. >>I THINK HE ADDED SOME WEISSLE WORDS, I THINK WHAT HE WAS SAYING, IT MAY BE CORROBORATIVE IF THEY WERE UNDER OATH. I HEARD THE SAME THING AS YOU. I THOUGHT WHAT CORROBORATING WITNESSES. >>THERE AREN’T ANY. >>MAYBE HE IS TRYING TO SAY MARK JUDGE PUT UNOATH. >>WITNESS’S FRIENDS, 15, 16, 17, 18, WHO SAID SHE WAS ASSAULTED WHEN SHE WAS YOUNGER BY A FEDERAL JUDGE AND JUST BECAUSE I TELL YOU IT HAPPENED TO ME, DOESN’T MAKE YOU A COB — CORROBORATING WITNESS TO THE TRUTH. >>ALL THE THE NAMES SHE SUPPLIED, IN FACT, SAID THAT THEY WEREN’T THERE OR DON’T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED. >>IS HE TRYING TO INDICATE THAT MARK JUDGE, ALLEGEDLY IN THE ROOM, IF HE WAS PUT UNDER OATH, UNDER PAIN OF PERJURY, WOULD HE SAY A DIFFERENT THING? I THINK THAT IS WHAT HE WAS GETTING AT. >>I WANT TO MAKE ONE OTHER POINT HERE ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS IN THIS RESPECT. I THINK THAT THE TOUGHEST THING THAT THEY CAN, THAT THEY HAVE TO DEFEND HERE IS THIS IDEA THAT THEY WAITED SO LONG. SHE DIDN’T WANT TO TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC. SHE DIDN’T WANT TO DO THIS, IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE DIDN’T WANT TO DO THIS TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S FAMILY, KNOWING WHAT THIS COULD ENDS UP DOING. AND THAT, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO ANSWER, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT AN EASY THING FOR HER, BUT YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IF THEY DIDN’T DRAG THEIR FEET, MAYBE SHE WOULDN’T HAVE TO BE IN THIS POSITION.>>AND THEY WERE TRYING TO POINT THAT OUT. >>HE HASN’T POINTSED IT OUT WELL. IF YOU WERE ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S SIDE, YOU WISH HE WAS BETTER ABOUT POINTING THAT OUT. >>IT IS NOT ABOUT HER. >>IT IS ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATS HANDLED THIS. IT IS STILL, I DON’T THINK, POLITICALLY THAT MUCH MORE HELPFUL TO THE REPUBLICANS BIG PICTURE-WISE. >>IT IS WORTH REMEMBERING, HER NAME BECAME PUBLIC BECAUSE SOMEBODY ON THE DEMOCRATIC STAFF LEAKED IT. >>FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE TRYING TO SINK HIS NOMINATIONS AND THEY WOULD SAY IT IS TO SAVE THE REPUBLIC. AND REPUBLICANS SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. AND THAT’S WHY THE REPUBLICAN HALF OF THE COUNTRY IS SAYING THE STANDARD HAS TO BE REALLY HIGH FOR HER TO PERSUADE ME AT THIS LATE HOUR IN THE DAY, THE DEMOCRATS, TO PERSUADE ME AT THIS LATE HOUR OF THE DAY THAT HE IS SOME KIND OF A SEXUAL ASSAULTER. SO FAR WE HAVE HER WORD. AND THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT ENOUGH?>>I THINK WE GET SOME READ ON HOW DEMOCRATS THINK THIS IS GOING SO FAR, IN THEIR QUESTIONING. WE HAVEN’T SEEN THEM IN A WAY THAT LOOKS LIKE THEY’RE COMING TO HER RESCUE, THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO FIX SOME DAMAGE, THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.>>SMART POINT. IT DOESN’T FEEL LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO RAEBLTS. >>– REHABILITATE. >>DO WE KNOW THIS FOR SURE?>>I SAY THIS BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER. DO WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT THEY WILL QUESTION JUDGE KAVANAUGH BY MS. MITCHELL?>>THE PURPORTED REASON FOR MITCH TOLL DO THE QUESTIONING, SHE HAD EXPERIENCE IN ASSAULT VICTIMS AND I AM SURE THE RATIONAL DOESN’T APPLY TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND SENATORS, DON’T LIKE TO STAY SILENT IF THEY DON’T WANT TO, AND I WOULD ASSUME THEY ARE CHAMPING AT THE BIT AND WOULD LIKE TO DO THEIR OWN QUESTIONS.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH TO A LARGE EXTENT HEMMED IN WITH WHAT HE TOLD FOX NEWS. HE CAN’T GO MUCH BEYOND WHAT HE SAID IN THAT INTERVIEW. >>I BET HE WILL. BECAUSE REPORTS ARE TRUMP WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY HE HANDLED THAT INTERVIEW, AND IF THAT IS TRUE, AND IF HE IS CAPABLE OF IT, WE MAY SEE HIM MORE AGGRESSIVELY DEFENSE IVE, NOT DEFENSIVE, BUT MORE AGGRESSIVE POSTURE IN DEFENDING HIS POSTURE. WITH RACHEL MITCHELL, CAN I SAY A WORD? THEY WANTED TO AVOID THE OPTICS OF OLD GENTLEMEN CROSS-EXAMINING THE YOUNG WOMAN, GRASSLEY, THE COMMENT ABOUT THE WITNESS MOMENTS AGO, SHE WAS QUITE ATTRACTIVE, SHE SAID SHE WAS AN ATTRACTIVE WITNESS. I DON’T DEEM HER NONCREDIBLE. AND SO THIS IS, THERE IN LIES ONE OF THE REASONS, MAYBE NOT A GREAT IDEA TO HAVE SENATORS LIKE GRASSLEY DOING THIS QUESTIONING.>>WE WILL LET THAT ONE SOAK IN FOR A SECOND AS WE GO TO THE HILL, AND GETTING SOME COLOR. >>I JUST GOT OFF THE PHONE, SAVANNAH, WITH SOMEBODY, A SOURCE WHO IS CLOSE WITH BRETT KAVANAUGH AND HAS BEEN INVOLVED AND CLOSE TO THIS PROCESS WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS A COMPELLING AND SYMPATHETIC FIGURE HERE. AND THIS IS FACTS VERSUS EMOTIONS. AND WE WILL BE HEARING FROM BRETT KAVANAUGH NOW AFTER DR. FORD WRAPS UP. I AM TOLD HE WILL BE FORCEFUL AND CLEAR. HE WILL COME IN A LITTLE HOTTER THAN HE HAS EARLIER IN THE WEEK. WATCH FOR SOME POTENTIAL FIREWORKS ON THAT FRONT. >>ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE CAN SEE SOME OF THE SENATORS STARTING TO TRICKLE IN. AND I THINK THERE ARE A FEW MORE. MAYBE SEVEN MORE OR SO, LESTER. >>YOU KNOW WHAT? I THOUGHT YOU WERE KEEPING TRACK. >>I AM. I AM.>>THE ONE THING I ASKED YOU TODAY. >>I THINK WE’RE HALFWAY THROUGH AND WE HAVE DR. BLASEY FORD FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF QUESTIONS. >>AND WE HAVE SEEN HER ATTORNEYS A FEW TIMES ADVISING HER, OR EVEN SPEAKING ABOUT SOME ISSUES OF WHAT THEY CONSIDER WERE PRIVILEGED CONVERSATIONS, BUT SHE SAID SHE WROTE IN THE ENTIRETY HER STATEMENT, AND YOU KNOW, CONTINUES TO FEEL THE QUESTIONS — DOESN’T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN SHAKEN, BUT AT TIMES, CONFUSED, ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS, AND WHAT THEY’RE LOOKING FOR. BUT SHE IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO TELL US HER STORY. AND WE EXPECT THAT RACHEL MITCHELL WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO FIND SOME THEME TO SHAKE HER. >>DR. FORD, YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU’RE READY.>>I’M JUST ORGANIZING MY PAPERS.>>TAKE AS LONG AS YOU NEED. >>I WILL BE READY IN 20 SECONDS. THANK YOU. I’M READY. >>OKAY. SENATOR HIRONO. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, IS IT YOUR INTENT TO CEDE ALL REPUBLICAN SENATORS TIME TO YOUR PROSECUTOR RATHER THAN THEMSELVES CEDING THEIR TIME TO HER?>>YES. >>WE ALL KNOW THAT THE PROSECUTOR, EVEN THOUGH THIS CLEARLY IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, IS ASKING DR. FORD ALL KINDS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE AND AFTER, BUT BASICALLY NOT DURING THE ATTACK. THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD KNOW THAT SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS OFTEN DO NOT REMEMBER PERIPHERAL INFORMATION SUCH AS WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE OR AFTER THE TRAUMATIC EVENT. AND YET, SHE WILL PERSIST IN ASKING THESE QUESTIONS ALL TO UNDERMINE THE MEMORY AND BASICALLY THE CREDIBILITY OF DR. FORD. BUT WE ALL KNOW, DR. FORD’S MEMORY OF THE ASSAULT IS VERY CLEAR. DR. FORD, THE REPUBLICAN’S PROSECUTOR HAS ASKED YOU ALL KINDS OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO YOU CALLED AND WHEN, ASKING DETAILS THAT WOULD BE ASKED IN A CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, BUT THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. THIS IS A CONFIRMATION PROCEEDING. I THINK I KNOW WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO GET AT. SO I WILL JUST ASK YOU, VERY PLAINLY, DR. FORD, THERE A POLITICAL MOTIVATION FOR YOUR COMING FORWARD, WITH YOUR ACCOUNT OF THE ASSAULT BY BRETT KAVANAUGH?>>NO. AND AS I REITERATE AGAIN, I WAS TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION TO YOU WHILE THERE WAS STILL A LIST OF OTHER, WHAT LOOKED LIKE EQUALLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.>>AND YET, THEY’RE NOT HERE TO TESTIFY. DR. FORD, I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES, WHO HAVE, THANK YOU, FOR COMING FORWARD TODAY, AND I AM, AND WE ALL ADMIRE YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAVE COME FORWARD. YOU WANTED US, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO KNOW WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THE CHARACTER, THE CHARACTER OF A MAN WE ARE CONSIDERING FOR A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT ALSO TO NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT PERSONAL SACRIFICES YOU HAVE MADE TO COME FORWARD TO SHARE YOUR TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE WITH US AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YOU HAVE HAD TO MOVE. YOU HAVE HAD DEATH THREATS. ALL MANNER OF BASICALLY REVICTIMIZATION EXPERIENCES HAVE COME YOUR WAY. BUT BY COMING FORWARD, YOU HAVE INSERTED THE QUESTION OF CHARACTER INTO THIS NOMINATION AND HOPEFULLY BACK INTO AMERICAN LIFE AND RIGHTFULLY SO. WE SHOULD BE MADE TO FACE THE QUESTION OF WHAT IT IS WE ARE PUTTING IN POSITIONS OF POWER AND DECISION MAKING IN THIS COUNTRY. WE SHOULD LOOK THE QUESTIONS SQUARE IN THE FACE, DOES CHARACTER MATTER? DO OUR VALUES, OUR REAL VALUES ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG, AND ABOUT WHETHER WE TREAT OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT, DO THEY MATTER ANYMORE? I BELIEVE THEY DO. AND I BELIEVE THE REACTION WE HAVE SEEN TO THIS COVERAGE, RIGHT NOW, AND YOUR COURAGE, ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY, SHOWS US, THAT WE ARE NOT ALONE. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. THAT WOMEN AND MEN ALL ACROSS AMERICA ARE DISGUSTED AND SICK AND TIRED OF THE WAY BASIC HUMAN DECENCY HAS BEEN DRIVEN FROM OUR PUBLIC LIFE. THE PRESIDENT ADMITS ON TAPE TO ASSAULTING WOMEN. HE SEPARATES CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS. HE TAKES BASIC HEALTH CARE PROTECTIONS FROM THOSE WHO NEED THEM MOST. HE NOMINATES AND STANDS BEHIND A MAN WHO STANDS CREDITBLY ACCUSED OF A HORRIBLE ACT. I AGAIN WANT TO THANK YOU FOR COMING FORWARD. MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT SIX ITEMS, CONSISTING OF VARIOUS STATEMENTS, LETTERS, FACT SHEETS, POSTS, ARE INSERTED INTO THE RECORD. >>IS THAT ONE REQUEST OR DO YOU WANT ME TO WAIT FOR SIX?>>WELL, I HAVE SIX SEPARATE ITEMS.>>OKAY.>>BECAUSE I CAN GO OVER THEM FOR YOU. >>OKAY, NO.>>I WOULD LIKE TO –>>LET ME NOT INTERRUPT YOU. YOUR REQUEST IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>THANK YOU. AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ FROM AN ITEM THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BUT THIS IS FROM A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO END SEXUAL AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE LETTER STATES, AND I QUOTE THIS LETTER, THIS MOMENT HAS BECOME A CRUCIBLE. IT IS A TEST OF OUR PROGRESS. DO WE START BY BELIEVING VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND TREATING THEM WITH DIGNITY OR DON’T WE? SO FAR, SENATE LEADERS ARE FAILING THAT TEST. PREJUDGING THE OUTCOME OF A HEARING. SYMPATHIZING WITH HER PERPETRATOR. ATTACKING HER CREDIBILITY. THEY SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY VICTIM OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE THAT THEIR PAIN DOESN’T MATTER, THAT THEY DO NOT DESERVE JUSTICE, AND THAT FOR THEM, FAIR TREATMENT IS OUT OF REACH. THIS WILL ONLY SERVE DRIVE VICTIMS INTO THE SHOULDERS AND FURTHER EMBOLDEN ABUSERS. ONCE AGAIN, DR. FORD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A MOMENT FOR OUR COUNTRY. MAHALO. >>SENATOR, MS. MITCHELL, FOR SENATOR KRABLE. >>GOOD AFTERNOON. WHEN WE LEFT OFF, WE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH, AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT HASN’T BEEN PAID FOR YET. IS THAT CORRECT?>>LET ME PUT AN END TO THIS MYSTERY. HER LAWYERS HAVE PAID FOR HER POLYGRAPH.>>AS IS ROUTINE. >>AS IS ROUTINE.>>DR. FORD, DO YOU EXPECT THE PRICE OF THAT POLYGRAPH TO BE PASSED ON TO YOU?>>I’M NOT SURE YET. I HAVEN’T TAKEN A LOOK AT ALL OF THE COSTS INVOLVED IN THIS. WE HAVE RELOCATED NOW TWICE. SO I HAVEN’T KEPT TRACK OF ALL OF THAT PAPERWORK BUT I’M SURE I HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO CATCH UP ON ALL OF THAT LATER. >>I GET YOU HAVE HAD A LOT GOING ON AND YOU HAVE HAD THAT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, BUT IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO ASSIST YOU WITH SOME OF THESE FEES, INCLUDING THE COST FOR YOUR POLYGRAPH?>>I’M WEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL GO FUND ME SITES THAT I HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MANAGE THOSE, BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER HAD ONE. >>I’M SORRY, SEVERAL WHAT?>>GO FUND ME SITES. THAT HAVE RAISED MONEY. PRIMARILY FOR OUR SECURITY DETAIL. SO I’M NOT EVEN QUITE SURE HOW TO COLLECT THAT MONEY OR HOW TO DISTRIBUTE IT YET. I HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO FOCUS ON THAT.>>OKAY. IN YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING, YOU STATED THAT SENATOR FEINSTEIN SENT YOU A LETTER ON AUGUST 31 OF THIS YEAR. IS THAT RIGHT?>>AUGUST 31. LET ME SEE. I SENT HER A LETTER ON JULY 30. AND I DON’T HAVE THE DATE. I WOULD HAVE TO PULL UP MY EMAIL TO FIND OUT THE DATE OF HER E-MAIL TO ME, SAYING THAT IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARINGS THAT SHE WAS GOING TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE LETTER. >>SAY THAT AGAIN. IT WAS TILL RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARINGS –>>THAT’S MY MEMORY. I CAN LOOK IT UP FOR YOU, IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE EXACT DATE, I CAN PULL IT UP ON MY E-MAIL. >>I WANT TO MAKE SURE –>>I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID.>>THAT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER, IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS. YOU HAVE IT.>>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID. WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS GOING TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL UP UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING?>>IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL PERIOD. >>PERIOD, OKAY. BETWEEN YOUR POLYGRAPH ON AUGUST 7, AND YOUR RECEIPT OF THE LETTER FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN, DID YOU OR ANYONE ON YOUR BEHALF SPEAK TO ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR CONGRESSIONAL STAFF ABOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS?>>I PERSONALLY DID NOT. >>SO MY QUESTION WAS, DID YOU OR ANYBODY ON YOUR BEHALF?>>WHAT DO YOU MEAN, DID SOMEBODY SPEAK FOR ME?>>SOMEBODY THAT WORKED, IS WORKING WITH YOU, OR HELPING YOU, DID SOMEBODY, AT YOUR BEHEST, ON YOUR BEHALF, SPEAK TO SOMEBODY IN CONGRESS, OR STAFF?>>I’M NOT SURE. I’M NOT SURE HOW THOSE EXCHANGES WENT BUT I DIDN’T SPEAK TO ANYONE. >>IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY DID?>>I THINK SO. IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. I AM GUESSING IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. BUT I DON’T KNOW.>>EXCUSE ME, YOU HAVE ASKED HER NOT TO GUESS, AND NOW YOU’RE ASKING HER WHAT IS POSSIBLE, SO I THINK IF YOU WANT TO ASK HER WHAT SHE KNOWS, YOU SHOULD ASK HER WHAT SHE KNOWS. >>IS THAT AN OBJECTION, COUNSEL? I WILL HAVE THE CHAIR RULE ON THAT.>>I DON’T –>>YOU SHOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION, UNLESS THERE IS A LEGAL REASON FOR NOT ANSWERING IT, ON ADVICE OF YOUR COUNSEL.>>SO I DON’T TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, BUT I DIDN’T SPEAK WITH ANYONE DURING THAT TIME FRAME OTHER THAN MY COUNSEL. >>OKAY. YOU SAID REPEATEDLY THAT YOU DID NOT THINK THAT THAT LETTER THAT YOU WROTE ON JULY 30 WAS GOING TO BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>IS IT TRUE THAT YOU DID NOT AUTHORIZE IT TO BE RELEASED, AT ANY TIME?>>CORRECT.>>BESIDES YOUR ATTORNEYS, DID YOU PROVIDE, YOU PROVIDED THAT LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I PROVIDED HER A LETTER ON JULY 30. >>WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE JULY 30 LETTER. AND YOU PROVIDED THAT LETTER TO SENATOR FINE STEIN, CORRECT?>>UH-HUH. >>IS THAT A YES?>>YES.>>YOU PROVIDED THE LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE ESCHEW TO DELIVER IT TO TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN. >>YES. >>BESIDES THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS, REPRESENTATIVE ESCHEW, AND SENATOR FEINSTEIN, AND YOUR ATTORNEYS, DID YOU PROVIDE THAT LETTER TO ANYONE ELSE?>>NO. >>DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT LETTER BECAME PUBLIC?>>NO. >>AFTER THAT LETTER WAS MADE PUBLIC, OR LEAKED, DID YOU REACH BACK OUT TO THE “WASHINGTON POST”?>>I REACHED OUT TO THE “WASHINGTON POST,” WELL THEY WERE CONTINUOUSLY REACHING OUT TO ME, AND I WAS NOT RESPONDING, BUT THE TIME THAT I DID RESPOND, AND AGREE TO DO THE SITDOWN, WAS ONCE THE REPORTERS STARTED SHOWING UP AT MY HOME AND AT MY WORKPLACE. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DR. FORD, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT A COURTROOM. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL PROCEEDING. YOU ARE HERE UNDER YOUR OWN VOLITION. AND THOUGH THE PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN ENGAGED HERE, TO REPRESENT MY COLLEAGUES, YOU ARE HERE, AS YOU SAID, OUT OF A CIVIC DUTY. AND I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES, THAT IT IS REALLY MORE THAN THAT. YOU KNOW, OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS TALK ABOUT CIVIC DUTY, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TALKS ABOUT FOR THIS COUNTRY, PLEDGING YOUR LIVES, YOUR FORTUNES AND YOUR SACRED HONOR, AND ANYBODY WHO HAS READ YOUR TESTIMONY KNOWS WHAT YOU HAVE HAD TO SACRIFICE BY COMING FORWARD, YOUR LIFE HAS BEEN UPENDED, YOU HAVE RECEIVED VICIOUS HATEFUL THREATS, DEATH THREATS, YOU HAD TO MOVE OUT OF YOUR FAMILY HOME TO SOME EXPENSE I IMAGINE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. YOU HAD TO ENGAGE SECURITY, TO SOME EXPENSE. YOU HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH INCREDIBLE CHALLENGES. AND WHAT IS AMAZING, AND I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES, IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE AND BRAVERY IN COMING FORWARD, ALL TO HELP US DEAL WITH ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OBLIGATIONS A SENATOR HAS, TO ADVISE AND CONSENT ON ONE OF THE BRANCHES OF OUR GOVERNMENT, THE HIGHEST COURTS IN THE LAND, AN INDIVIDUAL GOING BEFORE A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT, AND YOU EVEN SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A LOT OF FOLKS ON THAT LIST, AND YOUR FEAR WAS THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL, WHO ASSAULTED YOU, WOULD ASCEND TO THAT SEAT. THAT’S CORRECT, RIGHT?>>CORRECT. >>YES. AND IT IS CORRECT THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN A LOT OF RESOURCES, TAKEN A LOT OF THREATS, TO COME FORWARD, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>ASSAULTS ON YOUR DIGNITY AND YOUR HUMANITY?>>ABSOLUTELY. >>HOW HAS IT AFFECTED YOUR CHILDREN?>>THEY ARE DOING FAIRLY WELL CONSIDERING, THANK YOU FOR ASKING. >>AND YOUR HUSBAND?>>DOING FAIRLY WELL, CONSIDERING. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A VERY SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY.>>THAT’S GOOD TO HEAR. I WANT TO USE A DIFFERENT WORD FOR YOUR COURAGE BECAUSE THIS IS MORE, AS MUCH AS THIS HEARING IS ABOUT A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, THE REALITY IS, IS BY YOU COMING FORWARD, YOUR COURAGE, YOU ARE AFFECTING THE CULTURE OF OUR COUNTRY. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL NATION, AN INCREDIBLE CULTURE, BUT THERE ARE DARK ELEMENTS THAT ALLOW UNCONSCIONABLE LEVELS OF, UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND HARASSMENT THAT ARE AFFECTING GIRLS AND BOYS, AND AFFECTING MEN AND WOMEN FROM BIG MEDIA OUTLETS TO CORPORATIONS TO FACTORY FLOORS, TO SERVERS IN RESTAURANTS, TO OUR INTIMATE SPACES IN HOMES AND APARTMENTS ALL AROUND THIS COUNTRY. I STEPPED OUT DURING THE BREAK AND WAS DELUGED WITH NOTES FROM FRIENDS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, THAT THERE ARE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WATCHING YOUR TESTIMONY RIGHT NOW, AND NOTE AFTER NOTE THAT I GOT, PEOPLE IN TEARS, FEELING PAIN AND ANGUISH, NOT JUST FEELING YOUR PAIN, BUT FEELING THEIR OWN, WHO HAVE NOT COME FORWARD. YOU ARE OPENING UP, TO OPEN AIR, HURT AND PAIN, THAT GOES ON ACROSS THIS COUNTRY. AND FOR THAT, THE WORD I WOULD USE, IT IS NOTHING SHORT OF HEROIC, BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE DOING FOR OUR NATION RIGHT NOW, BESIDES GIVING TESTIMONY GERMANE TO ONE OF THE MOST SACRED OBLIGATIONS OF OURSELVES OFFICE IS, IS YOU ARE SPEAKING TRUTH, THAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND. AND HOW WE DEAL WITH SURVIVORS WHO COME FORWARD RIGHT NOW IS UNACCEPTABLE. AND THE WAY WE DEAL WITH THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, ALLOWS FOR THE CONTINUED DARKNESS OF THIS CULTURE TO EXIST. AND YOUR BRILLIANCE, SHINING LIGHT ON TO THIS, SPEAKING YOUR TRUTH, IS NOTHING SHORT OF HEROIC. BUT TO THE MATTER AT HAND, AND ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR, AND I DO CONSIDER HIM A FRIEND, WENT TO THE SENATE FLOOR AND SPOKE TRUTH TO BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL AISLE, SENATOR FLAKE SAID YESTERDAY, THIS IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT, AND THIS IS SAID TO BE A DELIBERATIVE BODY. IN THE INTEREST OF DUE DILIGENCE AND FAIRNESS, HER CLAIMS MUST BE FULLY AIRED AND CONSIDERED. I AGREE WITH HIM. BUT YOU’VE ASKED FOR THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE A FULL AIRING FROM CORROBORATING WITNESSES, TO BE CALLED, YOU HAVE SUBMITTED TO AN INTRUSIVE POLYGRAPH TEST, CAN YOU ANSWER FOR ME, HOW DO YOU FEEL THAT ALL OF THE THINGS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE THOROUGHLY TO HELP THIS DELIBERATIVE BODY HAVE NOT BEEN HONORED IN THIS SO-CALLED INVESTIGATION?>>I WISH THAT I COULD BE MORE HELPFUL AND THAT OTHERS COULD BE MORE HELPFUL, AND THAT WE COULD COLLABORATE IN A WAY THAT WOULD GET AT MORE INFORMATION. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INTRODUCE FOR THE RECORD SEVEN LETTERS FROM LAMBDA LEGAL, FOR MORMON WOMEN FOR ETHICAL GOVERNMENT, YOUTH-LED ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THIS COUNTRY, THE INTERNATIONAL UNIONS, BRICKLAYERS, ALLIED CRAFT WORKERS, A LETTER FROM 295 SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN SUPPORT OF DR. FORD, AND A LETTER FROM 1,600 MEN, IT IS A CAMPAIGN, IN SUPPORT OF DR. FORD. AND THOSE WHO WANT TO ASSERT, MEN AND WOMEN, THAT SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE ARE NOT OPPORTUNISTS, DO NOT HAVE POLITICAL AMPS TO GRIND, BUT ARE COME — AXES TO GRIND BUT ARE COMING FORWARD WITH COURAGE AND HEART TO SPEAK THEIR TRUTH TO END THE SCOURGE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THIS COUNTRY. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>MS. MITCHELL FOR SENATOR TILLES. >>DR. FORD, IN CHOOSING ATTORNEYS, DID ANYONE HELP YOU WITH THE CHOICE ON WHO TO CHOOSE?>>VARIOUS PEOPLE REFERRED ME TO LAWYERS THAT THEY KNEW IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA. SO AS YOU KNOW I GREW UP IN THIS AREA, SO I ASKED SOME FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS, AND THEY REFERRED ME TO LIKE DIVORCE ATTORNEYS, THAT MIGHT KNOW SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT KNOW SOMEBODY, AND I ENDED UP INTERVIEWING SEVERAL LAW FIRMS FROM THE DC AREA.>>AND DID ANYBODY BESIDES FRIENDS AND FAMILY REFER YOU TO ANY ATTORNEYS?>>I THINK THAT THE STAFF OF DIANE FEINSTEIN’S OFFICE SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME ATTORNEYS. >>INCLUDING THE TWO THAT ARE SITTING ON EITHER SIDE OF YOU?>>NOT BOTH OF THEM, NO. >>OKAY. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT FBI INVESTIGATIONS. WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY FIRST REQUEST AN FBI INVESTIGATION?>>HOW MANY WEEKS AGO? I GUESS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A HEARING, I WAS HOPING THAT THERE WOULD BE A MORE THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. >>WOULD THAT INVESTIGATION HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED TO AN INTERVIEW?>>I WOULD BE HAPPY TO COOPERATE WITH THE FBI, YES. >>WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO SUBMIT TO AN INTERVIEW BY STAFF MEMBERS FROM THIS COMMITTEE?>>ABSOLUTELY. >>BESIDES, YOU MENTIONED SOME GO FUND ME ACCOUNTS, BESIDES THOSE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER EFFORTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN PERSONAL FINANCES TO PAY FOR YOUR LEGAL FEES? OR ANY OF THE COSTS INCURRED?>>IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF MY TEAM IS WORKING ON A PROBONO BASIS, BUT I DON’T KNOW THE EXACT DETAILS, AND THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY IN PALO ALTO WHO HAVE THE MEANS TO HELP ME WITH THE SECURITY DETAIL, ET CETERA. >>HAVE YOU BEEN PROVIDED –>>I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT. BOTH HER COUNSEL ARE DOING THIS PROBONO, WE ARE NOT BEING PAID, AND WE HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF BEING PAID. >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TODAY?>>NO. >>HAVE YOU, YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS, BY OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE?>>NO. >>HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD THEM IN ADVANCE?>>NO. >>AND LIKEWISE, WITH MY QUESTIONS, HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD MY QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE?>>DEFINITELY NOT. >>OKAY. YOU MENTIONED ABOUT SOME POSSIBLE INFORMATION SUCH AS WHEN MARK JUDGE WORKED AT THE SUPERMARKET. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A CLASSMATE WHO WAS REALLY SORT OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN YOU AND BRETT KAVANAUGH. WHO WAS THIS PERSON?>>I THINK THAT THAT CASE WITH MR. WHELAN WHO WAS LOOKING AT MY LINKED IN PAGE, AND THEN TRYING TO BLAME THE PERSON, I JUST DON’T FEEL LIKE IT IS RIGHT FOR US TO BE TALKING ABOUT THAT. >>I’M NOT TRYING TO BLAME EVERYBODY. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO THE COMMON FRIEND THAT YOU AND –>>THE PERSON THAT MR. WHALEN WAS TRYING TO SAY LOOKED LIKE MR. KAVANAUGH. >>HOW LONG DID YOU FLOW THIS — KNOW THIS PERSON?>>MAYBE FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, WE SOCIALIZED BUT HE WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE SAME COUNTRY CLUB AND I KNEW HIS YOUNGER BROTHER AS WELL. >>SO A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE THIS TOOK PLACE?>>YES. >>OKAY. HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THIS TOOK PLACE, THIS PERSON?>>HE WAS SOMEBODY THAT, WE USED THE PHRASE, I WENT OUT WITH, I WOULDN’T SAY DATE, I WENT OUT WITH FOR A FEW MONTHS, THAT’S HOW WE TERMED IT AT THE TIME, AND AFTER THAT, WE WERE DISTANT FRIENDS, AND RAN INTO EACH OTHER PERIODICALLY AT COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB, BUT I DIDN’T SEE HIM OFTEN. I SAW HIS BROTHER AND HIM SEVERAL TIMES. >>WAS THIS PERSON THE ONLY COMMON LINK BETWEEN YOU AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH?>>HE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO NAME RIGHT NOW THAT I WOULD LIKE TO NOT NAME BUT YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN. AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY OTHER MEMBERS OF COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB THAT WERE COMMON FRIENDS OR THEY WERE MORE ACQUAINTANCES OF MINE AND FRIENDS OF MR. KAVANAUGH. >>CAN YOU DESCRIBE ALL OF THE OTHER SOCIAL INTERACTIONS THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. KAVANAUGH?>>BRIEFLY, YES, I CAN. THERE WERE, DURING FRESHMAN AND SOPHOMORE YEAR, PARTICULARLY MY SOPHOMORE YEAR, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS JUNIOR YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL, FOUR TO FIVE PARTIES THAT MY FRIENDS AND I BY HIM.>>OKAY. DID ANYTHING HAPPEN AT THESE EVENTS, LIKE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT? BESIDES THE TIME WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. >>YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THEN I’LL GO TO SENATOR HARRIS. GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >>THERE WAS NO SEXUAL ASSAULT AT ANY OF THOSE EVENTS. IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE ASKING?>>YES.>>YES, THOSE WERE JUST PARTIES.>>OR ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE IS WHAT I’M ASKING. >>MAYBE WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL. I FEEL TIME PRESSURE ON THAT QUESTION, BUT YEAH, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER IN FURTHER DETAIL IF YOU WANT ME TO.>>I’M SORRY. GO AHEAD AND FINISH ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.>>OH, OKAY. DID YOU WANT ME TO DESCRIBE THOSE PARTIES OR?>>SHOULDN’T WE LEAVE THIS TO THE NEXT ROUND, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ANSWER THE QUESTION. >>I’M HAPPY TO DESCRIBE THEM IF YOU WANTED ME TO. I’M HAPPY TO NOT. WHATEVER YOU WANT. WHATEVER IS YOUR PREFERENCE. >>MAYBE THIS WILL CUT TO THE CHASE. MY QUESTION IS WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE, ANY INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF MY KAVANAUGH TOWARDS YOU AT ANY OF THESE FUNCTIONS?>>NO.>>SENATOR HARRIS. >>DR. FORD, FIRST OF ALL, JUST SO WE CAN LEVEL SET. YOU KNOW YOU ARE NOT ON TRIAL. YOU ARE NOT ON TRIAL. YOU ARE SITTING HERE BEFORE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE’S JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD BECAUSE AS YOU HAVE SAID, YOU BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR CIVIC DUTY. I WAS STRUCK IN YOUR TESTIMONY BY WHAT YOU INDICATED AS YOUR INTENTION WHEN YOU FIRST LET ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE HEARINGS KNOW ABOUT IT, AND WHAT YOU BASICALLY SAID IS YOU REACHED OUT TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS HOPING THAT PERSON WOULD INFORM THE WHITE HOUSE BEFORE JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAD BEEN NAMED. THAT’S EXTREMELY PERSUASIVE ABOUT YOUR MOTIVATION FOR COMING FORWARD, AND SO I WANT TO THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE, AND I WANT TO TELL YOU I BELIEVE YOU. I BELIEVE YOU. AND I BELIEVE MANY AMERICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY BELIEVE YOU. AND WHAT I FIND STRIKING ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS YOU REMEMBER KEY SERING DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU. YOU TOLD YOUR HUSBAND AND THERAPIST, TWO OF THE MOST INTIMATE OF YOUR CONFIDANTS AND YOU TOLD THEM YEARS AGO ABOUT THIS ASSAULT. YOU HAVE SHARED YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH MULTIPLE FRIENDS YEARS AFTER THAT, AND BEFORE THESE HEARINGS EVER STARTED. I KNOW HAVING PERSONALLY PROSECUTED SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES AND CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES THAT STUDY AFTER STUDY SHOWS TRAUMA, SHAME AND THE FEAR OF CONSEQUENCES ALMOST ALWAYS CAUSE SURVIVORS TO AT THE VERY LEAST DELAY REPORTING, IF THEY EVER REPORT AT ALL. POLICE RECOGNIZE THAT. PROSECUTORS RECOGNIZE THAT. MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS RECOGNIZE THAT. THE NOTES FROM YOUR THERAPY SESSIONS WERE CREATED LONG BEFORE THIS NOMINATION AND CORROBORATE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID TODAY. YOU HAVE PASSED A POLYGRAPH AND SUBMITTED THE RESULTS TO THIS COMMITTEE. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS NOT. YOU HAVE CALLED FOR OUTSIDE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AND FOR EXPERT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS NOT. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU HAVE CALLED FOR AN INDEPENDENT FBI INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS NOT. AND WE OWE YOU THAT. WE OWE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT. AND LET’S TALK ABOUT WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID TODAY, THE FBI DOES NOT REACH CONCLUSIONS. THE FBI INVESTIGATES. IT INTERVIEWS WITNESSES, GATHERS FACTS AND THEN PRESENTS THAT INFORMATION TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND JUDGMENT. THIS COMMITTEE KNOWS THAT IN SPITE OF WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. IN 1991 DURING A SIMILAR HEARING, ONE OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THIS COMMITTEE STATED THESE CLAIMS WERE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY HAVING THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS LAUNCH AN INQUIRY TO DETERMINE THEIR VALIDITY. THE FBI FULFILLED ITS DUTY AND ISSUED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT. WELL THAT WOULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE HERE. THIS MORNING, IT WAS SAID THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED CONFIDENTIALLY BACK IN JULY, BUT THIS ALSO COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED IN THE LAST ELEVEN DAYS SINCE YOU CAME FORWARD, YET THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. THE FBI COULD HAVE INTERVIEWED MARK JUDGE, PATRICK SMYTH, LELAND KEYSER, AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH ON THESE ISSUES. THE PROSECUTOR WHO STANDS IN FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATORS ON THIS COMMITTEE. THE FBI COULD HAVE GATHERED FACTS ABOUT THE MUSIC OR CONVERSATION OR ANY OTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE GATHERING THAT OCCURRED THAT EVENING. THAT IS STANDARD PROCEDURE IN A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE. IN FACT, THE MANUAL THAT WAS SIGNED OFF BY MS. MITCHELL, THE MANUAL THAT IS POSTED ON THE ATTORNEY’S WEB SITE HIGHLIGHTS THE DETAILS OF WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN TERMS OF THE NEED FOR AN OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATION INTO ANY SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE. IT SAYS QUOTE, EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION REQUIRES COOPERATION WITH A MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM THAT REQUIRES MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, VICTIM ADVOCATES, CRIMINALISTS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS. THE MANUAL ALSO STRESSES THE IMPORTANCE OF OBTAINED OUTSIDE WITNESS INFORMATION. YOU HAVE BRAVELY COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE BRAVELY COME FORWARD. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY HAVE NOTHI TO GAIN FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. YOU HAVE BEEN A TRUE PATRIOT IN FIGHTING FOR THE BEST OF WHO WE ARE AS A COUNTRY. I BELIEVE YOU ARE DOING THAT BECAUSE YOU LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND I BELIEVE HISTORY WILL SHOW THAT YOU ARE A TRUE PROFILE IN COURAGE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, AND I THANK YOU.>>SENATOR KENNEDY NOW, SO PROCEED MS. MITCHELL.>>DR. FORD, WE’RE ALMOST DONE. JUST A COUPLE OF CLEAN UPQUESTIONS, FIRST OF ALL. WHICH OF YOUR TWO LAWYERS DID SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S OFFICE RECOMMEND?>>THE KATZ FIRM.>>OKAY. AND WHEN YOU DID LEAVE THAT NIGHT, DID LELAND KEYSER FOLLOW UP WITH YOU AND SAY HEY, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU?>>I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH HER RECENTLY.>>I’M TALKING ABOUT LIKE THE NEXT DAY OR. >>OH, NO, SHE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE EVENT. SHE WAS DOWNSTAIRS AT THE EVENT AND I DID NOT SHARE IT WITH HER.>>ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE THREE PEOPLE AT THE PARTY BESIDES YOURSELF AND BRETT KAVANAUGH HAVE GIVEN STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY TO THE COMMITTEE?>>YES.>>AND ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THOSE STATEMENTS SAY?>>YES.>>ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY SAY THAT THEY HAVE NO MEMORY OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH A PARTY?>>YES.>>OKAY.>>DO YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR MOTIVES TO ASCRIBE TO LELAND?>>I GUESS WE COULD TAKE THOSE ONE AT A TIME. LELAND HAS SIGNIFICANT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND I’M HAPPY THAT SHE’S FOCUSSING ON HERSELF AND GETTING THE HEALTH TREATMENT THAT SHE NEEDS, AND SHE LET ME KNOW THAT SHE NEEDED HER LAWYER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS FOR HER, AND SHE TEXTED ME RIGHT AFTERWARD WITH AN APOLOGY AND GOOD WISHES AND ET CETERA, SO I’M GLAD THAT SHE’S TAKING CARE OF HERSELF. I DON’T EXPECT THAT P.J. AND LELAND WOULD REMEMBER THIS EVENING. IT WAS A VERY UNREMARKABLE PARTY. IT WAS NOT ONE OF THEIR MORE NOTORIOUS PARTIES BECAUSE NOTHING REMARKABLE HAPPENED TO THEM THAT EVENING. THEY WERE DOWNSTAIRS, AND MR. JUDGE IS A DIFFERENT STORY. I WOULD EXPECT THAT HE WOULD REMEMBER THAT THIS HAPPENED.>>UNDERSTOOD.>>SENATOR HARRIS JUST QUESTIONED YOU FROM THE MARICOPA COUNTY PROTOCOL ON SEXUAL ASSAULT THAT THAT’S THE PAPER SHE WAS HOLDING UP. ARE YOU AWARE THAT — AND YOU KNOW, I’VE BEEN REALLY IMPRESSED TODAY BECAUSE YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT NOREPINEPHRINE AND CORTISOL, AND WHAT WE CALL IN THE PROFESSION BASICALLY THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF TRAUMA. HAVE YOU ALSO EDUCATED YOURSELF ON THE BEST WAY TO GET TO MEMORY AND TRUTH IN TERMS OF INTERVIEWING VICTIMS OF TRAUMA?>>FOR ME INTERVIEWING VICTIMS OF TRAUMA?>>NO, THE BEST WAY TO DO IT, THE BEST PRACTICES FOR INTERVIEWING VICTIMS OF TRAUMA.>>NO.>>OKAY. WOULD YOU BELIEVE ME IF I TOLD YOU THERE’S NO STUDY THAT SAYS THIS SETTING IN FIVE MINUTE INCREMENTS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT.>>I’LL STIPULATE TO THAT. >>THANK YOU, COUNSEL.>>AGREED.>>DID YOU KNOW THAT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS TO HAVE A TRAINED INTERVIEWER TALK TO YOU ONE ON ONE IN A PRIVATE SETTING AND TO LET YOU DO THE TALKING, JUST LET YOU DO A NARRATIVE? DID YOU KNOW THAT?>>THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.>>IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSUOUS DOESN’T IT?>>YES.>>AND THEN TO FOLLOW UP, OBVIOUSLY TO FILL IN THE DETAILS AND ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE AS WELL?>>YES.>>AND THE RESEARCH IS DONE BY A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CHILD ABUSE FIELD, TWO OF THE MORE PROMINENT ONES IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT FIELD ARE GEISEL AND FISHER WHO HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT. IT’S CALLED A COGNITIVE INTERVIEW. THIS IS NOT A COGNITIVE INTERVIEW. DID ANYBODY EVER ADVISE YOU FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S OFFICE OR FROM REPRESENTATIVE ESHOO’S OFFICE TO GO GET A FORENSIC INTERVIEW?>>NO.>>INSTEAD, YOU WERE ADVISED TO GET AN ATTORNEY AND TAKE A POLYGRAPH, IS THAT RIGHT?>>MANY PEOPLE ADVISED ME TO GET AN ATTORNEY. ONCE I HAD AN ATTORNEY, MY ATTORNEY AND I DISCUSSED USING THE POLYGRAPH.>>AND INSTEAD OF SUBMITTING TO AN INTERVIEW IN CALIFORNIA, WE’RE HAVING A HEARING HERE TODAY IN FIVE-MINUTE INCREMENTS, IS THAT RIGHT?>>I AGREE THAT’S WHAT WAS AGREED UPON BY THE COLLEGIAL GROUP HERE.>>OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >>OKAY. I HAVE SOMETHING TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD. WE RECEIVED THREE STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY FROM THREE WITNESSES IDENTIFIED BY DR. FORD, MARK JUDGE, LELAND KEYSER, AND PATRICK SMYTH. ALL THREE DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT OR GATHERING DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION I’LL ENTER IN THE RECORD.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD AS WELL, A NUMBER OF LETTERS FROM THE WITNESSES, FAMILY, FRIENDS, INCLUDING HER HUSBAND.>>OKAY. I’LL GET TO YOU JUST AS SOON AS THE RANKING MEMBER. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE THREE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO BOTH YOU AND THE RANKING MEMBER, AND I’D ASK THAT THEY BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>AND IT’S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. JUDGE IS NOT WILLING TO COME FORWARD TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. AS A RESULT, WE CANNOT TEST HIS MEMORY OR MAKE ANY ASSESSMENT OF HIS THOUGHTFULNESS OR CHARACTER, AND I THINK THAT’S WHY THE FAILURE TO CALL HIM TO TESTIFY IS SO VERY CRITICAL AND I HOPE THE MAJORITY WOULD RECONSIDER THAT.>>SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK IF YOU HAVE SWORN STATEMENTS THAT YOU’RE SUBMITTING FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE THOSE INDIVIDUALS COME BEFORE US SO THAT WE CAN ASK THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE STATEMENTS. I THINK THAT THE NATURE OF THIS PROCEEDING WOULD BE COMPROMISED IF WE LACK AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT SWORN STATEMENTS THAT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD. SO FRANKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD OBJECT TO ENTERING THEM IN THE RECORD.>>MR. CHAIRMAN?>>SENATOR WHITEHOUSE.>>I HAVE A NUMBER OF LETTERS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD THAT RELATE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER INVESTIGATION BY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS IN PULLING THESE KIND OF INVESTIGATIONS TOGETHER FROM THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, THE NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, AND SO FORTH.>>SENATOR KENNEDY. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR CHAIRMAN. THE STATEMENTS THAT SENATOR BLUMENTHAL TALKED ABOUT, THOSE WERE STATEMENTS TAKEN BY OUR MAJORITY STAFF. >>THEY’RE ALREADY IN THE RECORD. >>YES, SIR, BUT THOSE STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN BY OUR MAJORITY STAFF?>>YES.>>DID MINORITY STAFF PARTICIPATE?>>NO.>>WHY NOT. >>YOU’LL HAVE TO ASK THEM. >>WELL, WERE THEY INSTRUCTED NOT TO PARTICIPATE?>>NO. >>THEY CHOSE NOT TO?>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>IF I COULD, I THINK I HAVE THE FLOOR. >>CAN WE BE EXCUSED. THE WITNESS IS QUITE TIRED. SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE EXCUSED. >>IF YOU WOULD WAIT JUST A MINUTE, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DR. FORD. >>IN FACT, WE’RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS MEETING AND WE CAN — SO LET’S JUST BE NICE TO HER. DR. FORD, I CAN ONLY SPEAK AS ONE OF 21 SENATORS HERE, BUT I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR YOUR BRAVERY COMING OUT. AND TRYING TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AS BEST YOU COULD REMEMBER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE’LL ADJOURN FOR 45 MINUTES. OR NOT ADJOURN. RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES.>>>WELL DR. FORD HAS SAID HER PIECE UNDER OATH TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND AFTER THE BREAK OF WHAT WE’RE TOLD IS 45 MINUTES, WE WILL HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THE FIRST TIME, WELL, THE FIRST TIME FORMALLY SINCE HIS INITIAL QUESTIONING, AND HE WILL NOW HAVE TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE TO FIND THE QUESTIONING THAT THEY THINK WILL HELP SOMEHOW CAST DOUBT ON THE TESTIMONY WE HAVE JUST HEARD. >>I GUESS THE BIG MYSTERY OF THE AFTERNOON IS WHETHER RACHEL MITCHELL WHO WAS THE HIRED PROSECUTOR WILL DO THE QUESTIONING OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH AS WELL.>>BUT I’M SORRY, THIS JUST TURNED OUT TO BE A MISTAKE ON THEIR PART, POLITICALLY. >>CHUCK, THAT’S WHY YOU’RE HERE. TELL US YOUR OPINION. >>THIS HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A MISTAKE FOR THEM.>>WHY DO YOU SAY THAT?>>SHE HERSELF AT THE END SEEMED TO ADMIT THAT, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN’T NORMALLY HOW I DO IT. FIVE-MINUTE INCREMENTS. THAT WAS ALMOST HER WAY OF SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE SENATORS, GUYS, I DID THE BEST I COULD, YOU PUT ME IN THIS. I DIDN’T GET THAT CHANCE. AND THIS STRATEGY, WHILE POLITICALLY SENSITIVE, AND WE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT, I DON’T THINK THEY HAVE LAID A FINGER ON HER STORY. SHE DID SOME DAMAGE TO THE DEMOCRATS IN HOW THEY HANDLED THIS ALLEGATION. I DON’T THINK THEY WERE ABLE TO UNDERMINE HER CREDIBILITY. >>I DON’T THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO UNDERMINE, COMPLETELY PUT A LIE TO THE STORY BECAUSE THAT’S NOT POSSIBLE. IT’S HER MEMORY. SHE’S A COMPELLING WITNESS. SHE ABSOLUTELY SEEMED SINCERE. AND I DON’T THINK THEY’RE DUMB ENOUGH TO THINK PEOPLE AT HOME ARE GOING TO REJECT THAT TESTIMONY AS COMPLETELY FALSE. WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO IS PLANT LITTLE MARKERS. SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER THIS. SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER THAT. SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT DAY IT WAS. SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HOUSE IT WAS. SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER MODERN DAY WHAT DAY SHE GAVE A POLYGRAPH, WHO PAID FOR THE POLYGRAPH. IN ONE SITUATION, SHE SAID THE POLYGRAPH WAS LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED. EARLIER THEY SAID IT WAS ONLY TWO QUESTIONS. LITTLE SEEDS OF DOUBT HERE AND THERE, AND THE OTHER MESSAGE IS WHERE’S THE CORROBORATION. WHERE’S THE CORROBORATION, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE ISN’T ANY, AND THERE’S NOT GOING TO BE ANY. AND THE ONE FRIEND SHE KEEPS MENTIONING, THE FEMALE FRIEND DOES NOT BACK HER UP AT ALL, SAYS I WAS NEVER AT A PARTY WITH BRETT KAVANAUGH EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT MS. FORD. >>THE BAR WAS TO GIVE IT ENOUGH SPACE FOR REPUBLICANS TO FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING THIS CONFIRMATION ALONG. >>I’LL BE VERY CURIOUS. I CAN’T GET INSIDE THE HEAD OF JEFF FLAKE AND SUSAN COLLINS.>>WHO WE JUST SAW WALK BY. BUT I HAVE TO SAY I WOULD ASSUME MITCH McCONNELL’S ABILITY TO GET THIS NOMINATION THROUGH GOT A LOT HARDER. >>WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT’S BANISHINGLY RARE ON CAPITOL HILL, WHICH IS AN OPEN MIND AND THERE ARE PROBABLY ONLY ONE OR TWO SENATORS WHO COULD BE DESCRIBED THAT WAY, AS SOMEBODY WHO COULD VOTE EITHER WAY AT THIS HOUR. LISA MURKOWSKI, AND SUSAN COLLINS. >>AND MAYBE JOE DONNELLY. >>WE MAY HAVE SENATOR CORNYN AT THE MICROPHONE. LET’S LISTEN. >>THE LAWYERS DIDN’T TELL HER THE COMMITTEE’S OFFERED TO FLY STAFF TO CALIFORNIA TO BE ABLE TO DO A QUESTION AND ANSWER INTERVIEW ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, THAT THAT WASN’T CONVEYED TO HER. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A TOUGH SETTING FOR ANY WITNESS. BUT I THOUGHT — I THOUGHT IT WENT AS WELL AS YOU COULD EXPECT. IT’S ESSENTIALLY I THINK WHAT WE HEARD IS AN ARTICULATION OF WHAT WE ALREADY SAW IN HER LETTER. >>SENATOR YOU HANDLE THE VOTE COUNTS AROUND HERE. BASED ON WHAT WAS SAID THIS MORNING BY HER, DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE YET OF WHETHER YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED. >>I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE JUDGE, HIS REPUTATION IS ON THE LINE. HIS CAREER AS WELL. THIS NEEDS TO BE A FAIR PROCESS TO VOTE DR. FORD AND TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH. >>DID YOU PERSONALLY FIND HER TO BE CREDIBLE?>>I FOUND NO REASON TO FIND HER NOT CREDIBLE. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY GAPS IN HER STORY. OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAUMATIZED HAVE THOSE SORT OF GAPS, BUT AGAIN, I REGRET THAT SHE FINDS HERSELF IN THIS CIRCUS LIKE SETTING BECAUSE HER LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN WAS RELEASED TO THE PRESS AGAINST HER KNOWLEDGE AND WITHOUT HER AUTHORIZATION, AND SHE WASN’T TOLD BY HER LAWYERS THAT SHE COULD HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED IN A PRIVATE SETTING BY INVESTIGATORS ON BOTH SIDES AND GET HER TESTIMONY THAT WAY, BUT I THOUGHT SHE DID JUST FINE. >>ARE YOU PLEASED WITH RACHEL MITCHELL’S QUESTIONING. >>I THINK SHE DID EXACTLY WHAT I HOPED SHE WOULD DO, IN A DIGNIFIED AND PROFESSIONAL WAY, ASK QUESTIONS TO GET INFORMATION. I WOULD SAY MOST OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY OUR FRIEND ACROSS THE AISLE STRUCK ME AS MORE POLITICAL. THEY DIDN’T REALLY ASK QUESTIONS SEEKING INFORMATION. WE OBVIOUSLY ARE INTERESTED IN GETTING TO THE TRUTH HERE, AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS A HYPERPOLITICIZED ENVIRONMENT, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. >>SENATOR GRAHAM, THEN I’LL ASK YOU. SHE SEEMED TOWARDS THE END, MS. MITCHELL TO BE QUESTIONING THE POLITICAL MOTIVES OF DR. FORD’S ATTORNEYS BY RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT WAS BEING PAID FOR.>>HERE’S WHAT I CAN SAY. I’M REALLY UPSET THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS IN AUGUST AND NEVER TOLD ANYBODY. I’M REALLY UPSET IF DIANNE FEINSTEIN BELIEVED THIS WAS A CREDIBLE ALLEGATION THAT SHE WOULDN’T DO MR. JUDGE KAVANAUGH THE SERVICE OF SAYING I GOT THIS, WHAT’S YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY. TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMITTEE SO WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING, NOT THIS CLOSE TO THE MIDTERMS. WHEN THEY SAY SHE WASN’T SURE WE WERE WILLING TO GO OUT THERE, THAT’S A BUNCH OF BULL. