CBS Miami Live Stream


IN A DIFFICULT PLACE.>>SHE DOES SEEM TO BE TAKING US SOME PLACE AND I AM STILL NOT CLEAR WHERE SHE IS TRYING TO TAKE US.>> I THINK SHE IS JUST PICKING AT DIFFERENT DETAILS OF CREDIBILITY. I DON’T THINK S SHE CAN GET TO N END POINT.>>IF YOU ARE WAITING FOR GRAND A HA MOMENT –>>IT IS NOT GOING TO HAM.>>I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND. AS WE WATCH SENATORS START TO TRICKLE BACK INTO THE ROOM HERE, SO WE HAVE — LET’S JUST SET UP THE TIMELINE HERE NOW FOR EVERYONE. WE HAVE TO HEAR STILL FROM HOW MANY SENATORS? AND THAT IS REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC.>>WE KNOW THAT MITCHELL, THERE ARE THREE MORE ROUNDS OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS THAT SHE WILL BE SPEAKING FOR SO THAT’S A TOTAL OF TEN MINUTES OF QUESTIONING THAT SHE HAS BEFORE HER, AND THEN ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE, I DON’T KNOW WHETHER IT IS THREE OR FOUR. BUT IT IS ROUGHLY THE EQUIVALENT, SO TWO HOURS AND 40 MINUTES SO PAR OF CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD WE ARE LOOKING AT ANOTHER 40 TO “60 MINUTES”, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.>>AND THEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BREAK, BECAUSE SHE DOESN’T WANT TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH BRETT KAVANAUGH BUT THEN HE WOULD BE QUESTIONED FOR, ONE WOULD THINK AROUND THE SAME TIME SO WE STARTED AT 10:00 O’CLOCK THIS MORNING, IF CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S ENDS 2:00ISH THAT’S THE TIME FRAME WE ARE LOOKING AT AS THE HAITIAN REMAINS CAPTIVATED BY ALL THAT WE ARE SEEING HERE.>>WELL, SHE STARTED OUT BY SAYING SHE IS CERTIFIED BY BEING HERE TODAY AND SHE LOOKSER TIED, A TOUCHING MOMENT WHEN SENATOR BLUMENTHAL WAS ENCOURAGING HER AND THANKING HER FOR COMING FORWARD, SHE REALLY LOOKED LIKE SHE WANTED TO CRY AT THAT MOMENT AND I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT SENATOR BLUMENTHAL BROUGHT UP HIS COLLEAGUE LINDSEY GRAHAM TO PICK SOME WRITINGS OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM WHO TALKED ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR VICTIMS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK UP.>>YES. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, JAN, IF YOU ARE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S LEGAL TEAM AND YOU ARE WATCHING THIS, WHAT ARE YOU TAKING AWAY FROM IT AS YOU TRY TO CONSTRUCT THE WAY WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO WHEN HE COMES UNDER QUESTIONING?>>I THINK THAT HE IS KEEPING HIS FOCUS. AND IF HE IS WATCHING THIS, I MEAN, I AM NOT SO SURE. I THINK HE IS KEEPING HIS FOCUS AND HE WROTE THE STATEMENT HIMSELF. IT WAS NOT VETTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. IT IS HIS WORDS, AND I THINK THAT THEY DON’T WANT HIM TO BE INFLUENCED BY ANYTHING THAT THEY SAW FROM HER THIS MORNING, BECAUSE IT IS NOW GOING TO BE WHEN IT IS HIS TURN, HE HAS TO SOMEHOW COME ACROSS AS EQUALLY CREDIBLE, AND IF HE IS SPEAKING FROM THE HEART AND THIS IS WHAT HE MEANS THAN IS WHAT HE FEELS THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE CAN CONNECT WITH. YOU KNOW, WE SAW SENATOR — AND KLOBUCHAR MAKE THE POINT THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW FOR THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS NO LONGER A JOB INTERVIEW FOR BRETT KAVANAUGH. THIS IS — THIS IS NOT ABOUT A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT. IT IS ABOUT A LIFE.>>THIS IS HIS INTEGRITY, HIS NAME, THE SAME THING THAT CLARENCE THOMAS SAID. HE WORKED HIS ENTIRE LIFE TO BUILD THIS NAME, HIS CHARACTER, HIS INTEGRITY, HIS APPEAL, HIS CHILDREN. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT NOW. SO IN MANY WAYS WHEN KAVANAUGH BEGINS TO SPEAK THIS IS MUCH MORE FOR HIM THAN WHETHER HE IS GOING TO SERVE ON THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.>>DR. FORD SAID SHE FELT IT WAS HER CIVIC DUTY.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>AND SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE HERE AND IF HE HADN’T MADE IT INTO THE FINAL — SHE RIDE TO GET IT BEFORE HE GOT ON THE SHORT LIST.>>AND THAT WAS EXCELLENT TOO.>>>>– TO HER CREDIBILITY.>>WHAT YOU PUT ON TO THE EMOTIONAL RESONANCE OF HIM. BECAUSE PEOPLE HAD AN EMOTIONAL REACTION TO HER SUFFERING, THE PATH OF CONNECTING TO HER, SO WHAT DOES BRETT KAVANAUGH BRING TO THE TABLE THAT HAS THAT SAME — THAT ACTS AS THE SAME EMOTION, WHAT JAN IS SAYING, HE IS FEELING A PERSONAL ATTACK ON HIS HONOR.>>IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT A JOB POSITION HERE, AND PRESUMABLY THAT WILL BE HIS EFFORT TO TRY TO COUNTER THE EMOTIONAL, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN EMOTIONALLY SO FAR.>>AND WHAT HE HAS BEEN ADVISED TO DO IS FORGET ABOUT THE FOX INTERVIEW, FORGET ABOUT BEING CAREFUL, YOU JUST HAVE TO TALK. WHAT IS IT LIKE IS WHAT ARE YOU FEELING? SPEAK FROM THE HEART.>>AND IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLED BEING AS HONEST AS THEY, EVASIVE, AS THEY APPEAR TO BE AT LEAST, SO IN OTHER WORDS THEY COULD BOTH WHAT COULD BE TESTIMS CONFIRMED. HE HAS TO GO INTO THAT COURT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS NOW GONE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF THE FOX INTERVIEW, BUT HAS ALSO HAD TO BE PART OF THESE EVENTS, TO A COURT OF A GROUP OF EIGHT WHO ARE NOTORIOUSLY PRIVATE. THEY DO NOT WANT CAMERAS IN THEIR COURTROOM. OUT THERE ANY THE — OUT THERE IN THE IS CONFIRMED, YOU WILL APOLOGIZE. HE STARTED THE HEARING WITH AN APOLOGY, GUYS, TO BOTH SIDES, TO SAY, THEY BOTH HAD A TERRIBLE COUPLE OF WEEKS. THEY HAVE BOTH RECEIVED DEATH THREATS. THEY BOTH HAVE RECEIVED — THEY BOTH HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF TERRIBLE THINGS, AND THAT WITH O FAR, SO FOOD BUT THERE DID SEEM TO BE A MOMENT BETWEEN SENATOR GRASSLEY AND SENATOR KLOBUCHAR TOO.>>NO, THE QUESTION OF TO ALLOW THE POLYGRAPH –>>THE TENSION — THE TENSION BETWEEN THE MOMENT.>>YOU GOT WHAT YOU GOT INVOLVED BY PUTTING OUT THERE THAT WE WANTED TO CALL THE POLYGRAPHER TO THE, CALL UNDERLYING DATA OF THE POLYGRAPH AND HAVE IT EXPLAINED WOULD BE IF YOU HAD THE POLYGRAPHER. YOU CAN’T JUST THROW THAT DATA AT THE SENATORS.>>SENATOR MITCHELL TRIED TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT THAT WITH THE POLYGRAPH EXPERT LIKE WHY DID THEY DO IT IN A HOTEL ROOM? WHY DID IT HAPPEN THERE IS BECAUSE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT FLYING, AND SHE SAID, WELL I LEFT MY GRANDMOTHER’S FUNERAL, SO EVEN THAT SEEMED LIKE SHE WAS TRYING TO LAND SOMETHING THERE BUT THAT DIDN’T GO VERY FAR.>>AND SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN FORç MITCHELL’S QUESTIONING, RICKY, IN YOUR ESTIMATION WHEN IT IS FIVE MINUTES AND THEN STOP? AND MOMENTUM. YOU CANNOT GET TO A POINT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GET TO AND THEN HAVE IT BROKEN UP BY FIVE MINUTES OF SOMEONE ELSE AND COME BACK TO IT AS IF YOU WEREN’T INTERRUPTED. IT JUST DOESN’T WORK. THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENED –. AND YOU GET MONUMENT TUM WHEN YOU ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES –>>VERY, VERY TOUGH. WE WILL, WATCH WHAT CAME OUT OF HARRIS AND SEE WHAT MOMENT UP THE IS. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I DO THINK TOO ABOUT CIVILITY AND THE BEGINNING WITH THE REALLY THOUGHTFUL POSITION OF SENATOR GRASSLEY AT THE BEGINNING THAT WHEN BRETT KAVANAUGH COMES TO TESTIFY, THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF THESE MONEYS OF — WHERE PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN AT EACH OTHER, BUT IF THE DEMOCRATS GO AFTER KAVA KAVANAUGH IN A WAY TT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE RESPECTFUL, THAT IS A MISTAKE.>>LET’S GO TO NORAH. SHE IS STILL ON CAPITOL HILL. NORAH.>>HI. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TOO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE ARE ACTUALLY SIX SENATORS LEFT, THREE REPUBLICANS AND THREE DEMOCRATS, AND, IN FACT, IT IS PRETTY INTERESTING WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHO ACTUALLY IS COMING UP, TO STAY TUNED TO THE NEXT PART OF THIS HEARING, NANCY CORDES IS HERE WITH ME, THREE REALLY INTERESTING DEMOCRATIC SENATORS. MAZIE MY RONO WHO SAID MEN NEED TO STEP UP OR SHUT UP. SHE HAS BEEN VERY OUTSPOKEN ABOUT WOMEN BEING BELIEVED AND THEN YOU HAVE KAMALA HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.>>LIKELY 2020 CONTENDER FOR PRESIDENT.>>ALONG WITH COREY BOOKER OF NEW JERSEY WHO IS ALSO YET TO QUESTION MS. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND HAVE THE SMART CUT, SPARTACUS MOMENT AT THE CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH. AND SO WHERE THEY GO WITH THEIR QUESTIONS IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO STEP BACK AND REMEMBER AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE IS NOT A LEGAL PROCESS, IT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS. AND NO MATTER HOW PREVIOUSABLE CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD IS, IF REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THEIR ONCE IN A LIFETIME CHANCE TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT, THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE.>>THEY ARE GOING TO IGNORE THAT.>>ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT HERE, IS WHETHER SHE IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, WHETHER THIS HAS BEEN A CON JOB, AS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT IN ANOTHER ALLEGATION, WHETHER THIS IS A SHAM, A SMEAR BY DEMOCRATIC LEANING GROUP. SHE SEEMED TO PUT THAT TO REST TODAY, DR. FORD.>>RIGHTS. AND SOMETHING CAME UP THAT INTERESTINGLY HASN’T COME UP A LOT IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IS WHICH SHE BEGAN TO COME FORWARD AND REACH OUT TO THE “WASHINGTON POST” AND HER CONGRESSWOMAN BEFORE KAVANAUGH WAS EVEN NOMINATED, WHEN HE WAS ON A SHORT LIST OF OTHER CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS AND JUDGES. AND HAD SHE BEEN POLITICALLY MOTIVATED TO BRING DOWN A REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WHY DID SHE REPORT WHAT HAD HAPPENED ALLEGEDLY BETWEEN HERSELF AND KAVANAUGH LAW BEFORE HE WAS EVER NOMINATED? WHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER CONSERVATIVE JUDGES WHO WERE ON THE LIST AS WELL.>>THIS FALLS UNDER THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHALLENGED JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THE FIRST IS THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. THE SECOND ONE IS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY, ONE THAT SHE PROBABLY PROBABLY WAS ASSAULTED OR COULD HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED BUT IT WASN’T JUDGE KAVANAUGH. YOU SAW THE DEMOCRATS REALLY BOLSTER, TRY AND BOLSTER HER CREDIBILITY TODAY MULTIPLE TIMES ASKING HER IF SHE ABSOLUTELY IS SURE SHE ANSWERED THE QUESTION, I AM 100 PERCENT SURE THAT IT WAS BRETT KAVANAUGH WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ME. AND THEN INTERESTINGLY, SHE SPOKE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHY SHE REMEMBERS IT AND THERE WAS THAT LINE AS ALL OF YOU REMEMBER, SHE SAID INDELIBLE IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS IS THE LAUGHTER, THE UPROARS YOU LAUGHTER BETWEEN THE TWO AND THEY ARE HAVING FUN AT MY EXPENSE. .. THINKING ABOUT WHAT SHE DESCRIBED, NOT THAT THEY JUST ASSAULTED HER, BUT THEN THEY LAUGHED AT HER. AND MOCKED HER UP RECORDS YOU. AND THAT TO ME WAS ONE OF THE MOST CHILLING MOMENTS OF THE MORNING .. WHEN SHE SAID THAT. ALSO ANOTHER TIME IN THE TESTIMONY, SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING WELL HOW DO YOU KNOW IT IS HIM, SENATOR FEINSTEIN ASKED? AND SHE SAID, THE SAME WAY I KNOW I AM TALKING TO YOU. BASIC MEMORY FUNCTIONS SHE SAID, THE LEVEL OF NORAH EPINEPHRINE AND EPINEPHRINE IN THE BRAIN THAT CODES MEMORY THE BRAIN. SHE IS TRYING TO SPECIFICALLY PLANT IN PEOPLE’S MIND THERE HAD BEEN A PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO THE TRAUMA THAT PLANTED OR IMPRESENTED ON HER MEMORY THIS THING THAT HAPPENED 36 YEARS AGO .. BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY THAT HAS BEEN EVERYONE ASKED, HOW CAN YOU REMEMBER SOMETHING SO LONG AGO, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE WERE DRINKING? AND PATRICK LEAHY OF VERMONT, WHO IS A LONG TIME DEMOCRAT WAS ON THE COMMITTEE BACK WHEN ANITA HILL TESTIFIED AND MADE A VERY INTERESTING POINT AT THE START OF THIS HEARING. HE SAID, ANY PRACTICED LIAR CAN COME UP WITH A STORY IN WHICH EVERY DETAIL IS RECALLED, BUT IN THE CASE OF NORMAL HUMAN MEMORY, THERE ARE GOING TO BE THINGS THAT YOU REMEMBER AND THINGS THAT YOU DON’T REMEMBER AND THE FACT THAT SHE IS HONEST ABOUT WHAT SHE RECALLS AND WHAT■ç á@Q DOESN’T MAKES HER MORE BELIEVABLE IN HIS EYES.>>AND HERE IS THAT EXCHANGE WITH SENATOR LEAHY AS YOU POINT OUT WHO WAS BACK ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SOME 27 YEARS AGO. HERE IS HIM SPEAKING TO THAT VERY ISSUE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN, AND THE LAUGHTER THAT WAS INVOLVED.>>I APOLOGIZE, THE CONTROLLER HAS SAID THAT WAS READY, BUT I THINK I DESCRIBED IT ACCURATELY, THAT THERE WAS THAT INDELIBLE MOMENT THAT SEARED IN HER MIND, THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE WAS MOCKING YOU IN THAT MOMENT. AS YOU POINT OUT WE HAVE THREE MORE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS THAT WILL ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AS WELL AS 15 MINUTES BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.>>CORRECT. AND WE KNOW THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS LEFT HIS HOME. SHE ON HIS WAY HERE. THEY WILL, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A SHORT BREAK ONCE SHE HAS FINISHED. SHE HAS SAID SHE DOESN’T WANT TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM AS JUDGE KAVANAUGH SO SHE WILL DEPART. HE WILL TAKE THAT HOT SEAT AND WHILE SHE HAS ASKED FOR PERIODIC BREAKS, THIS IS ALL VERY NEW TO HER, SHE IS PRETTY COMFORTABLE IN THIS SETTING. WE SAW THAT IN HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING. HE SAT THERE ALL DAY LONG. HE SAID I DON’T NEED A BREAK AND SO WE EXPECT HIS TESTIMONY WILL PROBABLY GO STRAIGHT THROUGH AND WILL GO THROUGH ALL OF THE 21 SENATORS AND THE QUESTION IS, WILL REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO DEFER TO RACHEL MITCHELL, THE PROSECUTOR OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS COMFORT LEVEL WITH HIM, THE OPTICS ARE DIFFERENT, THEY RESPECT GRILLING A POTENTIAL FEMALE VICTIM, WILL THEY WANT TO CONVERSE WITH HIM THEMSELVES?>>YES. THE VERY QUESTION IN TALKING TO BOTH DEPENDENT AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS THIS MORNING, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TOLD ME, THEY ARE GOING■ç■ç TO GET GRAPHIC. THISS GOING TO BE A QUESTION OF HIS CHARACTER AND HIS CREDIBILITY. THEY ARE GOING TO ASK HIM WHETHER HE WAS STUMBLING DRUNK ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS NOT ONLY IN HIGH SCHOOL BUT IN COLLEGE. THEY ARE GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT THE THINGS THAT HE WROTE ON HIS YEARBOOK PAGE WHEN HE WAS AN 18-YEAR-OLD SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL ABOUT THE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES HE WAS ENGAGED IN. THEY ARE GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT HIS SEXUAL HISTORY, WHETHER HE WAS TRUTHFUL WHEN HE IN THAT FOX NEWS INTERVIEW SAID THAT HE WAS A VIRGIN FOR A WHILE AFTER — THE DEMOCRATS SAY THEY ARE GOING TO GO THERE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS AFTERNOON AND THEN A REPUBLICAN SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID IF THEY DO THAT I AM GOING TO GET IN THERE — THE FIREWORKS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN THIS AFTERNOON.>>I WILL GUARANTEE YOU WILL SEE A FIGHT BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ABOUT WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THIS THIS HEARING ACCUSATIONS BY THE TWO OTHER WOMEN WHO HAVE COME FORWARD, DEBORAH RAMIREZ AND MS. SWEAT IN NICK. THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO, THE DEMOCRATS WILL WANT TO ESTABLISH A PATTERN AND TALK ABOUT THOSE ACCUSATIONS.>>I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE, JAN, YOU REALLY MENTIONED BEFORE ABOUT HOW HE IS NOT JUST FIGHTING FOR THIS JOB, SE FIGHTING NOW FOR HIS INTEGRITY AS A PERSON. AND YOU HAVE DONE SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING ANALYSIS ON THIS, HAVING COVERED JESSICA’S — WHO DESPITE HAPPENED WAS ULTIMATELY CONFIRMED BUT I KNOW YOU BELIEVE THIS ACTUALLY AFFECTED HIS JURISPRUDENCE AND HOW HE HAS RULED ON THE COURT AND HIS ENTIRE LIFE, RIGHT?>>WELL, AND CERTAINLY BEFORE IN THE REPORTING I DID WHEN I WAS WRITING MY BOOK, BEFORE THE KIND OF STRATEGY WAS UNROLLED THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO BLOCK THOMAS AND HAVE THE HILL HEARING, THERE WERE VOICES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT SAID, IF WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO DO THIS, IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS TO CLARENCE THOMAS WE HAVE TO WIN, BECAUSE IF HE GETS ON THE COURT AFTER WHAT HE HAS BEEN PUT THROUGH, HE WILL — WE HAVE LOST HIM FOREVER, YOU KNOW, HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN OPEN TO CERTAIN ARGUMENTS, HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN, BUT — AND THEY MADE — THEY TOOK THAT GAMBLE ANYWAY AND OF COURSE HE HAS BECOME PROBABLY THE MOST CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT. HE DOESN’T REALLY COMPROMISE HIS OWN VIEWS AT ALL. HE DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE MEDIA THINKS AT ALL. HE DOES NOT CARE WHAT PEOPLE WRITE ABOUT HIP. HE BELIEVES HE TOLD HIS STORY. HE WAS 100 PERCENT FALSELY ACCUSED AND THE MEDIA DIDN’T LISTEN, THE DEMOCRATS DIDN’T LISTEN, THEY SUBJECTED HIM TO WHAT HE BELIEVES WAS A TRAVESTY. HE DESCRIBED IT AS HE DIED. THE PERSON HE WAS BEFORE DIED THE DAY HE FOUND OUT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS.>>IS THAT THE TACTIC YOU THINK KAVANAUGH SHOULD TAKE OR IS TAKING?>>I THINK WHAT KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN ADVISED AND I THINK IN TERMS OF JUST HUMAN NATURE IT HAS TO BE ACCURATE THAT YOU CAN’T BE SOMEONE ELSE. AND BRETT KAVANAUGH IS NOT CLARENCE THOMAS, BRETT KAVANAUGH GREW UP OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON, D.C. HE WENT TO AN ELITE BOARDING SCHOOL, HE WENT — CLARENCE THOMAS GREW UP IN POVERTY, INTEGRATING ALL WHITE SCHOOLS, HE FOUGHT AND SCRATCHED HIS WAY TO WHERE HE WAS GOING TO BE, NOT THAT KAVANAUGH DIDN’T WORK HARD FOR IT, VERY DIFFERENT BACKGROUND, VERY DIFFERENT PEOPLE, SO IF HE COMES OUT ANGRY AND REALLY PUSHING BACK ON DEMOCRATS AS TO MASS DID, IT IS REMARKABLE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE TRANSCRIPTS HOW HE WAS LASHING OUT AT THE SENATE FOR WHAT THEY WERE DOING TO A LIFE HE HAD BUILT AND WAS PROUD OF. IF KAVANAUGH IT MAY NOT RING TRUE, HE HAS TO BE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND HOWEVER THIS IS AFFECTING HIM SOVEREIGN FAR WHAT HE HAS SAID, JAN, THIS IS CRAZY TOWN, CRAY AT THIS SAME, CRAZY TOWN THIS IS A TOTAL SMEAR CAMPAIGN. THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE GOT SO FAR.>>AND ALSO HE SAID IT WAS LIKE TWILIGHT ZONE LIKE WHAT IS THIS? SO AND WHATEVER RESPONSE WE SEE FROM KAVANAUGH, IT BETTER BE A SINCERE ONE. IF HE EXPECTS PEOPLE TO KIND OF CONNECT WITH WHAT HE IS SAYING.>>THIS IS A POLITICAL QUESTION AT THE END OF THE DAY, BY THE TIME THIS DAY IS OVER, WHETHER REPUBLICANS ARE MOVING TO CONFIRM KAVANAUGH IN ANY WAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN SOMETHING TO HANG ON TO APRESSURE TO SAY I AM GOING TO CONTINUE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION OR HAS A ROAD BLOCK BEEN TURNED UP FOR A HAND ALLFUL OF REPUBLICANS, MAYBE ONE OR TWO THAT KEEPS THEM FROM GOING IN THE DIRECTION THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY GOING. SO IT IS ONE-STORY LINE THAT EITHER SAYS I CAN CONTINUE GOING IN THAT DIRECTION OR ONE, WHY I WENT OFF THAT PATH. AND I THINK THE OTHER STORYLINE YOU WILL SEE EMERGING THERE RACHEL MITCHELL’S QUESTIONING POTENTIALLY HERE THIS AFTERNOON IS THAT THERE IS MORE FOCUS ON THE TIMING OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ACCUSATION, I THINK, THE HOW AND THE WHY VERSUS THE ACTUAL ASSAULT OF WHAT HAPPENED BACK THEN. YOU SEE, I MEAN RACHEL MITCHELL IS BASICALLY FINISHED WITH THE QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MEAN 82 OR EARLY EIGHTIES AND NOW IT IS TALKING ABOUT THE TYPING AND THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN JULY AND TODAY.>>I WAS REALLY SURPRISED BY THAT. I THOUGHT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW LONG — HOW LONG DID SHE THINK THE ASSAULT WAS. AND THAT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THEY ARE NOT — THIS IS PURELY MISTAKEN IDENTITY. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TRY TO SAY, LIKE, WELL, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY DIDN’T HAPPEN THE WAY YOU REMEMBER IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WAS JUST HORSEPLAY. YOU KNOW, IF HE WAS REALLY TRYING TO RAPE YOU, HE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE GOTTEN INTO A SWIMSUIT, WOULDN’T HAVE LET YOU GO. YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN NO QUESTIONS ALONG THE LINES OF HOW LONG WAS THIS ASSAULT? COULD, IF SOMEONE WERE TRYING TO RAPE YOU, WHY DIDN’T THEY? NONE OF THAT SO IT SUGGESTS TO ME IF WE DON’T HEAR THAT, THIS IS PURELY GOING TO BE THIS WASN’T BRETT KAVANAUGH. THIS MAY HAVE HAPPENED EXACTLY LIKE YOU DESCRIBED, BUT IT WASN’T BRETT KAVANAUGH.>>AND THAT IS GOING TO BE THE DEFENSE.>>THEY WILL JUST ASSERT THAT AND NOT TRY TO BUILD A FACT PATTERN.>>>>WE HAVE THREE MORE QUESTIONERS TO GO.>>THAT IS TRUE.>>A FACT PATTERN TO SAY THAT SOMEBODY ELSE OTHER THAN KAVANAUGH?>>RIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE IF THERE WAS MUSIC UPSTAIRS AND PLAYER AND VERY QUIET DOWNSTAIRS WHERE ONE OF YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS IS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE IS MUSIC AND IT FALLS OFFER AND YOU RUN OUT OF THE ROOM WHY WOULDN’T YOUR FRIEND REMEMBER THAT? SO THERE WILL BE MOMENTS I MEAN WE SAW THAT ESTABLISHED THIS MORNING, THAT THERE WAS NO MUSIC DOWNSTAIRS, BUT THERE WAS LOUD MUSIC –. HOW FAR CAN YOU GET WITH IT IS NOT BRETT KAVANAUGH WHEN SOMEONE SAYS I AM 100 PERCENT CERTAIN, JUST ASSERT AS I AM –>>THAT’S WHERE THE THERAPIST NOTES COME IN, THAT’S WHERE ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SHE WAS ASKING THIS MORNING ABOUT A –. SHE HAS ALWAYS IDENTIFIED BRETT KAVANAUGH.>>NOT BY NAME, ACCORDING TO HER HUSBAND, BUT IN THE THERAPIST NOTES, HIS NAME IS NOT MENTIONED AND THEN SHE HAS NOT PROVIDED — AGAIN THESE ARE THINGS THAT KIND OF CAME OUT THIS MORNING –>>SHE TOLD — A JUDGE, HE SAID, SHE SAID HE WAS A PROMINENT JUDGE.>>NOT FOR 30 YEARS.>>SHE ALSO IS ALWAYS ASSUMED IT WAS BRETT KAVANAUGH, BUT HASN’T SAID IT WAS BRETT KAVANAUGH. SHE IS NOT GOING TO WAVER FROM THAT. IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND JUST DEALING WITH HER MEMORY. WE DON’T KNOW NOT ONLY HOW LONG THE ASSAULT MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT THE LIGHTING WAS. WE DON’T KNOW A LOT OF FACTORS ABOUT HOW SHE OBSERVED THEM AND SHE — IF YOU DECIDE IN, AND MEMORY EXPERTS CAN MEMORY EXPERTS CAN TELL YOU, IF YOU DECIDE SOMEONE DID SOMETHING AND THEN YOU REMEMBER — WHAT YOU REMEMBER IS YOUR MEMORY, NOT FACTS.>>IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, APOLOGIES, BUT CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS BEEN SEATED NOW, ONCE AGAIN AS SHE CONTINUES WHAT WOULD BE I GUESS PART 3 OF THE FIRST PART OF THIS HEARING BEFORE WE HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH, YOU SEE A BOTTLE OF COKE NEXT TO HER. SHE ASKED FOR THAT CAFFEINE. WHEN SHE FIRST STARTED –>>WE ARE HEARING NOW FROM CHUCK GRASSLEY, SO LET’S LISTEN IN. I THINK –>>TAKE AS LONG AS YOU NEED. 20 SECONDS. THANK YOU.>>I AM READY.>>>>SENATOR HIRONO.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN IS IT YOUR INTENT TO CREED ALL REPUBLICAN SENATORS TIME TO YOUR PROSECUTOR? RATHER THAN THEY 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 EMPIRICAL INFORMATION LIKE 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. WE ALL KNOW, DR. FORD’S MEMORY OF THE ASSAULT IS VERY CLEAR. DR. FORD, THE REPUBLICAN’S PROSECUTOR ASKED YOU ALL KIND 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, IS THERE A POLITICAL MOTIVATION FOR YOUR COMING FORWARD WITH YOUR ACCOUNT OF THE ASSAULT BY BRETT KAVANAUGH?>>0 NO. AND I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE, AGAIN I WAS TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION TO YOU WHILE THERE WERE STILL A LIST OF OTHER — THANK YOU — WHAT LOOKED LIKE EQUALLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.>>AND YET THEY ARE NOT HERE TO TESTIFY.>>DR. FORD, I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE THANKED YOU FOR COMING FORWARD TODAY AND I 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 THE 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 WAYS, BY COMING FORWARD YOU HAVE PUT CHARACTER INTO THIS NOMINATION AND INTO AMERICAN LIFE AND RIGHTLY SO. WE SHOULD BE MADE TO FACE THE QUESTION OF WHO IT IS WE ARE PUTTING IN POSITIONS OF POWER AND DECISION MAKING IN THIS COUNTRY. WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE QUESTION 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 MEAN, 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 INSULTS WOMEN AND SEPARATES CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS. HE TAKES BASIC HEALTHCARE PROTECTIONS FROM THOSE WHO NEED THEM MOST. HE NOMINATES A STANCE BEHIND A MAN WHO STANDS CREDIBLY 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, POSTS THAT 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.>>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 THERE A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO END SEXUAL AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THE LETTER STATES, QUOTE THIS LETTER, THIS WOMAN 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 TO DRIVE VICTIMS INTO THE SHADOWS AND FURTHER EMBOLDENING ABUSERS. ONCE AGAIN, DR. FORD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS A MOMENT FOR OUR COUNTRY. MAHALO.>>SENATOR — MS. MITCHELL FOR SENATOR CRAPO.>>GOOD AFTERNOON.>>WHEN WE LEFT OFFER, WE WERE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH AND I BELIEVE YOU SAY IT HASN’T BEEN PAID FOR YET; IS THAT CORRECT?>>LET ME PUT AN END TO THIS MYSTERY. HER LAWYERS HAVE PAID FOR HER FOLLOW PHOTOGRAPH.>>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 AM 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 AM SURE I HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO CATCH UP ON ALL OF THAT LATER.>>I GET THAT YOU HAVE 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 COSTS FOR YOUR POLYGRAPH?>>I AM AWARE THAT THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL GOFUNDME SITES THAT I HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MANAGE THOSE BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER HAD ONE.>>I AM SORRY. A WHAT?>>GOFUNDME.>>GOFUNDME SITES THAT HAVE RAISED MONEY, PRIMARILY FOR SECURITY DETAIL, SO I AM NOT EVEN QUITE SURE HOW TO COLLECT THAT MONEY AND HOW TO DISTRIBUTE IT YET. I HA1EN’T BEEN ABLE TO FOCUS ON THAT.>>OKAY. IN YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING, YOU STATED THAT SENATOR FEINSTEIN SENT YOU A LETTER ON AUGUST 31ST OF THIS YEAR; IS THAT RIGHT?>>LET ME SEE.>>I SENT HER A LETTER ON JULY 30TH AND I DON’T HAVE THE DATE. YOU WOULD, I WOULD HAVE TO PULL UP MY E-MAIL TO FIND OUT THE DATE OF HER E-MAIL TO ME, THIS IS RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARINGS THAT SHE WAS GOING TO MAINTAIN MY CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE LETTER.>>SAY THAT AGAIN. IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARINGS THAT WHAT.>>I CAN LOOK IT UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE EXACT DATE. I CAN PULL IT UP ON MY E-MAIL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE –>>COUNSEL –>>I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID.>>THAT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER TO A — IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS. YOU HAVE IT.>>THANK YOU, COUNCIL — 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 THE 7TH 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 SOMEONE 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 AM NOT SURE.>>I AM NOT SURE HOW THOSE EXCHANGES WENT, BUT I DIDN’T SPEAK TO ANYONE.>>OKAY. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY DID?>>I THINK SO. IT IS POSSIBLE.>>I AM GUESSING IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. I DON’T KNOW.>>OKAY. EXCUSE ME. YOU ASKED HER NOT TO GUESS AND NOW YOU ARE 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?>>WE WILL HAVE THE CHAIR RULE ON THAT.>>>>I DON’T UNDERSTAND.>>>>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 HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT YOU DID NOT THINK THAT THAT LETTER THAT YOU WROTE ON JULY 30TH WAS GOING TO BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC; IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>AND IS IT TRUE THAT YOU DID NOT AUTHORIZE IT TO BE RELEASED AT ANY TIME?>>CORRECT.>>OKAY. BESIDES YOUR ATTORNEYS, DID YOU PROVIDE — YOU PROVIDED THAT LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN; IS THAT CORRECT?>>I PROVIDED HER A LETTER ON JULY 30TH.>>AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE JULY 30TH LETTER. AND YOU PROVIDED THAT LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, CORRECT?>>IS THAT A YES?>>YES.>>AND YOU PROVIDED THE LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE ESHOO TO DELIVER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN?>>YES.