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY TOLD MS. FORD, BUT WE WERE WILLING TO GO TO CALIFORNIA. WE WERE TOLD SHE COULDN’T FLY. ALL I CAN SAY IS WE’RE 40 SOMETHING DAYS AWAY FROM THE ELECTION AND THEIR GOAL, NOT MS. FORD’S GOAL IS TO LAY THIS PAST THE MIDTERMS SO THEY CAN WIN THE SENATE AND NEVER ALLOW TRUMP TO FILL THIS SEAT. I BELIEVE THAT NOW MORE THAN EVER. I DON’T KNOW WHO PAID FOR HER POLYGRAPH, BUT SOMEBODY DID. THE FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE SET IT UP TO BE JUST THE WAY IT IS. I FEEL AMBUSHED AS THE MAJORITY, WE’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM MR. KAVANAUGH, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, AND I’VE BEEN A JUDGE, A PROSECUTOR, AND A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, AND HERE’S WHAT I’LL TELL YOU, WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE IT HAPPENED, I STILL DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENED. SHE SAID SHE’S 100% CERTAIN IT DID HAPPEN. I BET YOU JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL SAY I’M 100% SURE I DIDN’T DO IT. DO PEOPLE NAME SAY THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT MS. FORD IS TALKING ABOUT. SHE CAN’T TELL US HOW SHE GOT HOME AND HOW SHE GOT THERE. AND THAT’S THE FACTS I’M LEFT WITH, A NICE LADY WHO HAS COME FORWARD TO TELL A HARD STORY THAT’S UNCORROBORATED AND THIS IS ENOUGH, GOD HELP ANYBODY ELSE THAT GETS NOMINATED. BASED ON WHAT I HEARD TODAY, YOU COULD NOT GET A SEARCH WARRANT OR AN ARREST WARRANT BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW THE LOCATION, YOU DON’T KNOW THE TIME, YOU DON’T HAVE ANY CORROBORATION. AS TO MS. MITCHELL, THAT’S WHAT I HOPED SHE WOULD DO. I HEARD A BUNCH OF SPEECHES FROM A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS WHO HAVE POLITICIZED THIS FROM DAY ONE, WHO HAVE BEEN LYING IN WAIT FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE. NOT MS. FORD, BUT CERTAINLY THEM. MAKING A BUNCH OF SPEECHES AND MS. MITCHELL, METHODICALLY WENT THROUGH THE FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY, LEADING UP TO THAT DAY, AND HOW WE FIND OURSELVES HERE. SO FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I’M PLEASED WITH WHAT I SAW. >>DO YOU STILL WANT A VOTE ON FRIDAY?>>GIVEN WHAT YOU HAVE LAID OUT AS YOUR BACKGROUND AS A PROSECUTOR, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, AS A JUDGE.>>I DIDN’T FIND HER ALLEGATIONS TO BE CORROBORATED AGAINST MR. KAVANAUGH, I DON’T DOUBT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO HER. BUT SHE IS SAYING IT’S BRETT KAVANAUGH. SHE CAN’T TELL ME THE HOUSE, THE CITY, THE MONTH OF THE YEAR. HE’S SAYING I DIDN’T DO IT. HERE’S WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE AN EMOTIONAL ACCUSATION, AND AN EMOTIONAL DENIAL, USE THE RULE OF LAW, THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE ATTACHES TO THE PERSON ACCUSED. YOU HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE TIME AND LOCATION. YOU ASK IS THERE ANYBODY TO VERIFY THIS, AND WHEN YOU GIVE NAMES ALL OF THEM GO THE OTHER WAY. HAVING SAID THAT, WOULD I THINK ABOUT MS. FORD, VERY COMPETENT, ACCOMPLISHED LADY. SOMETHING HAPPENED, I DON’T KNOW WHAT, BUT YOU’RE ASKING ME TO SAY IT WAS BRETT KAVANAUGH AND I DON’T KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENED, WHERE IT HAPPENED, AND HE SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. BUT I WOULD THIS, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION FOR HER TO GO TALK TO SOMEBODY TO WORK THROUGH THIS.>>DO YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE ON FRIDAY?>>HOW IS THAT ALL NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR AN INVESTIGATION. >>IF YOU BELIEVE WE NEEDED AN INVESTIGATION OF THIS, WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL US IN AUGUST?>>WHY NOT DO IT NOW?>>LISTEN, THE FBI IS GOING TO TELL US WHAT. WHAT HOUSE ARE THEY GOING TO GO TO? WHAT CITY ARE THEY GOING TO GO TO? WHO ARE THEY GOING TO TALK TO BECAUSE THEY CAN’T TELL US THE MONTH, BARELY THE DELAY.>>DID MR. JUDGE TELL YOU THAT?>>MR. JUDGE, HE SAYS I DIDN’T DO IT, I DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE’S TALKING ABOUT. THEY WANT TO BRING HIM IN, TRASH HIM OUT, AND CALL 25 PEOPLE THAT SAY HE’S AN ABUSER, AND GUESS WHAT, WE’RE PAST THE MIDTERM. I THINK WITH HER LIFE, SHE IS JUST AS MUCH A VICTIM OF THIS AS I THINK BRETT KAVANAUGH BECAUSE SOMEBODY BETRAYED HER TRUST AND WE KNOW WHO SHE GAVE THE LETTER TO, AND THE PEOPLE THAT BETRAYED HER TRUST, THEY OWE HER AN APOLOGY. >>DO YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE ON FRIDAY?>>SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, OFFERING COMMENTS AND RIGHT AFTER SENATOR CORNYN, IT IS CLEAR THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT IS NOT TO QUESTION HER TESTIMONY, HER BASIC TESTIMONY, BUT EVERYTHING AROUND IT, INCLUDING MOTIVATIONS AND TIMING AND LAYING THIS ON POLITICS. >>LINDSEY GRAHAM, IN A WAY HE GAVE THE CLOSING ARGUMENT AS MEGYN HERE’S THE CLOSING ARGUMENT REPUBLICANS WISH THEY COULD DELIVER. IT MOSTLY CENTERS AROUND WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE, AND THE REPUBLICANS FEELING AMBUSHED TO USE SENATOR GRAHAM’S WORDS. LOOK, YOU HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS FOR SIX WEEKS, AND YOU STRETCHED IT OUT SO WE’RE RIGHT AT THE CUSP OF THE MIDTERMS, BECAUSE YOU’RE HOPING THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE CONTROL OF THE SENATE AND THIS SUPREME COURT SEAT WILL GO FILLED BY SOMEBODY MORE MODERATE. I GUESS THAT’S WHAT LINDSEY GRAHAM IS SUGGESTING HAPPENED HERE.>>HIS POINT IS YOU NEED TO PROVE IT TO ME, AND HE’S RIGHT. NOT BY A — NOT NECESSARILY BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BUT YOU NEED TO PROVE IT TO ME AS A SENATOR WITH AN ADVICE AND CONSENT DUTY, AND HE’S SAYING, I DON’T THINK YOU’VE DONE IT. I’M NOT GOING TO RUIN THIS MAN’S CAREER, HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BASED ON WHAT I HEARD WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATION. >>BUT THERE WAS ZERO EXPECTATION THAT IT COULD BE PROVED IN A ONE DAY SESSION WITH THIS GIVEN THE LIMITED WITNESS LIST. >>I’M CURIOUS, AND I WONDER IF ANY SENATORS ARE GOING TO BE THINKING THIS WAY. THERE’S A STANDARD THAT’S GOT TO BE AS MUCH AS A SENATOR MAY SAY, I MAY BELIEVE JUDGE KAVANAUGH, BUT IS HE GOING TO BE AN EFFECTIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AFTER ALL OF THIS? AND THAT’S A BASIC QUESTION. THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS. IS IT GOING TO CHANGE THEM IF THEY GET ON THE COURT?>>JUSTICE THOMAS HAS BEEN PRETTY EFFECTIVE. >>HE’S A QUIET GUY ON THE COURT. >>HE’S A QUIET MAN. >>DO WE KNOW FOR SURE HE WOULD BE QUIET HAD HE NOT GONE THROUGH THE SITUATION HE DID. >>THAT’S NOT A REASON NOT TO GIVE HIM THE SEAT. >>I’M NOT SAYING IT IS. IF YOU HAVE A BIG CHUNK OF THE COUNTRY WHO’S UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT. >>PETE COVERS THE COURT FOR US. CLARENCE THOMAS, I DON’T THINK WE KNEW TOO MUCH IN TERMS OF HIS PRIOR PAST AS A JUDGE. WE KNOW HE IS ONE OF THE QUIETER JUDGES ON THE SUPREME COURT NOW, NOT ONE TO INTERJECT WITH THE LAWYERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORTING OR REASON TO BELIEVE THERE’S A CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT AND WHAT HE WENT THROUGH IN HIS OWN CONFIRMATION HEARING. >>A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BY WHAT THEY SAY IN ORAL ARGUMENT. YOU MEASURE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS BY THEIR ABILITY TO ATTRACT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT TO JOIN THEIR OPINIONS, AND I DON’T THINK THAT THE THOMAS HEARINGS ARE THE REASONS THAT MANY OF JUSTICE THOMAS COLLEAGUES, INCLUDING SOME CONSERVATIVES, OFTEN DON’T JOIN WITH HIM. HE HAS A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE LAW. HE BELIEVES THERE’S NO REASON TO GIVE ANY RESPECT TO STARE DECISIS, HE HAS A VERY CONSERVATIVE, DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE LAW, EVEN MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN JUSTICE SCALIA, OR SAMUEL ALITO IS. JUSTICES OFTEN JOIN HIM IN DECENTS, BUT HE HAS CARVED OUT HIS OWN VIEW OF THE LAW. HE MAY NOT BE THE MOST PERSUASIVE IN GETTING PEOPLE TO GO ALONG WITH HIM. BRETT KAVANAUGH WILL COME TO THE SUPREME COURT IF HE DOES IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE. MANY JUSTICES KNOW HIM BECAUSE OF HIS EXPERIENCE ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT, IF HE IS CONFIRMED, HE WILL COME IN A SOMEWHAT DIMINISHED ROLE BECAUSE OF ALL THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH. IT’S BOUND TO CAUSE HIM TO PULL HIS HEAD INTO A SHELL A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEN HE STILL HAS A VOTE. HE’S ONE OF NINE VOTES AND NO MATTER WHO PRESIDENT TRUMP EVENTUALLY GETS INTO THIS SEAT TO SUCCEED JUSTICE KENNEDY, THIS IS GOING TO BE A MORE CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE JUSTICE KENNEDY, WHO OFTEN JOINED WITH THE LIBERALS ON SOME HIGH PROFILE CASES IS GONE, AND THERE PROBABLY WON’T BE A SWING JUSTICE ON THIS SUPREME COURT FOR MANY MORE YEARS TO COME.>>DIDN’T JUSTICE KENNEDY MORE OR LESS HAND PICK BRETT KAVANAUGH? I MEAN, HE MADE IT KNOWN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THIS WAS SOMEBODY, HIS FORMER CLERK, THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE NOMINATED?>>YEAH, BUT I DON’T THINK HE WAS THE DEFINITIVE ROLE IN CHOOSING. I DON’T BUY EITHER THE IDEA THAT JUSTICE KENNEDY WAS PERSUADED TO THINK ABOUT RETIRING BECAUSE NEIL GORSUCH CAME ON THE COURT OR HE FELT MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO NOMINATE KAVANAUGH. WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE, JUSTICE KENNEDY WAS TOLD HE WAS ONE OF THE FINALISTS THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSIDERING. PERHAPS THAT WAS A FACTOR IN HIS DECISION TO STEP DOWN. BUT IN TERMS OF CHOOSING JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH AS THE SUCCESSOR AS OPPOSED TO SAY, RICK KETHLEDGE OR AMY COMB — COMEY BARRETT. THEY LOOKED AT IRONICALLY WHO WOULD BE THE MOST CONFIRMABLE.>>>WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BREAK. WE WERE TOLD ABOUT A 45 MINUTE BREAK. JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL BE THE NEXT, THE SECOND OF THE TWO WITNESSES OF THE DAY, AND ALL OUR ATTENTION TO WHAT AREAS HE’S NOT BEEN CLEAR ABOUT, IN HIS DENIAL IN THE RECENT TELEVISION INTERVIEW. WHAT NEW GROUND COULD THEY BREAK HERE?>>THEY’RE GOING TO PICK APART HIS CHOIR BOY IMAGE, I WAS FOCUSSED ON BECOMING NUMBER ONE, FOCUSSED ON GOING TO CHURCH ON SUNDAYS, ON MY SERVICE. THERE’S PLENTY OF REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT, AND YOU KNOW, HE DEFINITELY SET HIMSELF UP FOR FAILURE. I DON’T KNOW WHY HE DID THAT INTERVIEW. IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY ENCOURAGED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. THAT WAS A SWING AND A MISS. MY TAKE ON HIS PERFORMANCE THERE AS A LAWYER, WHAT I SAW WAS SOMEBODY WHO WAS DEFENSIVE, WHO WAS CLEARLY VERY COACHED. HE SOUNDED LIKE MARCO RUBIO.>>WAS THE WHITE HOUSE HAPPY WITH THAT INTERVIEW?>>REPORTEDLY NOT. HE REMINDED ME OF MARCO RUBIO AT THAT ONE DEBATE WHERE CHRIS CHRISTIE WENT AFTER HIM. RESPECT AND DIGNITY FOR THE WAY I HAVE TREATED WOMEN, AND FAIR HEARING, FAIR HEARING, AND THERE WAS NO ABILITY TO ENGAGE THE QUESTIONER, TO BE REAL, TO BE ABLE TO SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS UPSETTING. I WASN’T PERFECT. I’M STILL NOT PERFECT. HE LATER GOT TO THIS IN PAPER FORM. IN THAT INTERVIEW, HE WASN’T ABLE TO DELIVER IT IN A WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, REGULAR AMERICANS SITTING ON THEIR COUCH COULD DIGEST AS HE’S GIVING IT TO ME STRAIGHT. HE’S EITHER OVER COACHED OR TOO STIFF A GUY TO BEGIN WITH. >>WHEN HE WAS JUDGE THOMAS, HIS INDIGNATION HELPED HIM. HUSBAND PERFORMANCE, HIS DENIAL, THE HIGH-TECH LYNCHING COMMENT. YOU SAW THE FURY IN HIM, AND THIS IS A MAN WHO BELIEVES HE WAS WRONGED AND THERE’S THIS SENSE OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH, HE’S BEEN CAREFUL THE WHOLE TIME. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE REGULAR CONFIRMATION HEARING BEFORE THIS. HE WAS OKAY. WE’VE SEEN A LOT BETTER PERFORMERS. HE’S NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE! DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING TO PROVOKE HIS ANGER. NEIL GORSUCH.>>WILL DEMOCRATS TRY TO PROVOKE HIM TO ANGER. IS THAT ONE OF THE STRATEGY, ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS OUTRAGE THAT WAS TRIGGERED THERE, AN ANGER ISSUE.>>I ASSUME THEY’RE GOING TO GO AFTER WHAT MEGYN BROUGHT UP, THE CHOIR BOY. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WATCHING, HOW MUCH ARE YOU, OH, JUST TRYING TO PICK AT HIM, AND TRYING TO VERSUS HOW SERIOUS ARE YOU AT INQUIRING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT EVENING WITH DR. FORD, SO THERE IS THAT LINE. I THINK THEY CERTAINLY WANT TO PAINT A DIFFERENT PICTURE THAN THE PICTURE HE PAINTED FOR HIMSELF. >>IF THEY GO AFTER HIM ON, FOR EXAMPLE, DRINKING, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT THEY ACCOMPLISH THERE. ONE, THEY CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT WE’RE CALLING THE CHOIR BOY THING THAT WAS EVIDENT ON FOX NEWS, YOU KNOW, WE DRANK BUT IT WAS LEGAL. A COUPLE BEERS. I WAS FOCUSSED ON CHURCH AND SERVICE PROJECTS. IT DOES THAT. IT ALSO POTENTIALLY COULD RAISE THE DOUBT IN SOME PEOPLE’S MINDS, COULD HE HAVE BEEN DRINKING AND NOT REMEMBER. HE SAID I WAS NEVER BLACKOUT DRUNK. IF DEMOCRATS REALLY GO AFTER HIM ON THIS AND SAY WAIT A MINUTE, YOU NEVER DRANK TO EXCESS. YOU REMEMBER EVERY SINGLE THING, IF THEY REALLY PERFORM A CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THESE ISSUES, IT DOES OPEN THE POSSIBILITY, I THINK, FOR PEOPLE WHERE IS IT POSSIBLE HE THINKS IT DIDN’T HAPPEN BUT IT DID, AND SHE REMEMBERS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, AND I THINK THAT’S A WAY PEOPLE MIGHT BE ABLE TO RECONCILE HOW IT IS YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE OPPOSED. >>AND UNLIKE A COURT OF LAW, THEY’RE LETTING INTO EVIDENCE, IF YOU WILL, ALL THIS SO CALLED CHARACTER EVIDENCE, AND THAT’S WHAT WE SAW AT THE END OF HER TESTIMONY. HERE ARE TEN LETTERS SAYING SHE’S AMAZING. HERE ARE TEN LETTERS SAYING HE’S AMAZING. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO GET. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN GOING BACK OVER, AND THE MEDIA HAS BEEN GOING OVER HIS YEARBOOK, AND THE ENTRY IN HIS YEARBOOK, AND WHAT DOES THIS TELL US. AND LOOK, MY TAKE IS THERE WERE A LOT OF KNUCKLE HEADED COMMENTS IN THESE YEARBOOKS, BY HIS FRIENDS AS WELL. I DON’T KNOW HOW VIEWERS AT HOME ARE GOING TO REACT TO THAT. I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT MY OWN YEARBOOK, ABOUT CHEESY, LOVE AND HAPPINESS. HE CLEARLY WAS NOT IN THAT HEAD SPACE. SOME PEOPLE JUDGE HIM FOR WHAT APPEAR TO BE CRASS REFERENCES. IS THAT GROUNDS FOR TAKING AWAY A SUPREME COURT POSITION FOR SOMEBODY WHO’S LED A 20-PLUS YEAR LIFE OF EXEMPLARY PUBLIC SERVICE WITHOUT A WHIFF OF PROBLEMS. THE ONLY THING WE’VE SEEN IN, YOU KNOW, PAST HIS TEENAGE YEARS, IS THIS ONE ALLEGATION THAT NBC NEWS REPORTED FROM 1998 WITH AN ANONYMOUS ACCUSER WHO ISN’T COMING FORWARD, IT’S THE ANONYMOUS ACCUSER’S FRIEND’S MOM WHO WASN’T THERE AND NOT ONE OF THE ACTUAL WITNESSES IS ACTUALLY SAYING ANYTHING. AND THAT WAS 1998. EVERYTHING BEFORE THAT IS WHEN HE WAS 16 OR 17 YEARS OLD.>>AND THAT WOULD LEAD TO SAY EVERYTHING IS GOING TO RISE AND FALL ON WHAT WE SEE TODAY, AND THOSE OTHER CASES REMAIN. >>I THINK THIS IS ABOUT DR. FORD, AND I MEAN, IF THERE WAS SOMEHOW ANOTHER INSANS WHERE ONE OF THESE OTHER ACCUSATIONS AND MORE EVIDENCE TO IT. BUT I THINK THIS IS ABOUT DR. FORD AND BRETT KAVANAUGH. >>THEY SHOULD LEAVE IT ABOUT DR. FORD TOO. BECAUSE THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS ARE FAR LESS CREDIBLE. >>IF I WERE A DEMOCRAT, I WOULD BE ALL OVER DR. FORD. WHY WOULD SHE LIE, WHY WOULD SHE MAKE IT UP. WHY WOULD SHE BRING THIS BEFORE HER NAME WAS CHOSEN. CLEARLY SHERIFFS — THERE WAS SOME TRAUMA. IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE SHE WOULD BE LYING ABOUT THIS. FOR YEARS SHE WOULD SAY A FEDERAL JUDGE WOULD ATTACK ME. WHY WOULD YOU GO TO THESE OTHER ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE ON MUCH SHAKIER GROUND AND UNDERMINE YOUR CASE. >>I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING SHE SAID IN THE LATTER PART OF THE TESTIMONY ABOUT WELL WHY DON’T THESE OTHER PEOPLE REMEMBER AND HER POINT WAS NOTHING REMARKABLE HAPPENED TO THEM. IT ALL HAPPENED IN THIS ROOM, AND AGAIN, SO IT COMES BACK DOWN TO HER, THIS LACK OF OTHER WITNESSES. >>EVERYBODY I THINK IS DOING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE ALL DONE. YOU SAID YOU WENT BACK TO YOUR YEAR BACK, I WAS THINKING ABOUT WHAT DO I REMEMBER FROM CERTAIN HOUSE PARTIES AND I COULD REMEMBER VIVID DETAILS, BUT I PROBABLY COULDN’T PICK OUT THE SEASON IT WAS IN LET ALONE THE MONTH OR DAY.>>NOTHING REMARKABLE HAPPENED TO YOU, PRESUMABLY. >>GO ON, CHUCK.>>THAT’S ANOTHER PART OF THIS, AND THIS GOES TO WHERE WE’RE NOT WE DON’T KNOW HOW THE COUNTRY IS GOING TO REACT TO THIS. PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THEMSELVES IN HER SHOES, IN HIS SHOES AND WONDERING, WHAT IF THIS WERE ME. AND THAT, I THINK, IS WE FORGET THAT BECAUSE THE POLITICS ARE THE POLITICS. I DO THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT IT THAT WAY.>>OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WORKS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND IT MUST. THERE’S A RULE AGAINST LETTING IN PRIOR BAD ACTS. THERE’S A REASON WE DON’T DO THAT. >>SHOULDN’T THE CHARACTER BAR BE HIGHER. >>MY POINT IS THAT YOU CAN NOT — IF YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR A SEXUAL TRAUMA, IT DOESN’T MEAN CHRISTINE FORD WAS AND YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE HER, AND THIS IS THE DAY WE SHOULD MAKE UP OUR MINDS WHEN HE HEAR HER TESTIMONY AND HIS, BUT THE TRUTH IS IT DOESN’T MEAN, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN EMPATHIZE THAT THAT DID IN FACT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. IT’S VERY HARD TO CHECK YOUR BIAS, BUT YOU MUST. WE HAVE TO TRY.>>I THINK WE HAVE SOME TAPE OF A LITTLE BIT EARLIER IN SOME FT — SOME OF THE HEARING. LET’S ROLL IT. >>I AM HERE TODAY NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO BE. I AM TERRIFIED. I AM HERE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS MY CIVIC DUTY TO TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WHILE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND I WERE IN HIGH SCHOOL. I DON’T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, AND I DON’T REMEMBER AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO, BUT THE DETAILS ABOUT THAT NIGHT THAT BRING ME HERE TODAY ARE THE ONES I WILL NEVER FORGET. THEY HAVE BEEN SEARED INTO MY MEMORY, AND HAVE HAUNTED ME AS AN ADULT. WHEN I GOT TO THE SMALL GATHERING, PEOPLE WERE DRINKING BEER IN A SMALL FAMILY LIVING ROOM TYPE AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. I DRANK ONE BEER. BRETT AND MARK WERE VISIBLY DRUNK. I WAS PUSHED ONTO THE BED AND BRETT GOT ON TOP OF ME. HE BEGAN RUNNING HIS HANDS OVER MY BODY AND GRINDING INTO ME. I YELLED HOPING THAT SOMEONE DOWNSTAIRS MIGHT HEAR ME, AND I TRIED TO GET AWAY FROM HIM, BUT HIS WEIGHT WAS HEAVY. BRETT GROPED ME AND TRIED TO TAKE OFF MY CLOTHES. HE HAD A HARD TIME BECAUSE HE WAS VERY INEBRIATED AND BECAUSE I WAS WEARING A ONE PIECE BATHING SUIT UNDERNEATH MY CLOTHING. I BELIEVED HE WAS GOING TO RAPE ME. I TRIED TO YELL FOR HELP. WHEN I DID, BRETT PUT HIS HAND OVER MY MOUTH TO STOP ME FROM YELLING. THIS IS WHAT TERRIFIED ME THE MOST AND HAS HAD THE MOST LASTING IMPACT ON MY LIFE. IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO BREATHE, AND I THOUGHT THAT BRETT WAS ACCIDENTALLY GOING TO KILL ME.>>DR. FORD, WITH WHAT DEGREE OF CERTAINTY DO YOU BELIEVE BRETT KAVANAUGH ASSAULTED YOU?>>100%.>>SO WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US IS THIS COULD NOT BE A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY?>>ABSOLUTELY NOT.>>WHAT IS THE STRONGEST MEMORY YOU HAVE, THE STRONGEST MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT, SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN NOT FORGET? TAKE WHATEVER TIME YOU NEED. >>INDELIBLE IN THE HYPOCAMPUS IS THE LAUGHTER BETWEEN THE TWO AND THEIR HAVING FUN AT MY EXPENSE.>>YOU NEVER HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT LAUGHTER, YOU’VE NEVER FORGOTTEN THEM LAUGHING AT YOU?>>THEY WERE LAUGHING WITH EACH OTHER. >>AND YOU WERE THE OBJECT OF THE LAUGHTER?>>I WAS, YOU KNOW, UNDERNEATH ONE OF THEM WHILE THE TWO LAUGHED, TWO FRIENDS HAVING A REALLY GOOD TIME WITH ONE ANOTHER. >>CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, SOME OF THE KEY PARTS OF HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY. THEY ARE NOW ON A BREAK. NEXT WILL BE JUDGE KAVANAUGH. WE CAN SHOW YOU THE HALLWAY WHERE WE EXPECT TO SEE HIM IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE MAKE HIS WAY INTO THE HEARING ROOM. OBVIOUSLY CAMERAS AND A LOT OF ATTENTION THERE. A LOT OF FOCUS, NOW, OF COURSE SHIFTING TO HIM AND HOW HE WILL REACT TO WHAT THE COMMITTEE AND WHAT THE COUNTRY HEARD TODAY FROM DR. FORD. LET’S GO RIGHT NOW TO THE WHITE HOUSE. KRISTEN WELKER IS STANDING BY THERE WHERE EVERY TV, WE’RE TOLD, IS TUNED TO THESE HEARINGS FOR GOOD REASON. >>Reporter: I WAS BACK IN THE PRESS OFFICE, AND ALL EYES CONTINUE TO BE ON THIS HEARING AND A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL CONFIRMING PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN WATCHING THE HEARING SINCE HE RETURNED FROM NEW YORK. OF COURSE HE WAS AT THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY. UPON HIS RETURN, WE DID TRY TO GET HIS FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF DR. FORD’S TESTIMONY. HE DIDN’T ANSWER ANY OF OUR SHOUTED QUESTIONS. HIS CHIEF OF STAFF DIDN’T ANSWER ANY SHOUTED QUESTIONS EITHER, BUT I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO SOME OF HIS CLOSE ALLIES WHO SAY LOOK, BOTTOM LINE IS THAT DR. FORD WAS CREDIBLE. THEY BELIEVED. THEY SAY THE BAR IS HIGH FOR KAVANAUGH. REMEMBER, HE DID GET CRITICIZED IN THE WAKE OF THE FOX NEWS INTERVIEW, BOTH INTERNALLY AND BY OUTSIDE SOURCES WHO SAY, LOOK, HE COULD HAVE BEEN FIRMER, SO OFFICIALS HERE SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO HEAR KAVANAUGH SPEAK AS A FATHER, AS A JUDGE, TO NOT ONLY GIVE FIRM DENIALS TO THESE ACCOUNTS, BUT TO SAY SEXUAL ASSAULT CANNOT BE TOLERATED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. THEY WILL BE WATCHING CLOSELY AS THIS CONTINUES TO UNFOLD, JUST TO UNDERSCORE THE STAKES HERE FOR THE PRESIDENT. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO MEET WITH HIS EMBATTLED DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE. OF COURSE THIS MEETING COMING AFTER THAT EXPLOSIVE REPORT IN THE “NEW YORK TIMES,” WHICH QUOTED ROSENSTEIN AS TALKING ABOUT ESSENTIALLY OUSTING PRESIDENT TRUMP. NOW, ROSENSTEIN HAS DISPUTED THE CHARACTERIZATION SAYING IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT THAT HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC, BUT THERE WERE REAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS POTENTIAL FUTURE HEADING INTO THIS WEEK. SEEMS LIKE HE’S ON THE JOB. THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A CRITICAL CONVERSATION AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THAT HAS BEEN POSTPONED SO THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THE HEARING ON WHAT WE’RE ABOUT TO HEAR FROM JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH. ONE TOP REPUBLICAN TELLING ME THAT, LOOK, DR. FORD WAS CREDIBLE FROM THE MOMENT THAT SHE RAISED HER HAND AND SO THE STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER FOR KAVANAUGH. >>KRISTEN WELKER AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOR US. THANK YOU.>>KASIE HUNT POSITIONED OUTSIDE THE HEARING ROOM, AND I’M SURE YOU’VE GOT YOUR EAR TO THE GROUND, WHAT ARE SENATORS SAYING, EITHER BEFORE THE MICROPHONES OR BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. >>Reporter: LINDSEY GRAHAM HAS BEEN THE MOST EMOTIONAL OF THE REPUBLICANS WE HAVE HEARD FROM. HE SAYS HE IS ANGRY. HE HAS SAID BRETT KAVANAUGH IS A VICTIM IN THIS AS WELL. HE’S FRUSTRATED WITH THE PROCESS. I HAVE TO TELL YOU IF YOU LINE THAT UP WITH WHAT WE’RE HEARING BEHIND THE SCENES HERE, THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING SENSE THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS IN A TOUGHER POSITION NOW THAN HE WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEARING. AND I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT I’M HEARING VIA, YOU KNOW, TEXT MESSAGE, IN MY CONVERSATIONS IN THE HALLWAYS WITH BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN SOURCES. I THINK REPUBLICANS ARE STILL KIND OF GATHERING THEMSELVES, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PROCEED. YOU’RE HEARING THEM MAKE THE LEGAL ARGUMENT BY SAYING THERE ARE NO CORROBORATING WITNESSES, HOLDING UP ALL OF THE STANDARDS WE WOULD USE IN A COURTROOM. BUT IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSCORE AND YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS ON THE SET, THAT THAT’S NOT WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS A POLITICAL TEST IN MANY WAYS, AND YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT TO DO HERE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH HIMSELF, YOU KNOW, DECIDING TO PRESS FORWARD OR NOT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO, AS WE KNOW, DIGESTS MANY OF THESE THINGS THROUGH TELEVISION AND HAD LEFT THE DOOR OPEN TO POTENTIALLY PULLING KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION, AND THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS HERE WHO ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO, AND THERE ARE STILL NO STRONG STATEMENTS YET FROM SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS, FROM SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI, FROM SENATOR JEFF FLAKE WHO YOU COULD SEE IN THE HEARING ROOM WEARING SOMETHING OF A PAINED EXPRESSION AT TIMES. WE HAVEN’T HEARD HARDLY ANYTHING FROM REPUBLICAN SENATOR BEN SASSE OF NEBRASKA, AND HE IS SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN OCCASIONALLY OUTSPOKEN IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT. HE’S SOMEBODY WHO HAS YOUNG CHILDREN THAT ARE APPROXIMATELY AROUND THE SAME AGE AS THE AGE THAT DR. FORD WAS WHEN SHE SAYS THIS ALL HAPPENED TO HER. HE WENT UP AND SHOOK HER HAND AND SAID THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE TOOK NOTE OF THAT. WE HERE AT THE CAPITOL HAVE BEEN WATCHING HIM CAREFULLY IN RECENT DAYS BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T HEARD FROM HIM. THERE ARE SENATORS FROM WEST VIRGINIA, A REPUBLICAN WHO HAS SAID THAT SHE REMEMBERS WANT TO HEAR FROM DR. — THAT SHE DID WANT TO HEAR FROM DR. FORD WHO GRADUATED FROM THE SAME HIGH SCHOOL. SO THE REPORTING THAT I HAVE GATHERED IS THAT EVEN BEFORE WE WENT INTO THIS HEARING, THERE WERE STILL — THERE WAS STILL POTENTIALLY A LARGER UNIVERSE OF REPUBLICANS WHO COULD BE SWAYED BY THIS, AND I THINK THAT THAT UNIVERSE, IF ANYTHING HAS GROWN OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF HOURS, I DO THINK WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH. WHEN WE’RE REACHING OUT TO KEY OFFICES, THAT’S WHAT WE’RE HEARING BACK. THE HEARING’S NOT OVER. WE HAVE TO FINISH AND GET TO THE END OF IT. I THINK THAT WE COULD KNOW PRETTY QUICKLY IN THE WAKE OF THIS WHETHER THE MOMENTUM AND THE PRESSURE IS STILL THERE TO PUSH HIM THROUGH. THEY HAVE A LOT MORE FRANKLY TO GET OVER NOW THAN THEY DID BEFORE.>>THANK YOU.>>WE’RE LOOKING AT THAT HALLWAY, WE’LL PUT THAT SHOT UP. THAT’S WHERE WE EXPECT TO SEE JUDGE KAVANAUGH IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. WE’LL BRING IN HALLY JACKSON. A DAY LIKE THIS, A DAY WHERE IT’S FACTS, IT’S EMOTION, IT’S POLITICS, ALL COMING TOGETHER UNDER A VERY TIGHT DEADLINE.>>Reporter: AND TO THE PRESIDENT, WE KNOW THAT IT HAS RIVETED HIS ATTENTION, HE IS WATCHING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AS HIS VICE PRESIDENT, WHO HAS CLEARED HIS SCHEDULE, ESSENTIALLY, TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON THIS HEARING, AND THE BIG QUESTION WILL BE WHAT HAPPENS TO JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH WHEN HE WALKS DOWN THAT HALLWAY, AND TAKES HIS SEAT IN THE ROOM, LESTER AND SAVANNAH. FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, THERE’S ONE PERSON WHO APPARENTLY IS NOT, AND THAT IS DONALD TRUMP’S WIFE. THE FIRST LADY HAS INSTEAD BEEN IN MEETINGS. SHE IS FOCUSSING ON HER UPCOMING OVERSEAS TRIP. SHE HEADS TO AFRICA ON WHAT WILL BE HER FIRST BIG TRIP AS FIRST LADY, HER SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL JOURNEY THERE. AS FOR WHAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH NEEDS TO DO, BASED ON THE REPORTING WE HAVE BEEN COMPILING OVER THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE HOURS, AS CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS BEEN TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF SENATORS, I’M GOING TO REFERENCE SOMETHING CHUCK TODD SAID A BIT EARLIER. HE TALKED ABOUT THAT MOMENT FROM CLARENCE THOMAS, TO BECOME A JUSTICE, THAT RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION, THAT FURY THAT HE BELIEVED OF BEING FALSELY ACCUSED. THAT IS WHAT OFFICIALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE WANT TO SEE FROM JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, AND HE KNOWS IT. A PERSON CLOSE TO HIM SAYS HE’S GOING TO COME IN A LITTLE BIT HOTTER. YOU WILL SEE HIM MORE FORCEFUL. THAT’S BEEN THE WORD EVER SINCE THE FOX NEWS INTERVIEW THAT KAVANAUGH CONDUCTED. THEY WANT TO SEE HIM ANGRY. THEY THINK THAT WILL HELP HIM WITH SOME OF THESE SENATORS YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, THE ONES THAT ARE PERSUADABLE, ULTIMATELY FOR AS PASSIONATE AND FIERY AS SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM IS THERE, IT’S NOT UP TO HIM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. IT’S UP TO MITCH McCONNELL, AND ULTIMATELY IT’S GOING TO BE UP TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHETHER OR NOT HE PULLS THIS NOMINATION. I’VE BEEN TOLD ALL WEEK LODGE, THE — LONG, THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT COMING UP WITH A BACK UP PLAN, NOT HUDDLING IN MEETINGS ABOUT WHAT THEY SHOULD DO SHOULD THE NOMINATION ULTIMATELY FAIL. THAT CALCULUS SHOULD CHANGE IN A MATTER OF HOURS. >>THAT LEADS ME AS WE WATCH THIS HALLWAY FOR BRETT KAVANAUGH, THE JUDGE EXPECTED TO WALK DOWN THAT HALLWAY INTO THE HEARING ROOM IN ANY MINUTE, CHUCK, AS WE THINK ABOUT THE KEY SENATORS WHO MIGHT BE ON THE FENCE, WHO MIGHT BE PERSUADABLE, COULD BE A YES, COULD BE A NO, THEY’RE NOT DECIDING THIS IN A VACUUM. THEY HAVE TO THINK, ALL RIGHT, IF I VOTE NO AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHAT’S THE NEXT PLAN? WE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS EVEN FEASIBLE TO TRY TO GET SOMEBODY CONFIRMED BEFORE THE MIDTERMS, WHAT ABOUT THE LAME DUCK SESSION. ISN’T THAT A HUGE PART OF THEIR CALCULUS, IF WE DON’T VOTE YES FOR HIM, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO GET. >>DO THEY HOLD A VOTE THEY DON’T KNOW THE OUTCOME OF. MITCH McCONNELL DOESN’T LIKE DOING THAT. IF YOU WOULD ASSUME, IF HE’S GOING TO PUT IT ON THE FLOOR, YOU ASSUME HE HAS THE VOTES. IF HE DOESN’T, WE MAY NEVER SEE A VOTE. BECAUSE I THINK THE BIGGEST DEAL FOR THE REPUBLICANS IS IT’S REPUBLICANS THAT BROUGHT HIM DOWN. IT WOULD BE REPUBLICAN VOTES. THAT WOULD CREATE A BASE PROBLEM. SO THE WAY TO SAVE FACE HERE IS YOU WOULDN’T WANT TO HOLD A VOTE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE HANDS OF REPUBLICANS. YOU WOULD SAY, NO, IT WAS A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS THAT DEFEATED HIM. IF THEY’RE GOING TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, THEY WOULD RATHER WITHDRAW AND THEN THEY CAN MAKE A PARTISAN ARGUMENT. THE DEMOCRATS. >>THEN WHAT HAPPENS, HE GOES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SAYS YOU’VE GOT TO PULL HIM?>>OH, I THINK THAT’S — IS IT HIM? IF HE DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES, I THINK THE PRESIDENT WILL WANT TO PULL HIM. >>THE MECHANICS, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT? LET’S SAY McCONNELL DOES A HEAD COUNT TONIGHT AFTER THE TESTIMONY IS IN, AND SAYS ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, WE HAVE A VOTE SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, IF HE DOESN’T HAVE THE VOTES, THEN WHAT. >>THE CRASS POLITICAL MOVE, YOU NAME JUDGE, AMY COMEY BARRETT, SHE PROBABLY WOULDN’T GET CONFIRMED. IT WOULDN’T MATTER. SEE IF HER NOMINATION FIRES THE BASE, AND YOU SORT OF USE THE NEW NOMINEE AS A WAY TO FIRE UP THE TRUMP BASE, AND DO THAT. >>BY THE WAY, SHE IS REGARDED AS FAR MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN JUDGE KAVANAUGH. >>AND SHE PROBABLY CAN’T GET THE VOTES OF EITHER LISA MURKOWSKI AND SUSAN COLLINS, BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU WOULDN’T CARE. I’M JUST MAKING A CRASS POLITICAL ARGUMENT. YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT, YOU NAME HER, AND LET THE DEMOCRATS BEAT HER UP, HAVE THIS FIGHT ABOUT ABORTION, BECAUSE GUESS WHAT, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT VOTER FOR REPUBLICAN BASE VOTERS ARE THOSE PRO LIFE ADVOCATES.>>AIN’T POLITICS GREAT?>>I’M JUST SAYING, IF YOU’RE ASKING WHAT COULD THEY DO, THE CRASS POLITICAL MOVE WOULD BE THAT. >>IT’S NOT LIKE THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO BE OBLIVIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAD SOME REPUBLICAN DEFECTORS, IF THEY DON’T — IF McCONNELL PULLS THE VOTE TOMORROW, IT’S NOT LIKE THEY’RE GOING TO KNOW WHY HE DID THAT. >>BUT AT LEAST YOU DON’T HAVE THE NAMES OF THEM, AND THAT DOES MATTER. HE MAY WANT TO PROTECT SENATORS FROM PRIMARIES. >>DOES IT RHYME WITH BETH LAKE?>>THAT ONE ISN’T EASY TO DUMP ON, BECAUSE HE’S NOT RUNNING. I HAVE TO QUESTION, IF THEY DON’T — YOU MAY SEE ONE OF THOSE THINGS, WHERE IF HE DOESN’T HAVE 50 VOTES, HE MAY NOT HAVE 40. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO BE, AS LONG AS HE HAS 50, I’LL VOTE FOR HIM, IF HE DOESN’T HAVE 50, I DON’T WANT TO. >>IS THERE ANY RETICENCE ON ANY OF THESE DEMOCRATS PART WITH SENATOR GRAHAM ISSUED A WARNING EARLIER SAYING WATCH OUT FOR YOUR NOMINEES, LIKE WHAT KIND OF CAN OF WORMS HAS BEEN OPENED UP NOW. >>I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANY EVIDENCE THAT WASHINGTON THINKS ABOUT OR CARES HOW IT’S GOING TO ALL FEEL WHEN THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT. AS WE STARTED OUR MORNING TALKING ABOUT THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS HARRY REID WHO SAID WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FILIBUSTER JUDICIAL NOMINEES AND WAIT UNTIL IT’S YOUR NOMINEES.>>DOES THIS MEAN WE’RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE FEMALE NOMINEES CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. >>A LOT OF VIEWERS WOULD SAY, FINE, I’M GOOD WITH THAT. >>A SHARP EYE ON THIS PICTURE. WE’RE TOLD JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS 2 MINUTES OR LESS AWAY. AND WE SEE CAPITOL POLICE MOVING PEOPLE TO EITHER SIDE OF THE HALLWAY THERE, AND WE WILL SEE IF HE’S THAT FIRED UP, ANGRY JUDGE THAT HALLY DESCRIBED THE WHITE HOUSE IS LOOKING TO SEE OR SOMETHING MORE AKIN TO THE GENTLEMAN. >>I DON’T THINK THEY WANT TO SEE ANGRY. I THINK THEY WANT TO SEE EMOTIONAL, HUMAN, BUT I DON’T KNOW IF ANGER IS GOING TO WORK. BUT RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION, IF HE HAS THAT, AS A PERSON FALSELY ACCUSED, YOU WOULD THINK YOU WOULD BE OUTRAGED. >>JEFF FLAKE WANTS TO HEAR A TONE THAT’S DIFFERENT THAN THE TONE PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS TO HEAR. HE WANTS, I THINK, A LITTLE MORE RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION. >>HOW MUCH DOES HE HAVE TO GIVE ON THE DRINKING AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE PAINT THIRD-DEGREE — PAINTED THIS PICTURE. HOW MUCH DOES HE HAVE TO GIVE, I WASN’T THIS PERFECT INDIVIDUAL. >>I THINK HE’S GOING TO GIVE A LOT. BY THE WAY, HE NEEDS TO PUT HIMSELF IN A POSITION SO HE DOESN’T PUT HIMSELF IN A POSITION WHERE DEMOCRATS GO AFTER HIS CURRENT POSITION. >>EXACTLY RIGHT.>>THAT’S THE THING, IF YOU LOOK AT THESE OTHER ALLEGATIONS THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN BRINGING UP, LIKE THIS AVENATTI WOMAN, THE AVENATTI FEMALE ACCUSER THAT HE PUT FORWARD, IF THEY’RE GOING TO GO AFTER HIM AND TRY TO SUGGEST THAT HE WAS IN ANY WAY PART OF WHAT’S ALLEGED BY AVENATTI AND HIS CLIENT, THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO AFTER HIS SEAT ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT, THAT HE HAS TO LOSE ALL THE JOBS. >>I AGREE THAT KAVANAUGH PROBABLY DOES NEED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN TERMS OF WHETHER HE DRANK TO EXCESS, BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF HE DOESN’T, THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO BE ARMED TO THE TEETH WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS A DRINKER.>>IF HE COMES UP AND SAYS, LOOK, HERE COMES JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S PARENTS COMING DOWN THE HALLWAY. IF HE SAYS, LOOK, I DID, I WAS A HIGH SCHOOLER, I WAS A KNUCKLE HEAD, THEN HE CAN REFER BACK TO THAT STATEMENT AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN WHEN DEMOCRATS TRY TO PIN HIM DOWN. >>SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENT OTHERS HAVE PAINTED ABOUT KIDS AT THE SCHOOL AT THAT TIME. >>I THINK THAT’S WHY HE WAS HESITANT TO DO SO WITH FOX NEWS. YEAH, MAYBE I PARTIED A LITTLE IN HIGH SCHOOL. HE PROBABLY THOUGHT THEN PEOPLE WOULD MAKE THE PRESUNGS — PRESUPGS THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED. >>HE CAN SORT OF DODGE ON THAT. I THINK IT’S BETTER TO COME OUT AND SAY, YES, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, I MADE MISTAKES IN MY HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE YEARS, AND LIKE MOST COLLEGE AGED STUDENTS, I DRANK TO EXCESS HERE AND THERE, BUT THERE’S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING DRUNK ON SATURDAY NIGHT, AND ATTEMPTING TO RAPE SOMEBODY. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT MOST PEOPLE DO, AND IT’S NOT WHAT I DID. >>I THINK WE’RE AGREEING. I THINK WE WILL GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AND SAY, OF COURSE, OF COURSE THERE WERE TIMES WHEN I DRANK TOO MUCH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I COULDN’T POSSIBLY HAVE DONE THIS. >>THINK ABOUT WHAT IS JEFF FLAKE OR SUSAN COLLINS NEED TO JUSTIFY CONFIRMING HIM, RIGHT? I THINK ULTIMATELY, AND I THINK READING THEIR TEA LEAVES, I THINK THEY WANT TO HEAR SOME CONTRITION. >>DON’T YOU THINK — I FEEL LIKE THEIR DECISION IS PROBABLY MADE UP RIGHT NOW. THEIR MINDS ARE PROBABLY MADE UP RIGHT NOW. FOR THEM, THE MOST IMPORTANT WITNESS WAS DR. FORD, KAVANAUGH, THERE’S NOT GOING TO BE A BIG ADMISSION, OKAY, YOU CAUGHT ME, I DID IT. I ADMIT EVERYTHING. IS SHE CREDIBLE, DOES SHE ADD TO THE STORY IN A WAY THAT’S MEANINGFUL. THE QUESTION FOR THEM IS ARE THERE ENOUGH HOLES IN THE STORY FOR THEM TO SAY IT’S NOT THERE FOR ME. THEY DIDN’T GET IT ACROSS THE LINE. SHE’S SYMPATHETIC, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO DENY THE MAN THE SUPREME COURT. >>ANDREA MITCHELL IS BACK WITH US BECAUSE SHE WEARS 15 HATS AROUND HERE.>>MORE WORK THAN THE REST OF YOU GUYS. >>BUT WE ARE JUST OBVIOUSLY A FEW MOMENTS AWAY. THEY HAVE CLEARED THE HALLWAY. WE EXPECT TO SEE JUDGE KAVANAUGH. WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT HOW THIS MORNING WENT?>>WELL, I THINK THERE IS A STRONG IMPRESSION THAT SHE WAS A VERY CREDIBLE WITNESS AND NOT JUST EMOTIONAL BUT THAT THE DETAILS THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW AND REMEMBER, SHE ACKNOWLEDGED AND EXPERTS WILL TELL YOU AS THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS TRIED TO PUT FORTH IN THEIR INTERVENTIONS, THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH THIS KIND OF TRAUMA WHEN THEY ARE 15 YEARS OLD, DON’T REMEMBER EVERY DETAIL, BUT THEY REMEMBER MOMENTS, AND SHE REMEMBERS MOMENTS, THE PROSECUTORS YOU TALK TO SAY SHE WAS ABOUT THE BEST WITNESS YOU COULD EXPECT AS A PROSECUTOR. EVERYONE CRITICIZING THE FORMAT AND CRITICIZING THE IDEA OF HAVING THIS WOMAN PROSECUTOR COME AND REPRESENT THE REPUBLICANS WITH ALL THE RISKS OF REPUBLICANS APPEARING INSENSITIVE IF THEY WENT AFTER, MEN ON THE REPUBLICAN PANEL, IF THEY WENT AFTER A WOMAN ALLEGED VICTIM, THEY STILL GAVE UP WAY TOO MUCH. >>BUT DEMOCRATS DID NOT SEEM TO BRING ANY SKEPTICISM OR CHALLENGE HER IN ANY WAY.>>THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. >>DOES THAT HELP OR HURT HER ULTIMATELY? I MEAN, IF SHE’S NOT TESTED BY DEMOCRATS. >>I THINK AT THIS POINT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE TWO PRINCIPLES, AND THE WAY THEY ARE QUESTIONED IS LESS IMPORTANT. I THINK THE DEMOCRATS CERTAINLY FELT STRATEGICALLY OR TACTICALLY THERE’S JUST TOO MUCH QUESTIONING OF HER. IT DOESN’T HELP THEM. >>BUT IF THEY’RE SAYING, GIVING HER SPEECH ABOUT BEING AN AMERICAN HERO AND A LESSON FOR EVERYBODY AT HOME.>>DOES MAKE IT SEEM MORE POLITICAL. >>THEY’RE NOT DOING HER ANY FAVORS AND SHE HAS SAID I’M AN INDEPENDENT PERSON. I’M NOBODY’S PAWN, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT DEMOCRATS WERE LAYING IT ON THICK FOR AN AUDIENCE AT HOME, I DON’T KNOW IF IT HELPED HER, MAYBE NOT HARMED HER BUT IT’S NOT HELPING HER, AND I’VE ALWAYS BEEN A BIG BELIEVER THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS A STORY TO TELL, SOMETIMES WHEN ASKED A HARD QUESTION, IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT PERSON TO HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK, TO TAKE ON THE TOUGH QUESTIONS. >>AND MITCHELL DIDN’T REALLY HIT HER, MAYBE HIT HER WITH QUESTIONS THAT BROUGHT UP AREAS, BUT SHE DIDN’T SEEM TO GO FOR THE JUGGLER AT ALL.>>I GO BACK TO, I’M CURIOUS HOW IT WORKED BEHIND THE SCENES. WHO STRATEGIZED WITH HER, WHO WERE THEY WORKING WITH HERE?>>YOU MEAN THE PROSECUTOR?>>HOW INVOLVED WAS LINDSEY GRAHAM IN WORKING WITH HER. I EXPECTED HER TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE. RESPECTFUL BUT MORE AGGRESSIVE IN HER QUESTIONING. IT WAS A NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE JOB, THAT, OR THE SENATORS DECIDED NOT TO HAVE HER DO THAT, TO DO ANYTHING THAT WAS EFFECTIVE, BOUGHT YOU HAD FIVE MINUTE BURSTS OF SORT OF METHODICAL QUESTIONING, MORE LIKE A DEPOSITION, INFORMATION BY INFORMATION, INTERRUPTED BY FIVE-MINUTE RHETORICAL ARGUMENTS ON WHY CHRISTINE FORD IS READY FOR SAINTHOOD. YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT WAS WHAT KIND OF A CROSS EXAMINER COULD EVER MAKE HEADWAY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES? YOU LIKE TO CRE SHEN DOE YOUR CROSS. >>IT WAS A FORM THEY DECIDED ON. >>OF COURSE. >>AS A PROSECUTOR IN SEX CRIMES, ISN’T SHE MORE, BY THE NATURE, MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THE CASE AND SHE WAS PUT IN PROBABLY A DIFFERENT –>>THAT BUSINESS AT THE END WHERE SHE WAS DEFENDING THE PROCESS, OR HER ROLE IN THE PROCESS, THAT WAS WEAK, THAT WAS A WEAK MOMENT TO END ON. AN APOLOGY FOR THE FORMAT, AND THE WAY IN WHICH SHE CONDUCTED IT. YOU KNOW, AND SO NOW THESE REPUBLICANS, WHO I THINK UNDERSTOOD THE LOGIC, BEHIND NOT HAVING AN ALL-MALE, ALL OLDER MALE PANEL, CROSS-EXAMINE DR. FORD, AND INSTEAD, PASS THE BATON TO THIS WOMAN, ARE NOW RETHINKING IT, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT EFFECTIVE. >>THEY TRADED ONE POTENTIAL DEBACLE FOR –>>I THINK WHAT THEY THOUGHT IS THEY COULD GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS TODAY, AND THEN GET THEIR VOTE TOMORROW. AND I THINK THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES. WE ARE GOING TO FIND OUT. BUT I THINK THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES. WE WILL SEE. >>MAYBE THEY WERE BORN OUT BY THAT. A SORT OF DO NO HARM, LET HER COME AND TELL HER STORY. >>THAT IS THE STRATEGY. >>WAS THAT THE WITNESS THAT SHE WANTED TO BE BROUGHT IN –>>MAYBE THESE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WILL SAY A DRAW GOES TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THAT’S THE GAMBLE. THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE HOPING. >>IF SHE CAN GET FLAKE AND COLINS TO SAY OKAY, I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS, BUT –>>SOME OF THE SENATORS AND STAFF MAKING THEIR WAY DOWN THE HALL INTO THE HEARING ROOM. IT IS A LITTLE AFTER 3:00 EASTERN TIME. IF YOU HAVE BEEN WITH US ALL DAY, WE HEARD FROM CHRISTINE GLAISY FORD, HER TESTIMONY, HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY, QUESTION ON THE DEMOCRATS, QUESTION ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE BY PROSECUTOR RACHEL MITCHELL HIRED BY THE REPUBLICANS. WHAT WE ARE WAITING FOR NOW, THE APPEARANCE OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH. HE WILL HEAR IN THAT HALLWAY, ANY MOMENT WE ARE TOLD AND I KNOW I SAID THAT FOR MANY MOMENTS BUT WE ARE DOING THE BEST WE CAN HERE, ON THEIR TIMETABLE. BUT THEN WE WILL BE HERE FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER COUPLE OF HOURS. >>A FEW HOURS. >>PLUS. >>HE HAS AN OPENING STATEMENT, TOO, CORRECT?>>HE WILL HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT. WE PREASSUME ANY LENGTH THAT HE WISHES. AND WHETHER HE HAS BEEN ACTIVELY WATCHING OR ACTIVELY WATCHED HER TESTIMONY, WILL BE ABLE TO REBUT IT POINT BY POINT, BUT AT THIS POINT, HE HAS DENIED ANYTHING. SO THEY MAY NOT HAVE ANY COMMON GROUND. >>WE HAD AN OPENING STATEMENT THAT THEY HAD PUT OUT EARLIER IN PREPARATION. BUT YOU KNOW THAT HE HAS BEEN WITH WHITE HOUSE ADVISERS, GOING THROUGH IT, TEEING IT UP. HE HAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY NOW, AS MEGYN WAS SAYING EARLIER, GOING SECOND IS BEST IN THIS INSTANCE AND HE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO RESHAPE HIS OPENING STATEMENT. WHO SPECIFICALLY DO YOU THINK WOULD BE ADVISING HIM ON THAT AT THE WHITE HOUSE?>>BILL SHINE. >>BILL SHINE. >>NOT DON McGAHN. >>DON McGAHN ON THE LEGAL ISSUES.>>BILL SHINE IS A COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE. >>THEY WERE THE TWO PEOPLE COACHING HIM FOR NINE HOURS EARLIER. >>AND CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY. >>BILL USED TO BE AN EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AT FOX NEWS, I KNOW HIM WELL AND HE HAS MANY TALENTS BUT LINE ED ILTING A REBUTTAL — EDITING A REBUTTAL TO A WITNESS’S TESTIMONY IS NOT ONE AT ALL. >>THINK ABOUT OPTICS.>>HE KNOWS HOW TO PROGRAM GOOD TV, HE DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO DO A LINE BY LINE REBUTTAL OF THAT KIND OF TESTIMONY. >>DON McGAHN, CERTAINLY THIS IS HIS ISSUE. IT IS HIS GUY. >>LET’S BE REALISTIC. >>THIS IS WHY A LOT OF THINK THAT KAVANAUGH IS IN MORE TROUBLE THAN HE MIGHT BE BECAUSE I NEVER HAD THE SENSE, I HAVE TALKED TO PLENTY OF PEOPLE, HE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT’S GUY IN THAT SENSE OF WHERE HE IS GUNG-HO. EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE PEOPLE AROUND THE PRESIDENT LIKE TO HELD IM HE IS A BUSH-EY, REFERRING TO PRESIDENT BUSH’S POSITION. AND THIS IS DON McGAHN’S BETTING. SO THERE ARE SOME IN THE TRUMP BASE, WHICH I THINK IS DIFFERENT THAN WHEN YOU SAY THE CONSERVATIVE BASE, SORT OF I WOULD ARGUE TWO DIFFERENT BASES IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WHO LOOK AT KAVANAUGH AND GO, YOU SHOULD HAVE NEVER NOMINATED HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. >>THERE IS A REASON TO THAT. THEY OUTSOURCE THEIR NOMINATIONS TO THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, A POPULAR CONSERVATIVE GROUP, POPULAR WITH THE CONSERVATIVE BASE, BUT NOT CLOSE, INTIMATELY TO DONALD TRUMP AND HE DOESN’T KNOW ANY OF THESE PEOPLE AND HE SAID DURING THE CAMPAIGN, I WILL CHOOSE NOMINEES FROM THIS LIST, WHICH GAVE HIM A LOT OF GOOD POINTS WITH THE EVANGELICALS. VERY POWERFUL. VERY INTERESTING WHEN YOU COMPARE THE TWO NOMINEES THAT HAVE COME FROM DONALD TRUMP. NEIL GORSUCH WENT TO GEORGETOWN PREP. HE HAS A LOT OF SIMILAR BACKGROUND. NO ONE HAD EVER ACCUSED HIM OF EXCESSIVE DRINKING. >>THERE ARE DIFFERENT SOCIAL SET, AS WE ALL KNOW FROM OUR CHILDHOOD IN HIGH SCHOOL, AND COLLEGE YEARS, AND YOU ARE A DIFFERENT SET. I DIDN’T KNOW A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE GOING ON IN MY CAMPUS BECAUSE I WAS SO INVOLVED IN THE RADIO STATION. I DIDN’T EVER GO TO A FRATERNITY PARTY. YOU KNOW, SO I DON’T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THAT WHOLE ISSUE BACK IN THE ’60s WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL. NEIL GORSUCH WAS IN A VERY DIFFERENT AND HAD A VERY DIFFERENT BACKGROUND CHECK, AND HAD NO PROBLEMS. NONE OF THIS CAME UP. LINDSEY GRAHAM’S POINT, ABOUT ANY NOMINEE WILL BE ATTACKED THIS WAY, NO ONE MADE THESE ACCUSATIONS WITH GORSUCH. >>WHEN WE WENT THROUGH GORSUCH, WE WEREN’T WORKING WITH THE ME TOO MOVEMENT. >>HERE IS JUDGE KAVANAUGH BEING ESCORTED IN BY CAPITOL POLICE DOWN THE HALLWAY NOW. WE SAW ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS FILE IN A MOMENT AGO AND HERE HE COMES. HE WILL HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT.>>AT THE HEIGHT OF HIS LEGAL CAREER, AND THOUGHT HE WAS, WITH AN IMPECCABLE RESUME, AND HIS WIFE ASHLEY, WHO WAS A FORMER ASSISTANT TO FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH RIGHT THERE WITH HIM, AND HERE HE IS NOW, HIS CONFIRMATION LITERALLY HANGING IN THE BALANCE. TO SAY NOTHING OF HIS REPUTATION.>>AND YOU HAVE TO FEEL FOR HIM, TOO, WHEN WE WATCHED HER WALK IN, AND YOU GIVE HER THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT IN THAT MOMENT, AND THINK ABOUT HERE IS THIS ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVOR, SITTING IN THIS SETTING, AND LET’S DO THE SAME FOR HIM, BECAUSE THIS IS A PLAN WHO HAS AN EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC, WHO HAS A WIFE, TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS, WHO HAS BEEN PUT THROUGH THE RINGER LIKE WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, INCLUDING IN THE JUSTICE THOMAS CONFIRMATION HEARING. >>I DON’T THINK MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD TRADE PLACES FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH OR DR. FORD.>>HE HAS EITHER DONE SOMETHING HORRIBLE OR COMING HERE AS A VICTIM. IT IS ONLY TWO CHOICES.>>DON McGAHN THERE. NOT QUITE AT THE TABLE. IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE FRONT ROW. SITTING BEHIND OTHER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE STEPPING IN. I DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE TAKING HIM INTO A HOLDING ROOM AT FIRST BUT WE BELIEVE ALL OF THE SENATORS ARE NOW IN PLACE AND WE WILL FIND OUT HERE SHORTLY IF THE REPUBLICANS WILL CONTINUE TO OUTSOURCE THE QUESTIONING OR DELIVER THEIR QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH. HERE HE IS.>>JUDGE CAVANAUGH, WE WELCOME YOU. ARE YOU READY?>>I AM.>>I HAVE SOMETHING I WANT TO CLEAR UP FROM THE LAST MEETING THAT DOESN’T AFFECT YOU. SO BEFORE I SWEAR YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN MY RESPONSE TO SENATOR KENNEDY, RIGHT AFTER THE BREAK. AT THAT TIME, I ENTERED INTO THE RECORD THE STATEMENTS OF THREE WITNESSES, DR. FORD SAID WERE ALSO AT THE PARTY, THESE STATEMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO US UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY, BY LYING, IF YOU LIE TO CONGRESS. AS SOON AS MY TEAM LEARNED THE NAMES OF THESE THREE POTENTIAL WITNESS, WE IMMEDIATELY REACHED OUT TO THEM, REQUESTING AN INTERVIEW. IN RESPONSE, ALL THREE SUBMITTED STATEMENTS TO US, DENYING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE GATHERING DR. FORD DESCRIBED. IF WE HAD CALLS WITH THEM, WE WOULD HAVE INVITED THE MINORITY TO JOIN. EVERY TIME THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION REGARDING JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WE’VE SOUGHT TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THROUGH AND INVESTIGATE. AMONG OUR STAFF SAT, ON DR. FORD’S LETTER FOR WEEKS, AND THE STAFF TOLD US IT IS BELIEVED QUOTE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE THESE FOLLOW-UP CALLS BEFORE THE FBI FINISHES ITS INVESTIGATION, END OF QUOTE, EVEN THOUGH THE FBI HAD COMPLETED ITS BACKGROUND INFORMATION. WHEN WE FOLLOWED UP WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH, AFTER WE RECEIVED DR. FORD’S ALLEGATIONS, THE RANKING MEMBER STAFF DIDN’T JOIN US, EVEN THOUGH THESE CALLS ARE USUALLY DONE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS. THEY JOINED OTHER CALLS WITH THE JUDGE, BUT THEY DIDN’T PARTICIPATE OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS. WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE, SIR?>>YES. >>DO YOU AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?>>I DO. >>AND LIKE WE OFFERED TO SENATOR, OR TO DR. FORD, YOU CAN TAKE WHATEVER TIME YOU WANT NOW FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. THEN WE WILL GO TO QUESTIONS. SO PROCEED.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO MAKE MY STATEMENT. I WROTE IT MYSELF YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AND EVENING. NO ONE HAS SEEN A DRAFT OR IT, EXCEPT FOR ONE OF MY FORMER LAW CLERKS. THIS IS MY STATEMENT. LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO, DR. FORD PUBLICLY ACCUSED ME OF COMMITTING WRONGDOING AT AN EVENT MORE THAN 36 YEARS AGO. WHEN WE WERE BOTH IN HIGH SCHOOL. I DENIED THE ALLEGATION IMMEDIATELY, CATEGORICALLY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY. ALL FOUR PEOPLE ALLEGEDLY AT THE EVENT, INCLUDING DR. FORD’S LONG-TIME FRIEND MS. KEYSER, HAVE SAID THEY RECALL NO SUCH EVENT. HER LONG-TIME FRIEND MS. KEYSER, SAID UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY THAT SHE DOES NOT KNOW ME AND DOES NOT BELIEVE SHE EVER SAW ME AT A PARTY EVER. HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM MS. KEYSER’S ATTORNEY’S LETTER. QUOTE, SIMPLY PUT, MS. KEYSER DOES NOT KNOW MR. KAVANAUGH, SHE HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF EVER BEING AT A PARTY OR GATHERING WHERE HE WAS PRESENT, WITH OR WITHOUT DR. FORD. END QUOTE. THINK ABOUT THAT FACT. THE DAY AFTER THE ALLEGATION APPEARED, I TOLD THIS COMMITTEE THAT I WANTED A HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, TO CLEAR MY NAME. I DEMANDED A HEARING FOR THE VERY NEXT DAY. UNFORTUNATELY, IT TOOK THE COMMITTEE 10 DAYS TO GET TO THIS HEARING. AND THOSE 10 LONG DAYS, AS WAS PREDICTABLE, AND AS I PREDICTED, MY FAMILY AND MY NAME HAVE BEEN TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DESTROYED BY VICIOUS AND FALSE ADDITIONAL ACCUSATIONS. THE 10-DAY DELAY HAS BEEN HARMFUL TO ME AND MY FAMILY, TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND TO THE COUNTRY. WHEN THIS ALLEGATION FIRST AROSE, I WELCOMED ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION, SENATE, FBI, OR OTHERWISE. THE COMMITTEE NOW HAS CONDUCTED A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, AND I HAVE COOPERATED FULLY. I KNOW THAT ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION, SENATE, FBI, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE, WHATEVER, WILL CLEAR ME. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE I KNOW. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE KNOWN ME MY WHOLE LIFE. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE I HAVE GROWN UP WITH. AND WORKED WITH. AND PLAYED WITH. AND COACHED WITH. AND DATED. AND TAUGHT. AND GONE TO GAMES WITH, AND HAD BEERS WITH. AND LISTEN TO THE WITNESSES WHO ALLEGEDLY WERE AT THIS EVENT 36 YEARS AGO. LISTEN TO MS. KEYSER. SHE DOES NOT KNOW ME. I WAS NOT AT THE PARTY DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD. THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS HAS BECOME A NATIONAL DISGRACE. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE SENATE AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS. BUT YOU HAVE REPLACED ADVICE AND CONSENT WITH SEARCH AND DESTROY. SINCE MY NOMINATION IN JULY, THERE HAS BEEN A FRENZY ON THE LEFT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING, ANYTHING, TO BLOCK MY CONFIRMATION. SHORTLY AFTER I WAS NOMINATED, THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE LEADER SAID HE WOULD QUOTE OPPOSE ME WITH EVERYTHING HE’S GOT. A DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ON THIS COMMITTEE PUBLICLY REFERRED TO ME AS EVIL. EVIL. THINK ABOUT THAT WORD. AND SAID THAT THOSE WHO SUPPORTED ME WERE QUOTE COMPLICIT IN EVIL. ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ON THIS COMMITTEE SAID, QUOTE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE. A FORMER HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE SAID, QUOTE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL THREATEN THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FOR DECADES TO COME. I UNDERSTAND THE PASSIONS OF THE MOMENT. BUT I WOULD SAY TO THOSE SENATORS, YOUR WORDS HAVE MEANING. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS LISTENED CAREFULLY TO YOU. GIVEN COMMENTS LIKE THOSE, IS IT ANY SURPRISE THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO MAKE ANY PHYSICAL THREAT AGAINST MY FAMILY, TO SEND ANY VIOLENT E-MAIL TO MY WIFE, TO MAKE ANY KIND OF ALLEGATION AGAINST ME AND AGAINST MY FRIENDS, TO BLOW ME UP, AND TAKE ME DOWN. YOU SOWED THE WIND FOR DECADES TO COME. I FEAR THE WHOLE COUNTRY WILL REAP THE WHIRLWIND. THE BEHAVIOR OF SEVERAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AT MY HEARING A FEW WEEKS AGO WAS AN EMBARRASSMENT. BUT AT LEAST IT WAS JUST A GOOD OLD-FASHIONED ATTEMPT AT BORKING. THOSE EFFORTS DIDN’T WORK. WHEN I DID AT LEAST OKAY ENOUGH AT THE HEARING, THAT IT LOOKED LIKE I MIGHT ACTUALLY GET CONFIRMED, A NEW TACTIC WAS NEEDED. SOME OF YOU WERE LYING IN WAIT AND HAD IT READY. THIS FIRST ALLEGATION WAS HELD IN SECRET FOR WEEKS BY A DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE AND BY STAFF. IT WOULD BE NEEDED ONLY IF YOU COULDN’T TAKE ME OUT ON THE MERITS. WHEN IT WAS NEEDED, THIS ALLEGATION WAS UNLEASHED AND PUBLICLY DEPLOYED, OVER DR. FORD’S WISHES. AND THEN, AND THEN, AS NO DOUBT WAS EXPECTED, IF NOT PLANNED, CAME A LONG SERIES OF FALSE LAST-MINUTE SMEARS, DESIGNED TO SCARE ME AND DRIVE ME OUT OF THE PROCESS BEFORE ANY HEARING OCCURRED. CRAZY STUFF. GANGS. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN. FIGHTS ON BOATS IN RHODE ISLAND. ALL NONSENSE. REPORTED BREATHLESSLY AND OFTEN UNCRITICALLY BY THE MEDIA. THIS IS HAS DESTROYED MY FAMILY AND MY GOOD NAME. A GOOD NAME BUILT UP THROUGH DECADES OF VERY HARD WORK AND PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. THIS WHOLE TWO-WEEK EFFORT HAS BEEN A CALCULATED AND ORCHESTRATED POLITICAL HIT, FUELED WITH APPARENT PENT-UP ANGER ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 2016 ELECTION, FEAR THAT HAS BEEN UNFAIRLY STOKED ABOUT MY JUDICIAL RECORD, REVENGE ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTONS, AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MONEY FROM OUTSIDE LEFT WING OPPOSITION GROUPS. THIS IS A CIRCUS. THE CONSEQUENCES WILL EXTEND LONG PAST MY NOMINATION. THE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE WITH US FOR DECADES. THIS GROTESQUE AND COORDINATED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION WILL DISSUADE CONFIDENT AND GOOD PEOPLE OF ALL POLITICAL PERSUASIONS FROM SERVING OUR COUNTRY. AND AS WE ALL KNOW, IN THE UNITED STATES POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE EARLY 2000s, WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND. I AM AN OPTIMISTIC GUY. I ALWAYS TRY TO BE ON THE SUNRISE SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN. TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE DAY THAT IS COMING. BUT TODAY, I HAVE TO SAY THAT I FEAR FOR THE FUTURE. LAST TIME I WAS HERE, I TOLD THIS COMMITTEE THAT A FEDERAL JUDGE MUST BE INDEPENDENT, NOT SWAYED BY PUBLIC OR POLITICAL PRESSURE. I SAID I WAS SUCH A JUDGE. AND I AM. I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO WITHDRAWINFROM THIS PROCESS. YOU HAVE TRIED HARD. YOU HAVE GIVEN IT YOUR ALL. NO ONE CAN QUESTION YOUR EFFORT. BUT YOUR COORDINATED AND WELL-FUNDED EFFORT TO DESTROY MY GOOD NAME, AND DESTROY MY FAMILY, WILL NOT DRIVE ME OUT. THE VIAL THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST MY FAMILY WILL NOT DRIVE ME OUT. YOU MAY DEFEAT ME IN THE FINAL VOTE, BUT YOU WILL NEVER GET ME TO QUIT. NEVER. I AM HERE TODAY TO TELL THE TRUTH. I HAVE NEVER SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ANYONE. NOT IN HIGH SCHOOL. NOT IN COLLEGE. NOT EVER. SEXUAL ASSAULT IS HORRIFIC. ONE OF MY CLOSEST FRIENDS TO THIS DAY IS A WOMAN WHO WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED AND WHO IN THE 1990s WHEN WE WERE IN OUR 30s CONFIDED IN ME ABOUT THE ABUSE. AND SOUGHT MY ADVICE. I WAS ONE OF THE ONLY PEOPLE SHE CONSULTED. ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT MUST ALWAYS BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. ALWAYS. THOSE WHO MAKE ALLEGATIONS ALWAYS DESERVE TO BE HEARD. AT THE SAME TIME, THE PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ALLEGATIONS ALSO DESERVES TO BE HEARD. DUE PROCESS IS A FOUNDATION OF THE AMERICAN RULE OF LAW. DUE PROCESS MEANS LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES. AS I TOLD YOU AT MY HEARING THREE WEEKS AGO, I AM THE ONLY CHILD OF MARTHA AND ED KAVANAUGH, THEY ARE HERE TODAY. WHEN I WAS TEN, MY MOM WENT TO LAW SCHOOL, AND AS A LAWYER, SHE WORKED HARD AND OVERCAME BARRIERS, INCLUDING THE WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT THAT SO MANY WOMEN FACED AT THE TIME, AND STILL TODAY FACE TODAY. SHE BECAME A TRAILBLAZER. ONE OF MARYLAND’S EARLIEST WOMEN PROSECUTORS AND TRIAL JUDGES. SHE AND MY DAD TOUT ME THE IMPORTANCE OF EQUALITY AND RESPECT FOR ALL PEOPLE, AND SHE INSPIRED ME TO BE A LAWYER AND A JUDGE. LAST TIME I WAS HERE, I TOLD YOU THAT WHEN MY MOM WAS IN A PROSECUTOR AND I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, SHE USED TO PRACTICE HER CLOSING ARGUMENTS AT THE DINING ROOM TABLE ON MY DAD AND ME. AS I TOLD YOU, HER TRADEMARK LINE WAS, USE YOUR MON COMMON SENSE. WHAT RINGS TRUE? WHAT RINGS FALSE? HER TRADEMARK LINE IS A GOOD REMINDER, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, SOME 36 YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED EVENT OCCURRED, WHEN THERE IS NO CORROBORATION, AND INDEED, IT IS REFUTED BY THE PEOPLE ALLEGEDLY THERE. AFTER I HAVE BEEN IN THE PUBLIC ARENA FOR 26 YEARS, WITHOUT EVEN A HINT, A WHIFF OF AN ALLEGATION LIKE THIS. AND WHEN MY NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT WAS JUST ABOUT TO BE VOTED ON, AT A TIME WHEN I AM CALLED EVIL, BY A DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, WHILE DEMOCRATIC OPPONENTS OF MY NOMINATION SAY PEOPLE WILL DIE IF I AM CONFIRMED, THIS ONSLAUGHT OF LAST-MINUTE ALLEGATIONS DOES NOT RING TRUE. I’M NOT QUESTIONING THAT DR. FORD MAY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY SOME PERSON IN SOME PLACE AT SOME TIME. BUT I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS. TO HER OR HER TO ANYONE. THAT’S NOT WHO I AM. IT IS NOT WHO I WAS. I AM INNOCENT OF THIS CHARGE. I INTEND NO ILL WILL TO DR. FORD AND HER FAMILY. THE OTHER NIGHT, ASHLEY AND MY DAUGHTER LIZA SAID THEIR PRAYERS AND LITTLE LIZA ALL OF 10 YEARS OLD, SAID TO ASHLEY, WE SHOULD PRAY FOR THE WOMAN. THAT IS A LOT OF WISDOM FROM A 10-YEAR-OLD. WE MEAN NO ILL WILL. FIRST, LET’S START WITH MY CAREER. FOR THE LAST 26 YEARS, SINCE 1992, I HAVE SERVED IN MANY HIGH PROFILE AND SENSITIVE GOVERNMENT POSITIONS FOR WHICH THE FBI HAS INVESTIGATED MY BACKGROUND SIX SEPARATE TIMES. SIX SEPARATE FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS, OVER 26 YEARS. ALL OF THEM AFTER THE EVENT ALLEGED HERE. I HAVE BEEN IN THE PUBLIC ARENA AND UNDER EXTREME PUBLIC SCRUTINY FOR DECADES. IN 1992, I WORKED FOR THE OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN 1993, I CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY. I SPENT FOUR YEARS IN THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL’S OFFICE DURING THE 1990s. THAT OFFICE WAS THE SUBJECT OF ENORMOUS SCRUTINY FROM THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC. DURING 1998, THE YEAR OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON, OUR OFFICE GENERALLY, AND I PERSONALLY, WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTENSE NATIONAL MEDIA AND POLITICAL SPOTLIGHT. I AND OTHER LEADING MEMBERS OF KEN STARR’S OFFICE WERE OPPOSITION RESEARCH FROM HEAD TO TOE, FROM BIRTH THROUGH THE PRESENT DAY. RECALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPOSED THAT YEAR OF 1998 AS HAVING ENGAGED IN SOME SEXUAL WRONGDOING OR INDISCRETIONS IN THEIR PAST. ONE PERSON ON THE LEFT EVEN PAID A MILLION DOLLARS FOR PEOPLE TO REPORT EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL WRONGDOING. AND IT WORKED. EXPOSED SOME PROMINENT PEOPLE. NOTHING ABOUT ME. FROM 2001 TO 2006, I WORKED FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE. A STAFF SECRETARY, I WAS BY PRESIDENT BUSH’S SIDE FOR THREE YEARS AND WAS ENTRUSTED WITH THE NATION’S MOST SENSITIVE SECRETS. I TRAVELED ON AIR FORCE ONE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD WITH PRESIDENT BUSH. I WENT EVERYWHERE WITH HIM, FROM TEXAS, TO PAKISTAN, FROM ALASKA, TO AUSTRALIA, FROM BUCKINGHAM PALACE, TO THE VATICAN. THREE YEARS IN THE WEST WING, 5 1/2 YEARS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I WAS THEN NOMINATED TO BE A JUDGE ON THE DC CIRCUIT. I WAS THOROUGHLY VETTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE, THE FBI, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AND THIS COMMITTEE. I SAT BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE FOR TWO THOROUGH CONFIRMATION HEARINGS IN 2004 AND 2006. FOR THE PAST 12 YEARS, LEADING UP TO MY NOMINATION FOR THIS JOB, I HAVE SERVED IN A VERY PUBLIC ARENA, AS A FEDERAL JUDGE, ON WHAT IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT COURT IN THE COUNTRY. I HAVE HANDLED SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AND SENSITIVE CASES AFFECTING THE LIVES AND LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I HAVE BEEN A GOOD JUDGE. AND FOR THIS NOMINATION, ANOTHER FBI BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION. ANOTHER AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION INVESTIGATION. 31 HOURS OF HEARINGS. 65 SENATOR MEETINGS. 1,200 WRITTEN QUESTIONS. MORE THAN ALL PREVIOUS SUPREME COURT NOMINEES COMBINED. THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE TIME, THROUGHOUT MY 53 YEARS AND 7 MONTHS ON THIS EARTH, UNTIL LAST WEEK, NO ONE EVER ACCUSED ME OF ANY KIND OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. NO ONE EVER. A LIFETIME. A LIFETIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND A LIFETIME OF HIGH PROFILE PUBLIC SERVICE, AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. AND NEVER A HINT OF ANYTHING OF THIS KIND. AND THAT’S BECAUSE NOTHING OF THIS KIND EVER HAPPENED. SECOND, LET’S TURN TO SPECIFICS. I CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY DENY THE ALLEGATION AGAINST ME BY DR. FORD. I NEVER HAD ANY SEXUAL OR PHYSICAL ENCOUNTER OF ANY KIND WITH DR. FORD. I NEVER ATTENDED A GATHERING LIKE THE ONE THAT DR. FORD DESCRIBES IN HER ALLEGATION. I HAVE NEVER SEXUALLY ASSAULTED DR. FORD OR ANYONE. AGAIN, I AM NOT QUESTIONING THAT DR. FORD MAY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY SOME PERSON, IN SOME PLACE, AT SOME TIME. BUT I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT TO HER, OR TO ANYONE. DR. FORD’S ALLEGATION STEMS FROM A PARTY THAT SHE ALLEGES OCCURRED DURING THE SUMMER OF 1982. 36 YEARS AGO. I WAS 17 YEARS OLD. BETWEEN MY JUNIOR AND SENIOR YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL AT GEORGETOWN PREP. A RIGOROUS ALL BOYS CATHOLIC JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL, IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND. WHEN MY FRIENDS AND I SPENT TIME TOGETHER AT PARTIES ON WEEKENDS, IT WAS USUALLY WITH FRIENDS FROM NEARBY CATHOLIC ALL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOLS, STONE RIDGE, HOLY CHILD, VISITATION, IMMACULATA, HOLY CROSS. DR. FORD DID NOT ATTEND ONE OF THOSE SCHOOLS. SHE ATTENDED AN INDEPENDENT PRIVATE SCHOOL NAMED HOLTEN ARMS, AND SHE WAS A YEAR BEHIND ME. SHE AND I DID NOT TRAVEL IN THE SAME SOCIAL CIRCLES. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE MET AT SOME POINT, AT SOME EVENTS, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT RECALL THAT. TO REPEAT, ALL OF THE PEOPLE IDENTIFIED BY DR. FORD AS BEING PRESENT AT THE PARTY HAVE SAID THEY DO NOT REMEMBER ANY SUCH PARTY EVER HAPPENING. IMPORTANTLY, HER FRIEND, MS. KEYSER, HAS NOT ONLY DENIED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTY, MS. KEYSER SAID UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY, SHE DOES NOT KNOW ME, DOES NOT RECALL EVER BEING AT A PARTY WITH ME EVER. AND MY TWO MALE FRIENDS WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY THERE, WHO KNEW ME WELL, HAVE TOLD THIS COMMITTEE UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY THAT THEY DO NOT RECALL ANY SUCH PARTY AND THAT I NEVER DID OR WOULD DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS. DR. FORD’S ALLEGATION IS NOT MERELY UNCORROBORATED. IT IS REFUTED BY THE VERY PEOPLE SHE SAYS WERE THERE, INCLUDING BY A LONG-TIME FRIEND OF HERS, REFUTED. THIRD, DR. FORD HAS SAID THAT THIS EVENT OCCURRED AT A HOUSE NEAR COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB, WHICH IS AT THE CORNER OF CONNECTICUT EVERYBODY AND THE EAST/WEST HIGHWAY IN CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND. IN HER LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, SHE SAID THAT THERE WERE FOUR OTHER PEOPLE AT THE HOUSE BUT NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE NOR I LIVE NEAR COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB. AS OF THE SUMMER OF 1982, DR. FORD WAS 15 AND COULD NOT DRIVE YET. AND SHE DID NOT LIVE NEAR COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB. SHE SAYS CONFIDENTLY THAT SHE HAD ONE BEER AT THE PARTY. BUT SHE DOES NOT SAY HOW SHE GOT TO THE HOUSE IN QUESTION OR HOW SHE GOT HOME, OR WHOSE HOUSE IT WAS. FOURTH, I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE DETAILED CALENDARS REPORTING MY ACTIVITIES IN THE SUMMER OF 1982. WHY DID I KEEP CALENDARS? MY DAD STARTED KEEPING DETAILED CALENDARS OF HIS LIFE IN 1978. HE DID SO AS BOTH A CALENDAR AND A DIARY. VERY ORGANIZED GUY TO PUT IT MILDLY. CHRISTMAS TIME, WITH WE SIT AROUND AND HE WOULD TELL OLD STORIES, OLD MILESTONE, OLD WEDDINGS, OLD EVENTS, FROM HIS CALENDARS. IN 9th GRADE, IN 1980, I STARTED KEEPING CALENDARS OF MY OWN. FOR ME, ALSO, IT IS BOTH A CALENDAR AND A DIARY. I HAVE KEPT SUCH CALENDARS, DIARIES, FOR THE LAST 38 YEARS. MINE ARE NOT AS GOOD AS MY DAD’S IN SOME YEARS, AND WHEN I WAS A KID, THE CALENDARS ARE ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM A KID. SOME GOOFY PARTS, SOME EMBARRASSING PARTS, BUT I DID HAVE THE SUMMER OF 1982 DOCUMENTED PRETTY WELL. THE EVENT DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD PRESUMABLY HAPPENED ON A WEEKEND, BECAUSE I BELIEVE EVERYONE WORKED AND HAD JOBS IN THE SUMMERS, AND IN ANY EVENT, A DRUNKEN EARLY EVENING EVENT OF THE KIND SHE DESCRIBES PRESUMABLY HAPPENED ON A WEEKEND. IF IT WAS A WEEKEND, MY CALENDARS SHOW THAT I WAS OUT OF TOWN ALMOST EVERY WEEKEND NIGHT BEFORE FOOTBALL TRAINING CAMP STARTED IN LATE AUGUST. THE ONLY WEEKEND NIGHTS THAT I WAS IN DC WERE FRIDAY, JUNE 4, WHEN I WAS WITH MY DAD AT A PRO GOLF TOURNAMENT. AND HAD MY HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT TEST AT 8:30 THE NEXT MORNING. I ALSO WAS IN DC ON SATURDAY NIGHT AUGUST 7, BUT I WAS AT A SMALL GATHERING AT BECKY’S HOUSE IN ROCKVILLE, WITH MATT, DENISE, LORI, AND JENNY. THEIR NAMES ARE ALL LISTED ON MY CALENDAR. I WON’T USE THEIR LAST NAMES HERE. AND THEN ON THE WEEKEND OF AUGUST 20 TO 22nd, I WAS STAYING AT THE GARRETTS, WITH PAT AND CHRIS, AS WE DID FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR FOOTBALL TRAINING CAMP, THAT BEGAN ON SUNDAY, THE 22nd. AS THE CALENDARS CONFIRM, WITH THAT WEEKEND BEFORE THE BRUTAL FOOTBALL TRAINING CAMP SCHEDULE WAS NO TIME FOR PARTIES. SO LET ME EMPHASIZE THIS POINT. IF THE PARTY DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD HAPPENED IN THE SUMMER OF 1982, ON A WEEKEND NIGHT, MY CALENDAR SHOWS ALL BUT DEFINITIVELY THAT I WAS NOT THERE. DURING THE WEEKDAYS, IN THE SUMMER OF 1982, AS YOU CAN SEE, I WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS OF THE SUMMER, FOR A TRIP TO THE BEACH WITH FRIENDS, AND AT THE LENL DEAR LEGENDARY FIVE STAR BASKETBALL CAMP IN PENNSYLVANIA. WHEN I WAS IN TOWN, I SPENT MUCH OF MY TIME WORKING, WORKING OUT, LIFTING WEIGHTS, PLAYING BASKETBALL, OR HANGING OUT AND HAVING SOME BEERS WITH FRIENDS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT LIFE, AND FOOTBALL, AND SCHOOL, AND GIRLS. SOME HAVE NOTICED THAT I DIDN’T HAVE CHURCH ON SUNDAYS ON MY CALENDARS. I ALSO DIDN’T LIST BRUSHING MY TEETH. AND FOR ME, GOING TO CHURCH ON SUNDAYS WAS LIKE BRUSHING MY TEETH. AUTOMATIC. STILL IS. AND THE SUMMER OF 1981, I HAD WORKED CONSTRUCTION. IN THE SUMMER OF 1982, MY JOB WAS CUTTING LAWNS. I HAD MY OWN BUSINESS OF SORTS. YOU SEE SOME SPECIFICS ABOUT THE LAWN CUTTING LISTED ON THE AUGUST CALENDAR PAGE, WHEN I HAD TO TIME THE LAST LAWN CUTTINGS OF THE SUMMER OF VARIOUS LAWNS BEFORE FOOTBALL TRAINING CAMP. I PLAYED IN A LOT OF SUMMER LEAGUE BASKETBALL GAMES FOR THE GEORGETOWN PREP TEAM AT NIGHT AT BLAIR HIGH SCHOOL IN SILVER SPRING. MANY NIGHTS, I WORKED OUT WITH OTHER GUYS, AT TOBIN’S HOUSE. HE WAS THE GREAT QUARTERBACK ON OUR FOOTBALL TEAM. AND HIS DAD RAN WORKOUTS OR LIFTED WEIGHTS AT GEORGETOWN PREP, IN PREPARATION FOR THE FOOTBALL SEASON. I ATTENDED AND WATCHED MANY SPORTING EVENTS, AS IS MY HABIT TO THIS DAY. THE CALENDARS SHOW A FEW WEEKDAY GATHERINGS AT FRIEND’S HOUSES AFTER A WORKOUT, OR JUST TO MEET UP AND HAVE SOME BEERS. BUT NONE OF THOSE GATHERINGS INCLUDED THE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT DR. FORD HAS IDENTIFIED. AND AS MY CALENDARS SHOW, I WAS VERY PRECISE ABOUT LISTING WHO WAS THERE. VERY PRECISE. AND KEEP IN MIND, MY CALENDARS ALSO WERE DIARIES OF SORTS. FORWARD LOOKING, AND BACKWARD LOOKING. JUST LIKE MY DAD’S. YOU CAN SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT I CROSSED OUT MISSED WORKOUTS, AND THE CANCELED DOCTOR’S APPOINTMENTS, AND THAT I LISTED THE PRECISE PEOPLE WHO HAD SHOWN UP FOR CERTAIN EVENTS. THE CALENDARS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT DISPOSITIVE ON THEIR OWN, BUT THEY ARE ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THE MIX FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. FIFTH, DR. FORD’S ALLEGATION IS RADICALLY INCONSISTENT WITH MY RECORD AND MY CHARACTER, FROM MY YOUTH TO THE PRESENT DAY. AS STUDENTS AT AN ALL BOYS CATHOLIC JESUIT SCHOOL, MANY OF US BECAME FRIENDS AND REMAIN FRIENDS TO THIS DAY, WITH STUDENTS AT LOCAL CATHOLIC ALL GIRLS SCHOOLS. ONE FEATURE OF MY LIFE THAT HAS REMAINED TRUE TO THE PRESENT DAY IS THAT I HAVE ALWAYS HAD A LOT OF CLOSE FEMALE FRIENDS. I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT GIRLFRIENDS. I’M TALKING ABOUT FRIENDS WHO ARE WOMEN. THAT STARTED IN HIGH SCHOOL. MAYBE IT WAS BECAUSE I’M AN ONLY CHILD AND HAD NO SISTERS, BUT ANY WAY, WE HAD NO SOCIAL MEDIA, OR TEXTS, OR E-MAIL, AND WE TALKED ON THE PHONE. I REMEMBER TALKING ALMOST EVERY NIGHT, IT SEEMED, TO MY FRIENDS AMY, OR JULIE, OR KRISTEN, OR KAREN, OR SUZANNE, OR LAURA, OR MEGAN, OR NICKY, THE LIST GOES ON. FRIENDS FOR A LIFETIME. BUILT ON A FOUNDATION OF TALKING THROUGH SCHOOL AND LIFE, STARTING AT AGE 14. SEVERAL OF THOSE GREAT WOMEN ARE ON THE SEATS RIGHT BEHIND ME TODAY. MY FRIENDS AND I SOMETIMES GOT TOGETHER AND HAD PARTIES ON WEEKENDS. THE DRINKING AGE WAS 18 IN MARYLAND FOR MOST OF MY TIME IN HIGH SCHOOL AND WAS 18 IN DC FOR ALL OF MY TIME IN HIGH SCHOOL. I DRANK BEER WITH MY FRIENDS. ALMOST EVERYONE DID. SOMETIMES I HAD TOO MANY BEERS. SOMETIMES OTHERS DID. I LIKED BEER. I STILL LIKE BEER. BUT I DID NOT DRINK BEER TO THE POINT OF BLACKING OUT, AND I NEVER SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ANYONE. THERE IS A BRIGHT LINE BETWEEN DRINKING BEER, WHICH I GLADLY DO, AND WHICH I FULLY EMBRACE, AND SEXUALLY ASSAULTING SOMEONE, WHICH IS A VIOLENT CRIME. IF EVERY AMERICAN WHO DRINKS BEER, OR EVERY AMERICAN WHO DRANK BEER IN HIGH SCHOOL IS SUDDENLY PRESUMED GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, WILL BE AN UGLY NEW PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY. I NEVER COMMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT. AS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, WE SOMETIMES DID GOOFY OR STUPID THINGS. I DOUBT WE WERE ALONE IN LOOKING BACK AT HIGH SCHOOL AND CRINGING AT SOME THINGS. FOR ONE THING, OUR YEARBOOK WAS A DISASTER. I THINK SOME EDITORS AND STUDENTS WANTED THE YEARBOOK TO BE SOME COMBINATION OF ANIMAL HOUSE, CADDY SHACK, AND FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, WHICH WERE ALL RECENT MOVIES AT THAT TIME. MANY OF US WENT ALONG IN THE YEARBOOK TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY. THIS PAST WEEK, MY FRIENDS AND I HAVE CRINGED WHEN WE READ ABOUT IT AND TALKED TO EACH OTHER. ONE THING IN PARTICULAR WE’RE SAD ABOUT, ONE OF OUR GOOD, ONE OF OUR GOOD FEMALE FRIENDS WHO WE WOULD ADMIRE AND HAD TO DANCES WITH, HAD HER NAME USED ON THE YEARBOOK PAGE WITH THE TERM ALUMNUS. THAT YEARBOOK REFERENCE WAS CUPSLY MEANT TO SHOW — CLUMSILY MEANT TO SHOW AFFECTION AND SHE WAS ONE OF US. BUT IN THIS MEDIA CIRCUS, THE TERM WAS RELATED TO SEX. IT WAS NOT RELATED TO SEX. AS THE WOMAN HERSELF NOTED IN THE MEDIA ON THE RECORD, SHE AND I NEVER HAD ANY SEXUAL INTERACTION AT ALL. I’M SO SORRY TO HER FOR THAT YEARBOOK REFERENCE. THIS MAY SOUND A BIT TRIVIAL, GIVEN ALL THAT WE ARE HERE FOR, BUT ONE THING I WANT TO TRY TO MAKE SURE OF IN THE FUTURE, IS MY FRIENDSHIP WITH HER. SHE WAS AND IS A GREAT PERSON. AS TO SEX, THIS IS NOT A TOPIC I EVER IMAGINED WOULD COME UP AT A JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING. I WANT TO GIVE YOU A FULL PICTURE OF WHO I WAS. I NEVER HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO IT DURING HIGH SCHOOL OR FOR MANY YEARS AFTER THAT. AND SOME CROWDS, I WAS PROBABLY A LITTLE OUTWARDLY SHY ABOUT MY INEXPERIENCE. I TRIED TO HIDE THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, I WAS ALSO INWARDLY PROUD OF IT. FOR ME, AND THE GIRLS WHO I WAS FRIENDS WITH, THAT LACK OF MAJOR RAMPANT SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN HIGH SCHOOL WAS A MATTER OF FAITH AND RESPECT AND CAUTION. THE COMMITTEE HAS A LETTER FROM 65 WOMEN WHO KNEW ME IN HIGH SCHOOL. THEY SAID THAT I ALWAYS TREATED THEM WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT. THAT LETTER CAME TOGETHER IN ONE NIGHT, 35 YEARS AFTER GRADUATION, WHILE A SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATION WAS PENDING AGAINST ME IN A VERY FRAUGHT AND PUBLIC SITUATION WHERE THEY KNEW, THEY KNEW THEY WOULD BE VILLIFIED IF THEY DEFENDED ME. THINK ABOUT THAT. THEY PUT THEMSELVES ON THE LINE FOR ME. THOSE ARE SOME AWESOME WOMEN. AND I LOVE ALL OF THEM. YOU ALSO HAVE A LETTER FROM WOMEN WHO KNEW ME IN COLLEGE. MOST WERE VARSITY ATHLETES. AND THEY DESCRIBED THAT I TREATED THEM AS FRIENDS AND EQUALS. AND SUPPORTED THEM IN THEIR SPORTS AT A TIME WHEN WOMEN SPORTS WAS EMERGING IN THE WAKE OF TITLE IX, I THANK ALL OF THEM FOR ALL OF THEIR TEXTS AND E-MAILS AND THEIR SUPPORT. ONE OF THOSE WOMEN FRIENDS FROM COLLEGE, A SELF-DESCRIBED LITERAL AND FEMINIST, SENT ME A TEXT LAST NIGHT, THAT SAID, QUOTE, DEEP BREATHS, YOU’RE A GOOD MAN, A GOOD MAN, A GOOD MAN. A TEXT YESTERDAY FROM ANOTHER OF THOSE WOMEN FRIENDS FROM COLLEGE SAID, QUOTE, BRETT, BE STRONG, PULLING FOR YOU TO MY CORE. A THIRD TEXT YESTERDAY, FROM YET ANOTHER OF THOSE WOMEN I’M FRIENDS WITH FROM COLLEGE SAID, I’M HOLDING YOU IN THE LIGHT OF GOD. AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THE LAST TIME I WAS WITH YOU, CHERISH YOUR FRIENDS, LOOK OUT FOR YOUR FRIENDS, LIFT UP YOUR FRIENDS, LOVE YOUR FRIENDS. I FELT THAT LOVE MORE OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS THAN I EVER HAVE IN MY LIFE. I THANK ALL OF MY FRIENDS. I LOVE ALL MY FRIENDS. THROUGHOUT MY LIFE, I HAVE DEVOTED HUGE EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING THE CAREERS OF WOMEN. I WILL PUT MY RECORD UP AGAINST ANYONE’S, MALE OR FEMALE. I AM PROUD OF THE LETTER FROM 84 WOMEN, 84 WOMEN, WHO WORKED WITH ME AT THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE, FROM 2001 TO 2006, AND DESCRIBED ME AS, QUOTE, A MAN OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY. READ THE OP-ED FROM SARA DAY FROM YARMOUTH, MAINE, SHE WORKED IN OVAL OFFICE OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF PRESIDENT BUSH’S OFFICE. HERE IS WHAT SHE RECENTLY WROTE IN CENTRAL MAINE.COM. TODAY, SHE STANDS BY HER COMMENTS. QUOTE, BRETT WAS AN ADVOCATE FOR YOUNG WOMEN LIKE ME. HE ENCOURAGED ME TO TAKE ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY AND TO FEEL CONFIDENT IN MY ROLE. IN FACT, DURING THE 2004 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, BRETT GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP WITH THE PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS, SOMETHING I NEVER, SOMETHING I NEVER WOULD HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO DO IF HE HAD NOT INCLUDED ME. AND HE DIDN’T JUST INCLUDE ME IN THE WORK. HE MADE SURE I WAS AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN TO WATCH THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH INSTEAD OF BACK AT THE HOTEL WATCHING ON TV. END QUOTE. AS A JUDGE, SINCE 2006, I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HIRING FOUR RECENT LAW SCHOOL GRADUATES TO SERVE AS MY LAW CLERKS EACH YEAR. THE LAW CLERKS FOR FEDERAL JUDGES ARE THE BEST AND BRIDEST GRADUATES OF — BRIGHTEST GRADUATES OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS. THEY WORK FOR ONE-YEAR TERMS FOR JUDGES AFTER LAW SCHOOL, AND THEN THEY MOVE ON IN THEIR CAREERS. FOR JUDGES, TRAINING THESE YOUNG LAWYERS IS AN IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY. THE CLERKS WILL BECOME THE NEXT GENERATION OF AMERICAN LAWYERS AND LEADERS. JUDGES AND SENATORS. JUST AFTER I TOOK THE BENCH IN 2006, THERE WAS A MAJOR NEW YORK TIMES STORY ABOUT THE LOW NUMBERS OF WOMEN LAW CLERKS AT THE SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL APPEALS COURTS. I TOOK NOTICE AND I TOOK ACTION. A MAJORITY OF MY 48 LAW CLERKS OVER THE LAST 12 YEARS HAVE BEEN WOMEN. IN A LETTER TO THIS COMMITTEE, MY WOMEN LAW CLERKS SAID I WAS ONE OF THE STRONGEST ADVOCATES IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY FOR WOMEN LAWYERS. AND THEY WROTE THAT THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS FAIRER AND MORE EQUAL BECAUSE OF ME. IN MY TIME ON THE BENCH, NO FEDERAL JUDGE, NOT A SINGLE ONE IN THE COUNTRY, HAS SENT MORE WOMEN LAW CLERKS TO CLERK ON THE SUPREME COURT THAN I HAVE. BEFORE THIS ALLEGATION AROSE TWO WEEKS AGO, I WAS REQUIRED TO START MAKING CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE PREPARATIONS FOR MY POSSIBLE TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT. JUST IN CASE I WAS CONFIRMED. AS PART OF THAT, I HAD TO, IN ESSENCE, CONTINGENTLY HIRE A FIRST GROUP OF FOUR LAW CLERKS WHO COULD BE AVAILABLE TO CLERK AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR ME ON A MOMENT’S NOTICE. I DID SO. AND CONTINGENTLY HIRED FOUR LAW CLERKS. ALL FOUR ARE WOMEN. IF CONFIRMED, I WILL BE THE FIRST JUSTICE IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT TO HAVE A GROUP OF ALL WOMEN LAW CLERKS. THAT IS WHO I AM. THAT IS WHO I WAS. OVER THE PAST 12 YEARS, I HAVE TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO HUNDREDS OF STUDENTS. PRIMARILY AT HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, WHILE I WAS HIRED BY THEN DEAN AND NOW JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN. ONE OF MY FORMER WOMEN STUDENTS, A DEMOCRAT, TESTIFIED TO THIS COMMITTEE, THAT I WAS AN EVEN-HANDED PROFESSOR, WHO TREATS PEOPLE FAIRLY, AND WITH RESPECT. IN A LETTER TO THIS COMMITTEE, MY FORMER STUDENTS, MALE AND FEMALE ALIKE, WROTE THAT I DISPLAYED A CHARACTER THAT IMPRESSED US ALL. I LOVE TEACHING LAW. BUT THANKS TO WHAT SOME OF YOU ON THIS SIDE OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE UNLEASHED, I MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO TEACH AGAIN. FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, I HAVE COACHED MY TWO DAUGHTERS’ BASKETBALL TEAMS. YOU SAW MANY OF THOSE GIRLS WHEN THEY CAME TO MY HEARING FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS. YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM THE PARENTS OF THE GIRLS I COACHED THAT DESCRIBE MY DEDICATION, COMMITMENT, AND CHARACTER. I COACH BECAUSE I KNOW THAT A GIRL’S CONFIDENCE ON THE BASKETBALL COURT TRANSLATES INTO CONFIDENCE IN OTHER ASPECTS OF LIFE. I LOVE COACHING MORE THAN ANYTHING I HAVE EVER DONE IN MY WHOLE LIFE. BUT THANKS TO WHAT SOME OF YOU ON THIS SIDE OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE UNLEASHED, I MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO COACH AGAIN. I HAVE BEEN A JUDGE FOR 12 YEARS. I HAVE A LONG RECORD OF SERVICE TO AMERICA AND TO THE CONSTITUTION. I REVERE THE CONSTITUTION. I AM DEEPLY GRATEFUL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR NOMINATING ME. HE WAS SO GRACIOUS TO MY FAMILY AND ME ON THE JULY NIGHT HE ANNOUNCED MY NOMINATION AT THE WHITE HOUSE. I THANK HIM FOR HIS STEADFAST SUPPORT. WHEN I ACCEPTED THE PRESIDENT’S NOMINATION, ASHLEY AND I KNEW THIS PROCESS WOULD BE CHALLENGING. WE NEVER EXPECTED THAT IT WOULD DEVOLVE INTO THIS. EXPLAINING THIS TO OUR DAUGHTERS HAS BEEN ABOUT THE WORST EXPERIENCE OF OUR LIVES. ASHLEY HAS BEEN A ROCK. I THANK GOD EVERY DAY FOR ASHLEY AND MY FAMILY. WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY DEVOTED TO DUE PROCESS, AND THE RULE OF LAW. THAT MEANS TAKING ALLEGATIONS SERIOUSLY. BUT IF THE MERE ALLEGATION, A MERE ASSERTION OF AN ALLEGATION, A REFUTED ALLEGATION FROM 36 YEARS AGO, IS ENOUGH TO DESTROY A PERSON’S LIFE AND CAREER, WE WILL HAVE ABANDONED THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS THAT DEFINE OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND OUR COUNTRY. I ASK YOU TO JUDGE ME BY THE STANDARD THAT YOU WOULD WANT APPLIED TO YOUR FATHER, YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, OR YOUR SON. MY FAMILY AND I INTEND NO ILL WILL TOWARD DR. FORD OR HER FAMILY. BUT I SWEAR TODAY UNDER OATH, BEFORE THE SENATE AND THE NATION, BEFORE MY FAMILY AND GOD, I AM INNOCENT OF THIS CHARGE.>>THANK YOU, JUDGE KAVANAUGH. BEFORE WE START QUESTIONS, I WON’T REPEAT WHAT I SAID THIS MORNING, BUT WE WILL DO IT THE SAME WAY, AS WE DID FOR DR. FORD, AND FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS, AND SO WE WILL START WITH MS. MITCHELL.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE KAVANAUGH. WE HAVE NOT MET. MY NAME IS RACHEL MITCHELL. I WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF GUIDELINES FOR OUR QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION TODAY. IF I ASK A QUESTION –>>I’M READY. >>OKAY. >>THANK YOU. >>IF I ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, PLEASE ASK PLEA TO CLARIFY IT OR ASK IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I MAY ASK A QUESTION WHERE I INCORPORATE SOME INFORMATION YOU HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED. IF I GET IT WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME. I AM NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO GUESS. IF YOU DO ESTIMATE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW YOU’RE ESTIMATING. NOW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE GOTTEN A COPY OF THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.>>YES. AT LEAST I HAVE ONE.>>OKAY. >>WE ALL DO.>>AND YOU HAVE THAT AS WELL, JUDGE KAVANAUGH?>>YES. >>OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN OR REVIEWED A COPY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WILL BE ASKING YOU?>>NO. >>HAS ANYONE TOLD YOU THE QUESTIONS THAT I WILL BE ASKING YOU?>>NO. >>I WANT YOU TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REVIEW THE DEFINITION THAT IS BEFORE YOU OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.>>HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT?>>I HAVE. I MAY REFER BACK TO IT, IF I CAN. >>YES, PLEASE. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TWO SPECIFIC PARTS. AMONG THE EXAMPLES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, IT INCLUDES RUBBING OR GRINDING YOUR GENITALS AGAINST SOMEBODY, CLOTHED OR UNCLOTHED. AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE DEFINITION APPLIES WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTS WERE SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OR, FOR EXAMPLE, HORSEPLAY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION I HAVE GIVEN YOU?>>I DO.>>AND AGAIN, IF AT ANY TIME YOU NEED TO REVIEW, THAT PLEASE LET ME KNOW.>>DR. FORD HAS STATED THAT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE WERE PRESENT AT THE GATHERING ON THIS DATE. YOU, MARK JUDGE, LEELAND INGHAM AT THE TIME, OR LELAND KEYSER NOW, PATRICK PJ SMITH, DR. FORD, AND UNNAMED BOY, DO YOU KNOW MARK JUDGE?>>I DO. >>HOW DO YOU KNOW HIM?>>HE WAS A FRIEND AT GEORGETOWN PREP, STARTING IN 9th GRADE. HE IS SOMEONE WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, IN OUR GROUP OF FRIENDS, WE ARE VERY FRIENDLY GROUP IN CLASS, YOU SAW THE LETTER THAT HAS BEEN SENT BY MY FRIENDS FROM GEORGETOWN PREP. FUNNY GUY. GREAT WRITER. POPULAR. DEVELOPED A SERIOUS ADDICTION PROBLEM THAT LASTED DECADES. NEAR DEATH A COUPLE OF TIMES FROM HIS ADDICTION. SUFFERED TREMENDOUSLY FROM –>>WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM LIKE NOW?>>I HAVEN’T TALKED TO HIM IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. WE HAVE PROBABLY BEEN ON MASS E-MAILS OR GROUP E-MAILS THAT GO AROUND AMONG MY HIGH SCHOOL FRIENDS.>>AND HOW DID YOU KNOW PATRICK SMITH?>>ALSO 9th GRADE, GEORGETOWN PREP, WENT BY PJ THEN, HE AND I LIVED CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER, PLAYED FOOTBALL TOGETHER. HE WAS DEFENSIVE TACKLE. I WAS CORNERBACK, WIDE RECEIVER. WE CAR POOLED TO SCHOOL ALONG WITH DEE DAVIS EVERY YEAR, THE THREE OF US, FOR TWO YEARS. I DIDN’T HAVE A CAR SO ONE OF THE TWO OF THEM WOULD DRIVE EVERY DAY AND I’D BE IN THE — THEY’D PICK ME UP.>>WHAT’S YOUR RELATIONSHIP LIKE WITH HIM NOW?>>HE LIVES IN THE AREA. I SEE HIM ONCE IN A WHILE. I HAVEN’T SEEN HIM SINCE THIS THING.>>DO YOU KNOW LELAND INGAM OR LELAND KEYSER?>>I KNOW OF HER. IT’S POSSIBLE THAT I MET HER IN HIGH SCHOOL AT SOME POINT AT SOME EVENT. I KNOW OF HER. AND AGAIN, I DON’T WANT TO RULE OUT HAVING CROSSED PATHS WITH HER IN HIGH SCHOOL. >>SIMILAR TO YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT KNOWING DR. FORD?>>CORRECT.>>SENATOR FEINSTEIN.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS BY DR. FORD, MISS RAMIREZ AND MISS SWETNICK, IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>ALL THREE OF THESE WOMEN HAVE ASKED THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THEIR CLAIMS. I LISTENED CAREFULLY TO WHAT YOU SAID. YOUR CONCERN IS EVIDENT AND CLEAR. IF YOU’RE VERY CONFIDENT OF YOUR POSITION AND YOU APPEAR TO BE, WHY AREN’T YOU ALSO ASKING THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS?>>SENATOR, I’LL DO WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE WANTS. I WANTED A HEARING THE DAY AFTER THE ALLEGATION CAME UP. I WANTED TO BE HERE THAT DAY. INSTEAD TEN DAYS PAST WHERE ALL THIS NONSENSE IS COMING OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT I’M IN GANGS, I’M ON BOATS IN RHODE ISLAND, I’M IN COLORADO, I’M SIGHTED ALL OVER THE PLACE. THESE THINGS ARE PRINTED AND RUN BREATHLESSLY BY CABLE NEWS. I WANTED A HEARING THE NEXT DAY. MY FAMILY HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY THIS, SENATOR. DESTROYED.>>AND I’M — >>AND WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE DECIDES. I’M ALL IN. >>MY QUESTION IS — >>IMMEDIATELY. I’M ALL IN IMMEDIATELY.>>AND THE TERRIBLE AND HARD PART OF THIS IS WHEN WE GET AN ALLEGATION, WE’RE NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVE IT OR DISPROVE IT. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO DEPEND ON SOME OUTSIDE AUTHORITY FOR IT. AND IT WOULD JUST SEEM TO ME THEN WHEN THESE ALLEGATIONS CAME FORWARD THAT YOU WOULD WANT THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THOSE CLAIMS AND CLEAR IT UP ONCE AND FOR ALL.>>SENATOR, THE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATES — IT’S NOT FOR ME TO SAY HOW TO DO IT, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE FBI DOESN’T REACH A CONCLUSION. THEY WOULD GIVE YOU A COUPLE 302s THAT JUST TELL YOU WHAT WE SAID. SO I’M HERE. I WANTED TO BE HERE — I WANTED TO BE HERE THE NEXT DAY. IT’S AN OUTRAGE THAT I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COME AND IMMEDIATELY DEFEND MY NAME AND SAY I DIDN’T DO THIS AND GIVE YOU ALL THIS EVIDENCE. I’M NOT EVEN — I’M NOT EVEN IN D.C. ON THE WEEKENDS IN THE SUMMER OF 1982. THIS HAPPENED ON A WEEKDAY? I’M NOT AT BLAIR HIGH SCHOOL FOR A SUMMER LEAGUE GAME? I’M NOT AT TOBIN’S HOUSE WORKING OUT? I’M NOT AT A MOVIE WITH SUZANNE? I WANTED TO BE HERE RIGHT AWAY. >>WELL, THE DIFFICULT THING IS THAT THESE HEARINGS ARE SET BY THE MAJORITY, BUT I’M TALKING ABOUT GETTING THE EVIDENCE AND HAVING THE EVIDENCE LOOKED AT. I DON’T UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES BUT THE FBI ISN’T INTERVIEWING THEM AND ISN’T GIVING US ANY FACTS SO ALL WE HAVE — >>YOU’RE INTERVIEWING ME. YOU’RE INTERVIEWING ME. YOU’RE DOING IT, SENATOR. I’M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT YOU’RE DOING IT. THERE’S NO CONCLUSIONS REACHED. >>AND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS BY DR. FORD, MISS RAMIREZ AND MISS SWETNICK ARE WRONG.>>THAT IS EMPHATICALLY WHAT I’M SAYING. EMPHATICALLY. THE SWETNICK THING IS A JOKE. THAT IS A FARCE.>>WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY MORE ABOUT IT?>>NO.>>THAT’S IT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>MISS MITCHELL.>>DR. FORD HAS DESCRIBED YOU AS BEING INTOXICATED AT A PARTY. DID YOU CONSUME ALCOHOL DURING YOUR HIGH SCHOOL YEARS?>>YES, WE DRANK BEER. MY FRIENDS AND I, BOYS AND GIRLS. YES, WE DRANK BEER. I LIKED BEER. I STILL LIKE BEER. WE DRANK BEER. THE DRINKING AGE AS I NOTED WAS 18, SO THE SENIORS WERE LEGAL, SENIOR YEAR IN HIGH SCHOOL PEOPLE WERE LEGAL TO DRINK. YEAH, WE DRANK BEER AND I SAID SOMETIMES — SOMETIMES PROBABLY HAD TOO MANY BEERS AND SOMETIMES OTHER PEOPLE HAD TOO MANY BEERS.>>WHAT DO YOU — >>WE DRANK BEER. WE LIKED BEER. >>WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE TOO MANY BEERS?>>I DON’T KNOW. YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CHART SAYS. BLOOD ALCOHOL CHART.>>WHEN YOU TALKED TO FOX NEWS THE OTHER NIGHT, YOU SAID THAT THERE WERE TIMES IN HIGH SCHOOL WHEN PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE HAD TOO MANY BEERS ON OCCASION. DOES THAT INCLUDE YOU?>>SURE.>>HAVE YOU EVER PASSED OUT FROM DRINKING?>>PASSED OUT WOULD BE NO, BUT I’VE GONE TO SLEEP. BUT I’VE NEVER BLACKED OUT. THAT’S THE ALLEGATION. THAT’S WRONG.>>SO LET’S TALK ABOUT YOUR TIME IN HIGH SCHOOL. IN HIGH SCHOOL AFTER DRINKING, DID YOU EVER WAKE UP IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN YOU REMEMBERED PASSING OUT OR GOING TO SLEEP?>>NO. NO.>>DID YOU EVER WAKE UP WITH YOUR CLOTHES IN A DIFFERENT CONDITION OR FEWER CLOTHES ON THAN YOU REMEMBERED WHEN YOU WENT TO SLEEP OR PASSED OUT?>>NO. NO.>>DID YOU EVER TELL — DID ANYONE EVER TELL YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN YOUR PRESENCE THAT YOU DIDN’T REMEMBER DURING A TIME THAT YOU HAD BEEN DRINKING?>>NO. WE DRANK BEER AND — YOU KNOW, SO DID I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OUR AGE AT THE TIME. BUT IN ANY EVENT WE DRANK BEER AND STILL DO. SO WHATEVER — YEAH.>>DURING THE TIME IN HIGH SCHOOL WHEN YOU WOULD BE DRINKING, DID ANYONE EVER TELL YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU DID NOT REMEMBER?>>NO.>>DR. FORD DESCRIBED A SMALL GATHERING OF PEOPLE AT A SUBURBAN MARYLAND HOME IN THE SUMMER OF 1982. SHE SAID THAT MARK JUDGE, P.J. SMYTH AND LELAND INGAM WERE ALSO PRESENT AS WELL AS AN UNKNOWN MALE AND THAT THE PEOPLE WERE DRINKING TO VARYING DEGREES. WERE YOU EVER AT A GATHERING THAT FITS THAT DESCRIPTION?>>NO. AS I’VE SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENTS — OPENING STATEMENT.>>DR. FORD DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT WHERE SHE WAS ALONE IN A ROOM WITH YOU AND MARK JUDGE. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ALONE IN A ROOM WITH DR. FORD AND MARK JUDGE?>>NO. >>DR. FORD DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT WHERE YOU WERE GRINDING YOUR GENITALS ON HER. HAVE YOU EVER GROUND OR RUBBED YOUR GENITALS AGAINST DR. FORD?>>NO. >>DR. FORD DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT WHERE YOU COVERED HER MOUTH WITH YOUR HAND. HAVE YOU EVER COVERED DR. FORD’S MOUTH WITH YOUR HAND?>>NO. >>DR. FORD DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT WHERE YOU TRIED TO REMOVE HER CLOTHES. HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO REMOVE HER CLOTHES?>>NO.>>REFERRING BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU, HAVE YOU EVER AT ANY TIME ENGAGED IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR WITH DR. FORD?>>NO.>>HAVE YOU EVER ENGAGED IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR WITH DR. FORD EVEN IF IT WAS CONSENSUAL?>>NO.>>I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR CALENDARS. YOU SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE COPIES OF THE HANDWRITTEN CALENDARS THAT YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT FOR THE MONTHS OF MAY, JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST OF 1982. DO YOU HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF YOU?>>I DO. >>DID YOU CREATE THESE CALENDARS IN THE SENSE OF ALL THE HANDWRITING THAT’S ON THEM?>>YES. >>IS IT EXCLUSIVELY YOUR HANDWRITING?>>YES. >>WHEN DID YOU MAKE THESE ENTRIES?>>IN 1982.>>HAS ANYTHING CHANGED — BEEN CHANGED FOR THOSE SINCE 1982?>>NO.>>DO THESE CALENDARS REPRESENT YOUR PLANS FOR EACH DAY OR DO THEY DOCUMENT, IN OTHER WORDS, PROSPECTIVELY, OR DO THEY DOCUMENT WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED MORE LIKE A DIARY?>>THEY’RE BOTH FORWARD-LOOKING AND BACKWARD-LOOKING, AS YOU CAN TELL BY LOOKING AT THEM BECAUSE I CROSSED OUT CERTAIN DOCTORS’ APPOINTMENTS THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN OR ONE NIGHT WHERE I WAS SUPPOSED TO LIFT WEIGHTS, I CROSSED THAT OUT BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY DIDN’T MAKE IT THAT NIGHT. SO YOU CAN SEE THINGS THAT I DIDN’T DO. CROSSED OUT IN RETROSPECT. ALSO WHEN I LIST THE SPECIFIC PEOPLE WHO I WAS WITH, THAT IS LIKELY BACKWARD-LOOKING.>>YOU EXPLAINED THAT YOU KEPT THESE CALENDARS BECAUSE YOUR FATHER STARTED KEEPING THEM IN 1978, I BELIEVE YOU SAID.>>MM-HMM.>>THAT’S WHY YOU KEPT THEM. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WROTE ON THEM. BUT WHY DID YOU KEEP THEM UP UNTIL THIS TIME?>>WELL, HE’S KEPT THEM TOO SINCE 1978. SO HE’S A GOOD ROLE MODEL.>>MISS MITCHELL, YOU’LL HAVE TO STOP. >>JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS ASKED FOR A BREAK SO WE’LL TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK.>>A BREAK AFTER A VERY EMOTIONAL AND LENGTHY OPENING STATEMENT IN THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTIONING OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH COMING OUT IN A STATEMENT, FRANKLY EMOTIONAL FROM START TO FINISH, ANGRY AT TIMES, TEARFUL AT MANY OTHER TIMES, AND EVEN UNDER QUESTIONING FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE STILL SEEMED TO BE TRYING TO FIND HIS COMPOSURE AND HIS FOOTING AS HE ONCE AGAIN CONTINUES TO DENY ALL THE ACCUSATIONS MADE BY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IN THE SESSION EARLIER TODAY. I’M BACK HERE WITH ANDREA MITCHELL AND SAVANNAH GUTHRIE AND CHUCK TODD AND MEGYN. THOUGHTS SO FAR?>>I MEAN WHERE DO YOU EVEN BEGIN?>>LOOK, I HAVE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE OUTSIDE WHO ARE RELIEVED BY THIS PERFORMANCE. THEY, MEANING THEY’RE WILLING TO NOW RALLY AROUND THIS PERSON. THEY’RE WILLING NOW TO FIGHT FOR HIM. SO ON ONE HAND I THINK THAT AGGRESSIVE, DEFIANT, THIS IS — THAT WAS EFFECTIVE AT RALLYING CERTAINLY THAT CORNER. I’M GUESSING PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PROBABLY LIKING THIS STYLE. THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES SUSAN COLLINS AND JEFF FLAKE THINK? I KEEP COMING BACK TO THAT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THOSE MAY BE THE TWO OPINIONS THAT MATTER THE MOST HERE. >>CLARENCE THOMAS TURNED A CORNER WHEN HE CAME BACK AFTER ANITA HILL’S TESTIMONY AND SAID THIS HAS BEEN A HIGH-CLASS LYNCHING, ANGRY, HIGH-TECH LYNCHING, ANGRY AND FURIOUS. THAT REALLY DID TURN THE CORNER. THE DIFFERENCE IS HE DIDN’T CRY. HE WAS EMOTIONAL AND ANGRY, BUT HE WAS NOT AS EMOTIONALLY WRAUGHT AS THE SUBSEQUENT TESTIMONY. SO IT’S A ROLLER COASTER HERE AND YOU DON’T KNOW HOW THAT’S GOING TO PLAY, AND AS CHUCK SAYS PLAY WITH THE WOMEN AND SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN MEN WHO WERE REALLY ON THE FENCE HERE. >>THE PEOPLE WHO I FOLLOW ON TWITTER, REPUBLICAN AND CONSERVATIVES WHO I FOLLOW ON TWITTER, ARE WITH HIM. THEY FEEL FOR HIM. AND HOW CAN YOU NOT? I MEAN SHE GETS UP THERE AND GIVES THIS INCREDIBLY MOVING, EMOTIONAL TESTIMONIAL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HER WHEN SHE WAS 15. AND THEN HE GETS UP THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE TOLL THIS HAS TAKEN ON HIM. YOU KNOW, ONE GUY ON TWITTER WHO I FOLLOW, MATT WALSH, HE TWEETED OUT ONE OF THESE — EITHER SHE’S AN AMAZING LIAR OR HE’S AN AMAZING LIAR OR SHE IS MISTAKEN. IT’S LIKE HE — THE TOLL OF THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKING HIM WAS EVIDENT IN THE EMOTIONS HE SHOWED JUST THERE. AND HE WASN’T GOING AFTER HER, HE WAS GOING AFTER THE DEMOCRATS. HE DIDN’T NAME CORY BOOKER BUT THAT’S THE ONE WHO CALLED HIM EVIL. HE DIDN’T NAME KRISTEN GILLIBRAND BUT THAT’S WHO SAID PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE IF HE GETS CONFIRMED. HE SAID THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS HAS BEEN A NATIONAL DISGRACE THAT HAS TOTALLY DESTROYED ME AND MY FAMILY.