>>BESIDES THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS, REPRESENTATIVE ES ESHOO 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 — 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 ALTHOUGH 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, IT IS REALLY MORE THAN THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS TALK ABOUT CIVIC DUTY, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TALKS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY MENING YOUR LIVES AND FORTUNES AND SACRED HONOR AND ANYBODY WHO 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 HAVE HAD TO MOVE OUT OF YOUR FAMILY HOME, TO SOME EXPENSE, I WOULD IMAGINE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. YOU HAVE HAD TO ENGAGE SECURITY TO SOME EXPENSE. YOU HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH INCREDIBLE CHANCE — CHALLENGES AND WHAT IS AMAZING AND I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN THANK YOU YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE AND BRAVERY IN COMING FORWARD ALL TO HELP US DEAL WITH ONE OF THE HOST IMPORTANT OBLIGATIONS A SENATOR HAS, TO ADVISE AND CONSENT ON ONE OF THE BRANCHES OF OUR GOVERNMENT THE HIGHEST COURT 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 IS 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.>>ASSAULT 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.>>YES. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A VERY SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITY.>>THAT’S GOOD TO HEAR. I WANTED TO USE A DIFFERENT WORD FOR YOUR COURAGE, BECAUSE THIS IS MORE AS MUCH THAT IS HEARING IS ABOUT A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, THE REALITY 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 AROUND THE COUNTRY, SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS THAT THERE ARE LITERALLY HUNDREDS■ç■ç 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 IS NOTHING SHORT OF HEROIC, BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE DOING FOR OUR NATION RIGHT NOW BESIDES GIVING TESTIMONY TO, GERMANE TO ONE OF THE MOST STEAK CREDIT OBLIGATIONS OF OUR OFFICE, IF YOU 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 ON TO THIS, SPEAKING TRUTH IS NOTHING SHORT OF HEROIC. BUT TO THE MATTER AT HAND, 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 HAVE ASKED FOR THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE A FULL AIRING FROM CORROBORATING WITNESSES TO BE CALLED, YOU HAVE SUBMITTED TO AN INTHR INTRUSIVE 0 POLYGRAPH . 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 JUST WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE FOR THE RECORD SEVEN LETTERS FROM — LEGAL FROM MORMON WOMEN FOR ETHICAL GOVERNMENT. YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THIS COUNTRY, THE INTERNATIONAL UNIONS OF 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 ACCESS TO GRIND BUT ARE COMING FORWARD WITH COURAGE AND WITH HEART TO SPEAK THEIR TRUTH AND TRY TO END THE SCOURGE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO FORD ORDERED. SENATOR TILLIS, MS. MITCHELL FOR SENATOR TILLIS.>>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 WHO MIGHT KNOW SOMEBODY, AND I ENDED UP INTERVIEWING SEVERAL LAW FIRMS FROM THE DC AREA.>>AND DID ANYBODY BESIDES FRIENDS AND APPEAL REFER YOU TO ANY ATTORNEYS?>>I THINK THAT THE STAFF OF DIANNE 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 THE 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 ON — BY STAFF MEMBERS FROM THIS COMMITTEE?>>ABSOLUTELY.>>OKAY. BESIDES FUNDS FROM GOFUNDME 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?>>MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF MY TEAM IS WORKING ON A PRO BONO BASIS, BUT I DON’T KNOW THE EXACT DETAILS AND THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY IN PALO ALTO THAT HAVE THE MEANS TO CONTRIBUTE 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 PRO BOW KNOW. 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.>>UH-HUH.>>WHO IS THIS PERSON?>>I THINK THAT CASE WAS MR. WE LAND 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 AM NOT TRYING TO BLAME ANYBODY. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHO ARE THE, WHO IS THE COMMON FRIEND THAT YOU AND THE FEND.>>THE PERSON THAT MR. WAYLAND WAS TRYING TO SAY LOOKED LIKE MR. KAVANAUGH.>>OKAY. HOW LONG DID YOU KNOW THIS PERSON?>>MAYBE FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS WE SOCIALIZED BUT HE ALSO WAS A MEMBER OF THE SAME COUNTRY CLUB AND I KNEW HIS YOUNGER BROTHER AS WELL.>>OKAY. 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 WAS 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■ç■ç THE ONLY COMMON LINK BETWEEN YOU AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH?>>HE IS THE ONLY ONE I WOULD BE ABLE TO NAME RIGHT NOW THAT I WOULD LIKE TO NOT NAME BUT YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN. AND THAT 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.>>OKAY. 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, POWER TO FIVE PARTIES THAT MY FRIENDS AND I ATTENDED THAT WERE ATTENDED ALSO 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 WILL GO TO SENATOR HARRIS. ANSWER THAT QUESTION.>>THERE WAS NO SEXUAL YOU’LL ACCOUNTS AT THOSE EVENTS.>>YES. OR ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE.>>MAYBE WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL WHEN THERE IS MORE TIME. I FEEL A TIME PRESSURE. I WILL SW-R IN FURTHER DETAIL IF YOU WANT ME. TO.>>I’M SORRY. GO AHEAD AND FINISH ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.>>OKAY.>>DID YOU JUST WANT ME TO DESCRIBE THE PARTIES.>>CAN WE MOVE THIS TO THE NEXT ROUND, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>ANSWER THE QUESTION.>>I’M AMIE TO DESCRIBE THEM OR HAPPY TO NOT. WHATEVER YOU WANT.>>MAYBE THIS WILL –>>YOUR PREFERENCE.>>MAYBE THIS WILL CUT TO THE CHASE. MY QUESTION IS WAS THERE ANY OTHER SEXUAL BEHAVIOR INAPPROPRIATE BY MR. KAVANAUGH TOWARDS YOU AT THESE OTHER FUNCTIONS?>>NO.>>DR. FORD, FIRST OF ALSO 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, JUDICI JEW JUDICIAL COMO COME FORWARD — LET ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE HEARINGS KNOW ABOUT IT. YOU SAID, 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. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURAGE AND I BELIEVE YOU. I BELIEVE YOU. I BELIEVE MANY AMERICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY BELIEVE YOU. WHAT I FIND STRIKING ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS YOU REMEMBER KEY SEEING DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU. YOU TOLD YOUR HUSBAND AND THERAPIST TWO OF THE MOST INTIMATE OF YOUR CONFIDANTES. YOU TOLD THEM YEARS ABOUT THIS ASSAULT. YOU HAVE SHARED YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH MULTIPLE FRIENDS, YEARS AFTER THAT, AND BEFORE THESE HEARINGS EVER STARTED. I KNOW HAVING PERSONALLY PROSECUTE SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES AND CHILD CUSTODY ASSAULT CASES. TRAMA, FEAR AND A SHAME OF SEQUENCES ALMOST ALWAYS CAUSE SURVIVORS TO DELAY REPORTED IF THEY EVER REPORT AT ALL. POLICE RECOGNIZE. THAT PROSECUTORS RECOGNIZE. THAT MEDICAL SKPHEPBT AL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS RECOGNIZE. THAT THE NOTES FROM YOUR THERAPY SESSIONES WERE CREATED LONG BEFORE THE NOMINATION AND COOBERATE 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. FOR EXPERT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS NOT. MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU HAVE CALLED FOR AN INDEPENDENT FBI INVESTIGATION KNOT FACTS. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS NOT. AND WE OWE THAT. WE OWE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. LET’S TALK ABOUT WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID TODAY. THE FIRST BI DOES NOT REACH CONCLUSIONS. THE FBI INVESTIGATES. IT INTERVIEWS WITNESSES, GATHERED FACTS AND 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 SAID THESE CLAIMS WERE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY HAVING THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION OF IT’S VALIDITY. THE FBI FULFILLED THE TAOUTY AND ISSUED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND COULD OF BEEN DONE HERE THIS. COULD OF BEEN INVESTIGATED BACK IN JULY, CONFIDENTIALLY. THIS COULD OF BEEN INVESTIGATED IN THE PAST ELEVEN DAYS SINCE YOU CAME FORWARD. YET THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. THE FBI COULD OF INTERVIEWED MARK JUDGE, PATRICK SMITH, LELAN KAISER, YOU AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH ON THOSE ISSUES. THE FBI COULD OF EXAMINED VARIOUS MAPS PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTOR STANDING IN FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATORS FOR THIS COMMITTEE. THEY COULD OF GATHERED FACTS ABOUT THE MUSIC, CONVERSATION AND THE GATHERING OF THAT EVENING. THAT’S STANDARD PROCEDURE IN A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE. THE MANUAL SIGNED OFF BY MS. MITCHELL. THE MANUAL THAT IS POSTED ON THE MERICOPA ATTORNEY’S WEBSITE AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE AND BEST PRACTICES FOR WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES HIGHLIGHT THE DETAILS OF WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THE NEED OF A OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATION OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE “EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION REQUIRES MULTI DISCIPLINARY TEAM OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, VICTIM AD ROW INDICATES — CRIMINALISTS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMBERS.” IT STRESSED THE IMPORTANT OF OUTSIDE WITNESS INFORMATION. YOU HAVE BRAVELY COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE BRAVELY COME FORWARD. I WANT TO THANK YOU. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NOTHING 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. I BELIEVE HISTORY WILL SHOW YOU ARE A TRUE MOE FILE AND COURAGE AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. I THANK YOU.>>SENATOR KENNEDY, NOW PROCEEDS MS. MITCHELL.>>DR. FORD, WE ARE ALMOST DONE. IN JUST A COUPLE OF CLEAN UP QUESTIONS FIRST OF ALL. WHICH OF YOUR TWO LAWYERS DID SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S OFFICE RECOMMEND. THE KATZ FIRM.>>I’M SORRY.>>THE KATZ FIRM.>>OKAY. WHEN YOU DID LEAVE THAT NIGHT DID LILAND KAISER FOLLOW-UP WITH YOU AND SAY WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU?>>I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH HER RECENTLY.>>I’M TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT DAY.>>NO. SHE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE EVENT. SHE WAS DOWNSTAIRS DURING THE EVENT. I DID NOT SHARE IT WITH HER.>>HAVE YOU BEEN IN, ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE THREE PEOPLE AT THE PARTY BESIDES YOURSELF AND BRET KAVANAUGH HAVE GIVEN STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY TO THE COMMITTEE.>>YES.>>ARE A SAEUR WHAT THE STATEMENTS SAY.>>YES.>>ARE YOU A SAEUR THEY SAY THEY HAVE NO MEMORY OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH A PARTY.>>YES.>>DO YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR MOTIVE TO ASCIBE TO LEILAND.>>WE COULD TAKE ONE OF THOSE AT A TIME. LEILAND HAS SIGNIFICANT HEALTH CHALLENGES. I’M HAPPY SHE’S FOCUSING ON HERSELF AND GETTING THE HEALTH TREATMENT SHE NEEDS. SHE LET ME KNOW SHE NEEDED HER LAWYER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS FOR HER. SHE TEXTED ME RIGHT AFTERWARDS WITH AN APOLOGY. GOOD WISHES AND ETCETERA, I’M GLAD SHE IS TAKING CARE OF HERSELF. I DON’T EXPECT THAT P.J. AND LEILAND WOULD REMEMBER THIS EVENING. IT WAS A UNREMARKABLE PARTY. IT WASN’T A MORE NOTORIOUS PARTY. BECAUSE NOTHING REMARKABLE HAPPENED TO THEM THAT EVENING. THEY WERE DOWNSTAIRS. 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’S THE PAPER SHE WAS HOLDING OUT. ARE YOU AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN IMPRESS TODAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT NOR EPINEPHRINE AND CORTISOL. WHAT WE CALL THE NEURO BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF TRAUMA. HAVE YOU ALSO EDUCATING YOURSELF ON THE BEST WAY TO GET TO MEMORY AND TRUTH IN TERMS OF INTER VOWING 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.>>WOULD YOU BELIEVE ME THAT THERE IS NO STUDY SAYING THIS IN FIVE MINUTE INCREMENTS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO. THAT.>>WE COULD STIPULATE TO. THAT.>>THANK YOU, COUNCIL.>>AGREED.>>DID YOU KNOW THAT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS TO HAVE A TRAINED INTERVIEWER TALK TO YOU ONE-ON-ONE N A PRIVATE SETTING, AND TO LET YOU DO THE TALKING. LET YOU DO A NARRATIVE.>>DID YOU KNOW THAT.>>THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.>>IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. DOESN’T IT.>>YES.>>TO FOLLOW-UP AND FILL-IN DETAILS AND ASK FOR CLAI CLARIFICATION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE AS WELL.>>YES.>>THE RESEARCH IS DONE BY A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CHILD ABUSE FIELD. TWO OF THE MORE PROMINENT IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT FIELD GEISEL AND FISHER HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT. IT’S CALLED A COGNITIVE INTERVIEW. THIS IS NOT A COGNITIVE INTERVIEW. HAS ANYONE FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S OFFICE OR REPRESENTATIVE ESHOO’S OFFICE SUGGESTED A FORENSIC INTERVIEW?>>NO.>>INSTEAD YOU WERE ADVICED TO GET AN ATTORNEY AND ACHE A POLYGRAPH.>>MANY PEOPLE AD VOICED ME TO GET AN ATTORNEY. ONCE I HAD AN ATTORNEY WE DISCUSSED USING THE POLYGRAPH.>>INSTEAD OF SUBMITTING TO A INTERVIEW IN CALIFORNIA WE’RE HAVING A HEARING HERE TODAY IN FIVE MINUTE INCREMENTS. IS THAT RIGHT?>>I AGREE THAT WAS AGREED UPON WITH THE COLLEGIATE GROUP HERE.>>I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.>>I HAVE SOMETHING TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD. WE RECEIVED THREE STATEMENTS UNDER PENALTY OF FELONY FROM THREE WITNESSES IDENTIFIED BY DR. FORD. JUDGE LEILAND KAISER AND PATRICK SMITH. THEY DENIED KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCIDENT OR GATHERING DESCRIBED BY DR. FORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION I WILL ENTER INTO 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 WILL GET TO YOU AS SOON AS THE RANKING MEMBER.>>MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE THREE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO BOTH YOU AND THE RANKING MEMBER. I WOULD ASK THEY BE ENTERED KNOT RECORD.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>IT’S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. JUDGE IS NOT WILLING TO COME FORWARD TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. AS A RESULT WE CAN NOT TEST HIS MEMBER ROW OR MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF HIS THOUGHTFULNESS OR CHARACTER. I THINK THAT IS WHY THE FAILURE TO CALL HIM TO TESTIFY IS SO VERY CRITICAL. I HOPE THE MAJORITY WOULD RECONSIDER THAT.>>SENATOR, BLOOM EN THAT YOU B.