>>AND THAT’S WHAT IT LOOKED, HE MADE A — THIS WAS A POLITICAL SHOT. AND HE WENT OUT AND HE’S MAKING A POLITICAL CASE TO SAVE HIS NOMINATION. IT COULD WORK POLITICALLY AS FAR AS GETTING THE 50 VOTES HE NEEDS TO GET CONFIRMED. IT JUST — HOW IT PLAYS IN THE REST OF AMERICA, HOW IT PLAYS FOUR WEEKS LATER ON ELECTION DAY, WHAT DOES THIS DO. >>HOW MIGHT HIS RULINGS BE VIEWED IN THE FUTURE. >>LOOK, WE’RE GOING TO — >>THIS WAS A NO HOLDS BARRED. THIS WAS LEAVE EVERYTHING ON THE COURT, EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE. DON’T WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO COME AND DEFEND YOU. HE PUT IT ALL OUT THERE, MADE A POLITICAL ARGUMENT, LOCAL ARGUMENT, PERSONAL ARGUMENT. HOW COULD YOU AS A HUMAN NOT WATCH THAT AND FEEL GUT-WRENCHED. SAME, BY THE WAY, WITH DR. FORD AND HER TESTIMONY. SO I THINK THIS IS JUST PUTTING ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU’RE WATCHING AT HOME, IF YOU’RE AN AMERICAN, YOU JUST HAD YOUR STOMACH TURN. >>I DO THINK THAT THE ONE MISSTEP IN THAT ENTIRE 45 MINUTES WAS TO FRAME IT IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT MIGHT PLEASE THE BASE, BUT THE FACT IS THAT THAT IS PERHAPS TO MANY A BRIDGE TOO FAR BECAUSE HE COULD TALK ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS AND SAY IT’S A SMEAR AND EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID, SAY HE IS INNOCENT, BUT TO FRAME IT IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT IS BEYOND WHAT A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS EXPECTED TO DO. >>YOU KNOW WHAT’S CRAZY ABOUT WHAT WE’RE SEEING HERE, BECAUSE WE DEBATED WILL THE SENATORS QUESTION HIM THEMSELVES OR WILL THEY LET THE PROSECUTOR DO IT. SO THEY’RE LETTING — THEY’RE LETTING RACHEL GO WITH IT ALL. SHE’S DOING IT ALL. AS A RESULT, BRETT KAVANAUGH HAS NO DEFENDERS THERE TODAY, NOT ONE. THERE ISN’T ONE PERSON DEFENDING HIM OR PRESSING HIS POINTS. THAT 45-MINUTE OPENING WE JUST SAW HIM GIVE IS IT.>>AND IN A WAY, RACHEL MITCHELL, WHOSE WHOLE BACKGROUND IS AS A SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR, SEEMS TO BE FAR MORE COMFORTABLE CROSS EXAMINING AN ACCUSED PERSON THAN SHE WAS CROSS EXAMINING THE ACCUSER. AND SO STRANGELY SHE’S ACTUALLY ILLICITED SOME OF THE MORE INTERESTING TESTIMONY HERE IN TERMS OF, WELL, WHAT WAS YOUR DRINKING?>>THIS IS A REMINDER THAT THE SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE MORE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR LOOK. >>YEAH, THAN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO BRETT. >>THAN BRETT KAVANAUGH’S LOOK. THEY MADE THAT DECISION TO PRO AT THE TIME THEMSELVES, NOT THE NOMINATION, WHICH TELLS YOU WHAT THEY’RE CONCERNED ABOUT, WHICH IS ELECTION DAY. THIS IS NOT HOW YOU HELP HIM, THIS IS HOW YOU HELP THE REPUBLICANS.>>HE HAS GIVEN SOME GROUND ON THE DRINKING ISSUE AND SEVERAL TIMES IN HIS OPENING AND UNDER QUESTIONING SAYING I LIKE BEER, I DRANK BEER. I DRANK BEER TO THE POINT I SLEPT, NOT NECESSARILY PASSED OUT. ASKED IF HE EVER HAD TOO MUCH, HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE TOO MUCH, HE SAID WELL, REFER TO THE CHARTS. >>THAT WAS INCREDIBLY AWKWARD AND IT’S A TELL. THAT’S A TELL THAT YOU’RE DANCING AROUND. THE DECEPTION DETECTION EXPERTS WILL TELL YOU IF YOU’RE TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY BY GIVING JUST ENOUGH YOU’RE OKAY IN CASE ANOTHER WITNESS COMES FORWARD BUT NOT SO MUCH YOU’RE AT THE POINT WHERE IT’S DANGEROUS FOR YOU, THAT’S POTENTIALLY AN INDICATOR — >>SLEEPING AND PASS OUT? THAT’S IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. I’M SORRY. YOU FALL ASLEEP DRINKING VERSUS PASSED OUT DRINKING, THAT’S EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.>>THIS IS A FEDERAL JUDGE, WHO YOU SAW HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING, WAS BEING SO CAREFUL. IF YOU SAW THE FOX NEWS INTERVIEW IT WAS SO CAREFUL. AND IT’S LIKE THE RESTRAINTS ARE JUST OFF. HE IS GOING TO — IT’S REAL. HE GOT IN THERE WITH DIANNE FEINSTEIN. HE’S GETTING IN THERE. THERE’S NO MORE NICETIES. THERE’S NO MORE, GEE, MY FRIEND FROM THIS PLACE OR THAT PLACE. HE’S ALL IN LIKE HE’S GOT NOTHING TO LOSE. >>ONE FACT POINT HERE IS THAT HE CAME OUT AND SAID I WOULD HAVE — I WOULD WELCOME AN FBI INVESTIGATION. HE SAID FROM THE MOMENT THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS, MEANING THE NEW ALLEGATIONS, I WELCOMED AN FBI INVESTIGATION. THAT’S THE FIRST WE HEARD THAT, SO HE’S PUTTING IT ON GRASSLEY AND THE COMMITTEE AND THE WHITE HOUSE FOR REFUSING THE FBI INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THE MANTRA OF THE DEMOCRATS AND OF DR. FORD HAS BEEN BRING ON THE FBI INVESTIGATION. >>HE SAID EVEN INVITE MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE. >>YOU THINK ABOUT — LOOK, I THINK THE WOMEN WATCHING THIS AT HOME AND I FEEL LIKE DEMOCRATIC WOMEN ARE NOT WITH HIM. THEY ARE NOT ON THE FENCE ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THE REPUBLICAN WOMEN ARE PROBABLY WITH HIM BUT OPEN-MINDED TO REPLACING HIM WITH SOMEBODY ELSE IF THEY’RE CONVINCED, RIGHT? BUT WHEN DID HE TEAR UP? HE TEARED UP WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS KIDS, WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS PARENTS, WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS FAMILY, HIS DAD. WHAT DOES THAT SHOW YOU? THE GUY’S GOT A HEART. HIS DETRACTORS SAY HE FEELS SORRY FOR HIMSELF BECAUSE HE’S GOT CAUGHT AND BEEN PUT ON THE SPOT. >>IF YOU SAY DR. FORD WAS A COMPELLING WITNESS, JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS A COMPELLING WITNESS. IF YOU SAY WE END THIS DAY AT A DRAW, WHAT HAPPENS THEN WITH THE SENATORS WHO MATTER IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS VOTE. >>AND I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T THINK WE DO KNOW. I THINK IT GOES TO — I STILL GO BACK TO ESPECIALLY NOW AND HOW COMPELLING THEY HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY. THIS DOES FEEL LIKE THE — YOU WIN BY LOSING. EACH PARTY WINS BY LOSING. IF KAVANAUGH WITHDRAWS, THIS COULD GALVANIZE THE RIGHT IN THE WAY THE SCALIA OPEN SEAT GALVANIZED THEM ENOUGH TO GET THE VOTES HE NEEDED TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY. THEY JAM HIM THROUGH, GALVANIZE THE LEFT IN A WAY THAT SOME SAID I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE THEY COULD GET GALVANIZED BUT THEY MIGHT. >>HOLD THAT THOUGHT. WE NEED TO PAUSE AS SOME OF OUR NBC STATIONS RESUME LOCAL PROGRAMMING. FOR EVERYONE ELSE OUR COVERAGE CONTINUES OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH TO THE SUPREME COURT.>>>4:20 P.M. IN THE EAST, 1:20 IN THE WEST. IF YOU’VE BEEN WITH US ALL DAY, WE’VE BEEN WATCHING A HEARING THAT IS NEARLY UNPRECEDENTED. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE BRETT KAVANAUGH DEFENDING HIS INTEGRITY AND HIS HONOR AFTER A MORNING OF TESTIMONY FROM DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD, HIS ACCUSER. WE WANT TO PLAY YOU A PORTION IF YOU’RE JUST JOINING US OF SOME OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MOMENTS THAT JUST UNFOLDED IN A 45-MINUTE OPENING STATEMENT FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH.>>I AM IN THAT OF THIS CHARGE. I INTEND NO ILL WILL TO DR. FORD AND HER FAMILY. THE OTHER NIGHT ASHLEY AND MY DAUGHTER, LIZA, SAID THEIR PRAYERS, AND LITTLE LIZA, ALL OF 10 YEARS OLD, SAID TO ASHLEY, WE SHOULD PRAY FOR THE WOMAN. THAT’S A LOT OF WISDOM FROM A 10-YEAR-OLD.>>AND FROM THAT POINT ON HE GOT EMOTIONAL MANY, MANY TIMES IN THAT STATEMENT. >>MANY MOMENTS, THERE’S NO QUESTION HE FEELS HIS WHOLE LIFE IS ON THE LINE AND HIS INTEGRITY, TO SAY NOTHING OF HIS CAREER AND HIS FAMILY, HIS VERY FAMILY. >>I WANT TO GO TO KRISTEN WELKER RIGHT NOW AT THE WHITE HOUSE. KRISTEN, OBVIOUSLY HE CAME OUT PREPARED TO TAKE ON THESE CHARGES DIRECTLY AND EVEN COMBATIVELY. HOW IS THAT BEING READ AT THE WHITE HOUSE?>>Reporter: WELL, LESTER AND SAVANNAH, THEY CONTINUE TO WATCH THIS HEARING UNFOLD HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE. ONE OFFICIAL SAYING THEY’RE WATCHING IT LIKE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ACTUALLY VIEWING IT FROM THE RESIDENCE, WHICH IS JUST BEHIND ME. IN TERMS OF HIS REACTION TO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR, OFFICIALS DON’T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE IT, BUT, LOOK, I’VE BEEN TALKING TO SOME OF HIS CLOSE ALLIES. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW THE PRESIDENT IS VIEWING THIS, THEY’RE A PRETTY GOOD BAROMETER. THEY FEEL AS THOUGH JUDGE KAVANAUGH CAME OUT STRONG. HE CAME OUT SWINGING. ONE SOURCE TELLING ME HE SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IMMEDIATELY SO THAT UNDERSCORES SOME OF WHAT WE ARE HEARING IN THE WAKE OF WHAT WAS AN EMOTIONAL AND, YES, A VERY STRONG OPENING STATEMENT BY JUDGE KAVANAUGH. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS IN A BROADER CONTEXT, THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO HAS NEVER BACKED AWAY FROM A FIGHT. AND WE’VE SEEN THAT IN THIS PAST WEEK. REMEMBER, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS CONTROVERSY FOR HIS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, HE WAS VERY MEASURED IN HIS TONE. HE SAID HE WANTED TO HEAR FROM DR. FORD. AND THEN DAY BY DAY, HIS TONE STARTED TO ESCALATE. HE BECAME MORE COMBATIVE, IN ONE INSTANCE EVEN ACCUSING DR. FORD ARE NOT BEING TRUTHFUL. AND SO THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO DIGS IN, WHO SWINGS, AND HE’S A COUNTERPUNCHER BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT. YESTERDAY DURING THAT REMARKABLE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT WE SAW IN NEW YORK, OF COURSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED DIRECTLY IF THE FACT THAT HE HIMSELF HAS FACED ACCUSATIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, IF THAT HAS IN SOME WAY SHAPED THE WAY THAT HE’S RESPONDING RIGHT NOW. HE SAID YES, IN FACT IT DOES. HE UNDERSCORED FOR HIM THE IMPORTANCE IS MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW, THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW. WILL WE HEAR FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THIS WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALLY TODAY? THAT IS NOT CLEAR YET, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THEY ARE WATCHING THIS VERY CLOSELY. AND AGAIN JUST UNDERSCORING THE SIGNIFICANCE FOR THIS PRESIDENT, FOR HIS SUPREME COURT PICK, HE WAS SUPPOSED TO MEET WITH HIS EMBATTLED DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN TODAY, LESTER. THAT MEETING HAS NOW BEEN POSTPONED SO HE CAN FOCUS SOLELY ON THIS REMARKABLE HEARING THAT’S UNDER WAY NOW. >>THANK YOU. >>>HALLIE JACKSON IS OVER ON CAPITOL HILL MEASURING THE REACTION THERE. HALLIE, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT?>>Reporter: WELL, SO FAR SENATORS, AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME REMARKABLE MOMENTS IN THE ROOM, INCLUDING TEARS, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM SENATOR CORNYN DURING SOME OF THE MORE EMOTIONAL MOMENTS AS BRETT KAVANAUGH WAS SPEAKING. SOME OF THE SENATORS, MIKE LEE, TED CRUZ, LOOKING AT EACH OTHER RIGHT AFTER BRETT KAVANAUGH FINISHED SPEAKING AND SORT OF TAKING IT ALL IN. DEMOCRATS HAVE A DIFFERENT REACTION TO SOME OF THESE MOMENTS AS WELL, AT LEAST DURING KAVANAUGH’S OPENING STATEMENTS THERE. HERE IS WHAT IS STRIKING TO ME IN ADDITION TO WHAT KRISTEN JUST TALKED ABOUT AND CHUCK EARLIER. VIS-A-VIS OUR CONVERSATION PRIOR TO THE OPENING STATEMENT, THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO SEE A MORE FORCEFUL AND ANGRY BRETT KAVANAUGH. THAT IS WHAT HE GOT IN THE BEGINNING. BUT HERE’S THE THING, IN A WAY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT NOW FEELS FORTIFIED IN HIS SUPPORT OF BRETT KAVANAUGH, HE STILL HAS TO CONVINCE A SMALL HANDFUL OF KEY PEOPLE TO FEEL THE SAME WAY. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SENATOR COLLINS, MURKOWSKI, FLAKE. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHERS IN THAT UNIVERSE AS OUR HILL TEAM HAS BEEN REPORTING. DOES THE PRESIDENT, CAN THE PRESIDENT BE PERSUASIVE. IF HE IS FULLY BACK BEHIND BRETT KAVANAUGH, IF HE WAS CONVINCED BY THAT OPENING STATEMENT, CAN THE PRESIDENT TRANSFER HIS FEELINGS ESSENTIALLY AND HIS SUPPORT FOR KAVANAUGH TO THE PEOPLE WHO MATTER IN THE SENSE OF GETTING VOTES ON THE FLOOR, GETTING VOTES ON THE GROUND. WILL THE POLITICAL WINDS SHIFT HERE. ALREADY WE ARE SEEING ALLIES OF THE PRESIDENT COME OUT IN SUPPORT, INCLUDING SOME WHO ARE ON TV. PEOPLE LIKE LAURA INGRAHAM THOUGHT IT WAS A STRONG OPENING STATEMENT AND THE PRESIDENT’S SON, DONALD TRUMP JR. TWEETING ABOUT THIS SAYING THAT HE LIKED BRETT KAVANAUGH’S TONE. THE PRESIDENT UNDOUBTEDLY WATCHING ALL OF THIS ON THE PHONE WITH HIS ADVISERS AND WE’RE WORKING MORE ON THAT, GUYS. >>ALL RIGHT, HALLIE, WE’RE STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE SENATORS FILTER BACK IN, INCLUDING SENATOR JEFF FLAKE WHO WAS ONE TO WATCH, A WRITTEN FROM ARIZONA BUT WHO IS NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION AND POTENTIALLY COULD BE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD VOTE NO ON KAVANAUGH. BUT THIS AFTERNOON HAS PERHAPS CHANGED THE CALCULUS. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY LOOK AT WHAT THE JUDGE HAS DONE HERE, HIS INDIGNANT RESPONSE, HIS TEARS AND FEEL LIKE HE’S MADE A COMPELLING CASE FOR HIMSELF, BUT TO YOUR POINT, MEGYN, HE’S THE ONLY ONE WHO’S GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE OUTSOURCED THE QUESTIONS TO A SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR FROM ARIZONA WHO’S DOING A DILIGENT JOB OF CROSS EXAMINING. HE’S NOT GOING TO GET THE ROSIE SPEECHES THAT DR. FORD GOT FROM EVERY DEMOCRAT ON THE COMMITTEE.>>THEY TOTALLY ABANDONED HIM AND THEIR DUTY TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HIS DEFENSE. WHAT ARE THE POINTS ON HIS SIDE. HERE’S THE THING, WHEN YOU HAVE EMOTIONAL TESTIMONY IN COURT FROM A PLAINTIFF AND A DEFENDANT OR AN ACCUSER AND A DEFENDANT, WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU GO TO THE EVIDENCE. YOU GO TO THE EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? WHAT CORROBORATES HER STORY VERSUS HIS? THAT CONTINUES TO BE HER MAIN PROBLEM. THERE ISN’T ANY BECAUSE TOO MUCH TIME HAS PASSED. HE’S GOT THE CALENDARS. MAYBE THOSE ARE PERSUASIVE TO PEOPLE, MAYBE THEY’RE NOT. BUT AT LEAST IT’S SOMETHING. >>AND THE REBUTTAL IS A REBUTTAL. HE SAYS IT SIMPLY DIDN’T HAPPEN SO WE’RE NOT EVEN ARGUING FINE POINTS HERE. HERE’S JUDGE KAVANAUGH.>>I’M READY, THANK YOU.>>I’M GOING TO WAIT FOR SENATOR FEINSTEIN. OR DO YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD WITHOUT FEINSTEIN?>>WAIT FOR HER. I ALWAYS WAITED FOR YOU.>>I HOPE I SHOWED UP.>>>SENATOR LEAHY. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE, YOU SAID BEFORE AND AGAIN TODAY THAT MARK JUDGE WAS A CLOSE FRIEND OF YOURS IN HIGH SCHOOL. NOW, DR. FORD, AS YOU KNOW, HAS SAID THAT HE WAS IN THE ROOM WHEN SHE WAS ATTACKED. SHE ALSO SAYS YOU WERE TOO. THE FBI HAS NEVER INTERVIEWED HIM. WE’VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE HIS ATTENDANCE HERE. THE CHAIRMAN REFUSES TO CALL HIM. IF SHE SAID HE WAS IN THE ROOM THEN, THEN HE SHOULD BE IN THE ROOM TODAY. WOULD YOU WANT HIM CALLED AS A WITNESS?>>SENATOR, THIS ALLEGATION CAME INTO THE COMMITTEE — >>I’M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION, WOULD YOU WANT HIM TO BE HERE AS A WITNESS?>>HE’S ALREADY PROVIDED SWORN TESTIMONY TO THE COMMITTEE. THIS ALLEGATION HAS BEEN HIDDEN BY THE COMMITTEE BY MEMBERS OF THE — >>NO, IT HASN’T BEEN — IT HAS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI. THE COMMITTEE HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW IT TO BE. >>IT WAS DROPPED ON US, IT WAS SPRUNG — >>IT WAS NOT INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI AND HE HAS NOT BEEN CALLED — >>IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN THE DUE COURSE, SENATOR, WHEN IT CAME IN. >>I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT. I’VE BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR 44 YEARS, BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, I’VE NEVER SEEN SOMEBODY THAT CRITICAL AND NOT ALLOWED TO BE CALLED TO BE TESTIFIED OR FBI BACKGROUND. >>HE’S PROVIDED SWORN TESTIMONY AND, SENATOR, LET ME FINISH. THE ALLEGATION CAME IN WEEKS AGO AND NOTHING WAS DONE WITH IT BY THE RANKING MEMBER AND THEN IT’S SPRUNG ON ME. >>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, I’VE HEARD YOUR LINE AND YOU STATE IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I HAVE THAT WELL IN MIND. BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS. HE AUTHORED A BOOK TITLED “WASTED, TALES OF A GEN X DRUNK.” HE REFERENCES BART O’KAVANAUGH VOMITING IN SOMEONE’S CAR AND THEN PASSING OUT. IS THAT YOU THAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT?>>SENATOR, MARK JUDGE — >>TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT YOU THAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT?>>I’LL EXPLAIN IF YOU LET ME. >>PROCEED, PLEASE.>>MARK JUDGE WAS A FRIEND OF OURS IN HIGH SCHOOL WHO DEVELOPED A VERY SERIOUS DRINKING PROBLEM, AN ADDICTION PROBLEM, THAT LASTED DECADES AND WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO ESCAPE FROM. AND HE NEARLY DIED. THEN HE HAD LEUKEMIA AS WELL ON TOP OF IT. NOW, AS PART OF HIS THERAPY OR PART OF HIS COMING TO GRIPS WITH SOBRIETY HE WROTE A BOOK THAT IS A FICTIONALIZED BOOK AND AN ACCOUNT. I THINK HE PICKED OUT NAMES OF FRIENDS OF OURS TO THROW THEM IN AS KIND OF CLOSE TO WHAT — FOR CHARACTERS IN THE BOOK. SO WE CAN SIT YOU — >>YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER THAT’S YOU OR NOT?>>WE CAN SIT HERE AND MAKE FUN OF SOME GUY THAT HAS AN ADDICTION BUT I DON’T THINK THAT REALLY — >>I’M TRYING TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER FROM YOU UNDER OATH. ARE YOU BART O’KAVANAUGH THAT HE’S REFERRING TO? YES OR NO?>>YOU’D HAVE TO ASK HIM. >>WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU THERE AND THAT’S WHY I WISH THAT THE CHAIRMAN HAD HIM HERE UNDER OATH. NOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR YEARBOOK. IN YOUR YEARBOOK YOU TALKED ABOUT DRINKING AND SEXUAL EXPLOITS, DID YOU NOT?>>SENATOR, LET ME TAKE A STEP BACK AND EXPLAIN HIGH SCHOOL. I WAS NUMBER ONE IN THE CLASS FRESHMAN — >>I — >>NO, NO, NO, NO. YOU’VE GOT THIS UP. I’M GOING TO TALK ABOUT MY HIGH SCHOOL — >>LET HIM ANSWER. >>I’M GOING TO TALK ABOUT MY HIGH SCHOOL RECORD IF YOU’RE GOING TO SIT HERE AND MOCK ME. >>I THINK WE WERE ALL VERY FAIR TO DR. FORD. SHOULDN’T WE BE JUST AS FAIR TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH. >>I BUSTED MY BUTT IN ACADEMICS. I ALWAYS TRIED TO DO THE BEST I COULD. AS I RECALL, I FINISHED ONE IN THE CLASS FRESHMAN AND JUNIOR YEAR, RIGHT UP AT THE TOP WITH STEVE CLARK AND EDDIE AYALA, WE WERE ALWAYS IN THE MIX. I PLAYED SPORTS. I WAS CAPTAIN OF THE VARSITY BASKETBALL TEAM. I WAS WIDE RECEIVER AND DEFENSIVE BACK ON THE FOOTBALL TEAM. I RAN TRACK IN THE SPRING OF ‘I DON’T TO TRY TO GET FASTER. I DID MY SERVICE PROJECTS AT THE SCHOOL WHICH INVOLVED GOING TO THE SOUP KITCHEN DOWNTOWN. LET ME FINISH. AND GOING TO TUTOR INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED KIDS AT THE ROCKVILLE LIBRARY. I WENT TO CHURCH. AND YES, WE GOT TOGETHER WITH MY FRIENDS. >>DOES THIS YEARBOOK REFLECT WHAT YOU ARE? DOES THIS REFLECT YOUR FOCUS ON ACADEMICS AND YOUR RESPECT OF WOMEN? THAT’S EASY, YOU DON’T HAVE TO — >>I ALREADY SAID — >>HE’S ASKED THE QUESTION, I’LL GIVE YOU TIME TO ANSWER IT. >>THE YEARBOOK, AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT WAS SOMETHING WHERE THE STUDENTS AND EDITORS MADE A DECISION TO TREAT SOME OF IT AS FARCE AND SOME OF IT AS EXAGGERATION AND SOME OF IT CELEBRATING THINGS THAT DON’T REFLECT THE THINGS THAT WERE REALLY THE CENTRAL PART OF OUR SCHOOL. YES, WE WENT TO PARTIES, THOUGH. YES, OF COURSE WE WENT TO PARTIES AND THE YEARBOOK PAGE DESCRIBES THAT AND KIND OF MAKES FUN OF IT. YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT TO SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT WHETHER A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION SHOULD BE BASED ON A HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK PAGE, I THINK THAT’S TAKING US TO A NEW LEVEL OF ABSURDITY. >>MISS MITCHELL.>>WELL, WE’VE GOT A FILIBUSTER BUT NOT A SINGLE ANSWER.>>MISS MITCHELL.>>JUDGE, DO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR CALENDARS THERE?>>I DO.>>I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THE JULY 1st ENTRY.>>YES.>>THE ENTRY SAYS, AND I QUOTE, GO TO TIMMY’S FOR SKIS WITH JUDGE, TOM, P.J., BERNIE, AND SQUI. >>SQUI. THAT’S A NICKNAME. >>TO WHAT DOES THIS REFER AND TO WHOM?>>SO IT FIRST SAYS TOBIN’S HOUSEWORKOUT. THAT’S ONE OF THE FOOTBALL WORKOUTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT DR. FINICIO WOULD RUN FOR GUYS ON THE FOOTBALL TEAM DURING THE SUMMER. SO WE WOULD BE THERE. THAT’S USUALLY 6:00 TO 8:00 OR SO, KIND OF TILL NEAR DARK. THEN IT LOOKS LIKE WE WENT OVER TO TIMMY’S. DO YOU WANT THEIR LAST NAMES TOO? I’M HAPPY TO DO IT. >>IF YOU COULD JUST IDENTIFY, IS JUDGE, MARK JUDGE?>>IT IS. >>AND IS P.J., P.J. SMYTH?>>IT IS. SO IT’S TIM GAUDETTE, MARK JUDGE, TOM CANE, P.J. SMYTH, BERNIE McCARTHY, CHRIS GARRETT. >>CHRIS GARRETT IS SQUI?>>HE IS.>>DID YOU IN YOUR CALENDAR ROUTINELY DOCUMENT SOCIAL GATHERINGS LIKE HOUSE PARTIES OR GATHERINGS OF FRIENDS IN YOUR CALENDAR?>>YES. IT CERTAINLY APPEARS THAT WAY. THAT’S WHAT I WAS DOING IN THE SUMMER OF 1982. YOU CAN SEE THAT REFLECTED ON SEVERAL OF THE ENTRIES.>>IF A GATHERING LIKE DR. FORD HAS DESCRIBED HAD OCCURRED, WOULD YOU HAVE DOCUMENTED THAT?>>YES. BECAUSE I DOCUMENTED EVERYTHING, THOSE KINDS OF EVENTS, EVEN SMALL GET-TOGETHERS. AUGUST 7th IS ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE I DOCUMENTED A SMALL GET-TOGETHER THAT SUMMER. SO YES.>>AUGUST 7th, COULD YOU READ THAT.>>I THINK THAT’S GO TO BECKY’S. MATT, DENISE, LORI, JENNY.>>HAVE YOU REVIEWED EVERY ENTRY THAT IS IN THESE CALENDARS OF MAY, JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST OF 1982?>>I HAVE.>>IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COULD EVEN REMOTELY FIT WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF DR. FORD’S ALLEGATIONS?>>NO.>>AS A LAWYER AND A JUDGE, ARE YOU — WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THE FBI. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE WOULD ACTUALLY BE INVESTIGATED BY LOCAL POLICE?>>YES, I MENTIONED MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE EARLIER, YES.>>ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN MARYLAND THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU BEING CHARGED EVEN IF THIS HAPPENED IN 1982?>>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING.>>HAVE YOU AT ANY TIME BEEN CONTACTED BY ANY MEMBERS OF LOCAL POLICE AGENCIES REGARDING THIS MATTER?>>NO, MA’AM.>>PRIOR TO YOUR NOMINATION FOR SUPREME COURT, YOU’VE TALKED ABOUT ALL OF THE FEMALE CLERKS YOU’VE HAD AND THE WOMEN THAT YOU HAVE WORKED WITH. I’M NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THEM. I’M TALKING ABOUT GLOBALLY. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ACCUSED EITHER FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY OF UNWANTED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR?>>NO.>>AND WHEN I SAY INFORMALLY, I MEAN JUST A FEMALE COMPLAINS. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT YOU?>>NO.>>SINCE DR. FORD’S ALLEGATION WAS MADE PUBLIC, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE?>>IT’S BEEN THREE OR FOUR. I’M TRYING TO REMEMBER NOW. IT’S BEEN SEVERAL TIMES. EACH OF THESE NEW THINGS, ABSURD AS THEY ARE, WE’D GET ON THE PHONE AND KIND OF GO THROUGH THEM. >>SO HAVE YOU SUBMITTED TO INTERVIEWS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DR. FORD’S ALLEGATION?>>YES. >>AND WHAT ABOUT DEBORAH RAMIREZ’ ALLEGATION — >>YES. >>– THAT YOU WAVED YOUR PENIS IN FRONT OF HER?>>YES. >>WHAT ABOUT JULIE SWETNICK’S ALLEGATION THAT YOU REPEATEDLY ENGAGED IN DRUGGING AN GANG RAPING OR ALLOWING WOMEN TO BE GANG RAPED?>>YES. YES, I’VE BEEN INTERVIEWED ABOUT IT.>>WERE YOUR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS TODAY CONSISTENT WITH THE ANSWERS THAT YOU GAVE TO THE COMMITTEE IN THESE VARIOUS INTERVIEWS?>>YES, MA’AM.>>I SEE I’M OUT OF TIME. >>SENATOR DURBIN. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, EARLIER TODAY DR. CHRISTINE FORD SAT IN THAT SAME CHAIR AND UNDER OATH SHE SAID CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT SHE WAS A VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AT YOUR HANDS. SHE ANSWERED OUR QUESTIONS DIRECTLY AND SHE DIDN’T FLINCH AT THE PROSPECT OF SUBMITTING HERSELF TO AN FBI INVESTIGATION OF THESE CHARGES. WE KNOW AND I’M SURE SHE’S BEEN ADVISED BY HER ATTORNEYS THAT A PERSON LYING TO THE FBI CAN FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. YOU HAVE CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY DENIED THAT YOU ASSAULTED DR. FORD. WITH THAT STATEMENT, YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OR ANY CREDIBLE WITNESS THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE. YOU STARTED OFF WITH AN IMPASSIONED STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING AND I CAN IMAGINE, TRY TO IMAGINE WHAT YOU’VE BEEN THROUGH AND YOUR FAMILY HAS BEEN THROUGH AND I’M SURE I WOULDN’T GET CLOSE TO IT. >>NO, YOU WOULDN’T. >>IT WAS AN IMPASSIONED STATEMENT. AND IN THE COURSE OF IT YOU SAID I WELCOME ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION. I QUOTE YOU. I WELCOME ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION. I’VE GOT A SUGGESTION FOR YOU. RIGHT NOW, TURN TO YOUR LEFT IN THE FRONT ROW TO DON McGAHN, COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, ASK HIM TO SUSPEND THIS HEARING AND NOMINATION PROCESS UNTIL THE FBI COMPLETES ITS INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES MADE BY DR. FORD AND OTHERS AND GOES TO BRING THE WITNESSES FORWARD AND PROVIDES THAT INFORMATION TO THIS HEARING. I’M SURE THAT THE CHAIRMAN AT THAT POINT WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS A REASONABLE REQUEST TO FINALLY PUT TO REST THESE CHARGES IF THEY ARE FALSE OR TO PROVE THEM IF THEY ARE NOT. YOU SPENT TWO YEARS IN THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE THAT APPROVED JUDICIAL NOMINEES. YOU TURNED TO THE FBI OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR THEIR WORK. LET’S BRING THEM IN HERE AND NOW. TURN TO DON McGAHN AND TELL HIM IT’S TIME TO GET THIS DONE. AN FBI INVESTIGATION IS THE ONLY WAY TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. >>STOP THE CLOCK. THIS COMMITTEE IS RUNNING THIS HEARING, NOT THE WHITE HOUSE, NOT DON McGAHN, NOT EVEN YOU AS A NOMINEE. WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE DR. FORD ASKED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY HERE. I KNOW YOU DID TOO AS WELL. IN FACT MAYBE EVEN BEFORE SHE DID. WE’RE HERE BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED TO BE HEARD FROM CHARGES THAT THEY ALL THOUGHT WERE UNFAIR OR ACTIVITIES, LIKE SEXUAL ASSAULT WAS UNFAIR. SO I WANT TO ASSURE SENATOR DURBIN REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY TO SENATOR — DON McGAHN, WE’RE NOT SUSPENDING THIS HEARING. PROCEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OR WHATEVER OR IF THE GENTLEMAN — >>I’LL JUST SAY THIS. IF YOU, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, TURNED TO DON McGAHN AND TO THIS COMMITTEE AND SAY FOR THE SAKE OF MY REPUTATION, MY FAMILY NAME AND TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE TRUTH OF THIS, I AM NOT GOING TO BE AN OBSTACLE TO AN FBI INVESTIGATION, I WOULD HOPE ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WOULD JOIN ME BY SAYING WE WILL ABIDE BY YOUR WISHES AND HAVE THAT INVESTIGATION. >>I WELCOME WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO DO BECAUSE I’M TELLING THE TRUTH. >>I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. >>I’M TELLING THE TRUTH. >>I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT — >>I’M IN THAT. I’M INNOCENT OF THIS CHARGE. >>YOU’RE PREPARED FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION. >>THEY DON’T REACH CONCLUSIONS, YOU REACH CONCLUSIONS, SENATOR. >>THEY DO DO INVESTIGATIONS. >>I’M INNOCENT. >>YOU CAN’T SAY HERE AT THE BEGINNING I WELCOME ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION — >>THIS THING WAS SPRUNG ON ME — THIS THING WAS SPRUNG ON THE LAST MINUTE AFTER BEING HELD BY STAFF, YOU KNOW. AND I CALLED FOR A HEARING IMMEDIATELY. >>IF THERE IS NO TRUTH TO HER CHARGES, THE FBI INVESTIGATION WILL SHOW THAT. ARE YOU AFRAID THAT THEY MIGHT NOT?>>COME ON, GEE WHIZ. >>YOU KNOW THIS IS — YOU KNOW THAT’S A PHONY QUESTION BECAUSE THE FBI DOESN’T REACH CONCLUSIONS, THEY JUST PROVIDE THE 302s. 302s, SO I CAN EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, THEY JUST GO AND DO WHAT YOU’RE DOING, ASK QUESTIONS AND TYPE UP A REPORT. THEY DON’T REACH THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION. >>THIS MORNING I ASKED DR. FORD, I ASKED HER ABOUT THIS INCIDENT WHERE SHE RAN INTO MARK JUDGE AT SAFEWAY AND SHE SAID, SURE, I REMEMBER, SIX OR EIGHT WEEKS AFTER THIS OCCURRENCE. WELL, SOMEONE AT “THE WASHINGTON POST” TOOK A LOOK AT MR. JUDGE’S BOOK AND HAS BEEN ABLE TO — THE ONE THAT HE WROTE ABOUT HIS ADDICTION AND HIS ALCOHOLISM. AND THEY HAVE NARROWED IT DOWN WHAT THEY THINK WAS A PERIOD OF TIME SIX OR EIGHT WEEKS AFTER THE EVENT. AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING AT THE SAFEWAY AT THAT POINT. SO THE POINT I’M GETTING TO IS WE AT LEAST CAN CONNECT SOME DOTS AND GET SOME INFORMATION. WHY WOULD YOU RESIST THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION? WHY WOULD YOU RESIST THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION?>>SENATOR, I WELCOME — I WANTED THE HEARING LAST WEEK. >>I’M ASKING ABOUT THE FBI INVESTIGATION. >>THE COMMITTEE FIGURES OUT HOW TO ASK THE QUESTIONS. I’LL DO WHATEVER. I’VE BEEN ON THE PHONE MULTIPLE TIMES WITH COMMITTEE COUNSEL. >>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WILL YOU SUPPORT AN FBI INVESTIGATION RIGHT NOW?>>I WILL DO WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE WANTS — >>PERSONALLY DO YOU THINK THAT’S THE BEST THING FOR US TO DO? YOU WON’T ANSWER?>>LOOK, SENATOR, I’VE SAID I WANTED A HEARING AND I SAID I WOULD WELCOME ANYTHING, I’M INNOCENT. THIS THING WAS HELD, HELD WHEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE ORDINARY WAY. IT COULD HAVE BEEN HELD AND HANDLED CONFIDENTIALLY AT FIRST, WHICH WAS WHAT DR. FORD’S WISHES WERE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. IT WOULDN’T HAVE CAUSED THIS TO DESTROY MY FAMILY LIKE THIS EFFORT HAS.>>I THINK AN FBI INVESTIGATION WILL HELP ALL OF US ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.>>SENATOR GRAHAM ASKS FOR THE FLOOR BUT BEFORE HE DOES, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING, YOU’VE GOT THE WITNESS RIGHT HERE TO ASK HIM. SECONDLY, IF YOU WANT AN FBI REPORT, YOU CAN ASK FOR IT YOURSELF. I’VE ASKED FOR FBI REPORTS IN THE PAST IN THE 38 YEARS I’VE BEEN IN THE SENATE. SENATOR GRAHAM.>>ARE YOU AWARE THAT AT 9:23 ON THE NIGHT OF JULY THE 9th, THE DAY YOU WERE NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, SENATOR SCHUMER SAID, 23 MINUTES AFTER YOUR NOMINATION, I WILL OPPOSE JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION WITH EVERYTHING I HAVE. I HAVE A BIPARTISAN — AND I HOPE A BIPARTISAN MAJORITY WILL DO THE SAME. THE STAKES ARE SIMPLY TOO HIGH FOR ANYTHING LESS. IF YOU WEREN’T AWARE OF IT, YOU ARE NOW. DID YOU MEET WITH SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN ON AUGUST 20th?>>I DID MEET WITH SENATOR FEINSTEIN. >>DID YOU KNOW THAT HER STAFF HAD ALREADY RECOMMENDED A LAWYER TO DR. FORD?>>I DID NOT KNOW THAT.>>DID YOU KNOW THAT HER AND HER STAFF HAD THIS ALLEGATIONS FOR OVER 20 DAYS?>>I DID NOT KNOW THAT AT THE TIME.>>IF YOU WANTED AN FBI INVESTIGATION, YOU COULD HAVE COME TO US. WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS DESTROY THIS GUY’S LIFE, HOLD THIS SEAT OPEN AND HOPE YOU WIN IN 2020. YOU SAID THAT, NOT ME. YOU’VE GOT NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR. WHEN YOU SEE SOTOMAYOR AND KAGAN, TELL THEM THAT LINDSEY SAID HELLO BECAUSE I VOTED FOR THEM. I WOULD NEVER DO TO YOU WHAT YOU’VE DONE TO THIS GUY. THIS IS THE MOST UNETHICAL SHAM SINCE I’VE BEEN IN POLITICS. AND IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO KNOW THE TRUTH, YOU SURE AS HELL WOULDN’T HAVE DONE WHAT YOU’VE DONE TO THIS GUY. ARE YOU A GANG RAPIST?>>NO.>>I CANNOT IMAGINE WHAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE GONE THROUGH. BOY, Y’ALL WANT POWER. GOD, I HOPE YOU NEVER GET IT. I HOPE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH THIS SHAM. THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT IT AND YOU HELD IT. YOU HAD NO INTENTION OF PROTECTING DR. FORD. SHE’S AS MUCH OF A VICTIM AS YOU ARE. GOD, I HATE TO SAY IT BECAUSE THESE HAVE BEEN MY FRIENDS. BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHEN IT COMES TO THIS, YOU’RE LOOKING FOR A FAIR PROCESS? YOU CAME TO THE WRONG TOWN AT THE WRONG TIME, MY FRIEND. DO YOU CONSIDER THIS A JOB INTERVIEW?>>THE ADVICE AND CONSENT ROLE IS LIKE A JOB INTERVIEW. >>DO YOU CONSIDER THAT YOU’VE BEEN THROUGH A JOB INTERVIEW?>>I’VE BEEN THROUGH A PROCESS OF ADVICE AN CONSENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. >>WOULD YOU SAY YOU’VE BEEN THROUGH HELL?>>I’VE BEEN THROUGH HELL AND THEN SOME. >>THIS IS NOT A JOB INTERVIEW. >>YEAH. >>THIS IS HELL. THIS IS GOING TO DESTROY THE ABILITY OF GOOD PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD BECAUSE OF THIS CRAP. YOUR HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK. YOU HAVE INTERACTED WITH PROFESSIONAL WOMEN ALL YOUR LIFE, NOT ONE ACCUSATION. YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE BILL COSBY WHEN YOU’RE A JUNIOR AND SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GOT OVER IT. IT’S BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF YOU DRUG WOMEN AND RAPE THEM FOR TWO YEARS IN HIGH SCHOOL, YOU PROBABLY DON’T STOP. HERE’S MY UNDERSTANDING. IF YOU LIVED A GOOD LIFE, PEOPLE WOULD RECOGNIZE IT. LIKE THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS THE GOLD STANDARD. HIS INTEGRITY IS ABSOLUTELY UNQUESTIONED. HE IS THE VERY CIRCUMSPECT IN HIS PERSONAL CONDUCT. HARBORS NO BIASES OR PREJUDICES, IS ENTIRELY ETHICAL, IS A REALLY DECENT PERSON. HE’S WARM, FRIENDLY, UNASSUMING, HE’S THE NICEST PERSON. THE ABA. AND ONE THING I CAN TELL YOU YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF, ASHLEY, YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF THIS, THAT YOU RAISED A DAUGHTER WHO HAD THE GOOD CHARACTER TO PRAY FOR DR. FORD. TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU’RE LEGITIMATIZING THE MOST DESPICABLE THING I HAVE SEEN IN MY TIME IN POLITICS. YOU WANT THIS SEAT? I HOPE YOU GET IT. I HOPE YOU’RE ON THE SUPREME COURT. THAT’S EXACTLY WHERE YOU SHOULD BE. AND I HOPE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL SEE THROUGH THIS CHARADE. AND I WISH YOU WELL AND I INTEND TO VOTE FOR YOU AND HOPE EVERYBODY WHO’S FAIR-MINDED WILL.>>SENATOR WHITEHOUSE.>>SHALL WE LET THINGS SETTLE A LITTLE BIT AFTER THAT?>>IF YOU WANT TO — WE’LL TAKE A 60-SECOND BREAK. >>NO, I’M GOOD. >>OKAY, GO AHEAD.>>I’M GOOD. ONE OF THE REASONS, MR. KAVANAUGH, THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE YEARBOOK IS THAT IT IS RELATIVELY CONSISTENT IN TIME WITH THE EVENTS AT ISSUE HERE. AND BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR WORDS, IS IT IN FACT YOUR WORDS ON YOUR YEARBOOK PAGE?>>WE SUBMITTED THINGS TO THE EDITORS AND I BELIEVE THEY TOOK THEM. I DON’T KNOW IF THEY CHANGED THINGS OR NOT. >>YOU’RE NOT AWARE OF ANY CHANGES?>>I’M NOT AWARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND CONTEST THAT. HAVE AT IT IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH MY YEARBOOK. >>I’M ACTUALLY INTERESTED. YOU KNOW, LAWYERS SHOULD BE WORKING OFF OF COMMON TERMS AND UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT WE’RE USING. I THINK THAT’S A PRETTY BASIC PRINCIPLE AMONG LAWYERS, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?>>IT IS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT MY YEARBOOK, HAVE AT IT, SENATOR. >>LET’S LOOK AT BEACH WEEK RALPH CLUB BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR. WHAT DOES THE WORD “RALPH” MEAN?>>THAT PROBABLY REFERS TO THROWING UP. I’M KNOWN TO HAVE A WEAK STOMACH AND ALWAYS HAVE. IN FACT THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE, YOU ASKED ME ABOUT HAVING CATCH UP ON SPAGHETTI. I ALWAYS HAVE HAD A WEAK STOMACH. >>I DON’T KNOW THAT I ASKED ABOUT KETCHUP ON SPAGHETTI. THIS IS WELL KNOWN. A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE BEHIND ME HAVE KNOWN ME MY WHOLE LIFE AND KNOW I’VE GOT A WEAK STOMACH, WHETHER IT’S WITH BEER OR SPICY FOOD OR ANYTHING. >>SO THE VOMITING THAT YOU REFERENCE IN THE RALPH CLUB REFERENCE RELATED TO THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL?>>SENATOR, I WAS AT THE TOP OF MY CLASS ACADEMICALLY, BUSTED MY BUTT IN SCHOOL, CAPTAIN OF THE VARSITY BASKETBALL TEAM, GOT INTO YALE COLLEGE. WHEN I GOT INTO YALE COLLEGE, I GOT INTO YALE LAW SCHOOL. I’VE WORKED MY TAIL OFF.>>AND DID THE WORD “RALPH” YOU USED IN YOUR YEARBOOK — >>I ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION. IF YOU’RE — >>DID IT RELATE TO ALCOHOL? ANSWER THAT. >>I LIKE BEER. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU DO. DO YOU LIKE BEER, SENATOR, OR NOT? WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO DRINK? SENATOR, WHAT DO YOU THINK LIKE TO DRINK?>>JUDGE, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU BUFFED OR BOOFED. >>THAT REFERS TO FLATULENCE. WE WERE 16.>>AND SO WHEN YOUR FRIEND, MARK JUDGE, PUT THE SAME THING IN HIS YEARBOOK PAGE BACK TO YOU, HE HAD THE SAME MEANING, IT WAS FLATULENCE. >>I DON’T KNOW WHAT HE DID, BUT THAT’S MY RECOLLECTION. IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT FLATULENCE AT AGE 16 ON A YEARBOOK PAGE, I’M GAME.>>YOU MENTIONED, I THINK, THE RENATE, THAT’S A PROPER NAME OF AN INDIVIDUAL YOU KNOW?>>RENATTE.>>CORRECT. >>AND AFTER THAT IS THE WORD ALUMNIUS MEAN IN THAT CONTEXT?>>I EXPLAINED THAT IN MY OPENING STATEMENT. SHE WAS A GREAT FRIEND OF OURS. A BUNCH OF US WENT TO DANCES TOGETHER. SHE HUNG OUT WITH US AS A GROUP. THE MEDIA CIRCUS THAT HAS BEEN GENERATED BY THIS REPORTED THAT IT REFERRED TO SEX. IT DID NOT. I NEVER HAD ANY — AS SHE HERSELF SAID ON THE RECORD, ANY KIND OF SEXUAL INTERACTION WITH HER. I’M SORRY HOW THAT’S BEEN MISINTERPRETED AND SORRY ABOUT THAT, AS I EXPLAINED IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, BECAUSE SHE’S A GOOD PERSON. AND TO HAVE HER NAME DRAGGED THROUGH THIS HEARING IS A JOKE. AND REALLY AN EMBARRASSMENT.>>DEVIL’S TRIANGLE?>>DRINKING GAME.>>HOW’S IT PLAYED?>>THREE GLASSES IN A TRIANGLE. >>AND?>>YOU EVER PLAYED QUARTERS?>>NO.>>OKAY. IT’S A QUARTERS GAME.>>ANN DOUGHERTY’S?>>AS YOU CAN TELL, SHE HAD A PARTY ON THE FOURTH OF JULY IN THE BEACH IN DELAWARE. >>AND THERE ARE LIKE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN Fs IN FRONT OF THE FOURTH OF JULY. WHAT DOES THAT SIGNIFY IF ANYTHING?>>ONE OF OUR FRIENDS, SQUI, WHEN HE SAID THE F-WORD STARTING AT A YOUNG AGE HAD A WIND-UP TO THE F-WORD AND THEN THE WORD WOULD COME OUT. WHEN WE WERE 15 WE THOUGHT THAT WAS FUNNY. IT BECAME AN INSIDE JOKE FOR HOW HE WOULD SAY FFF AND I WON’T REPEAT IT HERE FOR THE F-WORD. >>REFERRING TO GEORGETOWN VERSUS LOUISVILLE — >>DO YOU WANT ANY MORE ON THE Fs?>>NO. ORIOLES VERSUS RED SOX, IN BOTH YOU RESPOND WHO WON ANYWAY OR WHO WON THAT GAME ANYWAY. SHOULD WE DRAW ANY CONCLUSION THAT A LOSS OF RECOLLECTION ASSOCIATED WITH ALCOHOL WAS INVOLVED IN YOU NOT KNOWING WHO WON THE GAMES THAT YOU ATTENDED?>>NO. FIRST OF ALL, GEORGETOWN/LOUISVILLE WAS WATCHING IT ON TV, A PARTY.>>THAT’S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH DRINKING, NOT REMEMBERING WHAT HAPPENED. >>I’M AWARE. AND THE POINT OF BOTH WAS WE IN ESSENCE WAS HAVING A PARTY AND DIDN’T PAY ATTENTION TO THE GAME ACTION EVEN THOUGH THE GAME WAS THE EXCUSE WE HAD FOR GETTING TOGETHER. I THINK THAT’S VERY COMMON. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU’VE BEEN TO A SUPER BOWL PARTY, FOR EXAMPLE, SENATOR, AND NOT PAID ATTENTION TO THE GAME AND JUST HUNG OUT WITH YOUR FRIENDS. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU’VE DONE THAT OR NOT BUT THAT’S WHAT WE WERE REFERRING TO ON THOSE TWO OCCASIONS. >>SENATOR CORNYN.>>JUDGE, I CAN’T THINK OF A MORE EMBARRASSING SCANDAL FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE SINCE THE McCARTHY HEARINGS. THE COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE CRUELTY OF THE PROCESS TOWARD THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. AND THE QUESTION WAS ASKED HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY. AND I’M AFRAID WE’VE LOST THAT, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOU’VE BEEN ACCUSED OF MULTIPLE CRIMES?>>I’M PAINFULLY AWARE FOR MY FAMILY AND ME TO READ ABOUT THIS. BREATHLESS REPORT. >>OF COURSE THE SEXUAL ASSAULT THAT DR. FORD CLAIMS THAT YOU’VE DENIED AND THE CLAIMS OF MISS RAMIREZ THAT NOT EVEN “THE NEW YORK TIMES” WOULD REPORT BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T CORROBORATE IT AND THEN STORMY DANIELS’ LAWYER RELEASED A BOMBSHELL ACCUSING YOU OF GANG RAPE. ALL OF THOSE ARE CRIMES, ARE THEY NOT?>>THEY ARE, AND I’M NEVER GOING TO GET MY REPUTATION BACK. MY LIFE IS TOTALLY, PERMANENTLY ALTERED. >>JUDGE, DON’T GIVE UP. >>I’M NOT GIVING UP.>>THE AMERICAN PEOPLE — THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO THIS AND THEY WILL MAKE THEIR DECISION, AND I THINK YOU’LL COME OUT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT DECISION. >>I WILL ALWAYS BE A GOOD PERSON AND TRY TO BE A GOOD JUDGE, WHATEVER HAPPENS. >>SO THIS IS NOT A JOB INTERVIEW. YOU’VE BEEN ACCUSED OF A CRIME. IF YOU HAVE LIED TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE INVESTIGATORS, THAT IS A CRIME IN AND OF ITSELF, CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>SO IN ORDER TO VOTE AGAINST YOUR NOMINATION, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU ARE A SERIAL LIAR, AND YOU HAVE EXPOSED YOURSELF TO LEGAL JEOPARDY IN YOUR INTERACTION WITH THIS COMMITTEE AND THE INVESTIGATORS. ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING.>>YOU TALKED IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH MARTHA McCALLUM THE OTHER NIGHT ABOUT A FAIR PROCESS. SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE SAY THE BURDEN IS NOT ON THE ACCUSER BECAUSE THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW, THE BURDEN IS ON YOU. BUT YOU SAID YOU WEREN’T THERE AND IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF A CRIME AND THAT A FAIR PROCESS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION UNDER THE NOTION OF FAIR PLAY MEANS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE AN ACCUSATION AGAINST YOU HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH SOME EVIDENCE. ISN’T THAT PART OF A FAIR PROCESS?>>YES, SIR, SENATOR.>>AND PART OF THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE AN ALLEGATION, THERE NEEDS TO BE CORROBORATION. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU’RE NOT GUILTY BECAUSE SOMEBODY MAKES AN ACCUSATION AGAINST YOU IN THIS COUNTRY. WE’RE NOT A POLICE STATE. WE DON’T GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THAT KIND OF POWER. WE INSIST THAT THOSE CHARGES BE PROVEN BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE. AND I KNOW WE’RE NOT IN A COURT. I’VE TOLD MY COLLEAGUES IF WE WERE IN COURT, HALF OF THEM WOULD BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. BUT YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF A CRIME, AND I BELIEVE FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM REQUIRE THAT IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO MAKE THAT ACCUSATION AGAINST YOU, THEN THEY NEED TO COME FORWARD WITH SOME CORROBORATION, NOT JUST ALLEGATIONS. AND YOU’RE RIGHT TO BE ANGRY ABOUT THE DELAYS IN YOUR ABILITY TO COME HERE AND PROTECT YOUR GOOD NAME. BECAUSE IN THE INTERIM, IT JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE. IT’S NOT DR. FORD, IT’S THIS STORY THAT NOT EVEN “THE NEW YORK TIMES” WOULD REPORT, THE ALLEGATION OF MISS RAMIREZ. AND THEN STORMY DANIELS’ LAWYER COMES UP WITH THIS INCREDIBLE STORY ACCUSING YOU ACCUSING YOU SORDID AND SALACIOUS CONDUCT. IT’S OUTRAGEOUS. AND YOU’RE RIGHT TO BE ANGRY. BUT THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO TELL YOUR STORY. AND I HOPE YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TELL US EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO TELL US. BUT THE BURDEN IS NOT ON YOU TO DISPROVE THE ALLEGATIONS MADE. THE BURDEN UNDER OUR SYSTEM, WHEN YOU ACCUSE SOMEBODY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, IS ON THE PERSON MAKING THE ACCUSATION. NOW, I UNDERSTAND WE’RE NOT — THIS ISN’T A TRIAL, LIKE I SAID. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTOOD, IT’S HARD TO RECONSTRUCT WHAT HAPPENED 36 YEARS AGO. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT DR. FORD, THAT PERHAPS SHE HAS HAD AN INCIDENT AT SOME POINT IN HER LIFE. AND YOU ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THAT. BUT YOUR REPUTATION IS ON THE LINE. AND I HOPE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST YOU AND WHAT A FAIR PROCESS LOOKS LIKE.>>SENATOR KLOBUCHAR.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE, WE’RE TALKING HERE ABOUT DECENCY. AND YOU UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ADVISE AND CONSENT. AND FOR ME, WHEN THIS EVIDENCE CAME FORWARD, I DECIDED THAT I NEEDED TO LOOK AT THIS. AND I NEEDED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT. AND I NEEDED TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT IT AS WELL AS OTHERS THAT WERE INVOLVED. SO AGAIN, I’M NOT GOING TO PICK QUITE THE SAME APPROACH AS MY COLLEAGUES HERE AND TALK ABOUT DON McGAHN OR ANY OF THIS. WHY DON’T YOU JUST ASK THE PRESIDENT? DR. FORD CAN’T DO THIS, WE CLEARLY HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS, BUT ASK THE PRESIDENT TO REOPEN THE INVESTIGATION.>>I’M HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. I SHOULD SAY ONE THING, SENATOR KLOBUCHAR, WHICH IS, I APPRECIATE OUR MEETING TOGETHER. AND I APPRECIATE HOW YOU HANDLED THE PRIOR HEARING. AND I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR YOU.>>THANK YOU. ALL OF THAT ASIDE, HERE’S THE THING. YOU COULD ACTUALLY JUST GET THIS OPEN SO THAT WE CAN TALK TO THESE WITNESSES AND THE FBI CAN DO IT INSTEAD OF US. YOU’VE COME BEFORE US. BUT WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE MARK JUDGE WHO DR. FORD SAYS WAS A WITNESS TO THIS. WE HAVE THIS POLYGRAPH EXPERT THAT MY COLLEAGUES WERE RAISING ISSUES ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT PERSON COME BEFORE US. AND I JUST THINK IF WE COULD OPEN THIS UP — >>I DON’T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT I GUESS I AM. MARK JUDGE HAS PROVIDED SWORN STATEMENTS SAYING THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN AND THAT I NEVER DID OR WOULD DO — >>BUT WE WOULD LIKE THE FBI TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW UP AND ASK HIM QUESTIONS. WE TALK ABOUT PAST NOMINATION PROCESSES. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THOSE, AND I KNOW THAT PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH IN THE ANITA HILL/JUSTICE THOMAS CASE, HE OPENED UP THE FBI INVESTIGATION AND LET QUESTIONS BE ASKED. AND I THINK IT WAS HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE. SO WAS HIS DECISION REASONABLE?>>I DON’T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT. WHAT I KNOW, SENATOR — >>BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT HE OPENED UP THE INVESTIGATION SO THE FBI COULD ASK SOME QUESTIONS. HE OPENED UP THE BACKGROUND CHECK.>>I’M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT MY YEARBOOK OR ABOUT, YOU KNOW — >>OKAY.>>SPORTS OR BASKETBALL.>>I’M NOT GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE YEARBOOK. SO MOST PEOPLE HAVE DONE SOME DRINKING IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE AND MANY PEOPLE STRUGGLE WITH ALCOHOLISM AND BINGE DRINKING. MY OWN DAD STRUGGLED WITH ALCOHOLISM MOST OF HIS LIFE AND HE GOT IN TROUBLE FOR IT AND THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES. HE IS STILL IN AA AT AGE 90 AND HE’S SOBER. AND IN HIS WORDS, HE WAS PURSUED BY GRACE. AND THAT’S HOW HE GOT THROUGH THIS. SO IN YOUR CASE, YOU HAVE SAID HERE AND OTHER PLACES THAT YOU NEVER DRANK SO MUC THAT YOU DIDN’T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED. BUT YET WE HAVE HEARD, NOT UNDER OATH, BUT WE HAVE HEARD YOUR COLLEGE ROOMMATE SAY THAT YOU DID DRINK FREQUENTLY, THESE ARE IN NEWS REPORTS, THAT YOU WOULD SOMETIMES BE BELLIGERENT. ANOTHER CLASSMATE SAID IT’S NOT CREDIBLE FOR YOU TO SAY YOU DIDN’T HAVE MEMORY LAPSES. SO DRINKING IS ONE THING.>>I ACTUALLY DON’T THINK THAT — THE SECOND QUOTE IS CORRECT. ON THE FIRST QUOTE, I PROVIDED SOME MATERIAL THAT’S STILL REDACTED ABOUT THE SITUATION WITH THE FRESHMAN YEAR ROOMMATE. AND I DON’T REALLY WANT TO REPEAT THAT IN A PUBLIC HEARING. BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE IN A ROOM. DAVE WHITE, JAMIE ROCHE AND ME. AND IT WAS A CONTENTIOUS SITUATION WHERE JAMIE DID NOT LIKE DAVE WHITE AT ALL. AND — I MEAN, SO DAVE WHITE CAME BACK FROM HOME ONE WEEKEND AND JAMIE ROCHE HAD MOVED ALL HIS FURNITURE OUT INTO THE COURTYARD. SO HE WALKS IN.>>OKAY.>>SO THAT’S YOUR SOURCE ON THAT.>>SO DRINKING IS ONE THING.>>AND THERE’S MUCH MORE. LOOK AT THE REDACTED PORTION OF WHAT I SAID. I DON’T WANT TO REPEAT THAT IN A PUBLIC HEARING.