>>I ASK IF YOU HAVE SWORN STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD WE HAVE THOSE INDIVIDUALS COME BEFORE US TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATEMENTS. I THINK THE NATURE OF THIS PROCEEDING IS COMPROMISED IF WE LACK A OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS ABOUT A SWORN STATEMENT THAT IS PART OF THE RECORD. FRANKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD I OBJECT TO THEM BEING ENTERED KNOT RECORD.>>OKAY.>>MR. CHAIRMAN.>>SENATOR.>>I HAVE A NUMBER OF LETTERS 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 CIVIL HOW MAN RIGHTS, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN AND SO FORTH.>>– SENATOR KENNEDY.>>MR. SENATOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CHAIRMAN. THE STATEMENTS THAT SENATOR BLUMENTHAL TALKED ABOUT THOSE ARE STATEMENTS BY OUR MAJORITY STAFF.>>THEY’RE ALREADY IN THE RECORD.>>YES, SIR. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN BY A MAJORITY STAFF.>>YES.>>DID MINORITY STAFF PARTICIPATE.>>NO.>>WHY NOT?>>YOU HAVE TO ASK THEM.>>WERE THEY INSTRUCTED NOT TO PARTICIPATE.>>NO.>>THEY CHOSE NOT TOO.>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>IF I MAY MR. CHAIRMAN –>>IF I COULD I STILL THINK I HAVE THE FLOOR, IN CHAIRMAN.>>LET’S LISTEN TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN.>>SENATOR, CAN WE BE EXCUSED. THE WITNESS IS QUITE TIRED.>>IF YOU WOULD WAIT JUST A MINUTE I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DR.>>WE WILL CONTINUE THIS MEETING. WE CAN — LET’S JUST BE NICE TO HER. DR. FORD, DR. FORD, I CAN ONLY SPEAK AS ONE OF 21 SENATORS HERE. 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 WILL ADJOURN FOR HA — NOT ADJOURN. RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES.>>THERE IT IS A 45 MINUTE BREAK CALLED BY CHAIRMAN CHUCK GRASSILY AS WE CONTINUE TO WATCH THE KAVANAUGH HEARINGS GOING FROM 10:00 O’CLOCK THIS MORNING. THEY EXPECT TO GO ALL DAY. YOU ARE WATCHING CBS CONTINUING COVERAGE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY HEARINGS IN THE 15th HOUR. DR. FORD HAS STATED BRET KAVANAUGH SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER AS TEENAGERS. WE WILL HEAR FROM HIM LATER TO DAY.>>– COVERED BY CBS THIS MORNING. NORA O’DONNELL IS ON CAPITOL HILL AS WELL AND ED O’KEEFE IS OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING ROOM. RICKY, TO YOU FIRST. WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF?>>I THINK THAT THE LAST BIT OF EXAMINATION BY RACHEL MILLER THE HIRED PROSECUTOR — RACHEL MITCHELL, EXCUSE ME, ON BE HALF OF THE REPUBLICANS WAS POWERFUL IN RACING A POSSIBLE DOUBT ABOUT THE WITNESS’ TESTIMONY. IF SHE HAD GOT HE TO THAT A LOT SOONER SHE COULD OF DEVELOPED IT. WHAT SHE WAS BASICALLY WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THAT IT’S ALL ABOUT MEMBER ROW. THAT IF YOU PERHAPS HAD GONE TO A FORENSIC EXAMINER AND DONE IT THE RIGHT WAY THAT PERHAPS YOU WOULD OF REMEMBERED IT CORRECTLY AND THE PERSON WOULD NOT OF BEEN BRET KAVANAUGH. THAT MAY OF BEEN WAY TOO LITTLE WAY TOO LATE.>>IN OTHER WORDS SHE WAS SAYING IF A PROPER FORENSIC — THE WAY SHE PREFERS TO DO IT, RACHEL MITCHELL. IF IT WAS DONE THAT WAY OPPOSED TO THE POLYGRAPH TESTS, POSSIBLY SHE COULD OF REMEMBERED EVEN MORE.>>SHE COULD OF REMEMBERED MORE. PERHAPS SHE COULD OF REMEMBERED IT DIFFERENTLY. THE ONE THING IT DOESN’T SHAKE IS THIS. YOU HAVE A WOMAN WHO IS A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE IT WAS BRET KAVANAUGH. SHE KNEW BRET KAVANAUGH. IT’S NOT LIKE SHE PICKED A STRANGER OUT OF A MINEUP THAT SHE NEVER MET. THIS IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO BE IN A POSITION OF THE PROSECUTOR TO TRY TO UNDER MIND THE CREDIBILITY. SO YOU’RE BACK TO WHERE JANUARY WAS, IF YOU’RE NOT UNDER MINING CREDIBILITY AND SHOWING SHE IS LYING OR THAT SHE IS MISTAKEN. I THINK LYING IS WAY OFF THE TABLE. SHE’S NOT LYING. SHE IS MISTAKEN, THEN THERE IS ANOTHER GOAL. THE POLITICAL GOAL THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE TIMING THAT MAYBE SOMETHING USED BY THE POLITICIANS AFTER THIS.>>HOW ARE YOU IS SUPPOSE TO REMEMBER SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY IF YOU KNOW THE PERSON THAT ASSAULTED YOU.>>THAT’S WHAT I SAY.>>I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE’S GETTING AT.>>THAT SOMETIMES WE IMPRINT A MEMORY THAT WE REMEMBER THE MEMBER ROW AND NOT THE FACT. THE PROBLEM IS –>>SHE NOW HIM.>>QUICKLY TO BOTH OF YOU. APOLOGIES. JOHN –>>THIS IS A TOUGH SETTING FOR ANY WITNESS. I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT IT WENT, AS WELL AS YOU COULD EXPECT. I THINK ESSENTIALLY WE HEARD A ARTICULATION OF WHAT WE ALREADY SAW IN HER LETTER.>>DO YOU BELIEVE HER.>>YOU HANDLE THE VOTE COUNTS AROUND HERE. BASED ON WHAT WAS SAID THIS MORNING BY HER, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE YET WHAT 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 FARE PROCESS TO BOTH DR. FORD AND TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH.>>DID ANY –>>DID YOU PERSONALLY FIND HER TO BE CREDIBLE.>>I FOUND NO REASON TO FIND HER NOT CREDIBLE. OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE GAPS IN HER STORY. WE KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAUMATIZED CAN HAVE THOSE SORT OF GAPS. AGAIN REGRET SHE FINDS HERSELF IN THIS CIRCUS LIKE SETTING. HER LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN WAS RELEASED TO THE PRESS AGAINST HER KNOWLEDGE AND WITHOUT HER AUTHORIZATION. SHE WASN’T TOLD BY HER LAWYERS THAT SHE COULD OF BEEN INTERVIEWED IN A PRIVATE SETTING BY INVESTIGATORS ON BOTH SIDES. THEY COULD OF GOTTEN HER TESTIMONY THAT WAY. I THOUGHT SHE DID JUST FINE.>>ARE YOU PLEASED WITH RACHEL MITCHELL’S QUESTIONING?>>I THINK SHE DID EXACTLY WHAT I HOPED TO DO. IN A DIGNIFIED AND PROFESSIONAL WAY ASK QUESTIONS TO GET INFORMATION. I WOULD SAY MOST OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY OUR FRIENDS ACROSS THE ISLE STRUCK ME AS MORE POLITICAL. THEY DIDN’T REALLY ASK QUESTIONS. THEY WEREN’T SEEKING INFORMATION. WE’RE INTERESTED IN GETTING TO THE TRUTH HERE. UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS A HYPER POLITICIZE THE ENVIRONMENT. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.>>SENATOR GRAHAM, I WILL ASK YOU. TOWARDS THE END MS. MITCHELL WAS QUESTIONING THE POLITICAL MOTIVES OF DR. FORD’S ATTORNEYS. RAISING QUESTIONS –>>– I AM REALLY UPSET THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS IN AUGUST AND NEVER TOLD ANYBODY. I AM REALLY UPSET IF DIANE FEINSTEIN THOUGHT THIS WAS A KREPD I BELIEVE ALLEGATION SHE WOULDN’T DO MR. JUDGE KAVANAUGH THE SERVICE OF SAYING I HAVE THIS. WHAT IS YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY. TURNING THIS TO THE COMMIT OWE TO 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. WE WERE WILLING TO GO TO CALIFORNIA. WE WERE TOLD SHE COULDN’T FLY. I AM TOLD WE’RE 40 SOMETHING DAYS FROM THE ELECTION. THEIR GOAL, NOT MS. FORD’S GOAL, IS TO LAY THIS PAST THE MIDTERMS TO WIN THE SENATE AND NEVER ALLOW TRUMP TO FILL THE SEE THE. I BELIEVE THAT MORE THAN EVER. I DON’T KNOW WHO PAID FOR THE POLYGRAPH. SOMEONE DID. I’M MORE CONVINCED 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. I HAVE BEEN A J A PROSECUTOR AND A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. THIS IS WHAT I WILL TELL YOU. WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE IT HAPPENED. I STILL DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENED. SHE SAYS SHE’S A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN IT DID HAPPEN. I BET JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL SAY I’M A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE I DIDN’T DO IT. THE PEOPLE NAMED SAY MS. FORD DOESN’T KNOW WHAT SHE’S TALKING ABOUT. I AM LEFT WITH A NOISE LADY WHO CAME FORWARD TO TELL A HARD STORY THAT IS COOBERATED. GOD HELP ANYONE ELSE NOMINATED. — YOU COULDN’T GET A SEARCH WARRANT OR ARREST WARRANT. YOU DON’T KNOW THE LOCATION, THE TIME. YOU DON’T HAVE A CORROBORATION. AS TO MS. MITCHELL I HOPED SHE WOULD HAVE DONE. THAT I HEARD SPE SPEECHS FROM POLITICIANS WHO ARE POLITICIZING THIS. NOT MS. FORD BUT CERTAINLY THEM MAKING A BUNCH OF SPEECHES. MS. MITCHELL METHOD I CANNILY WENT THROUGH THE FACTS OF THAT DAY, LEADING UP TO THAT DAY, AND HOW WE FIND OURSELVES HERE. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW I’M PLEASED WHAT I SAW.>>DO YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE ON FRIDAY.>>GIVEN YOUR BACK GROUND, DID YOU FIND DR. FORD TO BE CREDIBLE.>>I DIDN’T FIND HER ALLEGATIONS TO BE COOBERATED AGAINST MR. KAVANAUGH. I DON’T DOUBT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO HEFRPLT SHE CAN’T TELL ME THE HOUSE, CITY, THE MONTH OF THE YEAR. HE SAYS I DIDN’T DO IT. HERE IS WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE A EMOTIONAL ACCUSATION AND EMOTIONAL DENIAL. YOU USE THE RULE OF LAW. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE TO THE PERSON ACCUSED. YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM TIME AND LOCATION. YOU ASK IF THERE IS ANYONE TO VERIFY THIS. WHEN YOU GIVE NAMES THEY GO THE OTHER WAY. HAVING SAID THAT, WHAT DO I THINK OF MS. FORD? CONFIDENT, ACCOMPLISHED LADY. SOMETHING HAPPENED. I DON’T KNOW. WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO SAY IT WAS BRET KAVANAUGH. I DON’T KNOW WHEN OR WHERE IT HAPPENED. HE SAYS IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION FOR HER TO TALK TO SOMEONE TO WORK THROUGH THIS.>>YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE –>>HOW IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR A LARGER INVESTIGATION.>>IF YOU BELIEVE WE NEEDED A INVESTIGATION WHY NOT TELL US IN AUGUST?>>LISTEN THE FBI WILL TELL US WHAT? WHAT HOUSE ARE THEY GOING TO GO TO? WHAT CITY ARE THEY GOING TO? WHO ARE THEY GOING TO TALK TO? THEY CAN’T TELL US THE MONTH, BARELY THE YEAR THIS. IS ALL DELAYED.>>– MR. JUDGE TELL THAT YOU.>>HERE IS WHERE YOU GO WITH MR. HE SAYS I DIDN’T DO IT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE’S TALKING ABOUT. THEY WANT TO CALL IN PEOPLE TO SAY HE’S AN ABUSER. GET GUESS WHAT WE WILL BE PASS THE MID ATTORNEY. I WON’T AWARD PEOPLE FOR PLAYING THE POLITICAL GAME WITH HER LIFE. SHE’S A VICTIM OF THIS AS I THINK BRET KAVANAUGH. SOMEONE BETRAYED HER TRUST. WE KNOW WHO SHE GAVE THE LETTER TOO. THE PEOPLE THAT BETRAYED HER TRUST, THEY R. OWE HER AN APOLOGY.>>DO YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE ON FRIDAY?>>JEFF, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR ME. OBVIOUSLY A JUICED UP SENATOR GRAHAM THERE CLEARLY UPSET ABOUT WHAT TRANSPIRED. BELIEVE THERE’S ARE HOLES IN THE ARGUMENT. HE’S NOT THE ONLY REPUBLICAN TO SAY. THAT I SPOKE TO A SENATOR DURING THE BREAK PRIVATELY. THEY’RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOLE HOW SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER. SHE DOESN’T KNOW HOW SHE GOT HOME THAT NIGHT. HOW IS IT SHE WAS AFRAID TO FLY BUT HERE IN WASHINGTON. HER TEAM WON’T TELL US HOW SHE GOT HERE. SHE POINTED OUT IN THE TESTIMONY SHE FLEW TO THE EAST COAST. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT. REPUBLICANS AGREE SHE IS LIKEABLE. SHE CAME ACROSS AS CREDIBLE. THEY EXPECT A JUDGE TO DO THAT AS WELL THIS AFTERNOON.>>THANK YOU, ED, VERY MUCH. GREAT JOB WITH THE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING TO BOTH OF THEM. SENATOR LINDSEY YA HAM WITH THE SECOND AND BY FAR STRONGEST REACTION BY FAR TO WHAT WE SAW THIS MORNING AND EARLY THIS AFTERNOON. SENATOR GRAHAM SAYS HE FELT AMBUSHED. GOING AFTER NOT CHRISTINE FORD BUT THE DEMOCRATS SAYING THIS WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. THE TIMING, IT ALL IS MEANT TO DELAY THE PROCESS TO BE PUSHED PASSED THE MIDTERMS OR FAR BEYOND. THAT SOME FIERY LANGUAGE FROM SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM. HE DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER HE’S CALLING FOR A VOTE TOMORROW. WHICH WOULD THEN POTENTIALLY LEAD TO A FINAL VOTE AND POTENTIALLY CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE BRET KAVANAUGH EARLY NEXT WEEK IF, IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN. WE HAVE YET TO HEAR FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THAT WILL TAKE PLACE THIS AFTERNOON. AFTER CHRISTINE FORD’S TESTIMONY JUST WRAPPED UP. THAT WAS THREE SESSIONS THERE. DEMOCRATIC SENATORS HAD A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTION AND EVERY REPUBLICAN DEFERRED TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. RACHEL MITCHELL. SHE TOOK DR. FORD THROUGH A TIME LINE SHE SAYS HAPPENED IN THE EARLY 80S AND QUESTIONED WHAT HAPPENED HERE IN JUST THE PAST FEW MONTHS. NORA SON CAPITOL HILL. WATCHING THIS ALL MORNING AND AFTERNOON AS WELL. NOR A ACTUALLY DO WE HAVE DICK DU R.B.I. N. LET’S GO TO THAT.>>I THINK SHE HANDLED THE QUESTIONS PROFESSIONALLY AND HONESTLY. VOLUNTEERED ANSWERS WHEN SHE DIDN’T HAVE. TO I THINK IT WAS A CREDIBLE PRESENTATION.>>DO YOU THINK IT BACKFIRED ON THE REPUBLICANS TO HAVE AN OUTSIDE COUNCIL QUESTION INSTEAD OF THEMSELVES?>>WELL, IF YOU LISTEN TO THE PROSECUTORS CONCLUSION DOING A INTERVIEW IN FIVE MINUTE SEGMENTS IS NOT RECOMMENDED. YOU CAN TELL SHE TOO WAS FRUSTRATED. I COULDN’T FOLLOW HER LINE OF THINKING. I TRIED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE WAS COMING FROM. IT SEEMED SO O OBLIQUE AND FRAGMENTED. I NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO SAY.>>THE THING WE NEED TO HEART MOST IS OBVIOUS. IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES TO BACK UP WHAT SHE TOLD US UNDER OATH. WHY ARE YOU NOT SUPPORTING AN INVESTIGATION BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. WOULDN’T YOU WANT TO CLEAR YOUR NAME AND MAKE SURE THE COURT DIDN’T HAVE A PERSON COMING UNDER A SHADOW OF SUSPICION?>>OKAY DICK T DU R.B.I. N’S REACTION. HE TALKED ABOUT RACHEL MITCH EGG THE PROSECUTOR. WHAT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR AT THE END IS RACHEL MITCHELL, THE PROSECUTOR PICKED WAS UNDER CUTTING STRATEGY. SAYING THERE ISN’T A LOT I CAN DO IN FIVE MINUTE SEGMENTS WHEN I’M INTERRUPTED. THIS IS THE A LOT OF MACES ESTID THIS MORNING. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT AS WELL, RICCI. THE CHALLENGE SHE FACED IN TRYING TO GET INFORMATION HERE -PLGT.>>I DON’T ENVY HER POSITION. SHE HAD TWO, TWO DOUBT HE’S. ONE WAS TO TRY TO UNDER MINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DR. FORD IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHETHER IT WAS TO HER MEMORY OR TO IN FACT WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. THE SECOND WAS TO CARRY OUT THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO HIRED HER. CLEARLY SHE DID MUCH OF HER EXAMINATION DUALLY WITH THE TIMING OF THE LETTERS, THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE AND WITH SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND HER GETTING A LAWYER AND THEN THE POLYGRAPH. WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO DO IS GIVE THE REPUBLICANS COVER FOR THOSE WHO REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS IS ALL A DEMOCRATIC PROBLEM.>>DID SHE DO THAT? IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR SENATOR DU R.B.I. N SAY HI A HARD TIME FOLLOWING THE QUESTIONING.>>RACHEL MITCHELL.>>YES PAWS OF THE FIVE-MINUTE INTERVALS. WE SAW IT IN THE FIRST SEGMENT THE SHE WAS DEALING WITH THREE ISSUES THAT NEEDED EDITING IN A DOCUMENT. CORRECTIONS IN THE DOCUMENT SHE COULDN’T GET TO THE THIRD ONE.>>I THINK WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WATCHING WHAT SENATOR GRAHAM HAD TO SAY AND HIS REACTION. THE WAY OF THINKING SHE CONDUCTED THE QUESTIONS. SHE DID RAISE AND POINT TO SOME HOLES IN THE TESTIMONY WE HAVEN’T SEEN BEFORE. SHE RAISED INCONSISTENCIES ABOUT THE SPECIFIC YEAR. IT WAS SOMETIME IN THE 10s THEN EARLY 80s THEN MAYBE 82 OR 1. NOW IT’S 81.>>THEY SAY THAT’S COMMON WITH TRAUMA VICTIMS.>>THIS ST STARTED FROM HER TESTIMONY TODAY. THEN GOING BACK TO WHAT SHE TOLD THE WASHINGTON POST. THAT WASN’T LONG AGO. THEY POINTED TO, SHE WAS ABLE TO POINT TO INCONSISTENCIES IN HER STORY SHE HAS TOLD RECENTLY. SO, HOW MANY PEOPLE AT THE PARTY. WASHINGTON POST REPORTED THIS, TO THE THERAPY THIS AND WE SAW THE REACTION AND WHAT WE WILL SEE FROM THE REPUBLICANS. THE FACTS. AFTER THE HEARING THERE IS STILL NO CORROBORATION OR CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE. IT’S CREDIBILITY. IT’S A HE SAID, SHE SAID CREDIBILITY. PEOPLE BELIEVE SHOWS CREDIBLE. NOW IT’S ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH.>>THIS IS ROOM ON BOTH SIDES TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT WE SUPPORT THIS PERSON OR THAT PERSON AND WORE VOTING.>>FOR THOSE MAKING THE DECISION ON THE FENCE. THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WAS DR. FORD CREDIBLE ENOUGH NOT TO ELEVATE KAVANAUGH. THE QUESTION WHETHER SHE WAS CREDIBLE. IF SHE WASN’T AND HE DESERVED TO BE ELEVATED WHAT WAS NOT CREDIBLE TO BE WEIGHED AGAINST WHAT WAS WITNESS TODAY THAT WAS, EVEN THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAID SHE WAS CREDIBLE. I WAS STRUCK THAT THE SENATOR SAID THE TKPAPZ WERE PROOF OF THE TRAUMA. IN OTHER WORDS SAYING HE SAW SOME GAPS IN THE STORY. THEN HE SAID AFTER THAT. THAT’S PROOF OF THE TRAUMA AS IF TO SORT OF, NOT HIS INTENT BUT TO UNDERSCORE THIS, EXPLAIN THIS.>>I KPWAPBT BELIEVE ANYONE SAYING SHE WAS EVASIVE IN ANYWAY. SHE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED. NOW THIS AFTERNOON, JANUARY, WHAT WILL WE HEAR FROM BRET KAVANAUGH.>>I THINK AGAIN BECAUSE OF NOW WE HAVE NO NEW INFORMATION, NO NEW FACTS. WE SAW IN CON SIS AT ANY TIME I. NOW THE PRESSURE IS ON KAVANAUGH TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OPENLY AND HONESTLY AS HE CAN. YOU WILL SEE HIM PRESENT A DEFENSE THIS WAS NOT ME. I THINK IT WAS BE A PASSIONED ONE. THIS IS NOT JUST THE SUPREME COURT AND A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR LIFE THIS. IS ABOUT HIS LIFE AND A REPUTATION HE HAS BUILT. WILL YOU SEE HIM MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENT. THEN THE QUESTIONS. THE DEMOCRATS –>>THE INCONSISTENCIES ARE THERE ENOUGH TO DOUBT HER STORY?>>WHAT WE SEE FROM KAVANAUGH YOU WILL SEE THE DEMOCRATS IMPOUND THAT CHARACTER AND NAME. TKPW *S GOING AGAINST ODDS OF HW HE HAS LIVED HIS LIFE. HIS LIFE IS GOING TO BE OPEN FOR EXAMINATION THIS AFTERNOON.>>HOW CATTIVE DO YOU EXPECT IT TO BE, JANUARY?>>I THINK QUITE COMBAT TIFF. R ICCI HAS SAID, THE TONE, AS REPUBLICANS SAY WE’RE FARE AND DEMOCRATS ARE PLAYING POLITICS.>> IF DEMOCRATS LOOK TO BE POLITICS THAT COULD HELP KAVANAUGH AND THE REIF YOU LIB CANS MAKING THE ARGUMENT.>>YOU CAN’T IMAGINE DEMOCRATS MAKING THEMSELVES THE STORY AFTER THE TESTIMONY FROM DR. FORD. THE CREDIBLE WITNESS AGREEMENT.>> IF THERE WERE POLITICAL MOTIVES THEY WANT HER TO BE THE FACE OF THIS NOT THEMSELVES. THEY MAY GET IN THEIR OWN WAY.>>HERE IS THE OTHER QUESTION, RICCI. RACHEL MITCHELL HANDLED THE QUESTIONS FOR REPUBLICAN SENATORS FOR DR. FORD. HOW DOES SHE PLAY KNOT KAVANAUGH QUESTIONS?>>KAVANAUGH IS HER WITNESS ASSUMING SHE IS GOING TO ASK THE QUESTIONS FOR ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS. THERE IS A PART OF RACHEL MITCHELL YOU COULD WATCH WHEN SHE WOULD ATTEMPT TO BE FRIENDLY AND COMFORTING AND BE THERE WITH YOU. ACT ALMOST AS IF SHE WERE THE ADVOCATE FOR DR. FORD TO FEEL SECURE. THAT’S WHAT SHE HAS TO DO WITH BRET CALVE THAT. SHE HAS TO BE HIS PARTNER IN THIS. BRET KAVANAUGH HAS TO SHOW HIS HUMANITY. WE’RE USE TO LOOK TO SOMEONE’S CONFIRMATION HEARING WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THE FITNESS TO BE IN A VICE TENURED APPOINTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IT’S MAKING THE LAW, INTERPRETING THE LAW FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. FOR HIM THAT COULD BE 30, 40 YEARS. SO, HE IS FIT? SO SHE HAS TO SHOW HIM TO BE FIT AND IT’S A CONTRADICTION. YOU HAVE TO BE FACTUAL. YOU HAVE TO BE CALM. AT THE SAME TIME YOUR LIFE AND YOUR FAMILY’S LIFE IS UP ENDED. WE NEED TO SEE YOUR PAIN.>>THE CHALLENGE FOR KAVANAUGH. HE’S A LAWYER. A IS NOT TORE MADE THE POINT HE’S USE TO THIS. HE’S NOT A TRIAL LAWYER OR A POLISHED GUY ON TELEVISION A LOT. HE’S VERY MUCH A INTELLECTUAL. HE’S A JOY. HE’S HOISTED AWAY IN THE IVORY TOWER. HE’S A LAW PROFESSOR. THIS IS NOT A NATURAL FORM FOR HIM BY ANY MEANS.>>MORE NATURAL THEN IT WAS FOR HER.>>NOT NECESSARILY.>>HE HAS BEEN THROUGH SOME HEARINGS ALREADY.>>NEVER A HEARING WHICH –>>NOT NECESSARILY.>>YOU ARE ALSO DEALING WITH THE FACT THAT BRET KAVANAUGH HAS TO FACE KOS EXAMINATION FROM THE DEMOCRATS.>>HOW DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD PLAY THIS?>>I THINK THEY NEED TO BE FIRM. I THINK THEY NEED TO DO WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO. GO BACK PARTICULARLY TO THE FOX NEWS INTERVIEW STATEMENTS SO ILL AD VOICED. HE MADE BROAD STATEMENTS ABOUT THE TYPE OF LIFE HE LEAD. THEN ALLOWED PEOPLE WHO FROM YALE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY HE WASN’T LIKE THAT.>>PROBABLY DIDN’T WANT TO OPEN. NORA IS STANDING BY ON THE HILL. NOR AEUFRPBLGTS YES, I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO OFFICIAL CLOSE TO KAVANAUGH. HE IS TESTIFYING NEXT. I AM TOLD HE WILL COME BACK MORE FORCEFULLY THEN IN THE PAST. CALLING THIS A GROTESQUE AND OBVIOUS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. HE DID, I’M TOLD JUDGE KAVANAUGH DID WATCH MOST OF THE TESTIMONY. COMPLETELY DENIES BEING AT THE HOUSE. HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED DR. FORD. I THINK YOU HAVE A SENSE FROM LISTENING TO LINDSEY GRAHAM THAT REPUBLICANS ARE READY TO WAGE WAR AND BOROUGH INTO CREDIBILITY GAPS. SOME PEOPLE DON’T THINK THERE ARE ANY. REPUBLICANS DO. THEY WILL BRING UP FIVE BRING UE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE AT THE PARTY. THEY WILL POKE MORE HOLES IN HER CREDIBILITY. ON THE SAME TIME I HAVE SPOKE WE KNOW A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO ADMITTED IT WAS COMPELLING TESTIMONY. THAT SHE GAVE THIS. I’M TOLD THE PRESIDENT DID WATCH MOST OF DR. FORD’S TESTIMONY. NOT ALL OF IT. HE WAS IN NEW YORK FOR THE U.N. MOATING. MOATING THE FIRST HOUR OF IT AS HE TRAVELED TO WASHINGTON. DID WATCH SOME OF THE TESTIMONY. I THINK WE JUST, JUST TO SETUP WHAT WE’RE ABOUT TO WATCH WILL BE INCREDIBLE COMPELLING. AS YOU WATCHED THIS MORNING WITH ME, DR. FORD SAID SHE IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THAT IT WAS BRET KAVANAUGH WHO SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER. SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBING THE IN OUR OWE BIOLOGICAL REASONS SHE REMEMBERS THAT SO CLEARLY. ACCORDING TO PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL CALL THIS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS MADE. HE BELIEVES HE’S NOT ONLY DEFENDING HIS CREDIBILITY BUT ALSO HIS REPUTATION AND CHARACTER THIS. IS WHAT THIS IS LARGELY ABOUT. CREDIBILITY AND CHARACTER. WE HEARD LINDSEY GRAHAM. I THINK WE WILL SEE HIM AND OTHER REPUBLICANS WILL PUSH. ONE TO WATCH FOR IS BEN SASSE A REPUBLICAN FROM NEBRASKA. ONE OF THE FEW REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO WENT TO DR. FORD AND SHOOK HER HAND. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, SPECIFICALLY ADD>>HE SAT DOWN AT HIS KITCHEN TABLE WAY NOTE BOOK ABOUT LIKE THIS. HE WROTE IT OUT B HE SAID AND DESCRIBED TO ME. I DID A INTERVIEW WITH HIM ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO AND TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THIS. IT’S STILL VERY RAW. HE SAID HE COULDN’T SLOPE. COULDN’T DECIDE TO — MADE A CUP OF COFFEE IN THE MORNING AND THE WORDS JUST CAME OUT AT THE KITCHEN TABLE. YOU HAVE JUST GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS TESTIMONY. IT’S WHITE HOT TESTIMONY. IT’S LIKE FIRE. HE DID NOT DO THIS. THIS IS A TRAVESTY. HIS WHOLE LIFE, REPUTATION, EVERYTHING THAT HE WORKED TO BUILD WAS TAKEN AWAY BY THESE SENATORS. HE TALKED ABOUT IN THE INTERVIEW HE FELT IT WAS A ISSUE OF RACE. A BIG DISTINCTION HERE. WHEN THE TENERS TO QUESTIONED FROM ALABAMA HE FELT HE WAS LIKE A PLANTATION OWNER TALKING DOWN TO HIM. PUTTING HIM THROUGH THIS.>>– LYNCHING.>>HIGH-TECH LYNCHING.>>THAT IS A VOLATILE WORD. I’M CURIOUS, RICCI IS THIS THE ULTIMATE HE SAID, SHE SAID. SHE SAYS A HUNDRED PERCENT IT’S HIM. HE SAYS IT’S NOT ME AND I WASN’T THERE.>>IT IS A HE SAID, SHE SAID. HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH.>>IN A COURT OF LAW THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS ISN’T IN A COURT OF LAW. AFTER ALL WE’RE ONLY LOOKING ULTIMATELY FOR THE FINAL VOTE OF A FEW SENATORS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE IS NOTERS TO NO MATTER WHAT ARE GOING TO VOTE LOONING PARTY LINES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW. THOUGH I COULD BE SURPRISED I SUPPOSED. WHERE THIS ARE WITNESSES AT TRIAL WHO HAVE AN AURA OF CREDIBILITY AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY, THAT THIS IS TELLING THE TRUTH. IN DR. FORD’S TESTIMONY WHAT WE DO KNOW IS IN ADDITION TO PASSING A POLYGRAPH. YES I KNOW SOME CALL IT JUNK SCIENCE. I TELL YOU IN MY OWN PRACTICE WHEN I USE TO HAVE DEFENDANTS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL A SAUFPLT I ASKED THEM FOR A CONFIDENTIAL POLYGRAPH FOR ME. NOT TO WORRY THAT THEY’RE MOSTLY IN CONCLUSIVE AND NOT TO FEAR ABOUT IT. IF THEY TOLD ME WOULDN’T THAT’S ALL I NEEDED TO HAEFRPLT I DIDN’T NEED TO REPRESENT THOSE PEOPLE. IF THOSE, ABOUT 780% SAID THEY WOULD TAKE IT THE POLY YAH HAS VALUE TO ME AND OTHER PEOPLE. IN ADDITION SHE HAS TOLD OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT BRET KAVANAUGH. IT’S BEEN MORE RECENT TIMES. THE FACT SHE DOESN’T REMEMBER CERTAIN THINGS. IT DOES CHANGE A BIT HERE AND THERE AS TO NUMBERS AND PLACES THAT ULTIMATELY, MATILY THOSE MAKE HER MORE CREDIBLE TO MANY PEOPLE.>>THIS FEELS DIFFERENT TO ME TOO. IN MANY CASES THEY SAY HE SAID, SHE SAID CONSENSUAL OR NOT CONSENSUAL.>>NOT ONLY DID I NOT DO IT, BUT I WAS THE THIS.>>THAT’S IT IT’S A STARK DIVIDE HERE. HE HAS GIVEN HIMSELF A LOT OF ROOM IN TERMS OF THE INITIAL DENIALS OF WHAT HAPPENED OR DIDN’T HAPPEN.>>HE’S NOT CALLING HER A LIAR. HE IS SAYING SHE HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY SOMEONE. HE SAID THAT ON FOX NEWS. SHE HAS UNDER GONE A TRAUMA AND IT’S NOT HIM.>>PART OF WHY RACHEL MITCHELL DIDN’T GET INTO DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE THE BEDROOM. BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAID BEFORE AND WHAT SHE ANTICIPATES HE WILL SAY THIS AFTERNOON FOR THIS AFTERNOON. WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE NEXT FEW HOURS?>>HOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO, FIRST OF ALL WE WILL START HEARING FROM KAVANAUGH FIRST. HIS STATEMENT. HIS DEMEANOR. CERTAINLY I WOULDN’T EXPECT HIM FOR THOSE WATCHING HIS INTERVIEW OR EXPERTS ON FOX NEWS WHERE HE SEEMED HE WAS TOO MEASURED. HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY INDIGNATION. NO ANGER. HE HAS NOT ACCUSED. THIS HASN’T COME UP YET. SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM ARE PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY INCLUDING GANG RAPE AND BEING AT PARTIES WHERE MULTIPLE YOUNG HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WERE RAPED OVER WEEKENDS. WHICH ON IT’S FACE YOU WOULD EXPECT SOMEONE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF THAT WOULD BE LIKE, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? SERIOUSLY? WE DIDN’T SEW THAT IN THE FOX NEWS INTER VOW. WOULD I EXPECT TO SEE THE ANGER WHEN HE’S GIVING AN OPENING STATEMENT. I WOULD WANT TO SEE THE DEMOCRATS ON HIS PERSONAL BEHAVIOR, DRINKING AND IF THEY RAISE THE OUTSIDE ALLEGATIONS. MY GUESS IS THEY WON’T. THEY DON’T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS. THEY TH * IS ABOUT FORWARD WHO THEY BELIEVE BASED ON WHAT WHEN HE HAVE HEARD DID VERY WELL. KEEP THE FOCUS ON HER.>>THE POLITICAL QUESTION IS WHO SETS THE TERMS OF THE DEBATE AFTER THIS IS OVER. DO YOU BELIEVE DR. FORD OR NOT. IF THAT’S THE CASE THAT’S NOT GREAT FOR BRET KAVANAUGH. DO YOU BELIEVE BRET KAVANAUGH AND HE GIVES THE STRONG DEFENSE THAT JANUARY IS TALKING ABOUT. WHAT HE NEEDS 0 TO PROVIDE IS A COMPELLING VOTE OF A SENATOR’S VOTE. I ELEVATED HIM BECAUSE OF X. I FOUND HIM CREDIBLE, THAT HELPS THOSE REPUBLICANS NEEDING TO VOTE FOR HIM.>>DOES IT BECOME, RICCI, A BELIEF IN BOTH?>>YOU COULD BELIEVE IN BOTH. YOU COULD BELIEVE SHE BELIEVES SHE IS TELLING THE TRUTH. SHE OFFICIALLY BELIEVES SHE IS TELLING THE TRUTH.>>SHE COULD PASS A LIE DETECTOR.>>THAT HE FIRMLY BELIEVES HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH. THEN THAT LEADS YOU DOWN ANOTHER PATH WHICH IS WHAT WAS HIS BEHAVIOR LIKE AT THIS TIME IN HIS LIFE WITH OTHER PEOPLE? SIMPLY A NIGHT HE DOESN’T REMEMBER. SO THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY HELP HIM.>>WE’RE EXPECTING TO SEE JUDGE KAVANAUGH IN THE NEXT TWO OR THOUGH MINUTES. BEFORE WE GO BACK THERE AND TO THE CAMERA SHOWING HIM I WANT TO GO TO ED O’KEEFE’S CAMERA HE HAS INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING ROOM, ED.>>YES, JEFF, I KNOW YOU HAVE DISCUSSED PROSECUTOR MITCHELL’S ROLL IN THIS IT WILL CHANGE LIGHTLY WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH IN THE ROOM, I AM TOLD BY THE MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. SHE WILL ASK ABOUT TO MINUTES OF QUESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING. WE WILL HEAR FROM SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN THEY’RE CALLED TO QUESTION THE JUDGE. THERE IS QUESTIONS WAS THIS WORTH IT? WAS SHE EFFECTIVE? WAS THIS THE SMARTEST MOVE REPUBLICANS COULD MAKE? I CHECKED WITH SENIOR AIDS. IN THE WORDS “WHAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE.” THE OPTICS OF ELEVEN MEN QUESTIONING THIS WOMAN WAS SUCH THAT THEY WENT OUT AND FOUND RACHEL MITCHELL TO DO THIS. THEY SAY, LOOK ULTIMATELY SHE TRIED TO ESTABLISH A FACT PATTERN. SHE DID THAT TO THE BEST OF HER ABILITY. BEHIND US DOWN THE CALL JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS WAITING. HE WILL WALK DOWN HERE INTO THE HEARING ROOM TO SIT DOWN AND BEGIN HIS TESTIMONY. HERE THIS AFTERNOON IT’S BEEN COPS AND REPORTERS. THEY’RE NOT ALLOWING THE GENERAL PUBLIC NEAR THE HEARING ROOM. THAT’S MOSTLY IN DEFERENCE TO DR. FORD HOPING THIS WOULD BE MORE DISCRETE AND RESPECTFUL EXCHANGE. AS JANUARY AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT WE SHOULD EXPECT THE DEMOCRATS GOING AFTER HIM PRETTY QUICKLY. I SUSPECT BY THE TIME WE GET TO SENATOR DICK DU R.B.I. N OF ILLINOIS A PARTISAN WARRIOR NONE THE LESS. SECOND RANKING DEMOCRAT, AT THAT POINT THE DEMOCRATS WILL BEGIN TO DIG INTO KAVANAUGH, HIS PERSONAL LIFE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT SPEAKS TO HIS CREDIBILITY. WE SPOKE TO JUNIOR DEMOCRATS. TKHROU THAT WHY GO INTO HIS SEX LIFE AND DRINKING. THEY SAID IT SPEAKS TO HIS CREDIBILITY NOW IN QUESTION AS THE EXCHANGE CONTINUES.>>THAT DEMOCRATIC QUESTIONING WILL BE INTERESTING TO WATCH. WE T. WILL BE CONSIDERING TO WATCH, ADDING TO YOUR POINT, REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING. TO WHAT EXPENT JOHN FLAKE AND JEFF SASSE POTENTIALLY SPEAK. — BEN SASSE.>>AND WHAT WE LEARN FROM THE QUESTIONS THEY ASK. THE QUESTIONS THEY ASK. THEY WILL LAY THE PRESIDENT KATE OF THE FINAL DECISION FOR THE NOMINATION. THEY WILL SAY I ASKED THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I HAVE THE ANSWER FROM THIS. I GOT THE ANSWER I WANTED AND THAT LEAD ME TO THIS VOTE. FOR THEM AS POLITICIANS THIS IS THE NARRATIVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.>> IF THEY GET A CHANCE TO QUESTION. THERE COULD OF BEEN A BENEFIT TO REPUBLICANS ASKING THE QUESTIONS. YOU CAN FRAME THE SHAPE OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS A POLITICAL DEBATE NOT A COURT ROOM. THE ABILITY TO FRAME AND SHAPE THE QUESTION CAN DETERMINE THE POLITICS END UP BEING IN THE END.>>WE’RE NOT IN A COURT ROOM OR GOVERNMENT BUILDING. WE’RE IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC A OPINION HERE.>>WHICH IS ALSO WHY IN A CERTAIN WAY THE OPTICS WERE TERRIBLE FOR ELEVEN WHITE MEN GOING AFTER DR. FORD. AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS AN ABILITY ALSO IF THEY HAD TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TREATED HER WITH DIGNITY IN A WAY THAT SENATOR GRASSLEY DID IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. THEY MAY OF FARED BET TPRER THAT.>>IS YOU SAID IT WAS DIFFICULR RACHEL MITCHELL TO GET A DIALOGUE GOING. DO YOU THINK SHE WAS EFFECTIVE DESPITE THE HANDICAP SHE HAD.>>I DON’T THINK SHE WAS EFFECTIVE. I DON’T KNOW IT WAS HER FAULT.>>COULD ANYONE BE EFFECTIVE WITH THOSE TERMS.>>BACK TO JANUARY’S POINT. WHETHER SHE WAS EFFECTIVE OR NOT WON’T HELP BRET KAVANAUGH. WHAT HELPS HIM IS WHETHER HE COMES AND REPUBLICANS SAY I FOUND HIM CREDIBLE.>>I CONDITION. I JUST CONDITION BELIEVE THERE IS A REPUBLICAN THINKING DANG IT I WISH HI MY CHANCE TO SIT DOWN AND ASK THE QUESTIONS. I COULD OF CROSS AX INNED HER AND PUT ON THE FIRE. NOBODY, THAT WAS FRAUGHT WITH PERIL.>>IT WAS.>>IN THIS PARTICULAR CLIMATE WHAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO IN 1991 WHEN SPECTER GAVE IT TO ANITA HILL IS NOT WHAT THEY’RE DOING IN 2018. THIS MAY NOT OF BEEN A GREAT WARNING FOR BRET KAVANAUGH. NOT THE CROSS THAT PEOPLE HOPED FOR. FOR THE REPUBLICANS I WOULD BE STUNNED IF ANY THOUGHT I WISH I COULD OF DONE THAT AND PUT IT TO HER.>>THEY COULD OF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW GRACE AND COMPASSION MAKING THEIR POINT.>>THEY HAVE THE CONSTITUENTS SAYING –>>A LOST PEOPLE SAY SHE’S A LIAR AND HE’S UNFAIRLY ACCUSED. HE’S A WONDER FULL MAN. THOSE ARE THE CONSTITUENTS.>>THAT’S A GREAT POINT. THE CONSTITUENTS WOULD SA *EURBS WAIT A MINUTE. WHY DIDN’T YOU GO AFTER HER.>>YOU MESSED UP. IT’S YOUR FAULT YOU DIDN’T DEFINE THIS FINE MAN, ENOUGH.>>RIGHT. YOU ALSO HAVE NOW THE ACT OF THE REPUBLICANS USE TH *G OWN TIME N ADDITION TO DOING — THEY OF COURSE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAD JUST DONE WITH DR. FORD. TO BUILDUP THE PERSON THAT BRET KAVANAUGH IS AND HIS CREDIBILITY. WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT THE DEMOCRATS DID VERY WELL WITH DR.>>REGARDLESS WE EXPECT THIS AFTERNOON A TKRAT TKRA * MAT I CANNILY DIFFERENT TONE FROM WHAT WE SAW THIS MORNING. THAT IS BASICALLY THE TALE OF TWO DAYS. PRESUMABLY THIS AFTERNOON. AS WE WAIT FOR BRET KAVANAUGH TO WALK INTO THE SENATE HEARING ROOM WE WILL GET A OPENING STATEMENT FROM BRET KAVANAUGH AS WELL. HE HAS RELEASED WHAT HE WILL SAY, ALREADY. AS DID CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD. THEN WE WILL HAVE THE SAME QUESTIONING IF NOT THE SAME TONE. THE SAME TIMES FOR QUESTIONING FROM DEMOCRATIC SENATORS AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. FIVE MINUTES A PIECE. HOWEVER MUCH REPUBLICANS THEN YIELD THEIR TIME TO THE PROSECUTOR RACHEL MITCHELL. THE GUIDANCE FROM ED O’KEEFE JUST OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING ROOM THERE. THEY WILL GIVE RACHEL MITCHELL ABOUT TO MINUTES TO QUESTION. IS THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, RICCI? SHE WILL QUESTION BRET KAVANAUGH.>>YES. SHE WILL QUESTION THEM. YOU’RE BACK TO FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES, FIVE MINUTES. I ASSUME YOU ARE. IT GOES EVERY OTHER ONE.>>SHE’S NOT INTERROGATING.>>NO PROPPING HIM UP.>>SHE COULD, DEPENDING ON HER ROLL. COULD PLAY THE ROLL OF THE DEMOCRATS THIS MORNING. SO WHEN THERE IS AGGRESSIVE QUESTIONING OR GENTLE QUESTIONING THE DEMOCRATS WERE ABLE TO STEP IN AND REHABILITATE OR VOUCH AS A CHARACTER WITNESS. SHE COULD PLAY THAT ROLL. I DON’T KNOW.>>POSSIBLE. ALSO YOU HAVE THIS. THE QUESTION OF TIMING. IT’S JUST LIKE IN A COURT OF LAW WHEN SOMEBODY. WHEN I’M ON A ROLL AND SOMEONE INTERRUPTS ME WITH A OBJECTION. IT WOULD THROW ME OR I COULDN’T GET BACK SO QUICKLY ON THE ROLL. HERE SHE MAYBE IN A POSITION, RACHEL MITCHELL, TO ABLE TO INTERRUPT THE DEMOCRATS FLOW IF THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ANY CONTINUITY. IF THEY THOUGHT ABOUT HOW THEY WILL BUILD ON EACH OTHER THEY MAY NOT. THEY MAYBE ALL –>>ALSO GIVE HIM A WAY OF PLAYING CLEAN UP.>>A BREAK.>>THERE IS A GOING ON OF DON’T YOU MEAN THIS. YOU HAVE A WITNESS THAT SAID THAT. SO IT’S A — WHATEVER PRESSURE POINTS ARE.>>SHE HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED AT. THAT PROSECUTORS DO A LOT OF REDIRECTION EXAMINATION.>>IT APPEARS THE DEMOCRATIC GAME PLAN IS EASY TO IDENTIFY. PRAISED FORD FOR BEING HEROIC AND MADE THE FBI NOT TAKING PLACE IN A INVESTIGATION. YOU MAY HAVE GAPS THEY COULD OF BEEN SOLID BY A FBI INVESTIGATION. EACH STAYED ON THE POINTS OF THE FIVE MINUTE ALLOTTED TIME. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT REPUBLICANS. ALL THROUGH WITH THE REPUBLICAN TKWQUESTIONING OF KAVANAUGH. AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU HAVE ABOUT TWO POINTS TO MAKE. IT’S A POLITICAL DEBATE AROUND THIS. WHAT IS THAT FOR REPUBLICANS.>>ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THE VOTE WILL HAPPEN TOMORROW?>>I DON’T SEE WHY IT WON’T.>>GRAM TKPWRA * HAM CLEARLY IN TPHOERD THE QUESTION.>>WILL THEY BE ON TRACK TO VOTE TOMORROW.>>YES.>>THEY HAVEN’T SAID ANYTHING ROTHERWISE AT THIS POINT. WE HAVE LEARNED BRET KAVANAUGH’S FAMILY IS IN THE HEARING ROOM NOW. WE WAIT FOR HIM TO ARRIVE IN THE SECOND DRAMATIC PART OF THIS HISTORIC DAY ON CAPITOL HILL. WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD FROM CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD. BRET KAVANAUGH’S ACCUSER. NOW WE WAIT TO HEAR FROM KAVANAUGH HIMSELF. RICCI, IF YOU’RE A SENATOR ON EITHER SIDE, A REPUBLICAN SENATOR, FIRST, WHO WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION. NOT YIELD THAT TIME TO RACHEL MITCHELL, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING?>>WELL I THINK YOU’RE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS CHARACTER. YOU’RE ASKING HIM ABOUT HOW HE HAS LIVED HIS LIFE OR YOU’RE ASKING HIM ABOUT THE TRAUPL ‘ AND HIS FAMILY HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO HIS REPUTATION WHICH FOR ALL INTENSIVE PURPOSES HAS BEEN VERY, VERY GOOD IN THE COURT, THE POWERFUL COURT WHICH HE SERVED. YOU WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE OF. THAT DR. FORD IS NOT THE ONLY ONE TO SUFFER. THE KAVANAUGHS ARE SUFFERING.>>THIS REMINDS ME. THERE IS A MOMENT IN THE HEARING FOR JUSTICE SAM ELITO. IT TURNED THE HEARING WHEN HE GOT FIRM QUESTIONING FROM LINDSEY GRAHAM. HE SAID YOU’RE NOT A BAD PERSON. YOU HAVEN’T VOTE OR HAD ALLEGATIONS LIKE THIS AGAINST YOU. HIS WIFE STARTED TO CRY AND RAN OUT OF THE ROOM. AT THAT MOMENT THE HEARING ROOM CHANGES. AND SAM ELITO WAS HEADED FOR THE SUPREME COURT. THAT KIND OF MOMENT TOO –>>HAVING HIS FAMILY THERE I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO HIM IN THE PUBLIC AYE HAS ALSO HAPPENED TO HIS FAMILY. THAT YOU — I THINK THAT THE SENATORS. WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT THE CAMERA, BUT THE SENATORS ARE GOING TO BE AWARE OF HOW MS. KAVANAUGH REACTS DURING THE HEARING.>>YOU MADE THE POINT THIS ISN’T JUST A JOB INTERVIEW.>>THAT’S RIGHT.>>REPUBLICANS WANT TO REFRAME THIS FROM A JOB INTERVIEW AND PER MOTION TO IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH IT’S A PERMANENT VERDICT ON HIS CHARACTER. HIS LIFE AND THE LIFE OF HIS FAMILY AND CHILDREN. THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE CHOOSING TO DO. RAISING THE EMOTIONAL STAKES.>>THAT’S WHERE YOU HEAR NO KAOB RATION, MULTIPLE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STORY WE HAVE HEARD THIS. IS COOKED UP BY DEMOCRATS. THEY SAT ON THE ALLEGATION FOR TWO MONTHS.>>THEY SAT ON THE ALLEGATION AT HER REQUEST, DOES THAT MATTER?>>WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO SAY, WHAT WE ARE STARTING TO HEAR IS THAT THEY COULD OF BROUGHT THIS FORWARD AND DONE IT ANONYMOUSLY SO IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BECOME PUBLIC. SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND THE REPRESENTATIVE CAME FORWARD WITH THAT. THAT IS PART OF THE NARRATIVE. WE SEE THEM OUT WITH THIS.>>DR. FORD HAS MADE IT CLEAR THROUGH THE MORNING SHE DIDN’T WANT THIS AS A PUBLIC THING. SHE CAME AS A CIVIC DUTY.>>SHE HOPED HE WOULDN’T GET THE NOMINATION. SHE WANTED IT TO BE SOMEONE ELSE ENTIRELY.>>SHE CAME OUT EARLY ENOUGH BEFORE MAKING IT TO THE SHORT LIST. SHE DID IT TO THE SHORT LIST.>>SHE DID IT IN A WAY THAT SHE DIDN’T GO TO THE MEDIA. IT’S LIKE WHAT YOU LEARN AS A LITTLE KID, WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT’S NOT WORKING IN YOUR TOWN, CALL YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT SHE DID.>>AND THE TIPLINE.>>THE ENCRYPTED TIP LINE WHERE SHE REALLY COULD REMAIN WITH A FEELING OF SAFETY OF CONFIDENTIALITY. I THINK BRETT KAVANAUGH IS IN A POSITION HERE, I’M WITH JAN, I DON’T KNOW IF I WERE BRETT KAVANAUGH THAT I WOULD HAVE WATCHED ANY OF THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT WOULD EITHER INFURIATE ME IF I SAY I WASN’T, THERE I DIDN’T DO THIS, THIS NEVER HAPPENED, AND IT AN ASSASSINATION ON MY CHARACTER, OR IT MIGHT THROW ME OFF IN TERMS OF MY EMOTIONAL BEING WHEN I GO IN THERE.>>I STILL THINK YOU HAVE TO KNOW, RIKKI, WHAT THE OTHER PERSON IS SAYING ABOUT YOU.>>WELL, I THINK WE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS SAYING.>>I WOULD WANT TO HEAR IT.>>DON’T YOU THINK THEY’LL ASK HIM THAT.>>AND WHAT HIS REACTION WAS.>>IT’S A BETTER ANSWER FOR HIM TO SAY HE WATCHED AND WHATEVER HIS REACTION MAY HAVE BEEN. IT’S A BETTER ANSWER THAN SAYING, NO, I WASN’T GOING TO DO THAT.>>THERE’S NO COMPROMISE HERE. HE’S ELEVATED TO THE SUPREME COURT OR HE’S NOT.>>RIGHT. AND HE WILL HAVE THE TAG WITH HIM FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, ELEVATED OR NOT.>>AND THERE ARE NO WINNERS. WHETHER HE’S ELEVATED OR NOT, HE DOESN’T WIN. SHE DOESN’T WIN. THE SUPREME COURT –>>THE FAMILY.>>THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, THERE ARE NO WINNERS.>>WHAT COULD HAVE MADE THIS A WINNING SITUATION? WOULD THE F.B.I. INVESTIGATION IN THE BEGINNING HAVE AT LEAST MADE THIS SEEM LIKE A FAIR SITUATION TO PEOPLE WHO WERE CALLING FOR IT FROM THE BEGINNING? I SAID EARLIER TODAY, SHE WANTED AN F.B.I. INVESTIGATION AND PEOPLE HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE ARE NOT SAYING, PLEASE, COME AND INVESTIGATE ME.>>WELL, THE THING, WHEN THE COMMITTEE BECAME AWARE OF THE ALLEGATIONS ONLY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN THEN AN F.B.I. INVESTIGATION WHETHER THEY WENT AND INTERVIEWED THE WITNESSES. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT WAS THE SENATE HAS THE SAME KIND OF… ALL THESE STATEMENTS THEY’RE TAKING WITH THEIR INVESTIGATORS IS THE FORUM FOR IT. THOSE ARE PUNISHABLE. IT’S A FELONY IF YOU LIE. SO IT’S REALLY NO DIFFERENT. WE’RE GOING TO DO IT IN THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE F.B.I. INVESTIGATION PROCESS HAS ALREADY ENDED AND THIS HAD NEVER COME UP BY THEN.>>SENATOR GRAHAM SAID HE WOULD HAVE HAD AN INVESTIGATION WITHIN THE LAST 11 DAYS.>>NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.>>THAT’S RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT… IN HILL THOMAS, IT WAS MATTER OF THREE DAYS. BUT THAT WOULDN’T HAVE ANSWERED ANYTHING IS MY POINT. THEY DON’T RESOLVE… THE F.B.I. JUST TAKES INTERVIEWS.>>BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATION IN THE PUBLIC’S EYE THAT MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE ROBBED A TALKING POINT. POLITICALLY MAYBE THAT WAS A BIG BLUNDER BY REPUBLICANS, WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED ANY MORE INFORMATION.>>AND PERHAPS THERE IS SOME CHANCE THEY MIGHT HAVE FOUND SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THINGS CLEARER.>>CLEARED HIM.>>WELL, INDEED. SOME PEOPLE HAVE ARGUED THAT HE SHOULD… THERE SHOULD BE AN F.B.I. INVESTIGATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLEARING HIM, BUT I THINK EMBEDDED IN YOUR QUESTION, GAIL, WHICH IS COULD THIS HAVE BEEN BETTER, LARGELY EMBED IN THIS IS THIS IS REALLY NOT THE BEST VENUE TO LOOK AT THE TRICKIEST, THORNIEST PARTS OF OUR CULTURE THAT ARE BEDELVING ALL PARTS OF THE CULTURE. IT IS INEVITABLY FRAUGHT, AND THIS IS NOT THE BEST PLACE TO UNWIND THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE GET TO FIND — WE’VE YET TO FIND A BEST PLACE.>>HOW MUCH WE’VE LEARNED. WE DID IT IN 1991, AND NOW DOING IT ALL OVER AGAIN IN THE SAME WAY. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO IT, BUT THIS IS HOW IT’S HAPPENING. RIGHT NOW. WE SEE SENATE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN CHUCK GRASSLEY HEADING BACK AND LINDSEY GRAHAM HEADING BACK IN. HE SAYS HE FEELS AMBUSHED BY THE PROCESS. ORRIN HATCH YOU SEE THERE. SO SENATORS MAKING THEIR WAY BACK IN. THERE’S YOUR REPUBLICAN-PICKED QUESTIONER, RACHEL MITCHELL ALSO ON HER WAY BACK IN, JOHN KENNEDY TO THE HEARING ROOM RIGHT NOW. JOHN CORNYN, WHO WE HEARD FROM BEFORE. JOHN CORNYN’S WORDS WERE I WOULD SAY MORE MEASURED THAN LINDSEY GRAHAM’S WERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIM. LINDSEY GRAHAM CERTAINLY HAD SOME VERY STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE SO FAR. YOU SEE TED CRUZ WALKING BACK IN, BEN SASSE. SO ALL SENATORS, JEFF FLAKE. AGAIN, YOU JUST SAW A FEW OF THE SENATORS WHO YOU’RE GOING TO BE WATCHING VERY CLOSELY, NOT JUST THIS AFTERNOON, BUT IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. AND AS WE FIGURE OUT, A, WHETHER THIS FIRST VOTE, A, WHAT HAPPENS THIS AFTERNOON, B WHETHER A VOTE TAKES PLACE TOMORROW, AND THEN C, WHETHER ONE TAKES PLACE AFTER THAT EARLY NEXT WEEK REGARDING BRETT KAVANAUGH AND THE SUPREME COURT. THEY TOOK A BREAK NOW. IT WAS ABOUT 50 MINUTES AGO. THEY SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE 45-MINUTE BREAK IN BETWEEN WHEN CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD TESTIFIED AND WHEN JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH TESTIFIED. SO IT’S NOW BEEN A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT 45 MINUTES. WE’VE BEEN ASKING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAD BEEN WATCHING SOME OF THIS TESTIMONY. WE DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. WE DO KNOW THAT DURING PART OF HIS TIME HE WAS OBVIOUSLY MAKING HIS WAY FROM HIS HOME TO THE HEARING ITSELF. WE’RE ALSO TOLD THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN WATCHING THIS HEARING. HE ALSO WAS IN TRANSIT HEADING TO D.C. FROM NEW YORK WHERE HE WAS FOR THE U.N. MEETINGS. SO THE FOLKS INVOLVED INTIMATELY IN THIS AS WELL AS THE REST OF THE COUNTRY WATCHING EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING HERE, SO CLOSELY TODAY. AND WE’LL CONTINUE TO WATCH THIS AFTERNOON AS WE JUST DON’T KNOW AT THIS POINT, RIKKI, WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN THIS AFTERNOON.>>NO, WE DON’T. WE CAN ANTICIPATE AS MUCH AS WE CAN THAT YOU’RE GOING TO SEE AN INDIGNANT BRETT KAVANAUGH, BUT YOU’RE ALSO GOING TO SEE A PASSIONATE ONE.>>LET’S LISTEN AND WATCH AS BRETT KAVANAUGH WALKS IN.>>HE WAS HOLDING HIS WIFE’S HAND.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH WALKING INTO THAT HEARING ROOM HOLDING HANDS WITH HIS WIFE, A BLUE TIE AS HE MAKES HIS WAY TO THE HEARING TABLE. JUST HIS NAME IN FRONT OF HIM. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD WAS FLANKED BY HER ATTORNEYS. I DON’T SEE OTHER SEATS THERE RIGHT NOW, SO IT’S JUST BRETT KAVANAUGH BY HIMSELF IN THAT CHAIR. IT WOULD APPEAR RIGHT NOW AS HE PREPARES TO RECEIVE QUESTIONS IN FIVE-MINUTE INCREMENTS FROM 11 SENATORS ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND TEN DEMOCRATS. AT THIS POINT A HEARING THAT WILL… THERE’S CHUCK GRASSLEY, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, HEARING THAT WILL LIKELY TAKE US INTO THE DINNER HOUR AT THIS POINT. LET’S WATCH AS JUDGE KAVANAUGH SITS DOWN.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WE WELCOME YOU. ARE YOU READY?>>I AM.>>I HAVE SOMETHING I WANT THE 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 ON AS MY TEAM LEARNED THE NAMES OF THESE THREE POTENTIAL WITNESSES, 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 HAVE SOUGHT TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THROUGH AND INVESTIGATE. THE MINORITY AFTER THE SAT ON DR. FORD’S LETTER FOR WEEKS AND STAFF TOLD US THAT THEY BELIEVED IT IS “HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE THESE FOLLOW-UP CALLS BEFORE THE F.B.I. FINISHES THIS INVESTIGATION.” EVEN THOUGH THE F.B.I. 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 A JUDGE, BUT THEY DIDN’T PARTICIPATE OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS. WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE, SIR.>>YES.>>DO YOU AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?>>I DO.>>YEAH. AND LIKE WE OFFERED TO SENATOR OR TO DR. FORD, YOU CAN TAKE WHATEVER TIME YOU WANT NOW FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. THEN WE’LL GO TO QUESTIONS. PROCEED. MR. CHAIRMAN, RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR ALOUING ME TO MAKE MY STATEMENT. I WROTE IT MYSELF YESTERDAY AFTERNOON OR EVENING. NO ONE HAS SEEN A DRAFT OR IT EXCEPT FOR ONE OF MY FORMER LAW CLERKS. 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. “SIMPLY PUT, MS. KEYSER DOES NOT KNOW MR. KAVANAUGH AND SHE HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF EVER BEING AT PARTY OR GATHERING WHERE HE WAS PRESENT WITH OR WITHOUT DR. FORD.” 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 TEN DAYS TO GET TO THIS HEARING. IN THOSE TEN 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 TEN-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, F.B.I., OR OTHERWISE. THE COMMITTEE NOW HAS CONDUCTED A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, AND I HAVE COOPERATED FULLY. I KNOW THAT ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION, SENATE, F.B.I., 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’VE 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 AIR WAS NOMINATED THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE LEADER SAID HE WOULD “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 “COMPLICIT IN EVIL.” ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR ON THIS COMMITTEE SAID “JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE.” A FORMER HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE SAID, “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 SEWED 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 BOSTON MARATHON, 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 CONFIRM, 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 UNCREDITSICALLY BY THE MEDIA. THIS 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 COMPETENCE IN 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 WITHDRAWING FROM THIS PROCESS. YOU HAVE TRIED HARD, AND 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 VILE 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’M 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 CON FINDSED 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’M 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 FACE TODAY. SHE BECAME A TRAILBLAZER, ONE OF MARYLAND’S EARLIEST WOMEN PROSECUTORS AND TRIAL JUDGES. SHE AND MY DAD CALLED — TAUGHT ME THE PORTION OF EQUALITY AND RESPECTS 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 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 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 EVENTS 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 OF THE SUPREME COURT WAS JUST ABOUT TO BE VOTED ON AT A TIME WHEN I’M 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 SOMEPLACE AT SOME TIME, BUT I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS TO HER OR 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, ANALYZA, ALL OF TEN YEARS OLD, SAID TO ASHLEY WE SHOULD PRAY FOR THE WOMAN. A LOT OF WISDOM FROM A TEN-YEAR-OLD. WE MEAN NO ILL WILL. FIRST LETS 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 F.B.I. HAS INVESTIGATED MY BACKGROUND SIX SEPARATE TIMES. SIX SEPARATE F.B.I. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS. OVER 26 YEARS. ALL OF THEM AFTER THE EVENTS I I — ALLEGED HERE. I’VE BEEN IN THE PUBLIC ARENA AND UNDER EXTREME PUBLIC SCRUTINY FOR DECADES. IN 1992 I WORKED FOR THE OFFICE OF SLIZ OR THE GENERAL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN 1993 I CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR JUSTICE JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY. I SPENT FOUR YEARS AT 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 WERE EXPOSED THAT YEAR OF 1998 IN HAVING ENGAGED IN SOME SEXUAL WRONGDOING AND INDISCRETION IN THEIR PAST. ONE PERSON ON THE LEFT EVEN PAID $1 MILLION FOR PEOPLE TO REPORT EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL WRONGDOING, AND IT WORKED. HE EXPOSED SOME PROMINENT PEOPLE. NOTHING ABOUT ME. FROM 2001 TO 2006, I WORKED FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AS STAFF SECRETARY I WAS BY PRESIDENT BUSH’S SIDE FOR THREE YEARS. I 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, FIVE AND A HALF YEARS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I WAS THEN NOMINATED TO BE A JUDGE ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT. I WAS THOROUGHLY VETTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE, THE F.B.I., 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’VE 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 F.B.I. 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 COMBI THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE TIME, THROUGHOUT MY 53 YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS ON THIS EARTH, UNTIL LAST WEEK, I 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 MY BY DR. FORD. I NEVER HAD ANY SEXUAL OR PHYSICAL ENCOUNTER OF ANY KIND WITH DR. FORD. I INNER ATTENDED A GATHERING LIKE THE ONE DR. FORD DESCRIBES IN HER ALLEGATIONS. 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 SOMEPLACE AT SOME TIME. BUT I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT TO HER OR THE ANYONE DR. FORD’S ALLEGATION STEMS FROM PARTY THAT SHE ALLEGES 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 WEEKEND, IT WAS USUALLY WITH FRIENDS FROM NEARBY CATHOLIC ALL-GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, STONE RIDGE, HOLY CHILD, VISITATION, IMMACULATA, HOLY CROSS. DR. FORD DID NOT ATTEND ONE OF THOSE SCHOOLS. SHE ATTENDED A INDEPENDENT PRIVATE SCHOOL NAMED HOULTON ARMS. 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 EVENT, 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 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 THIS EVENT OCCURRED AT A HOUSE NEAR COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB, WHICH IS AT THE CORNER OF CONNECTICUT AVENUE AND THE EAST WEST HIGHWAY IN CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND. IN HER LETTER TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN, SHE SAID THERE WERE FOUR OTHER PEOPLE AT THE HOUSE. BUT NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE NOR I LIVED NEAR COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB. AS OF THE SUMMER OF 1982, DR. FORD WAS 15 AND COULD NOT DRIVE YET. SHE DID NOT LIVE NEAR COLUMBIA COUNTRY CLUB. SHE SAYS CONFIDENTLY SHE HAD ONE BEER AT THE PARTY, BUT SHE DOES NOT SAY HOW SHE GOT TO THE HOUSE AT THE QUESTION OR HOW SHE GOT HOME OR WHOSE HOUSE IT WAS. FOURTH, I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE DETAILS CALENDARS RECORDING 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. CHRISTMASTIME WE SIT AROUND. OLD MILESTONE, OLD WEDDINGS, OLD EVENTS FROM HIS CALENDAR. IN NINTH GRADE… IN NINTH GRADE IN 1980, I STARTED KEEPING CALENDARS OF MY OWN. FROM ME ALSO IT’S BOTH A CALENDAR AND A DIARY. I’VE KEPT SUCH CALENDARS, DIARIES FOR THE LAST 38 YEARS. MINE ARE NOT AS GOOD AS MY DAD’S , 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 D.C. WERE FRIDAY JUNE 4 WHEN I WAS WITH MY DAD AT A PRO GOLF TOURNAMENT. AND I HAD MY HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVE. TEST AT 8:30 THE NEXT MORNING. I ALSO WAS IN D.C. ON SATURDAY NIGHT AUGUST 7th, BUT I WAS AT SMALL GATHERING AT BECKY’S HOUSE IN ROCKVILLE WITH MATT, DENISE, LAURIE, 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, THAT WEEKEND BEFORE A 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 WEEK DAYS, AS YOU CAN SEE, I WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS DURING THE SUMMER FOR A TRIP TO THE BEACH WITH FRIENDS AND AT THE LEGENDARY FIVE-STAR BASKETBALL CAMP IN HOMESDALE, 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 SUNDAY WAS LIKE BRUSHING MY TEETH, AUTOMATIC. STILL IS. IN 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 LAWN CUTTINGS TO FIT IN WITH FOOTBALL CAMP. I BLARED 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 FRIENDS’S HOUSES AFTER A WORKOUT OR JUST TO MEET UP AND HAVE SOME BEERS. BUT NONE OF THOSE GEARINGS INCLUDED THE PEOPLE. 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 DOCTORS APPOINTMENTED AND 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 DO YOU CONSIDER. FIFTH. DR. FORD’S ALLEGATION IS RADICALLY INCONSISTENT WITH MY RECORD AND MY CHARACTER THROUGH 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’VE ALWAYS HAD A LOT OF CLOSE FEMALE FRIENDS. I’M IN THE TALKING ABOUT GIRLFRIENDS. I’M TALKING ABOUT FRIENDS WHO ARE WOMEN. THAT STARTED IN HIGH SCHOOL. MAYBE IT WAS BECAUSE I’M ABONLY CHILD AND HAD NO SISTERS, BUT ANYWAY 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 KRISTIN OR KAREN OR SUZANNE OR MAURA OR MEGHAN OR NIKKI. 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 IN 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 18 IN D.C. 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 LIKE 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, IT 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 ARE ALONE IN LOOKING BACK AT HIGH SCHOOL AND CRINGING AT SOME THINGS. FOR ONE THING, OUR YEARBOOK WAS A DISASTER. I THINK SOME STUDENTS WANTED THE YEARBOOK TO BE IS A A COMBINATION OF “ANIMAL HOUSE,” “”CADDYSHACK”” AND “FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH,” WHICH WERE ALL JUST RELEASED AT THE TIME. MANY OF US WENT ALONG TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY. THIS PAST WEEK MY FRIENDS AND I HAVE CRINGEED 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 WENT TO DANCES WITH HAD HER NAME USED ON THE YEARBOOK PAGE WITH THE TERM “ALUMNUS.” THAT YEARBOOK WAS USED TO SHOW AFFECTION. BUT IN THIS CIRCUS, THE MEDIA’S INTERPRETATION IS IT WAS RELATED TO SEX. THE WOMAN HERSELF NOTED ON THE RECORD, SHE AND I NEVER HAD ANY SEXUAL INTERACTS AT ALL. SO SORRY TO HER FOR THAT YEARBOOK REFERENCE. THIS MAY SOUND A BIT TRIVIAL, GIVEN ALL THIS WE’RE HERE FOR, BUT ONE THING I WANT THE MAKE SURE OF IN THE FUTURE, MY FRIENDSHIP WITH HER. SHE WAS AND IS A GREAT PERSON. AS THE SEX, THIS IS NOT A TOPIC I EVER IMAGINED WOULD COME UP AT A JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING, BUT 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 OUTWARDLEY SHY ABOUT MY INEXPERIENCE. I TRIED THE HIDE THAT. AT THE SAME TIME I WAS INWARDLEY 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 WOULD BE VILIFIED 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 KNEE 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’S SPORTS WAS EMERGING IN THE WAKE OF TITLE IX. I THANK ALL OF THEM FOR ALL THEIR TEXTS AND THEIR E-MAILS AND THEIR SUPPORT. ONE OF THOSE WOMEN FRIENDS FROM COLLEGE, A SELF-DESCRIBED LIBERAL AND FEMINIST, SENT ME A TEXT LAST NIGHT THAT SAID, “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, “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, AND LIFT UP YOUR FRIENDS, LOVE YOUR FRIENDS. I HAVE FELT THAT LOVE MORE OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS THAN I EVER HAVE IN MY LIFE. I THANK ALL MY FRIENDS. I LOVE ALL MY FRIENDS. THROUGHOUT MY LIFE I HAVE DEVOTED HUGE EFFORT 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 IN DESCRIBING ME AS “MAN OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY.” READ THE OP-ED FROM SARAH DAY FROM YARMOUTH, MAINE. SHE WORKED IN THE OVAL OFFICE OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF PRESIDENT BUSH’S OFFICE. HERE’S WHAT SHE RECENTLY WROTE IN CENTRALMAINE.COM. TODAY SHE STANDS BY HER COMMENTS. “BRETT WAS AN ADVOCATE FOR YOUNG WOMEN LIKE ME. HE ENCOURAGED ME THE 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 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.” 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 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 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’LL 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’S 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 COACHED 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’VE EVER DONE IN MY WHOLE LIFE. I MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO COACH AGAIN. THANKS TO WHAT SOME OF YOU ON THE COMMITTEE HAVE UNLEASHED. 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 A MERE ALLEGATION, IF THE 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’LL 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’D LIKE TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF GUIDELINES FOR OUR QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION TODAY. IF I ASK A QUESTION,.>>I’M READY. THANK YOU.>>IF I ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, PLEASE ASK ME TO CLARIFY IT OR ASK IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. I MAY ASK A QUESTION WHETHER I INCORPORATE SOME INFORMATION YOU’VE ALREADY PROVIDED. IF I GET IT WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME. I’M 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.>>I DON’T THINK WE ALL DO.>>YOU HAVE THAT, AS WELL?>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH?>>YEAH.>>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 THE QUESTIONS THAT I WILL BE ASKING YOU?>>NO.>>I WANT YOU TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REVIEW THE DEFINITION THAT’S BEFORE YOU OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.>>HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.>>I HAVE. I MAY REFER BACK TO IT IF I CAN.>>I’D LIKE TO POINT OUT TWO SPECIFIC PARTS. AMONG THE EXAMPLES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, IT INCLUDES RUBBING OR GRINDING YOUR GENITALS AGAINST SOMEBODY, CLOTHED OR UNCHOATD. 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, LELAND INHAM AT THE TIME OR LELAND KEYSER NOW, PATRICK “P.J.” SMITH, DR. FORD AND AN UNNAMED BOY. DO YOU KNOW MARK JUDGE?>>I DO.>>HOW DO YOU KNOW HIM?>>HE WAS A FRIEND AT GEORGETOWN PREP STARTING IN NINTH GRADE. HE’S SOMEONE IN OUR, YOU KNOW, GROUP OF FRIENDS WERE VERY FRIENDLY GROUP IN CLASS. YOU SAW THE LETTER THAT’S 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 TIMES FROM HIS ADDICTION. SUFFERED TREMENDOUSLY FROM…>>WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP LIKE WITH HIM NOW?>>I HAVEN’T TALKED TO HIM FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. WE’VE 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 NINTH GRADE. GEORGETOWN PREP. WENT BY P.J. THEN. HE AND I LIVED CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER.jj”, PLAYED FOOTBALL TOGETHER. HE WAS DEFENSIVE TACKLE, CORNER BACK, WIDE RECEIVER. WE CAR POODLE TO SCHOOL, POOLED TO SCHOOL, ALONG WITH D DAVIS EVERY YEAR, THE THREE OF US FOR TWO YEARS. I DIDN’T HAVE A CAR SO ONE OF THE TWO WOULD DRIVE EVERY DAY AND I WOULD BE IN, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD PICK ME UP.>>WHAT IS 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 INGRAM OR LELAND KEYSER?>>I KNOW OF HER. IT IS POSSIBLE. YOU KNOW, SAW, MET HER IN HIGH SCHOOL AT SOME POINT, AT SOME EVENT. YES, 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 IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS BY DR. FORD, MS. RAMIREZ AND MS. 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 AND IF YOU ARE VERY CONFIDENT OF YOUR POSITION AND YOU APPEAR TO BE, WHY AREN’T YOU ALSO ASKING THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THESE CLAIMS?>>SENATOR, I WILL 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 PASSED WHERE ALL OF THIS NONSENSE IS COMING OUT, YOU KNOW, GAUGES, I AM ON BOATS IN RHODE ISLAND, I AM IN COLORADO, YOU KNOW, I AM SIGHTED ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND THESE THINGS ARE PRINTED AND RUN BREATHLESSLY BY CABLE NEWS. YOU KNOW, I WANTED A HEARING THE NEXT DAY. MY FAMILY HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY THIS, SENATOR. DESTROYED.>>AND –>>AND WHOEVER WANTS — WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE DECIDES, I AM ALL IN IMMEDIATELY. I AM ALL IN IMMEDIATELY.>>AND TERRIBLE AND HARD PART OF THIS IS, WHEN WE GET AN ALLEGATION WE ARE 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 IS 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 OF 302S THAT JUST TELL YOU WHAT WE SAID. SO I AM HERE. I WANTED TO BE HERE — I WANTED TO BE HERE THE NEXT DAY. IT IS AN OUTRAGE THAT I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO COME IMMEDIATELY DEFEND MY NAME AND SAY, I DIDN’T DO THIS AND GIVE YOU ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE. I AM NOT EVEN — I AM NOT EVEN IN DC ON THE WEEKENDS IN THE SUMMER OF 1982. THIS HAPPENED ON A WEEKDAY? WELL, WHEN I AM NOT AT A BLAIR HIGH SCHOOL FOR A SUMMER LEAGUE GAME AND NOT AT TOBIN’S HOUSEWORKING OUT, NOT AT A MOVIE WITH SUSAN?>>YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO BE HERE RIGHT AWAY.>>WELL, THE DIFFICULT THING IS THAT THESE HEARINGS ARE SET AND SET BY THE MAJORITY BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT GETTING THE EVIDENCE AND HAVING THE EVIDENCE LOOKED AT AND 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 ARE INTERVIEWING ME.>>YOU ARE INTERVIEWING ME. YOU ARE DOING IT, SENATOR. I AM SORRY TO INTERRUPT BUT YOU ARE DOING IT. THERE IS NO CONCLUSIONS REACHED –>>AND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, IF I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS BY DR. FORD, MS. RAMIREZ AND MS. SWETNICK ARE WRONG?>>THAT IS EMPHATICALLY WHAT I AM 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.>>MS. 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. THE 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, SR. YEAR HIGH SCHOOL KIDS WERE LEGAL TO DRINK AND YES, WE DRANK BEER AND AS I SAID, SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES PROBABLY HAD TOO MANY BEERS AND SOMETIMES OTHER PEOPLE HAD TOO MANY BEERS.>>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. BROUGHT AN 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 HAVE GONE TO SLEEP BUT I HAVE NEVER BLACKED OUT. THAT IS THE ALLEGATION. AND THAT IS 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 — YOU KNOW,. 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 Az SUMMER OF 1982. SHE SAID THAT MARK JUDGE, P.J. SMITH AND LELAND INGRAM 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 HAVE SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENTS, OPENING STATEMENT.>>DR. FORD DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT WHERE SHE WAS ALONE IN A ROOM WITH YOU AND MARK JUDGE. THE JUDGE.>>HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ALONE IN A ROOM WITH DR. FORD AND MARK JUDGE.>>NO EFFORT DR. FORD DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT THAT YOU GRINDED YOUR GENITALS ON HER.>>HAVE YOU EVER RUBBED OR GRINDERRED YOUR GENITALS ON DR. FORD.>>NO.>>SHE TALKED ABOUT INCIDENT WHERE YOU COVERED DR. FORD’S MOUTH WITH YOUR HAND. DID YOU EVER COVER DR. FORD’S MOUTH WITH YOUR HAND.>>NO SHE DESCRIBED AN INCIDENT WHERE YOU DESCRIBED HER CLOTHES.>>HAVE YOU EVER TRIED 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 HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR THE MONTHS OF A MAY, JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST OF 1982. YOU HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF YOU?>>I DO. DID YOU CREATE THESE CALENDARS? IN THE SENSE OF ALL THE HANDWRITING THAT IS ON THEM?>>YES. IS IT EXCLUSIVELY YOUR HANDWRITING.>>YES.>>WHEN DID YOU MAKE THESE ENTRIES?>>IN 1982.>>HAS ANYTHING CHANGED — BEEN CHANGED IN 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 ARE BOTH FORWARD LOOKING AND BACKWARD LOOKING AS YOU CAN TELL BY LOOKING AT THEM, BECAUSE I CROSS OUT CERTAIN DOCTOR’S APPOINTMENTS THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN OR ONE NIGHT WHERE I WAS SUPPOSED TO LIFT WEIGHTS, I CROSSED THAT OUT BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY DEPARTMENT MAKE IT THAT NIGHT. SO YOU CAN SEE THINGS THAT I DIDN’T DO. CROSSED OUT, IN RETROSPECT AND ALSO WHEN I LIST THE SPECIFIC PEOPLE WHO I WAS WITH, THAT IS LIKELY BACKWARD LOOKING.>>YOU EXPLAINED YOU KEPT THESE CALENDARS BECAUSE YOUR FATHER STARTED KEEPING THEM IN 1978, I BELIEVE YOU SAID.>>UH-HUH. 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 HAS KEPT THEM TOO, SINCE 1978, SO LEZA GOOD ROLE MODEL.>>SO HE IS A GOOD ROLE MODEL.>>MS. MITCHELL YOU WILL HAVE TO STOP.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS ASKED FOR A BREAK SO WE WILL TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK.>>>>OKAY. 15 MINUTE BREAK HAS BEEN CALLED BY SENATE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN CHUCK GRASSLEY FOLLOWING SEARING, PAINFUL AND TEARFUL OPENING REMARKS FROM JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND A FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS AND A LITTLE BIT MORE THAT CAME FROM THE PROSECUTOR PICKED BY REPUBLICANS, RACHEL MITCHELL, AND THEN DIANNE FEINSTEIN. BUT WE HAVE ALL BEEN SITTING HERE IN WASHINGTON WATCHING ALL OF WHAT HAS JUST HAPPENED, AND AS WE BRING IN BY ANNA GOLODRYGA, JOHN DICKERSON, ALSO COHOST OF “CBS THIS MORNING”, JOHN HAS BEEN HERE ALL DAY, RICKY CLING MAN, KLIEMAN AND THEY HAVE BEEN WITH US ALL AFTERNOON, IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO WATCH MANY TIMES, RICKY.>>I THINK YOU ALMOST HAVE TO LOOK AWAY BECAUSE IT IS SO PAINFUL. AND WHAT KAVANAUGH HAS DONE WAS EXACTLY WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE. IT IS EMOTIONAL, IT IS PASSIONATE. IT IS INDIGNANT, AND YOU SEE HOW HIS LIFE HAS BEEN TORN ASUNDER, AND I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU EVER MAKE THAT. FAKE THAT. THERE IS AN AUTHENTICITY TO IT THAT YOU DO HAVE TO LOOK AWAY. IT IS LIKE NO MATTER HOW GOOD DR. FORD WAS AND HOW CREDIBLE SHE WAS THAT NOW YOU HAVE EXACTLY THE COMPLETE COUNTERBALANCE.>>THIS MAY BE THE CHALLENGE FACING A LOT OF AMERICANS AS THEY TRY TO ASSESS THIS DATA IS THAT IF THEY■ç=)ñ FIND AUTHENTIY IN BOTH WHAT THEY SAW IN THE MORNING AND ALSO WHAT THEY SAW IN THE AFTERNOON, HOW DO YOU THEN — HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THOSE TWO THINGS, JOHN? I MEAN IS THAT NOT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SOME OF US ARE ASKING RIGHT NOW?>>ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS — HIS OPENING STATEMENT WAS — WAS FOR A MAN WHO HAS BEEN UNDERSTANDING OUT BY THE PROCESS, ONE LONG EXTENDED KIND OF BLAST OF ANGUISH, AND SO YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO SEEM QUITE AUTHENTIC IN THERE, GENUINE PAIN, THE ABILITY TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT THAT PAIN HAS DONE TO THEIR LIVES AND SO THE SENATORS ARE FACED WITH THIS QUESTION OF TWO PEOPLE WHO MIGHT SEEM TOTALLY COMPELLING IN WHAT THEY SAY AND WHAT DO THEY DO ABOUT THAT? AND HOW DO THEY ARTICULATE THE SUPPORT FOR THEIR VOTE IN THE END? AND THAT IS — THEY ARE — THEY ARE ABOUT IN AS TOUGH A SPOT AS YOU COULD BE IN, THOSE SENATORS WHO WERE GENUINELY OF AN OPEN MIND ABOUT HOW THIS WAS GOING FORWARD.>>IT WAS ALMOST AS IF YOU SAW HIM DEFENDING HIS CHARACTER AND HIS HONOR MORE THAN HE WAS THE NOMINATION. YOU SAW HIM COME OUT AND INITIALLY SHOW RAGE. THERE WAS A LOT OF ANGER. AND IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT HE SAID THAT HE HAD WITNESSED THE DAY AFTER THE ACCUSATION FROM THE DR. FORD CAME OUT THAT ANGER I THINK ONCE HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT HIS FAMILY AND THE WOMEN IN HIS FAMILY AND HIS LIFE, HIS DAUGHTERS, HIS WIFE, HIS MOTHER TURNED INTO PURE EMOTION, AND AT TYPES HE HAD TO STOP AND YOU THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BREAK DOWN IN TEARS.>>AND HIS FATHER.>>AND HIS FATHER.>>ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO INFLUENCED HIM OR THAT HE TRIED TO MODEL HIS LIFE OFF OF, HE DID THE CALENDARS BECAUSE HIS FATHER DID AND THE PEOPLE HE BELIEVED HE WAS GOING TO BE A ROLE MODEL FOR, HIS CHILDREN, WHEN HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THEM, IT WAS — THAT’S WHEN HE BECAME THE MOST EMOTIONAL. AND, YOU KNOW, YES, YOU SAW VERY ANGRY AND AS YOU SAID AUTHENTIC AND HOW COULD HE NOT BE? AS HE SAID HE HAS BEEN HUNG OUT THERE, NO OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, WATCHED SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS THAT HE ADAMANTLY DENIES AND THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN ACCUSED OF, AND IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE, WHERE HE WAS VERY WELLHEADED FOR CONFIRMATION, AS HE SAID, AND THEN HE BELIEVES AS HE TESTIFIED WHEN TESTIFIED SAW THEY COULDN’T DO IT THIS WAY THEN THIS COMES OUT. HE SEES THIS AND THAT, THAT WAS VERY POWERFUL AWAY, HE FLAMED THAT BEFORE THE SENATORS AS WELL, THIS WAS, HE BELIEVES, A DEMOCRATIC HIT JOB TO KEEP HIM OFF THE SUPREME COURT AND THEY WERE WILLING TO STOP AT NOTHING, INCLUDING DRAGGING HIM, HIS FAMILY, EVERYTHING –>>AND HE WALKED A FINE LINE THERE, CALLING IT A LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY, THEORY, SAYING THIS WAS A CIRCUS, GROSS SERVING CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, KIND OF WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND TALKING ABOUT HIS TIME IN THE STARVATION. BUT A FINE LINE AND NOT GOING AFTER DR. FORD, AND EVEN MENTIONING HIS TEN-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER SAID WE SHOULD PRAY FOR HER. SO THAT, IF ANYTHING, I THINK ANYBODY THAT THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BE ATTACKING HER, THAT CLEARLY DIDN’T HAPPEN.>>I HAVE THE SENATORS WHO HAVE TO MAKE THIS CHOICE SO MUCH IN MY MIND. I THINK THERE IS A PARTISAN ARGUMENT, DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT ON GORSUCH AND DIDN’T.>>THE COURT IS NOT IN THE BALANCE, OF COURSE ARE.>>THAT’S TRUE.>>AND THE REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME COURT KNOW — I THINK HIS MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENT WAS NOT SO MUCH THIS IS ALL PLANNED BY THE DEMOCRATS, BUT LOOK AT WHAT THE ANGUISH THIS PROCESS HAS CAUSED AND WHAT YOU WILL DO TO MY FAMILY BY — AND ME BY NOT — BY NOT BELIEVING ME. NO MATTER WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT THESE TWO HUMAN BEINGS, THIS HAS BEEN A PAINFUL AND UNFORGETTABLE DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY. IT IS NOT OVER YET. WE WANT TO LISTEN TO A LITTLE BIT NOW OF WHAT WE JUST HEARD OVER THESE PAST HOUR AND A HALF OR SO.>>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. I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO WITHDRAWING FROM 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 DRAW ME OUT. THE VILE 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. THIS IS, THIS 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. THE OTHER NIGHT, ASHLEY AND MY DAUGHTER ELIZA SAID THEIR PRAYERS AND LITTLE ELIZA ALL OF TEN YEARS OLD — SAID TO ASHLEY WE SHOULD PRAY FOR WOMAN — PRAY FOR THE WOMAN. IT IS A LOT OF WISDOM FROM A TEN-YEAR-OLD. WE MEAN NO ILL WILL.

3 comments

Leave a Reply

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