>>I WILL. CAN I JUST ASK ONE MORE QUESTION?>>REDACTED INFORMATION.>>DRINKING IS ONE THING. BUT THE CONCERN IS ABOUT TRUTHFULNESS. AND IN YOUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY, YOU SAID SOMETIMES YOU HAD TOO MANY DRINKS. WAS THERE EVER A TIME WHEN YOU DRANK SO MUCH THAT YOU COULDN’T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED OR PART OF WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT BEFORE?>>NO. I REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED. AND I THINK YOU’VE PROBABLY HAD BEERS, SENATOR.>>YOU’RE SAYING THERE’S NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE YOU DRANK SO MUCH THAT YOU DIDN’T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT BEFORE OR PART OF WHAT HAPPENED?>>YOU’RE ASKING ABOUT BLACKOUT. I DON’T KNOW. HAVE YOU?>>COULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, JUDGE? SO THAT’S NOT NOT HAPPENED, IS THAT YOUR ANSWER?>>YEAH, AND I’M CURIOUS IF YOU HAVE.>>I HAVE NO DRINKING PROBLEM, JUDGE.>>NOR DO I.>>OKAY. THANK YOU.>>SENATOR HATCH.>>SINCE THIS FBI THING KEEPS COING UP ALL THE TIME, LET’S GET BACK TO BASICS. FIRST OF ALL, ANYBODY, INCLUDING ANY SENATOR THAT’S BROUGHT UP THIS ISSUE, COULD ASK FOR A FBI INVESTIGATION. WHAT THE FBI DOZENS IS GATHER INFORMATION FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. THE FILE IS SENT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR US TO MAKE OUR OWN EVALUATIONS. WE’RE CAPABLE OF MAKING OUR OWN DETERMINATION ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF ANY OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS. THE FBI HAS PUT OUT A STATEMENT OVER NOW I SUPPOSE IT’S A MONTH AGO, CLEARLY STATING THIS MATTER IS CLOSED AS FAR AS THE LETTER BEING SENT TO THEM. AND THERE IS NO FEDERAL CRIME TO INVESTIGATE. IF SENATE DEMOCRATS HOPE FOR THE FBI TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS ON THIS MATTER, I’M GOING TO REMIND YOU WHAT JOE BIDEN SAID. NOW, I SAID THIS IN MY STATEMENT BUT MAYBE PEOPLE AREN’T LISTENING WHEN I SAY, AND MAYBE THEY WON’T EVEN HEAR THIS. JOE BIDEN, QUOTE, THE NEXT PERSON WHO REFERS TO AN FBI REPORT AS BEING WORTH ANYTHING OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. THE FBI EXPLICITLY DOES NOT IN THIS OR ANY OTHER CASE REACH A CONCLUSION, PERIOD. THEY SAY, HE SAID, SHE SAID, THEY SAID, PERIOD. SO WHEN PEOPLE WAVE AN FBI REPORT BEFORE YOU OR EVEN BRING IT UP NOW AS SOMETHING PROSPECTIVELY, THAT WASN’T IN HIS QUOTE, UNDERSTAND THEY DO NOT, THEY DO NOT, THEY DO NOT REACH CONCLUSIONS. THEY DO NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. SENATOR HATCH.>>MR. CHAIRMAN?>>LET ME DO THIS.>>LET ME SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT ACTUALLY WE HAVE ASKED. YOU SAID NOBODY’S ASKED THE FBI OR WE COULD ASK THE FBI. I ACTUALLY HAVE. I THINK OTHERS HAVE. I THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS THAT PART OF WHAT AN FBI REPORT DOES IS TO INVESTIGATE AND SEEK EITHER CORROBORATING OR EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. IT’S NOT SO MUCH THE CONCLUSION THAT IT DRAWS AS THE BREADTH OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IS SOUGHT OUT THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT SOMEBODY MIGHT SAY TO AN FBI AGENT WHEN THEY’RE BEING EXAMINED AND, FOR INSTANCE, MR. JUDGE’S LETTER SIGNED BY HIS LAWYER, SENT IN. IT’S JUST A DIFFERENT THING. AND I BELIEVE STILL THAT THIS IS THE FIRST BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION IN THE HISTORY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS THAT HASN’T BEEN REOPENED WHEN NEW CREDIBLE DEROGATORY INFORMATION WAS RAISED ABOUT THE SUBJECT, ABOUT THE NOMINEE. SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST DIDN’T WANT TO LET THE POINT YOU MADE STAND WITHOUT REFERENCING WHAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO.>>PARDON ME, BUT I’LL JUST ADD TO THE POINT YOU MADE, THE LETTER WAS SENT TO THE FBI. THE FBI SENT IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITH A LETTER SAYING THE CASE IS CLOSED. WE’RE TAKING A BREAK NOW FOR SENATOR — WE’RE TAKING A BREAK NOW. 15-MINUTE BREAK.>>ABOUT 11 MORE QUESTIONERS TO GO HERE IN THE JUDGE KAVANAUGH HEARING. GETS EMOTIONAL. WE’RE SEEING A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE IN TACK FROM REPUBLICANS WHO HAD BEEN RELYING ON A HIRED PROSECUTOR TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, BUT THAT HAS CHANGED NOW AS THEY SEEK TO TAKE ON A MORE DEFENSIVE TONE ON BEHALF OF BRETT KAVANAUGH, WHO HAS SHOWN MORE THAN A FEW FLASHES OF ANGER AT SOME OF THE QUESTIONING COMING FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE.>>AND PERHAPS EXCEEDED ONLY BY SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM WHO SEEMED HIMSELF TO BE NEAR TEARS AS HE EXCORIATED THE PROCESS AND SAID THIS GOOD MAN, BRETT KAVANAUGH, HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE DEMOCRATS SO BADLY WANT TO KEEP THE SUPREME COURT SEAT OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE REPUBLICANS. IT’S INCREDIBLE, I THINK IT’S INTERESTING THAT THERE ARE TWO POINTS I FEEL LIKE JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME WITH. ONE, WHY HE WON’T SAY, OKAY, LET’S DO AN FBI INVESTIGATION IF YOU WANT, AND TWO, SOMEBODY ELSE ASKED SHOULD MARK JUDGE TESTIFY AND HE WOULDN’T SAY YES TO THAT. AND I THINK FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS SAYING, LOOK, SEARCH ME, I’M HERE, I’M INNOCENT, THAT’S CLEARLY THE PART THAT DEMOCRATS ARE FINDING IT EASY TO ZERO IN ON AND SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, IF YOU WANT TO EXONERATE YOURSELF, WHY WOULDN’T YOU WANT TO PUT EVERYTHING INTO EVIDENCE?>>THE WHOLE THING IS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE. LOOK, THE GUY’S GOT A CONFIRMATION VOTE SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW. THE DEMOCRATS HELD THIS TO THE LAST POSSIBLE MINUTE AND SPRANG IT ON HIM. WHAT THEY’RE BASICALLY SAYING TO HIM, WHY WON’T YOU ASK THE FBI TO COME IN AND DELAY THE VOTE ON YOUR NOMINATION OVER ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU MAINTAIN ARE ENTIRELY FALSE AND MADE UP SO THAT WE CAN POSTPONE THIS WHOLE THING UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS SO WE CAN GET A DIFFERENT NOMINEE ALTOGETHER.>>HE RAISED THE ISSUE HIMSELF. HE CAME IN AND IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT TODAY, IT WAS HE WHO SAID ONCE THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE, I WELCOME THE FBI OR ANY OTHER INVESTIGATION. SO BY OPENING THAT UP IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT TODAY, THAT 45-MINUTE STATEMENT, HE OPENED THE DOOR WIDE FOR THEM. IF HE HAD NOT SAID THAT, HE WOULD NOT I THINK HAVE BEEN QUITE SO VULNERABLE TO THESE REQUESTS.>>SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT THERE’S THE WORLD YOU WANT TO LIVE IN AND THE WORLD YOU DO LIVE IN. IT MAY STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN THAT THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT REVEAL THIS UNTIL A VERY, VERY LATE DATE. HOWEVER, NOW HE’S HERE ON THE EVE OF A VOTE WHERE THE RESULT IS VERY MUCH IN QUESTION. AND IF HE COULD BY SAYING, FINE, BRING THE FBI IN HERE AND YOU CRAWL UNDER EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY AND GET EVERY WITNESS ON THE RECORD SO THAT THERE’S — >>WHAT HOUSE ARE THEY GOING TO GO TO? WHAT WITNESSES ARE THEY GOING TO TALK TO?>>THEY CAN TALK TO MARK JUDGE AND ASK QUESTIONS. MARK JUDGE SUBMITS A PRESUMABLY SELF-SERVING STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE. THEY CAN GO TALK TO THE POLYGRAPHER. AS JOE BIDEN SAID, THE FBI IS NOT GOING TO REACH A CONCLUSION. THAT IS FOR THE SENATE TO DO. HOWEVER THE SENATE CAN REACH A MORE WELL ROUNDED CONCLUSION IF IT HAS A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF EVIDENCE.>>SPEAKING OF BEING REALISTIC, THIS IS IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. I MEAN, WE’RE PICKING APART, WE’RE GOING BIT BY BIT AND GOING AS IF IT’S A TRIAL, HOW’S HE DOING HERE, HOW’S HE DOING THERE. I’M LOOKING AT IT, HOW IS THE COUNTRY REACTING TO THIS. THIS IS TURNING OUT TO BE AS BAD AS I FEARED.>>EVEN WORSE.>>IF THIS HEARING HAPPENED, IT COULD BREAK US. THIS FEELS — JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS HAVE BEEN THE BANE OF THE SENATE’S EXISTENCE NOW FOR THE LAST I WOULD ARGUE PROBABLY EVEN GO BACK TO BORK, IN THIS MODERN ERA. AND THERE’S AN ENOUGH — WE CAN SIT HERE AND DO — BUT THIS WHOLE BACK AND FORTH, IT’S UGLY, AND EVERYBODY HAS ESCALATED IN AN UGLY WAY. THIS IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES MEANS HOW ARE WE EVER GOING TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN REACH A CONCLUSION? I DON’T THINK WE’LL GET THERE.>>THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS, WHO DON’T HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP, ARE GENUINELY TORN.>>YOU KNOW WHAT I’VE SEEN FROM THE LESS POLITICAL PEOPLE IS, THROW ‘EM ALL OUT. THIS IS THE WASHINGTON THAT I WANTED TO BURN DOWN. THIS IS THE WASHINGTON THAT IS SO — IT IS JUST — YOU DON’T FEEL AS IF — I MEAN, IT FEELS AS IF EVERYBODY IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING A POINT TO ANIMATE THEIR BASE RATHER THAN WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER IT’S JUDGE KAVANAUGH OR WORRYING ABOUT DR. FORD.>>LET ME MAKE ONE POINT ABOUT THAT. YOU’RE SO RIGHT ABOUT THIS BEING BROKEN. THE SENATE USED TO BE A PLACE, UNTIL FAIRLY RECENTLY, WHERE IT WOULD BE MY GOOD FRIEND SENATOR SO AND SO, EVEN ON THE PANEL, THIS HAS NOW, WITH THE ANGER BOTH SIDES ARE FEELING TOWARDS EACH OTHER, I DON’T KNOW HOW THEY WILL EVER WORK TOGETHER. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A FORMER PROSECUTOR, WAS ABOUT AS MILD MANNERED IN HER APPROACH TO HIM, AND WHEN SHE ASKED HIM SOME VERY SPECIFIC LOW KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT DRINKING, HE SAID DID YOU EVER PASS OUT. SHE’S NOT ON TRIAL.>>THAT WAS HIS WORST MOMENT SO FAR.>>IT WAS A TERRIBLE MOMENT. SHE IS VERY CLOSE TO A LOT OF REPUBLICANS. SHE WAS VERY CLOSE TO JOHN McCAIN. YOU KNOW, SHE IS HIGHLY RESPECTED BY COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI. AND SHE WAS TREATED VERY BADLY BY THE WITNESS, THE MALE WITNESS HERE. THAT WAS A BAD MOMENT. LINDSEY GRAHAM WAS PASSIONATE.>>VERY POWERFUL.>>POWERFUL.>>AND MAKING THE CASE THAT THIS IS POLITICAL. BUT IF IT IS OR ISN’T POLITICAL, DOESN’T CHANGE THE QUESTION.>>HE MAY HAVE DONE MORE THAN A TRUMP RALLY TO RALLY THE BASE.>>THE LAST DEFENDER.>>HE WAS THE ONLY DEFENDER. THAT’S WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER, THAT THE JUDGE HAS NO ONE OUT THERE ON HIS SIDE. NO ONE.>>WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE DR. FORD? DR. FORD STILL DELIVERED A TESTIMONY TODAY THAT WAS COMPELLING. SHE DIDN’T GET, YOU KNOW, KNOCKED OFF HER MARK. SO, YOU KNOW, POLITICS ASIDE, THESE TWO PEOPLE TELLING VERY DIFFERENT STORIES, WHERE DOES IT LEAVE HER?>>THAT’S THE PART OF THIS THAT FEELS SO TRAGIC. THIS IS THE HUMAN ELEMENT PART. BUT THIS GOES BACK TO, YOU SEE LINDSEY GRAHAM’S CALL TO ARMS, ALMOST LIKE A “BRAVEHEART” SPEECH, I HOPE EVERYBODY DOES IT AND WE’RE GOING TO GET YOU ON THERE BECAUSE WE’RE NOT GOING TO REWARD THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR. THERE ARE GOING TO BE PLENTY OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WOULD REACT IN JUST AS ANGRILY OF A WAY THAT LINDSEY GRAHAM REACTED IN THE OTHER DIRECTION IF IT LOOKS LIKE YOU’RE JAMMING HIM THROUGH AND IGNORING THAT TESTIMONY FROM THIS MORNING.>>YOU KNOW WHAT HE’S DOING, HE SAID, TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, IF YOU VOTE NO, YOU ARE LEGITIMIZING THE MOST DESPICABLE THING I’VE SEEN IN MY TIME IN POLITICS. THAT WAS A MESSAGE TO FLAKE, SASSE, COLLINS, MURKOWSKI, ANY OF THOSE, HE WAS LAYING DOWN THE LINE TO THEM TONIGHT TO HAVE THAT VOTE TOMORROW.>>DONALD TRUMP’S WING MAN, LINDSEY GRAHAM.>>WHAT I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IS AT WHAT POINT DID THEY DECIDE TO DUMP RACHEL. BECAUSE YOU SAW KAVANAUGH COME OUT THERE — RACHEL MITCH IS WITH US NO LONGER, APPARENTLY. BECAUSE YOU HAVE KAVANAUGH COME OUT THERE AND THROW AWAY HIS SCRIPT, HE HAD A PREPREPARED SCRIPT THAT HE DID NOT READ FROM, AND SAID, FORGET IT, I’M GOING WHOLE HOG, THIS IS HOW I FEEL. DID THAT INSPIRE GRAHAM TO SAY, ME TOO, FORGET RACHEL, FORGET TO ATTEMPT TO SEEM LIKE WE’RE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY MEASURED WITH EACH WITNESS AND LET THIS GUY GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE OVER AND OVER BY BOTH SIDES THE ENTIRE DAY? OR DID GRAHAM HAVE THAT PLANNED OUT?>>DOES ANYONE FEEL THEY’RE CLOSER TO KNOWING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE? I CAN’T SAY I AM.>>I’M NOT SURE I EXPECTED IT TODAY.>>I DON’T KNOW, YOU HAD TWO COMPELLING WITNESSES.>>I THINK THEY BOTH BELIEVE THEY’RE TELLING THE TRUTH. AND THAT, TO ME, I THINK SENATORS HAVE TO DECIDE, WHAT IS THE FALLOUT? MY GUESS IS HOW A SENATOR IS GOING TO BE THINKING ABOUT THIS. WHAT IS THE FALLOUT FROM EITHER DECISION AND WHAT’S THE SORT OF — YOU KNOW, TO ME THE PROPER WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT IS, WHAT’S THE LEAST BAD OPTION? BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE EITHER OUTCOME IS GOING TO FEEL LIKE A BAD OPTION AS FAR AS THE COUNTRY IS — >>TO ANSWER SAVANNAH’S QUESTION DIRECTLY, WHAT IS HER MOTIVATION TO COME FORWARD? AND TO WELCOME AN INVESTIGATION? AND HIS MOTIVATION IS CLEARLY THE JOB INTERVIEW AND BEING PLACED FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE ON THE SUPREME COURT. YOU ALSO HAVE TO ASK THAT, I THINK, IN EVALUATING, WHY WOULD THIS WOMAN COME FORWARD?>>HER LACK OF MOTIVE FOR LYING IS CLEARLY A POINT IN HER FAVOR ON THE CREDIBILITY SCALE.>>BY THE WAY, THE REPUBLICANS KNOW THIS, WHICH IS WHY THEY KEEP BRINGING UP THE AVENATTI PERSON.>>EVEN IF YOU COMPLETELY BELIEVE DR. FORD, WHO WAS REMARKABLY CREDIBLE IN HER TESTIMONY, AND MADE ALL OF US FEEL SOMETHING, YOU CANNOT DISREGARD THE FOIBLES OF MEMORY, 36 YEARS LATER. AND I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE COMING OUT WITH THEIR STORY SAYING, YOU DON’T FORGET, YOU DON’T FORGET WHO IS ON TOP OF YOU, YOU DON’T FORGET WHO IS PUTTING HIS HAND OVER YOUR MOUTH. THAT IS A COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE POINT. BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT TESTIMONIALS LIKE THAT ARE MISTAKEN ALL THE TIME.>>NOT IN CIRCLES THAT ARE SO CLOSE.>>IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, ANDREA. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. THAT’S WHY MEN HAVE BEEN FALSELY CONVICTED.>>THIS IS NOT A LINE-UP. THIS IS A SMALL CIRCLE OF FRIENDS AND TWO PEOPLE IN A ROOM.>>THIS IS MAKING THE POINT, YOU CAN INTERPRET THIS EVIDENCE IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS, OR THERE’S A THIRD POSSIBILITY THAT CHUCK RAISED, THIS NOTION THAT BOTH HAVE A SINCERE AND GENUINE BELIEF THAT THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH AND THAT THEY INTERPRETED SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENTLY. I DON’T KNOW. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SOMEHOW MAKE BOTH OF THESE STORIES COMPATIBLE. IT’S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT. BUT YOU CAN IMAGINE A SCENARIO.>>LET’S RESET THE TABLE HERE FOR FOLKS WHO HAVEN’T BEEN SITTING HERE WATCHING IT AS WE HAVE, SINCE 9:30 THIS MORNING. SO WE’VE GOT A COUPLE OF CLIPS HERE THAT REALLY KIND OF SETS THE TONE FROM EACH OF THEM. HERE IT IS.>>WHAT IS THE STRONGEST MEMORY YOU HAVE, STRONGEST MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT, SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT FORGET? TAKE WHATEVER TIME YOU NEED.>>INDELIBLE IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS IS THE LAUGHTER. THE UPROARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE THE TWO AND THEIR HAVING FUN AT MY EXPENSE.>>YOU’VE NEVER FORGOTTEN THAT LAUGHTER, YOU NEVER FORGOT THEM LAUGHING AT YOU?>>THEY WERE LAUGHING WITH EACH OTHER.>>AND YOU WERE THE OBJECT OF THE LAUGHTER?>>I WAS UNDERNEATH ONE OF THEM WHILE THE TWO LAUGHED. TWO FRIENDS HAVING A REALLY GOOD TIME WITH ONE ANOTHER.>>I CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY DENY THE ALLEGATION AGAINST ME BY DR. FORD. I NEVER HAD ANY SEXUAL OR PHYSICAL ENCOUNTER OF ANY KIND WITH DR. FORD. I NEVER ATTENDED A GATHERING LIKE THE ONE DR. FORD DESCRIBES IN HER ALLEGATION. I’VE NEVER SEXUALLY ASSAULTED DR. FORD OR ANYONE. AGAIN, I AM NOT QUESTIONING THAT DR. FORD MAY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY SOME PERSON IN SOME PLACE AT SOME TIME. BUT I’VE NEVER DONE THAT TO HER OR TO ANYONE.>>THAT KIND OF CAPSULIZES IT. IT WASN’T A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT A GIVEN SET OF FACTS. SHE SAYS IT HAPPENED, HE SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, HE DIDN’T KNOW HER. IT WAS YOU, CHUCK, THAT RAISED THE IDEA THAT WE THINK THERE WAS GOING TO BE A RESOLUTION TODAY. THAT’S WHAT WE KNEW YESTERDAY, THAT’S WHAT WE KNEW TWO DAYS AGO, THREE DAYS AGO, SHE TELLS THE STORY, HE SAYS IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.>>THERE’S TWO BACKDROPS WE CAN’T FORGET. ONE IS DONALD TRUMP. HE HAS GALVANIZED WOMEN FROM THE SECOND THE “ACCESS HOLLYWOOD” TAPE DROPPED. I’LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, TODAY HAS FELT LIKE THAT DAY FOR ME, POLITICALLY, YOU FEEL LIKE A BOMB HAS BEEN DROPPED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE WAS THIS ANGER AND HE WENT THE JUANITA BRODERICK ROUTE AND IT FELT LIKE THIS POLITICAL WAR, SORT OF A NUCLEAR WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED. TODAY IT FEELS LIKE A POLITICAL NUCLEAR WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. THAT’S WHY I KEEP COMING BACK TO, I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, WHERE DO WE GO TOMORROW? FORGET THE VOTE. WHERE DOES THIS GO TOMORROW?>>NUCLEAR WINTER.>>THIS IS SCAR TISSUE, AND WE’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THE SCAR TISSUE THAT GOES BACK TO BORK AND GARLAND AND THOMAS. THIS ONE, I DON’T KNOW, THIS ONE IS GOING TO CALCIFY.>>I HOPE PEOPLE CAN TAKE SOME MOMENT IN ALL THIS AND FEEL SAD AND TO FEEL ILL BY ALL THIS ON SOME LEVEL.>>I’M ILL.>>VERY.>>IT’S ONE OF THOSE PINCH-YOU MOMENTS, NO MATTER WHERE YOU COME DOWN. THIS IS UGLY AND BRUTAL. FOLKS ARE SAYING, I CAN’T WATCH ANYMORE.>>IT’S WATCHING A DIVORCE, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT’S WHAT I MEAN BY THIS. THE TWO PARTIES FEEL LIKE IT’S IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. THEY DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE THE OTHER SIDE MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH.>>FEELING SICK TO MY STOMACH.>>THE CLOSEST SUPREME COURT VOTE WAS FOR CLARENCE THOMAS. MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN 97, 98. HAVING COVERED THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE AND COVERED EVERY CONFIRMATION HEARING SINCE BORK, I FEEL SOMETHING IS JUST PERMANENTLY BROKEN IN OUR POLITICS. AND IT PAINS ME AS A CITIZEN, AS A JOURNALIST, I FEEL SICK TO MY STOMACH INDEED.>>I WILL SAY THIS, IT’S NEVER PERMANENT. THERE WERE TIMES IN THE ’50s, YOU GO BACK, WE WEREN’T THERE, BUT IT WAS McCARTHY, ROY COHEN, THAT ERA, THAT WAS AN UGLY ERA OF AMERICAN POLITICS. WE CAN GET THROUGH IT. BUT WE’RE IN A ROUGH MOMENT.>>IT’S THE CULMINATION OF SO MANY THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, HOW DIVIDED OUR COUNTRY IS. I MEAN, I’VE NEVER SEEN — I HAVE NEVER SEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE CRY. I HAVE ANY SEEN SOMEBODY ON THE DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE OF IF NOT THE MOST WELL-RESPECTED CIRCUIT COURT IN THE NATION, IN TEARS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION REPEATEDLY TALKING ABOUT THE UTTER DESTRUCTION OF HIS REPUTATION AND HIS FAMILY, IN WHAT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A BATTLE, BUT NOT A PERSONALIZED, BRUISING, DESTRUCTIVE BATTLE. AND ON THE OTHER HAND YOU HAVE CHRISTINE FORD, THIS WOMAN WHO IS WELL-RESPECTED OUT IN PALO ALTO, WHO HAS DEVOTED HER LIFE TO HELPING OTHERS IN THE PSYCHIATRIC FIELD, IN WHAT WAS OBVIOUSLY AN HONEST TESTIMONIAL, EVEN IF IT WASN’T HIM AS HE CLAIMS OR IT WASN’T AS BAD AS OTHERS HAVE SUGGESTED. AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I THINK ABOUT THOSE SENATORS, AND IT MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH, THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII, MAZIE — >>HIRONO.>>– HIRONO, IS ALREADY FUNDRAISING OFF OF THIS, SHE’S ALREADY FUNDRAISING OFF OF CHRISTINE FORD’S TESTIMONY, AND THEN SHE HAD TO DIAL IT BACK. WHO FUND RAISES OFF OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS? AND THE SENATORS WHO HAVE GONE OUT AND CALLED HIM EVIL AND MADE IT PERSONAL IN TERMS, IT’S WRONG. I WATCH HIM CRY, IT MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. I WATCH HER CRY, IT MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE “ME TOO” MOVEMENT. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS REAL ALLEGATIONS. IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE HER, YOU SHOULD. BUT THE STANDARD IS DIFFERENT IN A SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING. AND TO SAY HE GETS NO DEFENSE, NONE, THAT WE MUST BELIEVE HER BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN, IS UTTERLY UNFAIR AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE WAY WE’VE DONE THIS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME IN PUTTING PEOPLE ON THE SUPREME COURT.>>WHICH IS WHY SOME HAVE ARGUED THEY WOULD LIKE THE INVESTIGATION AND THE EVIDENCE, JUDGE, MARK JUDGE, TO BE BROUGHT IN, WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED.>>LOOK, WHEN WE’RE GOING BACK INTO THE DETAILS, HE’S CLEARLY UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN MARK JUDGE IS BROUGHT UP.>>YES.>>EVERY TIME MARK JUDGE IS BROUGHT UP. FRIEND? HE’S CLEARLY A CLOSE FRIEND, HE’S ON YOUR CALENDAR. THEY’VE MADE THE CALENDAR MEAN SOMETHING. AND HE DOESN’T LIKE THE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS FRIEND.>>AND I THINK IT WAS TO DURBIN OR LEAHY OF NOT BEING SENSITIVE TO SOMEONE SUFFERING FROM ADDICTION, WHEN HE GETS ANGRY AND TURNS THE QUESTIONS BACK ON THE SENATORS, THAT’S JUST NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR A WITNESS.>>IT CROSSES OVER TO A STRANGE PLACE. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE MOUTH OFF TO A U.S. SENATOR?>>DEFIANT IS ONE THING, BELLIGERENT IS DIFFERENT.>>YES. THIS IS A VERY HUMAN MOMENT, THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, UNDER TREMENDOUS STRESS. BUT HERE’S THE WHY THE INVESTIGATION AND THE NOTION OF THE FBI CONTINUING OR TRYING TO AT LEAST PUT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY QUESTIONS SUCH AS MARK JUDGE, WHO WAS ALLEGEDLY IN THE ROOM.>>HE’S THE ONE GUY.>>HE’S THE ONE, OKAY? BRING HIM IN, HAVE HIM SIT HERE IN FRONT OF THE SENATORS OR TALK TO THEM.>>EVEN TAKE A DAY TO DO IT.>>WHATEVER IT IS. BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW IS, HE SAID/SHE SAID. IF YOU NEED SOMETHING THAT’S GOING TO TIP THE SCALE IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER — >>BUT I DON’T THINK REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THAT IT WILL TIP IT. IF HE COMES IN AND SAYS, IT’S AS I SAID TO YOU ALREADY IN SUBMITTED TESTIMONY, IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THAT.>>NEITHER PARTY TRUSTS THE OTHER.>>IT LOOKS LIKE WE’RE BACK IN SESSION. THE JUDGE IS HERE AGAIN. THE HEARING WILL RESUME.>>JUDGE, ARE YOU READY?>>I AM READY. CAN I SAY ONE THING?>>YES.>>I WAS GOING TO SAY, I STARTED MY LAST COLLOQUY BY SAYING TO SENATOR KLOBUCHAR HOW MUCH I RESPECT HER AND RESPECTED WHAT SHE DID AT THE LAST HEARING AND SHE ASKED ME A QUESTION AT THE END THAT I RESPONDED BY ASKING HER A QUESTION. I’M SORRY I DID THAT. THIS IS A TOUGH PROCESS. I’M SORRY ABOUT THAT.>>I APPRECIATE THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, WHEN YOU HAVE A PARENT THAT’S AN ALCOHOLIC, YOU’RE PRETTY CAREFUL ABOUT DRINKING. AND THE SECOND THING IS, I WAS TRULY JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE, AND I, AGAIN, BELIEVE WE DO THAT BY OPENING UP THE FBI INVESTIGATION AND I WOULD CALL IT A BACKGROUND CHECK INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATION. THANK YOU.>>APPRECIATE THAT. SENATOR HATCH.>>THANK YOU, JUDGE. WELCOME. WE’RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE. MY FRIENDS FROM — I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS, MY FRIEND FROM ARIZONA EMPHASIZED YESTERDAY THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY TWO HUMAN BEINGS, DR. FORD, AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THEY DESERVE, EACH OF YOU DESERVES TO BE TREATED FAIRLY AND RESPECTFULLY. WE TRIED TO DO THAT WITH DR. FORD EARLIER. AND I THINK WE SUCCEEDED. IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE TREAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH FAIRLY NOW. AND IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW THAT’S GOING TO WORK OUT. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR 12 YEARS. AND HE’S BEEN A GREAT FEDERAL JUDGE ON THE SECOND HIGHEST COURT IN THE NATION. HE’S EARNED A REPUTATION FOR FAIRNESS AND DECENCY. HIS CLERKS LOVE HIM. HIS STUDENTS HE TEACHES IN LAW SCHOOL, HIS STUDENTS LOVE HIM. HIS COLLEAGUES LOVE HIM. THIS MAN IS NOT A MONSTER. NOR IS HE WHAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED HERE IN THESE HEARINGS. WE’RE TALKING TODAY ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CONDUCT IN HIGH SCHOOL. AND EVEN THEN, AND AS A FRESHMAN IN COLLEGE AS WELL. SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED, IF JUDGE KAVANAUGH COMMITTED SEXUAL ASSAULT, HE SHOULD NOT SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT, I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE WITH THAT. BUT THE CIRCUS ATMOSPHERE THAT HAS BEEN CREATED SINCE MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES FIRST LEAKED DR. FORD’S ALLEGATIONS TO THE MEDIA TWO WEEKS AGO, AFTER SITTING ON THEM FOR SIX WEEKS, I MIGHT ADD, HAS BROUGHT US THE WORST IN OUR POLITICS. IT CERTAINLY HAS BROUGHT US NO CLOSER TO THE TRUTH. ANONYMOUS LETTERS WITH NO NAME AND NO RETURN ADDRESS ARE NOW BEING TREATED AS NATIONAL NEWS. PORN STAR LAWYERS WITH FACIALLY IMPLAUSIBLE CLAIMS ARE DRIVING THE NEWS CYCLE. I HATE TO SAY THIS BUT THIS IS WORSE THAN ROBERT BORK. AND I DIDN’T THINK IT COULD GET ANY WORSE THAN THAT. THIS IS WORSE THAN CLARENCE THOMAS. I DIDN’T THINK IT COULD GET ANY WORSE THAN THAT. THIS IS A NATIONAL DISGRACE, THE WAY YOU’RE BEING TREATED. AND IN THE MIDDLE OF IT ALL WE HAVE JUDGE KAVANAUGH, A MAN WHO UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO WAS A PILLAR OF THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, THERE’S BEEN NO WHISPER OF MISCONDUCT BY HIM IN THE TIME HE’S BEEN A JUDGE. WHAT WE HAVE ARE UNCORROBORATED, UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS FROM HIS TEENAGE YEARS, CLAIMS THAT EVERY ALLEGED EYEWITNESS HAS EITHER DENIED OR FAILED TO CORROBORATE. I DO NOT MEAN TO MINIMIZE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CLAIMS. YEAH, THEY’VE BEEN SERIOUS CLAIMS. BUT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH HAS TO INVOLVE MORE THAN BARE ASSERTIONS. LIKE DR. FORD, JUDGE KAVANAUGH DESERVES FAIR TREATMENT. HE WAS AN IMMATURE HIGH SCHOOLER. SO WERE WE ALL. THAT HE WROTE OR SAID STUPID THINGS SOMETIMES DOES NOT MAKE HIM A SEXUAL PREDATOR. I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE OF MY COLLEAGUES TO TEAR DOWN THIS MAN AT ANY COST. I DO UNDERSTAND IT. BUT LET’S AT LEAST BE FAIR AND LOOK AT THE FACTS OR ABSENCE THEREOF. GUILT BY ASSOCIATE IS WRONG. IMMATURITY DOES NOT EQUAL CRIMINALITY. THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH DRANK IN HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE DOES NOT MAKE HIM GUILTY OF EVERY TERRIBLE THING THAT HE’S RECENTLY BEEN ACCUSED OF. A LIFETIME OF RESPECT AND EQUAL TREATMENT OUGHT TO MEAN SOMETHING WHEN ASSESSING ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE FLATLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURSE OF A PERSON’S ENTIRE ADULT LIFE. WITH THOSE COMMENTS, JUDGE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS, IF I CAN, AND IF YOU CAN BE SHORT IN YOUR ANSWERS TO HELP ME GET THROUGH A BUNCH OF THEM, ABOUT HOW THIS PROCESS HAS UNFOLDED. WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN OF DR. FORD’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU?>>IT WAS A WEEK AGO SUNDAY, WHEN — “THE WASHINGTON POST” STORY.>>AMAZING. DID THE RANKING MEMBER RAISE THESE ALLEGATIONS IN YOUR ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH HER LAST MONTH?>>SHE DID NOT.>>DID THE RANKING MEMBER RAISE THEM AT YOUR PUBLIC HEARING EARLIER THIS MONTH?>>NO.>>DID THE RANKING MEMBER RAISE THEM AT THE CLOSED SESSION THAT FOLLOWED THE PUBLIC HEARING?>>SHE WAS NOT THERE.>>DID THE RANKING MEMBER OR ANY OF HER COLLEAGUES RAISE THEM IN THE 1,300 WRITTEN QUESTIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO YOU FOLLOWING THE HEARING?>>NO.>>WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE RANKING MEMBER OR HER STAFF ASKED YOU ABOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS?>>TODAY.>>WHEN DID YOU FIRST HEAR OF MS. RAMIREZ’S ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU?>>UH, IN THE LAST — IN THE PERIOD SINCE THEN, IN THE “NEW YORKER” STORY.>>DID THE RANKING MEMBER OR ANY OF HER COLLEAGUES OR THEIR STAFFS ASK YOU ABOUT MS. RAMIREZ’S ALLEGATIONS BEFORE THEY WERE LEAKED TO THE PRESS?>>NO.>>WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE RANKING MEMBER OR ANY OF HER COLLEAGUES OR THEIR STAFF ASK YOU ABOUT MS. RAMIREZ’S ALLEGATIONS?>>TODAY.>>I THINK IT’S A DISGRACE.>>SENATOR COONS.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, TODAY’S HEARING IS ABOUT DR. FORD’S SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. YOU HAVE UNEQUIVOCALLY DENIED THOSE CLAIMS. BUT WE’RE HERE TODAY TO ASSESS HER CREDIBILITY AND YOURS. AND IN OUR PREVIOUS VIGOROUS EXCHANGES IN THE PREVIOUS CONFIRMATION HEARING ROUNDS, I FOUND THAT YOUR ANSWERS, AT TIMES VIGOROUSLY DEFENDED BUT AT OTHER TIMES WHAT STRUCK ME AS EVASIVE ON KEY ISSUES. IT’S IN THAT BACKDROP THAT I ASSESS YOUR CREDIBILITY TODAY. IT BRINGS ME TO JOY TO QUESTION YOU ON THESE TOPICS TODAY. BUT I DO THINK THEY’RE SERIOUS AND I THINK THEY’RE WORTHY OF OUR ATTENTION. SO LET ME, IF I CAN, RETURN TO A LINE OF QUESTIONING MY COLLEAGUE WAS ON BEFORE, WHICH WAS ABOUT WHETHER YOU’VE EVER GOTTEN AGGRESSIVE WHILE DRINKING OR FORGOTTEN AN EVENING AFTER DRINKING.>>THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. I’VE ALREADY ANSWERED THE SECOND ONE. AS TO THE FIRST, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS BASICALLY NO. I DON’T KNOW REALLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. LIKE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?>>WELL — >>I DON’T MEAN IT THAT WAY, BUT — “NO” IS THE BASIC ANSWER UNLESS YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WHERE — THAT I’M NOT AWARE OF THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAPPEN ASK ABOUT.>>THE REASON I’M ASKING, WE’VE HAD A VERY BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME TO WEIGH OUTSIDE EVIDENCE, AND I’LL JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN SAYING I WISH WE HAD MORE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US TODAY TO WEIGH. DO YOU REMEMBER LIZ SWISHER, A COLLEGE CLASSMATE OF YOURS FROM YALE?>>FIRST, ON YOUR POINT ABOUT THE OUTSIDE EVIDENCE, ALL FOUR WITNESSES — >>LET ME FOCUS. I’M TRYING TO GET THIS QUESTION, IF I MAY.>>I KNOW, BUT YOU MADE A POINT, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, ALL FOUR WITNESSES WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY AT THE EVENT HAVE SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, INCLUDING DR. FORD’S LONG TIME FRIEND MS. KEYSER.>>AND IF MARK JUDGE WERE IN FRONT OF US TODAY TO QUESTION, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ASSESS HIS CREDIBILITY.>>BUT HE’S — >>LET ME GET THROUGH THIS, IF I CAN, YOUR HONOR. LIZ SWISHER IS A COLLEGE CLASSMATE. SHE’S NOW A MEDICAL DOCTOR. AND I’M QUOTING FROM A RECENT INTERVIEW SHE GAVE. SHE SAID, BRETT KAVANAUGH DRANK MORE THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE. HE WOULD END UP SLURRING HIS WORDS, STUMBLING. IT’S NOT CREDIBLE FOR HIM TO SAY HE’S HAD NO MEMORY LAPSES ON THE NIGHTS HE DRANK TO EXCESS. I KNOW, BECAUSE I DRANK WITH HIM. HOW SHOULD WE ASSESS THAT?>>SHE THEN GOES ON, IF YOU KEPT READING, AND SAYS SHE CAN’T POINT TO ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE LIKE THAT.>>THE QUOTE THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME WAS, BRETT WAS A SLOPPY DRUNK AND I KNOW BECAUSE I DRANK WITH HIM.>>I DON’T THINK THAT — I DO NOT THINK THAT’S A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION. AND CHRIS DUDLEY IS QUOTED IN THAT ARTICLE. AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO WHAT CHRIS DUDLEY SAID. I SPENT MORE TIME WITH CHRIS DUDLEY IN COLLEGE THAN JUST ABOUT ANYONE. AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO WHAT HE SAID.>>IN OTHER REPORTING, AS I’M SURE YOU KNOW, A COLLEGE CLASSMATE DESCRIBED YOU AS RELATIVELY SHY BUT SAID THAT WHEN YOU DRANK, YOU COULD BE AGGRESSIVE OR EVEN BELLIGERENT. YOUR ROOMMATE, AS YOU THINK YOU DISCUSSED WITH SENATOR KLOBUCHAR, SAID YOU WERE FREQUENTLY DRUNK.>>THAT WAS FRESHMAN YEAR ROOMMATE. THERE WAS CONTENTION BETWEEN HIM AND THE THIRD PERSON, THERE WERE THREE OF US IN A SMALL ROOM. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT I SAID IN THE REDACTED PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT ABOUT HIM. AND YOU SHOULD ASSESS HIS CREDIBILITY WITH THAT IN MIND.>>PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SHOES FOR A MOMENT, IF YOU WOULD, JUDGE, I KNOW THAT’S ASKING A LOT OF YOU IN THIS SETTING, BUT SUPPOSE YOU HAD GONE THROUGH A PROCESS TO SELECT SOMEONE FOR AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT JOB IN A POSITION, YOU HAD A LOT OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES, AND AS YOU’RE FINISHING THE HIRING PROCESS, YOU LEARN OF AN ALLEGATION THAT IF TRUE, WOULD BE DISQUALIFYING. WOULDN’T YOU TAKE A STEP BACK AND CONDUCT A CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION OR MOVE TO A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE? AND WHY NOT AGREE TO A ONE-WEEK PAUSE TO ALLOW THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THESE ALLEGATIONS AND TO HAVE YOU IN FRONT OF US IN A WEEK FOR NOW FOR US TO EITHER CLEAR YOUR NAME OR RESOLVE THESE ALLEGATIONS BY MOVING TO A DIFFERENT NOMINEE?>>ALL FOUR WITNESSES WHO WERE ALLEGED TO BE AT THE EVENT SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, INCLUDING DR. FORD’S LONG TIME FRIEND MS. KEYSER WHO SAID THAT SHE DIDN’T KNOW ME AND THAT SHE DOES NOT RECALL EVER BEING AT A PARTY WITH ME WITH OR WITHOUT DR. FORD.>>WHAT I’VE STRUGGLED WITH, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, IS THE ABSENCE OF A FAIR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DRIVEN, NONPARTISAN PROCESS TO QUESTION THE VARIOUS PEOPLE WHO I THINK ARE CRITICAL TO THIS. MY CONCERN, SHOULD YOU MOVE FORWARD, IS WHAT IT WILL DO TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COURT AND HOW THAT MAY WELL HANG OVER YOUR SERVICE. I UNDERSTAND YOU’RE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. BUT I WISH YOU WOULD JOIN US IN CALLING FOR A FBI INVESTIGATION FOR ONE WEEK TO CLEAR OR CONFIRM SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.>>YOU SAY A WEEK DELAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THE LAST TEN DAYS HAVE BEEN? FOR US?>>PROBABLY AN ETERNITY. BUT IN THE JUDGE THOMAS CONFIRMATION HEARINGS THERE WAS A FOUR-DAY DELAY.>>EVERY DAY HAS BEEN A LIFETIME. AND YOU KNOW, YEAH, AND IT’S BEEN INVESTIGATED, AND ALL FOUR WITNESSES SAY IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. AND THEY’VE SAID IT UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY. AND I’VE PRODUCED MY CALENDARS, WHICH SHOW, YOU KNOW, THAT’S IMPORTANT EVIDENCE. AND YOU ACT LIKE — I MEAN, THE LAST TEN DAYS, I ASKED FOR A HEARING THE DAY AFTER THE ALLEGATION.>>BEFORE I CALL ON SENATOR LEE, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING HERE. TALKING ABOUT DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT ENOUGH TIME, WE HAD 45 DAYS BETWEEN JULY 30th AND SEPTEMBER THE 13th, I BELIEVE IT IS, WHEN WE COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING THIS. AND IN REGARD TO THIS CANDIDATE, IF YOU TAKE THE AVERAGE OF 65 TO 70 DAYS BETWEEN THE TIME THAT A PERSON IS ANNOUNCED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE SENATE VOTES ON IT IS ABOUT 65 TO 70 DAYS. AND HERE WE ARE AT ABOUT 85 TO 90 DAYS. SO THERE’S PLENTY OF TIME PUT IN ON THIS NOMINATION. SENATOR LEAHY. WAIT A MINUTE. I HAVE ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO — EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN PUTTING LETTERS IN THE RECORD. I HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM 65 WOMEN WHO KNEW JUDGE KAVANAUGH IN THE YEARS HE ATTENDED GEORGETOWN PREP HIGH SCHOOL. THESE WOMEN WROTE TO THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY KNOW JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND THEY KNOW THAT THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY DR. FORD ARE COMPLETELY, TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH HIS CHARACTER. THESE 65 WOMEN KNOW HIM THROUGH SOCIAL EVENTS AND CHURCH. MANY HAVE REMAINED CLOSE FRIENDS WITH HIM. HERE IS WHAT THEY SAY, PARTLY QUOTING THE LETTER. QUOTE, THROUGH THE MORE THAN 35 YEARS WE’VE KNOWN HIM, BRETT HAS STOOD OUT FOR HIS FRIENDSHIP, CHARACTER, AND INTEGRITY. HE HAS ALWAYS TREATED WOMEN WITH DECENCY AND RESPECT. THAT WAS TRUE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND IT REMAINS TRUE TO THIS DAY. IN CLOSING, THEY WROTE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, QUOTE, HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GOOD PERSON. SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, I PUT IT IN THE RECORD. SENATOR LEE.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, YOU’VE BEEN COOPERATIVE AT EVERY STAGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION, BOTH THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THIS COMMITTEE; IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT, SENATOR.>>IT’S ALSO CORRECT THAT YOU YOURSELF DO NOT CONTROL THE FBI OR WHEN IT CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION. YOU ARE A NOMINEE, YOU’RE NOT TASKED WITH THE JOB OF DECIDING WHO, WHEN, WHETHER, OR HOW ONE CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION.>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>BUT AT EVERY MOMENT WHEN EITHER WE OR PRIOR TO THE COMMITTEE TAKING JURISDICTION OVER IT, THE FBI HAS ASKED YOU QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE BEEN ATTENTIVE AND YOU’VE BEEN RESPONSIVE; ISN’T THAT RIGHT?>>THAT’S CORRECT, THROUGHOUT MY CAREER.>>I HAVE COLLEAGUES TODAY WHO HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION. AND THERE ARE SOME IRONIES IN THIS, IRONIES AT AT LEAST TWO LEVELS. IN THE FIRST PLACE, AT LEAST ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM, HAD ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION MANY, MANY WEEKS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE DID, HAD THE ABILITY, AND I BELIEVE THE MORAL DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO REPORT THOSE FACTS TO THE FBI, AT WHICH POINT THEY COULD HAVE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI. AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN SUCH A WAY THAT DIDN’T TURN THIS INTO A CIRCUS, ONE THAT HAS TURNED YOUR LIFE UPSIDE DOWN, AND YOUR FAMILY, AND THE LIFE OF DR. FORD AND HER FAMILY, UPSIDE DOWN. I CONSIDER THIS MOST UNFORTUNATE GIVEN THAT THIS WAS ENTIRELY IN THE CONTROL OF AT LEAST ONE OF MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TO DO THIS. THE SECOND LEVEL OF IRONY HERE IS THAT WHILE CALLING REPEATEDLY FOR AN INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI, AN INVESTIGATION OVER WHICH YOU HAVE NO ABILITY TO CONTROL, BY THE WAY, AN INVESTIGATION YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO CALL FOR, WHILE CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION, WE’RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONVERSATION THAT INVOLVES QUESTIONS TO YOU. SO I ASK MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH, ASK HIM. HE’S RIGHT HERE. IF IT THAT’S REALLY WHAT YOU WANT IS THE TRUTH, ASK HIM QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF OTHER WITNESSES, THEN FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS SACRED AND HOLY, PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON, AS YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PARTICIPATING. WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF INVESTIGATING THE OUTSIDE WITNESSES. IF SOMEONE REALLY WERE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH, THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD DO. THEY WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE INVESTIGATION. AND WHEN WE HAVE A COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION, A COMMITTEE HEARING WH LIVE WITNESSES, THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT THAT RATHER THAN SOMETHING ELSE THEY WISH THEY WERE HAVING IN FRONT OF THEM. IF WHAT THEY WANT IS A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, THEN NOW IS THEIR CHOICE. IF ON THE OTHER HAND WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS DELAY THIS UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION, WHICH AT LEAST ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THEN THAT MIGHT BE WHAT THEY WOULD DO. FINALLY, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PRECEDENT FROM OUR FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE, CHAIRMAN JOE BIDEN. DURING THE CLARENCE THOMAS HEARINGS NEARLY THREE DECADES AGO, CHAIRMAN BIDEN MADE SOME INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS ABOUT FBI REPORTS AND THEIR ROLE IN THIS PROCESS. HERE IS WHAT HE SAID. QUOTE, THE NEXT PERSON WHO REFERS TO AN FBI REPORT AS BEING WORTH ANYTHING OBVIOUSLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. THE FBI EXPLICITLY DOES NOT IN THIS OR ANY OTHER CASE REACH A CONCLUSION, PERIOD, PERIOD. THOSE ARE HIS DUAL PERIODS, NOT MINE. I CONTINUE THE QUOTE. THE REASON WHY WE CANNOT RELY ON THE FBI REPORT, YOU WOULD NOT LIKE IT IF WE DID, BECAUSE IT IS INCONCLUSIVE. SO WHEN PEOPLE WAVE AN FBI REPORT BEFORE YOU, UNDERSTAND THEY DO NOT, THEY DO NOT, THEY DO NOT REACH CONCLUSIONS. THEY DO NOT MAKE, AS MY FRIEND POINTS OUT MORE ACCURATELY, THEY DO NOT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ROLE OF THE FBI IS TO FLAG ISSUES. THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN FLAGGED. SADLY, IN THIS CASE, THEY WERE FLAGGED NOT AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, NOT IN THE TIMING IN WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. AND THEREFORE THEY COULDN’T HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE MANNER THAT WOULD HAVE PRESERVED A LOT MORE DIGNITY FOR YOU, FOR YOUR FAMILY, AND DR. FORD AND HER FAMILY. THEY WERE INSTEAD HELD OUT UNTIL THE FINAL MOMENT. I CONSIDER THAT MOST UNFORTUNATE. AND FOR THAT, ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMITTEE, I EXTEND TO YOU MY MOST PROFOUND SYMPATHIES AND MY MOST PROFOUND SYMPATHIES TO DR. FORD AND HER FAMILY AS WELL.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH SLOTS FOR EVERYONE, CAN I HAVE THE LAST MINUTE OF SENATOR LEE SO THAT SENATOR KENNEDY CAN BE RECOGNIZED? JUDGE, WE DID 38 HOURS IN PUBLIC WITH YOU. DID WE HAVE ANY PRIVATE HEARINGS WITH YOU?>>YES.>>WAS THAT A FUN TIME FOR YOU, WHEN PEOPLE — WHEN SENATORS COULD ASK QUESTIONS THAT WERE AWKWARD OR UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT POTENTIAL ALCOHOLISM, POTENTIAL GAMBLING ADDICTION, CREDIT CARD DEBT, IF YOUR BUDDIES FLOATED YOU MONEY TO BUY BASEBALL TICKETS? DID YOU ENJOY THAT NIGHT WE SPENT LATE ONE NIGHT?>>I’M ALWAYS HAPPY TO COOPERATE WITH THE COMMITTEE.>>THAT’S CHARITABLE. WERE YOU EVER ASKED ABOUT ANY SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS WHEN WE HAD THAT TIME IN HERE WITH YOU ALONE?>>NO.>>DID THE RANKING MEMBER ALREADY HAVE THESE ALLEGATIONS FOR I GUESS THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SEPTEMBER 6 OR 7 AND THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON JULY 30th, A RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE BY THE RANKING MEMBER OR HER STAFF TO DR. FORD, AND BY THE WAY, I THINK DR. FORD IS A VICTIM, AND I THINK SHE’S BEEN THROUGH HELL, AND I’M VERY SYMPATHETIC TO HER, BUT DID THE RANKING MEMBER’S STAFF MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE A LAWYER AND SHE KNEW ALL OF THAT AND YET WE HAD A HEARING HERE WITH YOU AND NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE ASKED BUT THEN ONCE THE PROCESS WAS CLOSED, ONCE THE FBI INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED, ONCE WE WERE DONE MEETING IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, THEN THIS WAS SPRUNG ON YOU? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THE DATES CORRECT, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE’VE GOT 35 PLUS DAYS FROM ALL THE TIME THAT THIS EVIDENCE WAS IN THE HANDS, RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE TO AN OUTSIDE LAWYER, WE COULD HAVE HANDLED ALL THIS, WE COULD HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION IN PRIVATE IN A WAY THAT DIDN’T NOT ONLY DO CRAP TO HIS FAMILY BUT — I YIELD MY TIME. I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF HE COULD DO MATH ABOUT 35 DAYS. IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A QUESTION.>>THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE KAVANAUGH. AS A FEDERAL JUDGE, YOU’RE AWARE OF THE JURY INSTRUCTION, FALSIS IN UNIBIS, FALSIS IN OMNIBUS?>>YES, I AM.>>DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS?>>YOU CAN TRANSLATE IT FOR ME.>>FALSE IN ONE THING, FALSE IN EVERYTHING. MEANING IN JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT SOME OF US AS PROSECUTORS HAVE HEARD MANY TIMES, IS TOLD THE JURY THAT THEY CAN DISBELIEVE A WITNESS IF THEY FIND HIM TO BE FALSE IN ONE THING. SO THE CORE OF WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY REALLY IS CREDIBILITY. LET ME — >>THE CORE OF WHY WE’RE HERE IS AN ALLEGATION WHICH THE FOUR WITNESSES SAID TO BE PRESENT SAID IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.>>LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT RENATE DOLPHIN WHICH LIVES IN CONNECTICUT. SHE THOUGHT THESE YEARBOOK STATEMENTS WERE, QUOTE, HORRIBLE, HURTFUL, AND SIMPLY UNTRUE, END QUOTE, BECAUSE “RENATE ALUMNI” CLEARLY IMPLIED SOME BOAST OF SEXUAL CONTACT WITH HER; IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S FALSE, AND SHE SAID SHE AND I HAD ANY SEXUAL INTERACTION. YOUR QUESTION IS FALSE AND I’VE ADDRESSED THAT IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. SO YOUR QUESTION IS BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE AND REALLY DOES GREAT HARM TO HER. I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU’RE BRINGING THIS UP, FRANKLY, DOING GREAT HARM TO HER BY EVEN BRINGING HER NAME UP HERE, IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE.>>WELL, CALLING SOMEONE AN ALUMNUS IN THAT WAY — >>IMPLYING WHAT YOU’RE IMPLYING — >>– OF A NUMBER OF YOUR FOOTBALL FRIENDS AT THE TIME IS BOASTING OF SEXUAL CONDUCT.>>IT’S FALSE. YOU’RE IMPLYING THAT. LOOK WHAT YOU’RE BRINGING UP BY HER. LOOK WHAT YOU’RE DOING.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK THAT HIS INTERRUPTIONS NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM MY TIME.>>ASK YOUR QUESTION.>>SHE’S A GREAT PERSON. SHE’S ALWAYS BEEN A GREAT PERSON. WE NEVER HAD ANY SEXUAL INTERACTION. BY BRINGING THIS UP YOU’RE DRAGGING HER THROUGH THE MUD. IT’S JUST UNNECESSARY.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU MADE REFERENCE, JUDGE, TO A SWORN STATEMENT, I BELIEVE, BY MARK JUDGE TO THE COMMITTEE; IS THAT CORRECT?>>I MADE REFERENCE TO WHAT MARK JUDGE’S LAWYER SENT TO THE COMMITTEE.>>YES. IT’S NOT A SWORN STATEMENT, IS IT?>>UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY.>>WELL, IT’S A STATEMENT SIGNED BY HIS LAWYER, BARBARA VAN GELDER. IT IS SIX CURSORY AND CONCLUSORY SENTENCES. ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI? OR SOME INTERVIEW BY THE FBI UNDER OATH?>>UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY HE’S SAID THIS KIND OF EVENT DIDN’T HAPPEN AND THAT I NEVER DID OR WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.>>AS A FEDERAL JUDGE YOU ALWAYS WANT THE BEST EVIDENCE, DON’T YOU?>>SENATOR, HE HAS SAID, AND ALL THE WITNESSES PRESENT, LOOK AT MS. KEYSER’S STATEMENT.>>LET ME MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC. YOU’VE TESTIFIED TO THIS COMMITTEE THIS MORNING, THIS AFTERNOON, QUOTE, THIS WHOLE TWO-WEEK EFFORT HAS BEEN A CALCULATED AND ORCHESTRATED POLITICAL HIT FUELED WITH APPARENT PENT-UP ANGER ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 2016 ELECTION, FEAR THAT HAS BEEN UNFAIRLY STOKED ABOUT MY JUDICIAL RECORD, REVENGE ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTONS, AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MONEY FROM OUTSIDE LEFT WING OPPOSITION GROUPS. IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE MOTIVATION OF THE COURAGEOUS WOMAN WHO SAT WHERE YOU DID JUST A SHORT TIME AGO WAS REVENGE ON BEHALF OF A LEFT WING CONSPIRACY OR THE CLINTONS?>>SENATOR, I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THAT SHE PREFERRED CONFIDENTIALITY. AND HER CONFIDENTIALITY WAS DESTROYED BY THE ACTIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE.>>LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IN A SPEECH THAT YOU GAVE AT YALE, YOU DESCRIBED, QUOTE, FALLING OUT OF THE BUS ONTO THE FRONT STEPS OF THE YALE LAW SCHOOL AT 4:45 A.M.>>I WASN’T DESCRIBING ME. I ORGANIZED — SENATOR, SENATOR, LET ME FINISH HERE, PLEASE. I ORGANIZED A THIRD YEAR END OF SCHOOL PARTY FOR 30 OF MY CLASSMATES TO RENT A BUS TO GO TO FENWAY PARK IN BOSTON, A THREE-HOUR TRIP. I BOUGHT ALL THE TICKETS. YOU AND I DISCUSSED THAT BEFORE. I RENTED THE BUS, I ORGANIZED THE WHOLE TRIP. WE WENT TO FENWAY PARK. ROGER CLEMENS WAS PITCHING FOR THE RED SOX. WE HAD A GREAT TIME. GEORGE BRETT WAS PLAYING THIRD BASE FOR THE ROYALS. ACTUALLY HE WAS PLAYING LEFT FIELD THAT NIGHT. AND HE — AND WE WENT TO THE GAME AND GOT BACK. AND THEN WE WENT OUT, IT WAS A GREAT NIGHT OF FRIENDSHIP.>>I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING, JUDGE, BUT I NEED TO FINISH THE QUOTE BEFORE I ASK YOU THE QUESTION. THE QUOTE ENDS, THE QUOTE ENDS, THAT YOU TRIED TO, QUOTE, PIECE THINGS BACK TOGETHER, END QUOTE, TO RECALL WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. MEANING — >>I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.>>WELL, YOU — >>JUDGE, WILL YOU QUICKLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND THEN I’M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER — >>I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT.>>I’LL FINISH ASKING MY QUESTION.>>PLEASE GO AHEAD. DO IT QUICKLY.>>DOESN’T THAT IMPLY TO YOU THAT YOU HAD TO PIECE THINGS BACK TOGETHER, YOU HAD TO ASK OTHERS WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT?>>NO.>>OKAY. YOU TAKE YOUR TIME NOW AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.>>DEFINITELY NOT. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. IT WAS A GREAT NIGHT OF FUN. I WAS SO HAPPY, IT WAS GREAT CAMARADERIE, EVERYONE LOOKS BACK FONDLY ON THE TRIP TO FENWAY PARK. THEN WE WENT OUT TOGETHER, A GROUP OF CLASSCLASSMATES, AND I EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED THE WHOLE NIGHT, AND I’M HAPPY — >>DO YOU BELIEVE ANITA HILL, JUDGE?>>SENATOR CRAPO.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, FIRST I WANT TO GET INTO THIS WHOLE QUESTION THAT’S BEEN BANDIED BACK AND FORTH HERE ALMOST ENDLESSLY TODAY ABOUT THE FBI INVESTIGATION PROCESS. BECAUSE I THINK — I WANT TO FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT SENATOR LEE AND SENATOR SASSE HAVE REFERENCED. THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK HERE ABOUT WE NEED AN FBI INVESTIGATION. IN THESE PROCESSES, WHICH YOU’VE BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF TIMES NOW, WHEN THE FBI DOES A BACKGROUND CHECK WITH REGARD TO A NOMINATION, COULD YOU QUICKLY DESCRIBE THAT FOR US? WHAT DOES THE FBI DO?>>THE FBI GATHERS STATEMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE INFORMATION. THEY DON’T RESOLVE CREDIBILITY. THEY GATHER THE INFORMATION, AND THE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE ULTIMATE FACT FINDER, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE UNITED STATES SENATE. THE COMMITTEE OF COURSE HEARS GATHERED EVIDENCE.>>AND THE FBI THEN GIVES THAT REPORT TO THE WHITE HOUSE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, AND THE WHITE HOUSE THEN TRANSFERS IT TO THE SENATE, IS THAT THE — >>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.>>AND AS YOU INDICATED, AND AS HAS BEEN SAID MANY TIMES HERE TODAY, THE FBI DOES NOT MAKE JUDGMENTS, IT GIVES THE SENATE COMMITTEE INFORMATION. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IF IT I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS CORRECTLY, THE SENATE, THE UNITED STATES SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAS LEGAL AUTHORITIES. IF IT RECEIVES INFORMATION IN A FBI REPORT THAT IT WANTS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATION, THE SENATE HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FURTHER INVESTIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING.>>AND THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN REFERENCED HERE MANY TIMES ABOUT HOW SOME OF THESE WITNESSES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE VERY LATE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED, HAVE MADE STATEMENTS THAT ARE UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY. THAT’S A FELONY FOR LYING TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT HAPPENS IS THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS AUTHORITY UNDER LAW TO CONDUCT THOSE KINDS OF INVESTIGATIONS, FOLLOWS UP ON THE FBI REPORTS TO FINISH OUT THE INVESTIGATION THAT IT WANTS WITH REGARD TO ANY INFORMATION THAT IT RECEIVES THAT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS?>>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING, SENATOR.>>NOW, IN THIS CASE, THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK HERE TODAY, IF I HAVE TIME, I’LL GET INTO IT, IT LOOKS LIKE I’LL RUN OUT OF TIME, BUT IN THIS CASE THERE’S A LOT OF CONCERN BY MANY THAT THERE WAS NOT SO MUCH AN INTEREST IN A FBI INVESTIGATION AS THERE WAS IN DELAY. I’M NOT GOING TO GET TO THAT UNLESS I HAVE TIME. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION. BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND THIS MAY BE MORE OF A QUESTION TO THE CHAIRMAN, AS SOON AS WE RECEIVED THE INFORMATION, WHICH WAS ABOUT 45 DAYS AFTER OTHERS ON THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED IT, WE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN? I’M SORRY TO TURN THE QUESTIONING TO YOU, BUT WE BEGAN THAT LEGAL SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION.>>YES.>>AND THAT INVESTIGATION INVOLVED OUR FULLY, LAWFULLY ENABLED INVESTIGATORS TO CUTTING AN INVESTIGATION. AND IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT INVESTIGATION.>>YES.>>AND SO WE HAVE CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION. THE VERY KINDS OF THINGS THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE ASKING THAT WE TELL THE FBI TO DO, THIS COMMITTEE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT, AND THIS COMMITTEE DOES IT AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS DONE IT. NOW, THERE MAY BE MORE DEMANDS FOR MORE INTERVIEWS AND MORE INVESTIGATION. BUT WHEN YOU, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, HAVE REFERENCED THE TESTIMONY THAT HAS COME FROM THOSE WHO WERE IDENTIFIED AS BEING AT THIS EVENT, THE TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THEM IS INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED PURSUANT TO A SENATE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION. I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR. I THINK THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH HERE ABOUT, OH, WE’RE NOT GETTING INFORMATION, WE’RE NOT LOOK AT THIS, YOU DON’T WANT TO LOOK INTO THE INVESTIGATION, YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. THE REALITY IS THIS COMMITTEE IMMEDIATELY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED EVERY WITNESS THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO US. AND WE HAVE STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY FROM THEM. SO I JUST WANT TO CONCLUDE WITH THAT. I HAVE 45 SECONDS LEFT. I’LL ASK YOU ONE QUICK QUESTION, AGAIN, ON TIMING. YOU HAD A MEETING WITH SENATOR FEINSTEIN ON AUGUST 20th?>>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. I HAD A MEETING. THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DATE.>>OF THE DATE, YES. WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED EARLIER IN TESTIMONY HERE TODAY WAS THAT THE RANKING MEMBER’S STAFF HELPED TO — HELPED DR. FORD TO RETAIN THE KATZ LAW FIRM ON SOMETIME BETWEEN AUGUST — OR JULY 30th AND AUGUST 7th. SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME, IN THE MEETING THAT YOU HAD TWO WEEKS OR MORE LATER, THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED WITH YOU?>>THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED.>>THANK YOU. MY TIME IS UP.>>WE’LL TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK NOW.>>WE CONTINUE TO WATCH THE QUESTIONING OF BRETT KAVANAUGH ON THIS MARATHON DAY OF HEARINGS THAT BEGAN AT 10:00 EASTERN TIME. IT’S NOW JUST AFTER 6:00 HERE ON THE EAST COAST. AND THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER OF SENATORS LEFT TO GO. OF COURSE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FOR REPUBLICANS AFTER YIELDING THEIR QUESTIONS TO A PAID PROSECUTOR, THEY SEEM TO HAVE TAKEN CONTROL OF THEIR OWN QUESTIONING HERE. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE IS WITH ME AND THE REST OF THE PANEL HERE AS WE LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE NOW.>>I THINK EVERYBODY WONDERS WHERE ARE WE EXACTLY WITH THIS. WE HAVE A FEW MORE SENATORS LEFT TO QUESTION. WE STILL HAVE THAT VOTE, CHUCK, SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW MORNING. ANYTHING CAN CHANGE.>>ANYTHING CAN CHANGE.>>ANYTHING CAN CHANGE. BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK RIGHT NOW?>>THIS FEELS LIKE A PANEL THAT WANTS TO VOTE. THERE’S A MAJORITY ON THIS PANEL THAT WANTS TO VOTE. MY GUESS IS THEY’RE COMFORTABLE, EVEN IF IT’S EVENLY SPLIT, WHICH WOULD MEAN ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO SAY NO, YOU KNOW, THIS FEELS LIKE — I THINK THIS VOTE IS GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW.>>AND THE COMMITTEE SENDS IT ON ITS WAY.>>THAT’S RIGHT. WHAT WE DON’T KNOW IS WHAT SUSAN COLLINS THINKS. THE REASON I BROUGHT THAT UP, SHE’S THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP, WE HAVE THIS REPORT THAT SHE SAID MARK JUDGE, SHOULDN’T WE BE TALKING TO HIM. IN SOME WAYS SHE HOLDS A LOT OF THE CARDS HERE. BECAUSE THEY’RE AT A VERY PRECARIOUS MOMENT. NOT EVERYBODY COUNTS LISA MURKOWSKI AS A GETTABLE VOTE ANYMORE. THAT MEANS THEY CAN’T LOSE ANYBODY ELSE.>>AND THE CAMERA FOCUSING THERE ON LINDSEY GRAHAM WHO CAME OUT SWINGING, AND WAS KIND OF THE GLOVES-OFF MOMENT.>>HE MAY BE THE GUY WHO SAVES KAVANAUGH AS A NOMINEE.>>HE BROUGHT THE OUTRAGE, THE POLITICAL CHARGE THAT MAY BUOY REPUBLICANS.>>AND WHEN BEN SASSE FOLLOWED NOT TOO ALONG AFTERWARDS, SOME WHO WE THOUGHT MAY BE ON THE FENCE, AND GOT HIM TO ANSWER A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY DEMOCRATS, THAT’S A SIGNAL, THAT’S A TELL THAT SOME OF THE FENCE-SITTING REPUBLICANS WANT TO GET THIS OVER WITH.>>HE ADDED, I BELIEVE SHE IS A VICTIM, BUT SPENT THE MAJORITY OF HIS TIME ASKING THE JUDGE ABOUT WHY NONE OF THIS WAS RAISED IN CLOSED SESSION AND THIS COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP EARLIER.>>IT SEEMED LIKE A PLACEHOLDER, LIKE I BELIEVE WOMEN, BUT.>>IT DOES FEEL LIKE REPUBLICANS ARE GETTING MORE COMFORTABLE, THE SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE COMFORTABLE, BASICALLY SAYING, I’M GOING TO STAND BY KAVANAUGH BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THIS IS ABOUT THE PROCESS. THEY’VE ALMOST CHANGED THE CONVERSATION AWAY FROM HER ALLEGATION, WHAT LINDSEY GRAHAM DID, TO MAKING IT A REFERENDUM ON THE PROCESS.>>THAT’S WHAT HE SAID.>>THERE ARE SOME DEMOCRATS LEFT, THERE’S A FEW. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF ONE OF THEM TRIES TO CHANNEL THEIR OWN VERSION OF LINDSEY GRAHAM, CORY BOOKER OR SMLT. — OR SOMEONE LIKE THAT.>>KAMALA HARRIS.>>THEY DON’T HAVE A LONG TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THAT VOTE, 9:30 TOMORROW MORNING.>>THEY DO THE VOTE, AND THERE IS SOME SENATE PROCEDURE HERE, NOT TO GET ALL SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN-ISH ON THEM. HE’S KEEPING THE SENATE IN THIS WEEKEND. THE PLAN WAS TO KEEP THEM IN SO THEY CAN, QUOTE, RUN OUT THE CLOCK ON DEBATE AND VOTE AS EARLY AS — >>SATURDAY.>>NO, I THINK THE EARLIEST THEY COULD DO THE VOTE IS ON TUESDAY.>>GUYS, LET ME JUMP TO PETE WILLIAMS WHILE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY.>>SO JUST FOUR POSSIBLE VOTES HERE, THREE OF WHICH WOULD SEND IT TO THE FLOOR. A VOTE TO RECOMMEND THE NOMINATION, VOTE NO RECOMMENDATION, OR VOTE AGAINST IT. ALL THOSE WOULD SEND IT TO THE FLOOR AND ALLOW IT TO BE DEBATED. IT WOULDN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THERE’S A FOURTH POSSIBLE OPTION HERE, AND THAT IS, DON’T DO ANYTHING WITH IT, KEEP IT BOTTLED UP IN COMMITTEE. AND IF THAT HAPPENED, AND I THINK THE ODDS OF THIS ARE VERY LOW, BUT IT’S A POSSIBILITY, THEN IT WOULD TAKE A MOTION TO DISCHARGE THE COMMITTEE. AND THAT COULD BE FILIBUSTERED. THAT’S THE ONLY WAY, THAT WOULD BE AN UNUSUAL AND VERY STRANGE WRINKLE IF IT HAPPENED, BUT IT IS A POSSIBILITY.>>IT COULD BE SENT TO THE FLOOR WITH AN UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION, AND STILL GET TO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE.>>THAT’S DIFFERENT. I’M TALKING ABOUT NO RECOMMENDATION AT ALL, A VOTE NOT TO SEND IT TO THE FLOOR WOULD UNLEASH THIS DISCHARGE POSSIBILITY.>>BUT IF THERE ARE ANY REPUBLICANS WHO MAY BE WAVERING, THEY’RE NOT ON THIS COMMITTEE. SO THE COMMITTEE VOTE I THINK IS GOING TO BE MORE LIKELY IN FAVOR.>>I THINK JEFF FLAKE IS ONE WE DON’T KNOW. REMEMBER HIS SPEECH YESTERDAY ON THE FLOOR, HE WAS THE ONE SHOWING EMPATHY FOR BOTH JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND DR. FORD BY SAYING, HEY, LET’S REMEMBER THERE ARE TWO HUMAN BEINGS.>>LET ME GO TO KASIE HUNT RIGHT NOW. KASIE CONTINUES TO MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE IN THE AIR RIGHT NOW. WHAT’S THE SENSE NOW THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD A LITTLE MORE QUESTIONING OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH?>>I THINK IF ANYTHING, THE RESOLVE HAS HARDENED AMONG THOSE WHO ARE KEY SUPPORTERS OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THE SENSE THAT LINDSEY GRAHAM’S PUBLIC DEFENSE OF HIM, THERE’S A LOT OF CRITICISM OF WHAT LINDSEY GRAHAM WAS SAYING AS DR. FORD’S TESTIMONY UNFOLDED THIS MORNING. I THINK THAT CHANGED AS WE SAW JUDGE KAVANAUGH START TO DEFEND HIMSELF. I THINK IF ANYTHING, THAT HAS PROBABLY HARDENED THE RESOLVE OF THOSE WHO CAME INTO THIS PROCESS EXPECTING TO SUPPORT JUDGE KAVANAUGH. BUT THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, AND PETE WAS WALKING THROUGH KIND OF THE INTRICACIES OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE COMMITTEE, THAT MAKES JEFF FLAKE THE ABSOLUTE CENTRAL PLAYER HERE IN THE NEXT PROBABLY 12 HOURS, THIS COMMITTEE VOTE IS SCHEDULED FOR 9:30. HE COULD POTENTIALLY PUT THE BRAKES ON IT, BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE IS 11 REPUBLICANS AND 10 DEMOCRATS. ALL EYES ARE ON HIM. THEY’VE BEEN PAYING VERY CLOSE ATTENTION. BUT IF THEY DO GET THIS OUT OF COMMITTEE, FAVORABLE OR NOT, IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO BE FILIBUSTERED ON THE FLOOR, THERE IS ONE RARE SCENARIO THAT PETE OUTLINED, THERE IS A PLAN TO PUSH THIS FULL SPEED AHEAD TO THE SENATE FLOOR. THAT COULD REQUIRE A KEY TEST VOTE AS EARLY AS SATURDAY, BECAUSE REMEMBER, THERE STILL ARE A COUPLE OF HURDLES TO BLOW PAST, YOU DON’T NEED 60 VOTES ANYMORE BUT THERE STILL IS TECHNICALLY A FILIBUSTER THAT HAS TO BE KIND OF PROCEEDED THROUGH. AND THAT COULD BE A PLACE WHERE WE WOULD SEE AND FIND OUT WHERE THESE KEY VOTES, SASSE, MURKOWSKI, COLLINS, WHERE THEY STAND. THAT COULD BE SOMETHING WE’RE LEARNING OVER THE WEEKEND. WE ARE STARTING TO HEAR RUMBLINGS THAT REPUBLICAN SENATORS PLAN TO MEET AS A CONFERENCE TONIGHT. WE’RE STILL TRYING TO NAIL DOWN THE REPORTING DETAILS OF THAT HERE. BUT I DO HAVE SOURCES WHO ARE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THEY’RE SUGGESTING IT COULD BE AN HOUR OR TWO AFTER THIS ENDS. OF COURSE IT’S DIFFICULT TO SEE EXACTLY WHEN. WE KNOW THAT THIS HEARING STILL HAS QUITE A BIT MORE QUESTIONING TO GO, LESTER.>>ALL RIGHT, KASIE. WE SEE SENATOR GRASSLEY AND SOME OF THE OTHER SENATORS IN THE ROOM.>>I DON’T THINK WE’VE HEARD FROM SENATOR FLAKE. PERHAPS WE’LL SEE WHAT HE THINKS.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE ACCUSING THE DEMOCRATS OF SOME SORT OF POLITICAL CONSPIRACY. THAT’S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DISTRACT US FROM WHAT HAPPENED HERE THIS MORNING. AND WHAT HAPPENED HERE THIS MORNING WAS THAT WE HEARD FROM DR. CHRISTINE FORD, WHO SPOKE TO US WITH QUIET, RAW, EMOTIONAL POWER ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HER. SHE SAID SHE WAS 100% CERTAIN THAT IT WAS YOU WHO ATTACKED HER. AND SHE EXPLAINED HOW SHE CAME FORWARD, HOW SHE STRUGGLED WITH HER DECISION, HOW SHE WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO KNOW SO THAT HE COULD MAKE A BETTER CHOICE. SO WHEN YOU AND MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE ACCUSE US OF AMBUSHING YOU WITH FALSE CHARGES, I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO REMEMBER DR. FORD’S TESTIMONY AND HER COURAGE. LET ME GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU JUST SAID IN YOUR OPENING. YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT AT YOUR FIRST HEARING THAT DEMOCRATS WERE AN EMBARRASSMENT. WE ASKED YOU A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN THOSE DAYS. AND WHICH OF OUR QUESTIONS DO YOU THINK WERE AN EMBARRASSMENT? I ASKED YOU ABOUT DISSENTS YOU HAD WRITTEN AS A JUDGE, AN AMICUS BRIEF YOU WROTE AS A LAWYER, AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ABUSE BY YOUR CLOSE FRIEND AND MENTOR ALEX KOZINKSI, ALL VALID QUESTIONS IN THAT SETTING. THEY’RE VALID BECAUSE THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW FOR ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITIONS OF TRUST IN THIS COUNTRY. AND EARLIER YOU AGREED THAT THIS PROCESS OF ADVISE AND CONSENT IS REALLY A JOB INTERVIEW. CERTAINLY NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL. THERE’S CERTAINLY NO ENTITLEMENT FOR YOU TO BE CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND CANDOR OF A NOMINEE ARE THINGS FOR US TO CONSIDER IN YOUR JOB INTERVIEW.>>I THINK MY WHOLE LIFE IS SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION.>>IS THAT YES? CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND CANDOR, ARE THOSE SPECIFIC TRAITS THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO US AS WE CONSIDER PUTTING YOU FOR LIFE ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE COUNTRY? CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND CANDOR.>>OF COURSE. AS PART OF MY WHOLE LIFE.>>IS TEMPERAMENT ALSO IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER?>>MY TEMPERAMENT IS PRAISED, THAT’S WHY I HAVE THE RATING FROM THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE YOU.>>SO YOU WOULD AGREE THAT TEMPERAMENT IS ALSO AN FOREIGN FACTOR FOR — >>YES, THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER WHO TESTIFIED TO THE COMMITTEE, TALKED ABOUT HOW I WAS ALWAYS OPEN MINDED AND HOW I HAD RULED IN FAVOR OF UNPOPULAR DEFENDANTS, HOW I WAS FAIR-MINDED. I THINK UNIVERSALLY, LAWYERS WHO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE — >>SO THE ANSWER IS YES. I AM RUNNING OUT OF TIME. YOU KNOW, WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES. LET ME GET TO SOMETHING ELSE. IN YOUR FOX INTERVIEW YOU SAID YOU ALWAYS TREATED WOMEN WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT, END QUOTE, AND IN HIGH SCHOOL YOU NEVER, QUOTE, DRANK SO MUCH YOU COULDN’T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT BEFORE. WOULD YOU SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT YOUR COLLEGE LIFE?>>YES.>>I WOULD LIKE TO READ YOU STATEMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO KNEW YOU IN COLLEGE.>>CAN I SAY ONE THING?>>IT WAS NOTED THAT JAMES ROCHE SAID, YOUR ROOMMATE, ALTHOUGH BRETT WAS NORMALLY RESERVED, HE WAS A NOTABLY HEAVY DRINKER EVEN BY THE STANDARDS OF THE TIME AND HE BECAME AGGRESSIVE AND BELLIGERENT WHEN HE WAS DRUNK. IS YOUR FORMER COLLEGE ROOMMATE LYING?>>I WOULD REFER YOU TO WHAT I SAID IN THE SEALED OR REDACTED PORTION ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER TWO ROOMMATES AND I’M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT. I WILL SAY, SENATOR, YOU’RE ASKING ABOUT COLLEGE. I GOT INTO YALE LAW SCHOOL. THAT’S THE NUMBER ONE LAW SCHOOL IN THE COUNTRY. I HAVE NO CONNECTIONS THERE. I GOT THERE BY BUSTING MY TAIL.>>I FEEL INSULTED AS A GEORGETOWN GRADUATE. GO ON.>>EXCUSE ME? I’M SORRY. IT’S RANKED NUMBER ONE. THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S NUMBER ONE. AND YOU KNOW, IN COLLEGE — TWO THINGS. A, I STUDIED. I WAS IN CROSS CAMPUS LIBRARY EVERY NIGHT. AND B, I PLAYED BASKETBALL FOR THE JUNIOR VARSITY. THE FIRST DAY I ARRIVED ON CAMPUS, WE HAD CAPTAINS’ WORKOUTS. I PLAYED BASKETBALL EVERY DAY. THEN IN FEBRUARY CAPTAINS’ WORKOUTS STARTED AGAIN.>>SO YOU WERE NOT — I ONLY HAVE 23 SECONDS. SO YOU WERE NOT A SLOPPY DRUNK, AND SO YOUR ROOMMATE WAS LYING.>>I WILL REFER YOU AGAIN TO THE REDACTED PORTION. I’LL SAY, LOOK AT MY ACADEMIC RECORD. I DON’T USUALLY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT MYSELF THIS WAY, BUT IN RESPONSE, I WORKED VERY HARD IN COLLEGE, IN MY STUDIES, AND I ALSO PLAYED BASKETBALL, I DID SPORTS — >>OKAY, WAIT. EXCUSE ME. I KNOW THAT THE CHAIRMAN IS GOING TO STOP ME. BUT I DO HAVE SOME OTHER REFERENCES FROM PEOPLE WHO KNEW YOU, WHO SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT THE CHOIR BOY. HOLD ON. I’M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO — MR. CHAIRMAN, OKAY, I’LL WAIT UNTIL WE FINISH, BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO ENTER SOME LETTERS INTO THE RECORD. COULD I DO THAT?>>I WASN’T CLEAR THAT’S WHAT YOU WERE DOING.>>I COULD GO ON, BUT MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD FOUR LETTERS. ONE IS DATED SEPTEMBER 18th, 2018, TO YOU FROM ALL OF THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE. ANOTHER IS A LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 18th, TO CHRISTOPHER WRAY, THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, AND DON McGAHN, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, SIGNED BY ALL THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE. A SEPTEMBER 21st LETTER, SIGNED BY CHUCK SCHUMER AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN TO THE PRESIDENT. AND A SEPTEMBER 26th LETTER SIGNED BY ALL THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE. ALL REQUESTING AN FBI INVESTIGATION BECAUSE YOU DID SAY ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS ASK AND THE IMPLICATION BEING THAT IF WE ASK, AN INVESTIGATION WILL HAPPEN, AND IT CERTAINLY HAS NOT HAPPENED. THANK YOU.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION. THAT WILL BE INCLUDED. SENATOR TILLIS.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE. I APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT YOU’RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW. I CAN’T IMAGINE IT. I’VE GONE THROUGH A CAMPAIGN AND HAD A LOT OF SMEARS BUT IT PALES IN COMPARISON TO WHAT YOU’VE HAD TO DEAL WITH. I THINK ONE POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FROM THE ONSET, IF WE GO BACK AND REVIEW HOW THIS COMMITTEE PROCESS HAS WORKED, WE’VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO. WE’VE HAD MEMBERS TAKE IT ON THEMSELVES TO RELEASE COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, INSTEAD OF RESPECTING THE PROCESS. WE’VE HAD AN ALLEGATION HELD FOR NEARLY SEVEN WEEKS THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN US PLENTY OF TIME TO INVESTIGATE. AND THEN WHEN WE FINALLY GOT THE INFORMATION, I INVITE EVERYBODY, PARTICULARLY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, THERE SAN INVESTIGATION GOING ON. AND A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED. THERE IS A CHRONOLOGY ON THE WEBSITE THAT SAYS EACH AND EVERY TIME AN ALLEGATION WAS MADE, THE STAFF FOLLOWED UP ON IT. AND SADLY, IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT INSTANCES, THE DEMOCRATS DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE. THEY LISTENED IN ON AT LEAST ONE INTERVIEW WITH YOU AND DIDN’T ASK A SINGLE QUESTION. IF THEY WANTED TO FIND OTHER LEADS AND OTHER THINGS TO DO, WHY NOT ASK, IF YOU’RE REALLY TRYING TO GET TO THE FACTS, AND TRYING TO DO YOUR JOB AND INVESTIGATE? WE’RE INVESTIGATING. IT’S OUR JOB. I THINK IN RESPONSE TO THE RANKING MEMBER’S QUESTION THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH SAID, I’M HERE, YOU’RE ASKING ME QUESTIONS. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? WHEN THE COMMITTEE STAFF I ASSUME DIRECTED BY THE RANKING MEMBER SAYS NO, WE’RE NOT GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH WHEN HE WANTED TO COME IN AND CLEAR HIS GOOD NAME, WHAT ARE YOU REALLY AFTER? YOU MAY NOT BE AFTER THE TRUTH. MAYBE YOU ARE. MAYBE YOU’RE AFTER EXECUTING SOME SORT OF A POLITICAL AGENDA. MAYBE IT’S A MIX OF BOTH. BUT I THINK YOU’VE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY. AND I’M AMAZED THAT AFTER 32 HOURS OF TESTIMONY, 1 1/2 HOURS I SAT IN THIS ROOM, THAT NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS CAME UP, WHEN IT WAS ALL FULLY KNOWN. LAWYERED UP, AS A MATTER OF FACT. I ALSO WANT TO GO BACK TO THE COMMENTS THIS MORNING. I THINK I HEARD, AND WE CAN GO BACK TO THE RECORD IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH ME, I THINK I HEARD DR. FORD SAY THAT SHE WASN’T AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE SAID WE WOULD COME TO CALIFORNIA, WE WOULD MAKE IT CONFIDENTIAL, WE’LL COMPLETELY DEPOSE AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO, I THINK I HEARD HER SAY SHE WASN’T AWARE OF THAT. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER COUNSEL JUST NEGLECTED TO TELL HER, HER COUNSEL. BUT THE FACT IS, THE OFFER WAS OUT THERE, WE WERE MOVING HEAVEN AND EARTH AND MOVING THE SCHEDULE TO GET TO THE TRUTH. WE’RE DOING AN INVESTIGATION. WE’RE DOING OUR LEVEL BEST. I HOPE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WATCHING THIS WILL GO TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY WEBSITE AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CHRONOLOGY, LOOK AT THIS LACK OF INVESTIGATION ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE WHO WANT THE INVESTIGATION. IT DOESN’T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION A WITNESS, EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT WE’VE HAD TO FIND MORE TRUTH, TO FIND MORE FACTS, WE’VE DONE IT. IT’S DOCUMENTED. WE’VE GOT SWORN STATEMENTS. WE’RE DOING OUR JOB. WE’RE DOING THE COMMITTEE WORK. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, I ALSO HAVE TO SAY, I BELIEVE THAT YOU’RE A PART OF — YOU’RE THE FIRST MAJOR TARGET OF A NEW STRATEGY THAT’S DEVELOPED HERE. AND I THINK YOU’RE RIGHT. I THINK IT’S JUST BASICALLY ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. IT’S NOT ADVISE AND CONSENT. IT’S SEARCH AND DESTROY. AND MAYBE ONE OF THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THIS IS ONE OF THE WEBSITES, ONE OF THE GROUPS THAT ARE OUT THERE ATTACKING YOU AND TRYING TO CREATE FODDER AND ALL OF THESE RED HERRINGS HAS ALREADY ACQUIRED A URL FOR THE NEXT JUDGE THEY’RE GOING TO ATTACK. THE URL IS ALREADY HERE. THEY’VE ALREADY PURCHASED IT. THIS IS THE PLAYBOOK. THIS IS THE WAY WE’RE GOING TO RUN THIS COMMITTEE FROM THIS DAY FORWARD? TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WE’VE ALREADY GOT STOP ANOTHER JUDGE WHO HAS BEEN NOMINATED, FROM THE SAME PEOPLE TRYING TO MOBILIZE PEOPLE TO ATTACK YOU. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE HERE WHO MAY SINCERELY HAVE CONCERNS. I WOULD TELL YOU TO POUND THE TABLE WITH YOUR RANKING MEMBER AND THE LEADERSHIP ON YOUR SIDE TO SAY, WHY DIDN’T WE ASK QUESTIONS, WHY DID WE LISTEN IN AND DEFER? WHY DIDN’T WE DO OUR PART IN THE INVESTIGATION WHILE THIS LEADER DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO ACCOMMODATE DR. FORD AND TO RUN DOWN EVERY SINGLE LEAD THAT’S BEEN PRESENTED TO US? WEEKS AFTER IT WAS KNOWN TO THE MINORITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING YOUR CONFIRMATION. I BELIEVE THAT YOU’RE GOING TO BE ON THE BENCH. YOU KNOW, AS SENATOR CORNYN SAID, THESE ARE ALLEGATIONS THAT CAN BE PURSUED TO THE COURTS IF THEY ACTUALLY RISE TO A LEVEL WHERE THEY CAN BE PROSECUTED. AND EVERYBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS DAIS KNOWS THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.>>SENATOR BOOKER.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, YOU DRANK ON WEEKENDS IN HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL, NOT JUST WEEKENDS; IS THAT CORRECT?>>WEEKDAYS?>>YES, SIR.>>I WOULD SAY THAT’S RARE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR?>>I’M TALKING ABOUT THE CALENDARS THAT YOU PROVIDED DURING THESE DATES.>>OH, THAT’S IN THE SUMMER AFTER A FOOTBALL WORKOUT, WHEN WE WENT OVER TO — >>YOU DRANK ON WEEKDAYS, YES OR NO, SIR?>>IN THE SUMMER, WHEN WE WENT OVER TO TIMMY’S HOUSE ON JULY 1st, THAT WOULD INDICATE YES.>>YES. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT JULY 1st REFERENCE TO SKIS, WENT OVER FOR SKIS, THAT’S BREWSKIS, CORRECT? IF I MAY ASK THE NEXT QUESTION, SIR, YOU SAID CLEARLY ON THE RECORD, THAT YOU NEVER IN YOUR LIFE, AFTER DRINKING LEVEL TO THE POINT OF THROWING UP, AND AGAIN, SAID YOU HAD A WEAK STOMACH, YOU SAID YOU NEVER HAD GAPS IN MEMORY, NEVER HAD LOSSES WHATEVER, NEVER HAD FOGGY RECOLLECTION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR, YES OR NO?>>THAT’S WHAT I SAID.>>OKAY. SIR, YOU ALSO SAID THAT THIS PAST TWO WEEKS HAS BEEN A TWO-WEEK EFFORT CALCULATED AND ORCHESTRATED AS A POLITICAL HIT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT DR. FORD’S EFFORTS TO COME FORWARD, TO PREPARE FOR THE VERY DIFFICULT TESTIMONY SHE GAVE TODAY, TO TRAVEL TO WASHINGTON, D.C. AND TELL US ABOUT HER EXPERIENCE, HAVE ALL BEEN PART OF AN ORCHESTRATED POLITICAL HIT AND ARE YOU BASICALLY CALLING HER SOME KIND OF POLITICAL OPERATIVE?>>I’VE SAID MY FAMILY HAS NO ILL WILL TOWARD DR. FORD. SHE WANTED CONFIDENTIALITY. HER CONFIDENTIALITY WAS BLOWN BY THE ACTIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND IT’S — >>SIR, IT’S JUST BE CLEAR. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SENATORS WHO ARE UP HERE AND HOW WE CONDUCTED IT. BUT YOU’RE NOT SAYING IN ANY WAY THAT SHE IS A POLITICAL PAWN, A POLITICAL OPERATIVE, YOU HAVE SYMPATHY FOR HER, SHE IS TALKING ABOUT A SEXUAL ASSAULT; IS THAT CORRECT?>>I SAID ALL ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES. MY FAMILY HAS NO ILL WILL TOWARD HER.>>THANK YOU, SIR. DO YOU WISH THAT SHE NEVER CAME FORWARD?>>SENATOR, I DID NOT DO THIS. THE WITNESS — >>THAT’S NOT MY QUESTION, SIR. COULD YOU TRY TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, SIR? DO YOU WISH SHE NEVER CAME FORWARD?>>THE WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE SAY IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.>>OKAY, SIR. DO YOU WISH SHE WOULD JUST REMAIN SILENT, THEN?>>THE WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE SAY IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. ALL ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.>>EVEN IF IT’S IN THE FINAL DAYS, DAYS BEFORE A VOTE, IF SOMEONE HAS A CREDIBLE ALLEGATION OF EXPERIENCE THAT THEY HELD FOR A LONG TIME, THAT PERSON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO COME FORWARD AND IN FACT SHE SAID IT WAS HER CIVIC DUTY, YOU’RE NOT QUESTIONING HER SENSE OF CIVIC DUTY, ARE YOU?>>SHE DID COME FORWARD.>>I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF POLITICAL ANIMUS, YOU STATED IT VERY CLEARLY, TOWARDS MY COLLEAGUES AND I ON THIS PANEL. WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IS, YOU DO NOT SEE HER SPECIFICALLY AS PART OF AN ORCHESTRATED — SHE IS NOT A POLITICAL PAWN?>>I DON’T KNOW HER. I’VE ALSO SAID WE BEAR NO ILL WILL TOWARD HER. SHE WANTED CONFIDENTIALITY.>>I UNDERSTAND. BUT SHE CAME FORWARD, SHE TOOK GREAT EXTENT, YOUR FAMILY HAS GONE THROUGH HELL, HER FAMILY HAS GONE THROUGH HELL, SHE SAT HERE AND TOLD HER TRUTH. YOU MADE THE ALLEGATION SHE WAS COORDINATING IT.>>I DID NOT SAY THAT.>>YOU SAID — I’M SORRY, SO YOU SAID THAT OTHERS WERE MAKING A COORDINATED — >>COORDINATED BY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM.>>SHE WAS NOT DOING THIS FOR POLITICAL EFFORT IN 2012 WHEN SHE TALKED TO HER THERAPIST ABOUT THIS ATTACK. SHE WAS NOT COORDINATING ABOUT THIS PAINFUL EXPERIENCE WHEN SHE MADE REVELATIONS TO HER HUSBAND. SHE DID NOT COORDINATE IN 2013, 2017, BEFORE YOU WERE NOMINATED, THAT WASN’T COORDINATION.>>ALL THE WITNESSES WOULD WERE THERE SAY IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. MS. KEYSER IS HER LONG TIME FRIEND, SAID SHE NEVER SAW ME AT A PARTY WITH OR WITHOUT DR. FORD.>>AND MS. KEYSER HAS SAID CLEARLY, I’LL QUOTE WHAT SHE SAID, SHE SAID SHE DOES NOT REMEMBER THE NIGHT IN QUESTION. THAT SUPPORTS WHAT YOU SAID. BUT SHE ALSO SAID SHE BELIEVES DR. FORD. AND SO MY COLLEAGUE LINDSEY GRAHAM WHO I RESPECT AND HAVE ADMIRATION TO, HAS BEEN A PARTNER OF MINE, HE SAID VOTING NO WOULD BE LEGITIMIZING THE MOST DESPICABLE THING IN AMERICAN POLITICS. DO YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE DR. FORD ARE LEGITIMIZING DESPICABLE THINGS, THOSE OF US WHO THINK SHE’S A CREDIBLE WITNESS, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE CREDIBLE, DO YOU THINK SOMEHOW WE’RE ENGAGING IN SOMETHING THAT’S DESPICABLE?>>SENATOR, I SAY LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES BEFORE YOU MAKE A BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION. AND LOOK AT THE — >>THAT IS FAIR. I HAVE TEN SECONDS LEFT. YOU CAN ANSWER AFTER I FINISH. THAT IS FAIR. LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SOMEBODY — ONE SIDE BEING DESPICABLE, THE OTHER SIDE NOT. LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES. I’M GOING TO FINISH MY QUESTION. YOU CAN ANSWER. SHE GAVE CREDIBLE, MEANINGFUL TESTIMONY, A WOMAN WHO HAD THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD AND TELL HER TRUTH, SIR, AND THAT’S WHAT I’M JUST ASKING YOU. SHE IS NOT A POLITICAL PAWN. SHE IS NOT ORCHESTRATING. SHE IS NOT PART OF THE CLINTONS’ EFFORTS TO GET SOME KIND OF REVENGE. SHE’S A WOMAN WHO CAME HERE WITH CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO TELL HER TRUTH.>>IS THAT A QUESTION?>>NO, SIR, IT WAS A FINAL STATEMENT.>>ONE THING, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE EVIDENCE IS NOT CORROBORATED AT THE TIME THE WITNESSES WHO WERE THERE SAY IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE BEEN TREATED INCREDIBLY POORLY BY SENATE DEMOCRATS AND BY THE MEDIA. LET ME SAY ALSO I THINK DR. FORD AND HER FAMILY HAVE BEEN TREATED INCREDIBLY POORLY BY SENATE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA. YOU HAVE BOTH SEEN YOUR GOOD NAMES DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD. AND THIS HAS BEEN SADLILY ONE OF THE MOST SHAMEFUL CHAPTERS IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. LET ME SAY TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY, THANK YOU FOR A LIFETIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE. I WILL SAY, WATCHING YOUR MOTHER’S PAINED FACE, HAS BEEN HEART-WRENCHING, AS SHE’S SEEN HER SON’S CHARACTER DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD, AFTER NOT ONLY YOUR LIFETIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE BUT HER LIFETIME OF PUBLIC SERVICE AS WELL. AND I KNOW AS A FATHER, THERE’S BEEN NOTHING MORE PAINFUL TO YOU THAN TALKING TO YOUR DAUGHTERS AND EXPLAINING THESE ATTACKS THAT THE MEDIA IS AIRING. I ALSO BELIEVE, THOUGH, THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE A FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE, THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SET ASIDE THE PARTISAN WARFARE OF WASHINGTON AND LOOK TO SUBSTANCE AND FACTS. AND THAT IS THE CHARGE OF THIS COMMITTEE. NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE DOMINATED THE MEDIA. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT TWO OF THOSE SETS OF ALLEGATIONS HAD SO LITTLE CORROBORATION THAT EVEN “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” WHICH IS NO CONSERVATIVE OUTLET, REFUSED TO REPORT ON THEM BECAUSE THEY COULD FIND NO BASIS FOR THEM. AND IT WAS STRIKING IN THIS ENTIRE HEARING THAT NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THIS COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT TWO SETS OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS. MS. RAMIREZ’S ALLEGATIONS AND THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE CLIENT OF MR. AVENATTI. NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT. I DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE JUST TOO EMBARRASSED. MR. AVENATTI’S ALLEGATIONS WERE SO SCANDALOUS THAT HE OMITTED THOSE SCANDALOUS ACCUSATIONS FROM HER STATEMENT. THIS HEARING HAS FOCUSED, RIGHTLY SO, ON THE ALLEGATIONS DR. FORD PRESENTED. AND LET ME SAY, I THINK THE COMMITTEE DID THE RIGHT THING IN GIVING DR. FORD A FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO TELL HER STORY. THAT’S WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO WHEN THESE ALLEGATIONS BECAME PUBLIC. AND THE COMMITTEE TREATED HER WITH RESPECT, AS WE SHOULD. I DO NOT BELIEVE SENATE DEMOCRATS HAVE TREATED YOU WITH RESPECT. WHAT DO WE KNOW? WE KNOW THAT HER TESTIMONY AND YOUR TESTIMONY ARE IN CONFLICT. A FAIR-MINDED ASSESSOR OF FACTS WOULD LOOK TO WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW WHEN WE HAVE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY. WE KNOW THAT DR. FORD IDENTIFIED THREE FACT WITNESSES WHO SHE SAID OBSERVED WHAT OCCURRED. ALL THREE OF THOSE FACT WITNESSES HAVE STATED ON THE RECORD, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT THEY DO NOT RECALL WHAT SHE IS ALLEGING HAPPENED. THEY HAVE NOT ONLY NOT CORROBORATED HER CHARGES, THEY HAVE EXPLICITLY REFUTED HER CHARGES. THAT’S SIGNIFICANT TO A FAIR-MINDED FACT-FINDER. IN ADDITION, YOU WALKED THROUGH BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE YOUR CALENDARS FROM THE TIME. NOW, I WILL SAY YOU WERE A MUCH MORE ORGANIZED TEENAGER THAN I WAS, AND THAN MANY OF US WERE. BUT IT WAS A COMPELLING RECITATION OF NIGHT BY NIGHT BY NIGHT WHERE YOU WERE IN THE SUMMER OF 1982. THAT IS YET ANOTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS PIECE OF FACT TO ASSESS WHAT HAPPENED. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE ENGAGED IN A PROFOUNDLY UNFAIR PROCESS. THE RANKING MEMBER HAD THESE ALLEGATIONS ON JULY 30th. AND FOR 60 DAYS, THAT WAS 60 DAYS AGO, THE RANKING MEMBER DID NOT REFER IT TO THE FBI FOR AN INVESTIGATION. THE RANKING MEMBER DID NOT REVIEWER IT TO THE FULL COMMITTEE FOR AN INVESTIGATION. THIS COMMITTEE COULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THOSE CLAIMS IN A CONFIDENTIAL WAY THAT RESPECTED DR. FORD’S PRIVACY AND SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY WE HEARD THIS MORNING IS DR. FORD TOLD THIS COMMITTEE THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE TO WHOM SHE GAVE HER LETTER WERE HER ATTORNEYS, THE RANKING MEMBER, AND HER MEMBER OF CONGRESS. AND SHE STATED THAT HER AND HER ATTORNEYS DID NOT RELEASE THE LETTER, WHICH MEANS THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT COULD HAVE RELEASED THAT LETTER WERE EITHER THE RANKING MEMBER AND HER STAFF OR THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF CONGRESS BECAUSE DR. FORD TOLD THIS COMMITTEE THOSE WERE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAD IT. THAT IS NOT A FAIR PROCESS. AND WE SHOULD LOOK TO THE FACTS, NOT ANONYMOUS INNUENDO AND SLANDER.>>MR. CHAIRMAN?>>>MR. CHARJ LET ME BE CLEAR. I DID NOT HIDE DR. FORD’S ALLEGATIONS. I DID NOT LEAK HER STORY. SHE ASKED ME TO HOLD IT CONFIDENTIAL. I KEPT IT CONFIDENTIAL AS SHE ASKED. SHE APPARENTLY WAS SHOCKED BY THE PRESS AND FELT THAT WHAT HAPPENED SHE WAS FORCED TO COME FORWARD. >>TO ARGUE THAT WE WOULD NOT PARTICIPATE BUT NOT TELL US WHAT THEY WERE UP TO IS SOME WHAT DISINGENUOUS. I WAS GIVEN SOME INFORMATION BY A WOMAN WHO WAS VERY MUCH AFRAID WHO ASKED THAT IT BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL. I HELD IT UNTIL SHE DECIDED SHE WOULD COME FORWARD.>>I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR SENATOR. DID YOU TELL US THAT YOUR STAFF DID NOT LEAK IT?>>I DON’T BELIEVE MY STAFF WOULD LEAK IT. I HAVE NOT ASKED THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.>>HOW IN THE WORLD WAS IT GET?>>THE ANSWER IS NO.>>HAVE YOU ASKED YOUR STAFF?>>I JUST DID.>>OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.>>SHE REMINDS ME I ASKED HER BEFORE ABOUT IT.>>WELL, SOMEBODY LEAKED IT IF IT WASN’T YOU.>>I’M TELLING YOU I DID NOT. I WAS ASKED TO KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL AND I WAS CRITICIZED FOR THAT TOO.>>IF THERE IS AN ALLEGATION TO ASSESS THAT ALLEGATION IN A CONFIDENTIAL FORUM RATHER THAN IF HE REQUESTED IS THERE A PROCESS?>>THE ANSWER IS YES. POINTED OUT THE DOCUMENT THAT I PUT OUT TO SHOW OF ALL OF THE THINGS WE HAVE DONE ALONG THE LINES.>>WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE IF THE RANKING MEMBER HAD RAISED THIS ALLEGATION WITH YOU?>>I WOULD HAVE DONE LIKE WE HAVE DONE WITH EVERY FBI REPORT THAT COMES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, BECAUSE MAYBE THE FBI GOT DONE WITH IT THREE MONTHS AGO BUT INFORMATION COMES TO US THEN WE HAVE OUR INVESTIGATORS IN A BIPARTISAN WAY FOLLOW UP ON WHATEVER THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OR THOSE PROBLEMS THAT HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT. SO IT COULD HAVE HEARD WITHOUT DR. FORD’S NAME.>>THAT’S RIGHT EXCEPT FOR ONE OR TWO CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH THE JUDGE DEMOCRATS DIDN’T PARTICIPATE EXCEPT IN THOSE TWO BUT ONE OR TWO THEY DIDN’T ASK ANY QUESTIONS.>>THANK YOU.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I RESPOND? IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HER STORY WAS LEAKED BEFORE THE LETTER BECAME PUBLIC. SHE TESTIFIED SHE HAD SPOKEN TO HER FRIENDS ABOUT IT AND IT’S MOST LIKELY THAT’S HOW THE STORY LEAKED. IT DID NOT LEAK FROM US. I ASSURE YOU THAT.>>I THOUGHT ONLY THE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE AND SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND HER LAWYERS HAD THE LETTER. SO I DON’T THINK HER FRIEND COULD HAVE LEAKED THE LETTER.>>HOW DID THE PRESS KNOW TO CONTACT HER ABOUT HER COMPLAINT?>>APPARENTLY SHE TESTIFIED SHE HAD TALKED TO FRIENDS ABOUT IT. THE PRESS HAD TALKED TO HER.>>JUDGE, SINCE THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE PROBLEMS, THE LEGITIMATE PROBLEMS AND THE CHANGE OF LIFESTYLE THAT DR. FORD HAD, IF YOU WANT SOME TIME TO SAY THE IMPACT ON YOUR FAMILY I WOULD BE GLAD TO HEAR YOU. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT IT’S OKAY.>>I DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT.>>THANK YOU.>>HAVE YOU TAKEN A PROFESSIONALLY ADMINISTERED POLYGRAPH TEST?>>NO. I’LL DO WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE WANTS. OF COURSE THOSE ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL COURT. THEY NOT ADD MESSABLE IN FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE AS YOU KNOW.>>SO YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN ONE?>>NO.>>ALL WOMEN HAVE CALLED FOR AN F INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION. YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED BY FOUR DIFFERENT MEMBERS BY MY COUNT AT LEAST EIGHT TIMES TODAY AND ALSO EARLIER THIS WEEK ON NATIONAL TELEVISION WHETHER YOU WOULD CALL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE AN FBI INVESTIGATION. EACH TIME YOU HAVE DECLINED TO DO SO. YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU DO, THAT THE FBI IS AN AGENCY OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE SWORN AND TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO IN THE COURSE OF CONDUCTING BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS ON NOMINEES FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHERS ARE CHARGED WITH CONDUCTING THOSE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND ABILITY OF DOING THAT. I WILL ASK YOU ONE LAST TIME, ARE YOU WILLING TO ASK THE WHITE HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU?>>I WILL DO WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE WANTS.>>I HAVE NOT HEARD YOU ANSWER A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT’S BEEN ASKED WHICH IS ARE YOU WILLING TO ASK THE WHITE HOUSE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI TO GET TO WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IS THE BOTTOM OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN LEVIED AGAINST YOU?>>THE FBI WOULD GATHER WITNESS STATEMENTS.>>SIR, I DON’T WANT TO DEBATE WITH YOU HOW THEY DO THEIR BUSINESS. I’M JUST ASKING, ARE YOU WILLING TO ASK THE WHITE HOUSE TO CONDUCT SUCH AN INVESTIGATION? AS YOU ARE AWARE THE FBI DID CONDUCT A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION INTO YOU BEFORE WE WERE AWARE OF THESE MOST RECENT ALLEGATIONS. SO ARE YOU WILLING TO ASK THE WHITE HOUSE TO DO THAT? YES OR NO AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON.>>SIX BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS OVER 26 YEARS.>>AS IT RELATES TO THE RECENT ALLEGATIONS.>>THE WITNESS TESTIMONY IS BEFORE YOU — NO WITNESS — >>I WILL TAKE IT AS A NO AND WE CAN MOVE ON. YOU HAVE SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU CHARACTERIZE AS A CONSPIRACY DIRECTED AGAINST YOU. I’LL POINT OUT TO YOU THAT NEIL GOR SUCH WAS NOMINATED. I DID A ROUGH KIND OF ANALYSIS OF SIMILARITIES. YOU BOTH ATTENDED GEORGETOWN PREP. YOU ATTENDED VERY PRESTIGIOUS LAW SCHOOLS. YOU WERE BOTH CIRCUIT JUDGES.>>I EXPLAINED THAT IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, SENATOR. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE HERE, THE CALENDARS. LOOK AT THE WITNESS STATEMENTS. LOOK AT HER STATEMENT.>>AND THEN DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE FRIENDS WITH SOME WOMEN AND TREE OTHER WOMEN BADLY?>>OF COURSE BUT THE POINT I’VE BEEN EMPHASIZING IF YOU GO BACK TO AGE 14 FOR ME YOU WILL FIND PEOPLE AND NOT JUST PEOPLE, LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO I HAVE BEEN FRIENDS WITH, WOMEN AND WHO TALKED ABOUT MY FRIENDSHIPS WITH THEM. IT IS A CONSISTENT PATTERN ALL THE WAY THROUGH. 65 WOMEN SIGNED A LETTER TO SUPPORT ME BECAUSE THEY KNOW ME AND WE GREW UP TOGETHER AND TALKED ON THE PHONE TOGETHER AND WENT TO EVENTS TOGETHER. THAT IS WHO I AM. WHAT THEY HAVE SAID, THE WOMEN THERE, LOOK — I HAVE SENT MORE WOMEN LAW CLERKS THAN ANY OTHER FEDERAL JUDGE IN THE COUNTRY.>>I ONLY HAVE A FEW SECONDS LEFT. DID YOU WATCH DR. FORD’S TESTIMONY?>>I DID NOT.>>THANK YOU.>>I PLANNED TO BUT I DID NOT. I WAS PREPARING MINE.>>OUR LAST FIVE MINUTES WILL BE SENATOR FLAKE ONE MINUTE AND SENATOR KENNEDY FOUR MINUTES.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. WHEN DR. FORD CAME FORWARD WITH HER ACCOUNT I IMMEDIATELY SAID SHE SHOULD BE HEARD AND ASKED THE CHAIRMAN TO DELAY THE VOTE THAT WE HAD SCHEDULED. THE CHAIRMAN DID. I APPRECIATE THAT. SHE CAME AT GREAT DIFFICULTY FOR HER AND OFFERED COMPELLING TESTIMONY. YOU HAVE COME AND DONE THE SAME. I AM SORRY FOR WHAT’S HAPPENED TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. I’M SORRY FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HERS. IT IS NOT A GOOD PROCESS BUT IT’S ALL WE HAVE GOT. I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN THE END WE ARE 21 VERY IMPERFECT SENATORS TRYING TO DO OUR BEST TO PROVIDE ADVICE AND CONSENT. IN THE END THERE’S LIKELY TO BE AS MUCH DOUBT GOING OUT OF THIS ROOM TODAY. AS WE MAKE DECISIONS GOING FORWARD I HOPE PEOPLE WILL RECOGNIZE THAT. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU SENATOR FLAKE. NOW SENATOR KENNEDY.>>I’M SORRY, JUDGE, FOR WHAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE BEEN THROUGH, AND I’M SORRY FOR WHAT DR. FORD AND HER FAMILY HAVE BEEN THROUGH. IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?>>I DO. I WILL GIVE YOU A LAST OPPORTUNITY RIGHT HERE RIGHT FROM FRONT OF GOD AND COUNTRY. I WANT YOU TO LOOK ME IN THE EYE. ARE DR. FORD’S ALLEGATIONS TRUE?>>THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE AS TO ME. I HAVE NOT QUESTIONS THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AT SOME POINT IN HER LIFE AT SOME POINT SOME PLACE BUT AS FOR ME I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS, NEVER DONE THIS TO HER OR ANYONE ELSE. I HAVE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT WHAT I WAS DOING THE SUMMER OF 1982 BUT I’M TELLING YOU I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS TO ANYONE INCLUDING HER.>>ARE MS. RAMIREZ’S ALLEGATIONS TRUE?>>THEY ARE NOT. NONE OF THE WITNESSES IN THE ROOM SUPPORT THAT. IF THAT HAD HAPPENED THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TALK OF CAMPUS IN OUR FRESHMAN DORM. THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK SHE WAS CALLING OTHER CLASSMATES SEEKING TO — WELL, I WILL NOT CHARACTERIZE IT BUT CALLING CLASSMATES LAST WEEK AND SEEMED VERY — I’LL STOP THERE BUT IT’S NOT TRUE. IT’S NOT TRUE.>>ARE MS.SWETNICK’S ALLEGATIONS ABOUT YOU TRUE?>>THOSE ARE NOT TRUE. NEVER MET HER. DON’T KNOW WHO SHE IS. THERE IS A LETTER RELEASED WITHIN TWO HOURS OF THAT BREAKING YESTERDAY FROM I THINK 60 PEOPLE WHO KNEW ME IN HIGH SCHOOL, MEN AND WOMEN, WHO SAID IN THEIR WORDS IT IS NONSENSE, THE WHOLE THING. TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.>>NONE OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE?>>CORRECT.>>NO DOUBT IN YOUR MIND?>>ZERO. I’M 100% CERTAIN.>>NOT A SCINTILLA?>>IN THE A SCINTILLA.>>YOU SWEAR TO GOD?>>I SWEAR TO GOD.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HEARING ADJOURNED.>>THERE YOU HAVE IT. IT IS A QUARTER TO 7:00 RIGHT NOW. THIS IS A DAY THAT WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY IN WASHINGTON AND BEYOND. WE STARTED THE DAY WITH DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD THAT WENT HIGH SCHOOL IN THE SAME AREA AS KAVANAUGH. SHE GAVE ALMOST FOUR HOURS OF TESTIMONY SHE SAYS AT THE HAND OF BRETT KAVANAUGH. HE GAVE ACHB IMPRESSION OF HIMSELF. NOW IT IS UP TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LARGER SENATE AS TO WHAT HAPPENS NOW TO THIS NOMINATION AND AS WE SPEAK, THERE IS STILL A VOTE SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:30. OUR CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT REPORTS REPUBLICANS WILL MEET TONIGHT TO HAVE SOME KIND OF MEETING. WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE TO WRAP IT UP HERE.>>IT WAS POLITICALLY AS BAD AS I FEARED IT WAS GOING TO TURN OUT. YOU THIS IRRECONCILABLE POSITION THAT THE COUNTRY IS IN. WE’LL LET THEM DECIDE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. THERE IS SO MUCH — THERE WILL BE A LOT OF REPERCUSSIONS.>>ALL OF THE SENATORS. ALL OF REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO MEET AND DECIDE AND DO THEIR TEMPERATURE AND DO AHEAD COUNT. IT WILL DETERMINE WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW.>>HEARTFELT TESTIMONIALS ON BOTH SIDES. NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER ACCUSATION. I THINK THAT WILL BE THE HOOK ON WHICH WAIVERING REPUBLICANS WILL HANG THEIR HATS TO VOTE YES FOR HIM.>>IT COULD NOT BE MORE HIGH STAKES. IT IS THE HIGHEST IN THE LAND. THE SEAT IN QUESTION HERE WAS ONCE POSSESSED BY KENNEDY. IT WAS A SWING SEAT. THE STAKES HERE ARE THAT IT SHIFTS THE BALANCE OF THE COURT. INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO BOTH SIDES.

38 thoughts on “Watch Live: Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford Testify At Senate Hearing | NBC News

  1. This stupid woman Christine Ford, received a bunch of money from miserable liberals to lie and muddy up the water for a good man whom his fault was that he was not liberal. I am glad it didn’t workout for her and her lousy boy friend and adviser Chuck Schumer. It’s normal for liberals to play childish tricks and cry wolf, but it’s getting boring guys, any thing else in your mistakable bag of tricks?

  2. This stupid woman Christine Ford, received a bunch of money from miserable liberals to lie and muddy up the water for a good man whom his fault was that he was not liberal. I am glad it didn’t workout for her and her lousy boy friend and adviser Chuck Schumer. It’s normal for liberals to play childish tricks and cry wolf, but it’s getting boring guys, any thing else in your mistakable bag of tricks?

  3. Ford Phony = bogus, false, fake, fraudulent, spurious; More
    counterfeit, forged, feigned;
    pseudo, imitation, sham, man-made, mock, ersatz, synthetic, artificial;
    simulated, pretended, contrived, affected, insincere, inauthentic;

  4. I believe something happened with her and Kavanaugh and I believe that she believes her version of what happened to be true but there's plenty of justifiable reasons for an outsider to doubt it to be factual. That part about the other guy jumping on the bed three times and finally enough to knock them both off the bed just physically to make her great escape seems highly unlikely which lends one to believe she has at some point in her memory altered it, if that is true then it leaves wide open for how else her memory recrafted the event. Listening to her tell it I was thinking that she was grafting elements of the movie The Accused into her version, the laughing. the music, the prep boy, the hand over the mouth, the other people around etc., jesus, if she added there was a pinball machine at the house I would have probably laughed.

  5. The democrats are so lucky I wasn’t Kavanaugh because I’d something for them. They would be watching their backs until the end of time.* The situation was created because they, democrats, hate Trump. Ford is probably in cahoots, if not, paid, by the democrats to proceed forward.ALLEGEDLY!

  6. This is a decoy about something way bigger, that being said I would look at the why now? As a woman that have been through certain indignities, I would not have waited 30 years to go after the person. So What is this really about?

  7. After trauma I couldn't even remember who was at my own wedding. I ended up having a mental breakdown and now suffer from PTSD. The whole political theme made cases of sexual assault victims as crazy or not worthy. I almost lost my life and no one wanted to help me. This farther depressed me. Thank God I found help for myself.

  8. The people want a compromise about the way the way they are about the give away about the pre about prep or the way of doing?

  9. The point is about the Bret Kavanagh case is that the accuser is being accused. The story about a family that it is mutual and rare but the way it come's along?

  10. It would be nice one day for this guy to excused from the supreme Court for not telling the truth during the hearing, that lindsey Graham sure is loud.

  11. Everyone who wants any kind of publicity has been in the Media for a scandal or two. I would like to know what Brett Kavanagh does or how he helps contribute to the Courts Judges in all Cities and States. Since Every other Law Official and overseer in the USA visits one another in other Cities and States including Judges. If the Judges do not reprimand Someone in a Court of Law for playing with a Family's life over what a Clerk can do over a Judge. What kind of Court is that. I would also like to know what Brett Kavanaugh would say to People who makes it appear it's the Person who was wronged fault. We need immediate relief when we are involved in scandals that we do not have time for or relate to on June 29, 2019. This kind of date is a moving forward date. This kind of year. Is a better year where the education level for Everyone is obvious even if not perfect. No One can possibly say that it's a normal procedure to have a Clerk state that they can override a Judge and do not need a Judge's signature. Furthermore, I am not the one that wants to experience the test of what a Clerk can do over a Judge. Therefore, my Constitutional rights were violated. There should not be any more debates about the facts. Give me what I am due and stay out my home. No investigation or lie lasts that long in 2019. There is enough technology to move something that crazed and obvious back into reality very quickly. It's called legal advice, legal Counsels, Attorneys, and they have all been contacted. I wonder how Brett Kavanagh and other Judges view these kinds of battles were innocent People are dragged in the middle of juvenile issues with Staff at a Court of Law. I listen to all these People who are sworn in to protect our rights. As soon as our rights are violated. No One knows anything and try to avoid correcting the errors that they committed immediately. The promises we receive and the nothings in return is a huge problem in the USA.

  12. The truth is we don't know who is right and who is lying, but in the end we must go on the evidence of which unfortunately there is none.

  13. The Kavanaugh nomination process shows the Democrat Party is just a cover for the deep state. Pure evil. If you think this is all about political disagreement, you are NEVER going to get to the truth of the matter. That's why the mainstream media uses the word "conspiracy theories" with such distain. They want to shame you from searching for the truth.

  14. My cyber stalkers like to make people look alike. It is so out of hand with all this live web to attack an cut humans to make them look older with manmade wrinkles. Inside victims eyes, nose, ears an mouth
    Macon, ga

  15. I hope all you dumbocrats see how much bs this was. Corey Booker himself had sexual assault charges on him but why is that not known? Because laws apply to only rebublicans not liberal socialist Democrats

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *