gets she gets interrupted every five minutes, and that is making it harderfor her than minutes, and that is making it harder for her than it would minutes, and that is making it harderfor her than it would be in a normal trial proceeding when there is no time limit on the questioning? yellin macro that is a drawback for her. she's clearly a criminal prosecutor, but this is not a criminal proceeding, this is a job interview as many people are saying, and a chance for christine blasey ford and willjudge kavanaugh to state their stories. that is the challenge, and in this five—minute chunks she's not able to really extend or set out her arguments in that timeframe. the other thing for the democrats is that they have been very clever and making sure that the female senators have been the ones you have begun with the questioning. and dan feinstein stating some facts that transcend party lines. she began by saying, sexual violence is a serious problem, one that goes on scene, and whether you are republican or democrat, that there isa republican or democrat, that there is a statement of fact. wings like that will be very powerful for people watching in the living rooms

gci’oss people watching in the living rooms across america —— things like that. that is something that partisan politics does have two transcend. what struck me about dan feinstein‘s speech, there have been two other named allegations and one other anonymous one, all of which he denies, he denies all the these allegations, but dan feinstein put this in the context of those other allegations and in the wider context of the metoo movement. she said, institutions have not progressed, in the way that women are treated. she said, let's remember some 27 years ago, a woman named anita hill testified before congress in confirmation hearings for clarence thomas, on the us supreme court, she accused him of sexual misconduct. now, he still passed those confirmation hearings, but as we

remember, we both watched those hearings. she was treated in a fairly sexist way by the royal mail committee, who were very sceptical ofa claim committee, who were very sceptical of a claim she making, and by 27 yea rs of a claim she making, and by 27 years on many are hoping that today christine blasey ford will get a fair hearing and we will hear from judge kavanaugh later today as well. let's go live now to capitol hill. gary o'donoghue is there for us. they have just taken this break for lunch and we will see them come back afterwards when questioning will continue. there is a problem for republicans because they have set this up hoping to deflect this is of having 11 men on their side of the table all asking dr ford about these allegations. they have passed on

this responsibility to rachel mitchell, and it is becoming difficult to present a defence of brett kava naugh difficult to present a defence of brett kavanaugh through that process. he will get his chance later on and been all he will object these things but he only has one thing to see which is, it was not them, he did not do it. what they would have been hoping for in this session this morning was at least a chance to try and throw some doubt on this testimony, to undermine the issue of memory, detail, the issue of consistency, perhaps to raise more significant concerns about the coordination with the democrats that has taken place over the last few weeks. that has been attempted to some extent that in a rather broken and fractured narrative through this forces m ea nt and fractured narrative through this forces meant it has been difficult forces meant it has been difficult for them to make the case for brett kavanaugh. they talked about fear of flying, why do she fly on holiday, hobbies

flying around the world. it seems to bea flying around the world. it seems to be a slim opening they were trying for the but there is still brett kavanaugh to come and we are at a moment where we have heard from ms ford, she has come across as a credible and sympathetic witness, we have not heard yet from brett kavanaugh. the nature of this hearing and public perception of the ceiling can still change over the course of the next few hours. that is absolutely right. it will depend on how he presents himself. we are told he will try a more passionate defence of his position, perhaps a revision of that rather robotic interview we saw on fox news, something difference to that. christine blasey ford had a narrative to tell, a set of events to go over, she has been able to talk about the impact on her life, ina talk about the impact on her life, in a sense what brett kavanaugh has

got to see this afternoon is one thing, idid got to see this afternoon is one thing, i did not do that, it was not me. that is the problem, he will have to say that over and over again, it is a question of how convincing he is when he does that. and of course he will get questions from democrats and republicans as well. thank you forjoining us. you have known brett kavanaugh for 17 years, you have worked with him in the white house with george w bush. how do you think he is going to approach this afternoon? he is going to be more impassioned. and he has been so far? that he has been thus far. as a judge you want a ca nter thus far. as a judge you want a canter nina, thus far. as a judge you want a ca nter nina, reassure thus far. as a judge you want a canter nina, reassure people. we are talking about his life now, this is not just about getting talking about his life now, this is notjust about getting into this appeal court, this is about the reputation of brett kavanaugh moving forward. if this were me i would come out with more fire and vigour, see i did not do that, it was not ——

i was not there. and people have said and off that they were not there. if he does not bring more passion to this his chances are going to be precipitously reduced as to whether or not he gets on the supreme court. i was listening to the testimony of anita hill and that famous moment when claris thomas carroll is back after —— when clarence thomas comes back after the testimony and he called it a high—tech lynching, is that's the type of fire he needs to bring britain mark or, does he need to bring fire but also somehow recognise that something bad may have happened to her? yes, and 27 yea rs have happened to her? yes, and 27 years ago looking at clarence thomas at the time, he is hearing all these accusations, he looked angry and

defiant. brett kava naugh accusations, he looked angry and defiant. brett kavanaugh had better bring a level of anger to make sure people will listen to him and believe his side of the story. my family and i have been the target of harassment and death threats and i have been called the most vile and hateful names imaginable. these messages, while far fewer than expressions of support, have been terrifying and have rocked me to my core. people have posted my personal information and that of my parents online. this has resulted in additional e—mails, calls, and threats. my family and i were forced to move out of our home. since the

16th of september might family have been staying in various secure hotels, at times separated, at times together, with the help of security guards. this past tuesday evening my work e—mailwas this past tuesday evening my work e—mail was hacked and messages were sent out trying to recant my description of the sexual assault. apart from the assault itself, these past couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. i have had to relive this, in front of the world. i have seen my life picked apart by people on television, on twitter, on other social media, other media, and in this body, who have never met me or spoken with me. i have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. those who say that do not know me. i am an independent person and i am no one's pawn. my motivation in coming forward was to be helpful and to

provide facts about how the actions of brett kava naugh provide facts about how the actions of brett kavanaugh have damaged my life, so that you could take into serious consideration as you make your decision about how to proceed. it is not my responsibility to determine whether brett kavanaugh deserves to sit on the supreme court. my responsibility is to tell you the truth. christine blasey ford there. the chairman of the republican committee began at the beginning of this hearing by decrying the nature of the environment that she has had to operate in, he said it has not been fairto operate in, he said it has not been fair to both the witness and to brett kava naugh fair to both the witness and to brett kavanaugh and they should not have had to go through this treatment. it is worth remembering, backin treatment. it is worth remembering, back in 1991, anita hill's lawyer said that she also received death threats regarding the allegations against clarence thomas. at capitol hill it is lunch, we can

surely you the senate room, there are some staff there, as of yet christine blasey ford is not back, the senators are not back, as soon as these healings resume, we will go back to them so that you can listen infor back to them so that you can listen in for yourselves. let us speak to our north america reporter. you have been watching these key rings. earlier when we spoke you said about what you would be looking for. the initial 30 minutes, when you listen to dianne feinstein talk about the allegations of procedural misconduct, of partisan infighting, then all of a southern when christine blasey ford spoke it cut

through that fog and that is what people will take from this. the tests many was released last night, we knew what she was going to say, but to hear her say it in a sometimes faltering, quiet voice, that was particularly powerful. after that the question was, how would rachel mitchell handle what is essentially a cross examination for the republican senators? the problem was the format. you had her talking for five minutes, then was the format. you had her talking forfive minutes, then democrats talking for five minutes. forfive minutes, then democrats talking forfive minutes. if forfive minutes, then democrats talking for five minutes. if she forfive minutes, then democrats talking forfive minutes. if she is trying to build a case to underline the credibility of ms ford, every five minutes she was thrown a lifeline by democrats. it was like changing the twin court tv, public access, senate committee hearing, it was hard to follow any narrative. will there be causing arguments, some conclusion from this? that is an "chin and the format does not

lend itself to that. the things people will remember as the opening testimony, maybe when she said, 100% certain that brett was the sealant. i was struck that she used his name, brett, suggesting that she knew him, he was not a complete stranger. he has denied knowing her, cc may have met her that he does not remember her as being somebody that she knew. —— he knew. earlier, iwas her as being somebody that she knew. —— he knew. earlier, i was struck by the fact that the taxi driver near capitol hill was listening to this hearing. give us a sense of the extent to which americans are listening to these healings, the impact that this could have on public opinion, and to what extent the man in the white house behind you is listening and what choices he

faces ? being here in washington sometimes we get too wrapped up with the permutations of politics and discussion. but this is cutting through that. 0ver discussion. but this is cutting through that. over 70% of americans have the supreme court in their mind when they are heading to the elections in november, they are paying attention, do they see themselves in brett kavanaugh, or christine blasey ford, they are drawing conclusions from that. it is something that a lot of people are paying attention to. brett kavanaugh has his moments later today. at the moment the tests many of ms ford, her passion, that is something that a lot of americans watching will ta ke a lot of americans watching will take heed of. evenif take heed of. even if they are not watching it now, a lot of people at work in the united states, but later in the day,

they will have key moments of this testimony replayed, and i am sure that there are moments that will be replayed will be the tough moment when she describes what actually happened and her saying she is 100% sure this is not the case of mistaken identity. what about the president? he has said he will be watching this, what will he make of this? he expressed some biscuit things about brett kava naugh‘s he expressed some biscuit things about brett kavanaugh‘s television experience earlier. —— expressed misgivings. he has given advice in the past. in bob woodward's new book it was said, pushback, contest every bit of it, never admit a thing. donald trump will be watching to see how brett kava naugh donald trump will be watching to see how brett kavanaugh handles it. he had eight certain amount of wiggle room when he was talking last night in his press conference about whether he would stand by brett kavanaugh in watching these

proceedings. he said both of them had been subject to false accusations. it looks like there is the possibility that of brett kavanaugh does the possibility that of brett kava naugh does not the possibility that of brett kavanaugh does not do a good job to do, more reticent, but donald trump could move on. i got the impression but donald trump was putting brett kavanaugh on notice that he expected a better performance from him and he has so farand we performance from him and he has so far and we will see how brett kavanaugh does perform. this is early days in this hearing, several hours to go, and that could change the dynamic of what we are hearing. dr ford was asked by a democratic senator about which aspect of the alleged assault she remembered post and this was her answer. what is the strongest memory you have? the strongest memory of the incident, something that you cannot forget? take whatever time you need.

indelible as the laughter, the uproarious laughter, between the two, and they're having fun at my expense. you have never forgotten that laughter? neverforgotten expense. you have never forgotten that laughter? never forgotten them laughing at you? they were laughing with each other. and you were the object of the laughter? i was underneath one of them while the two laughed. two friends having a good time with one another. christine blasey ford with that memory of laughter. there were moments during the hearing when you can imagine that every woman who has been the subject of sexual assault felt a certain amount of ptsd, it was tough to listen to, i see that

with the caveat that we do not know what happened, whether it was brett kavanaugh, what happened, whether it was brett kava naugh, whether she was what happened, whether it was brett kavanaugh, whether she was sexually assaulted, we have not got all the fa cts , assaulted, we have not got all the facts, but it is true that listening to that testimony from a witness that sounded so credible will have triggered a response in many women who have gone through a similar experience. let us bring in... where do we stand, if this is to be meaningful it has to have the power to change people's minds on both sides. are there republican senators, possibly democratic senators, possibly democratic senators, who will go into this hearing and cbr opening to —— open to listening and able make up their mind at the end. the retiring senator from arizona has seemingly said he would support the nomination, then you look at his face, he is paying attention, this may have swayed some republicans who

thought they were going to support brett kavanaugh, thought they were going to support brett kava naugh, they thought they were going to support brett kavanaugh, they might think they will pull the support back. whether he will lose democratic support? i think they will support her. i do not think they will support brett kavanaugh. there will be nothing said by brett kavanaugh later today that will sway democrats. speu democrats. spell that out for us. it is one thing watching on television, i cannot imagine what it is like being in that room, and the senator from arizona looked pained, if he was to see, i cannot thought for this nominee, what happens? he has two votes on thejudiciary committee and then in the senate. this is down to what the representatives from alaska and mean do. if you thought this was a consistent vote it is incumbent upon senate leadership to get —— to make

sure there are no wavering senators. we will be hearing from brett kavanaugh, we understand he has left his house and is on his way to capitol hill and washington, dc. we do not actually see him, that there isa do not actually see him, that there is a carb eating outside his house, he has to come to capitol hill. —— ina carwaiting. he has to come to capitol hill. —— in a car waiting. he has said previously, —— this is not an easy act to follow that he will have two repeat again and again, he does not have the narrative as we have pointed out earlier that he will have two repeat again and again that he did not do this. he has categorically denied that he was involved in this incident or in any other of the incidents. this is the vehicle leaving his house on the way to capitol hill. he is now fighting for hisjob, notjust on to capitol hill. he is now fighting for his job, notjust on the supreme court, if this goes back before him

the question is can he keep hisjob as he is at the moment on the dc court because the issue will have some impact on that. our north america editor canjoin some impact on that. our north america editor can join us some impact on that. our north america editor canjoin us now here in washington. what is happening during this bleak amongst the republican senators? what are they saying to themselves? i will be —— how will they change what happened this afternoon. the republicans started this hoping that with a clear conscience they could vote for brett kavanaugh as the next supreme courtjustice, this lunchtime they will be sitting down thinking this has gone as badly as it good, because what they needed for that to happen was for christine blasey ford to come across as flaky, insincere, dissembling, dishonest, and she was none of those things. she was a compelling witness. she admitted she did not know. she said she could not remember it quite right but she does remember certain things very clearly. i think people watching it find it very compelling.

i also thought that the line of questioning from the female prosecutor that was brought in, because all the members on the republican side of thejudiciary committee are men, so they brought ina committee are men, so they brought in a female prosecutor, her line of questioning i did not think got them anywhere. this lunchtime i think they are having their lunch and thinking this is not going terribly well. these pictures, just to fill you in, are not the resumption of the hearing, these are pictures from this morning when christine blasey ford initially took her seat. what do they need to do in terms of the questioning? i have been confused by some of the questioning from rachel mitchell. there have clearly been attem pts mitchell. there have clearly been atte m pts to mitchell. there have clearly been attempts to cast doubt on her credibility, the issue of whether she was afraid of flying, was she actually afraid of flying or was she just saying that. to cast doubt on her credibility as a character more

broadly, whether she was a democratic partisan, she seems to have handled that questioning pretty well. what else do they need to do withjim thing they can do is cast doubt on her credibility, they have got to be deep dent in her credibility before brett kavanaugh sta rts credibility before brett kavanaugh starts speaking. what can they do regarding that? it is difficult to see. she did not seem to be dissembling, it seems to be a sincere account. i have read the testimonial that she was going to get last night, which is released beforehand. i read it and it was tough to read that it was oaky. when you physically heard it, and her seeing it oaky. when you physically heard it, and herseeing it in oaky. when you physically heard it, and her seeing it in her own words, with that kind of emotion and the clear sense of pain, it was compelling. it does not seem that she is making this up. the second thing they might have hoped was it isa thing they might have hoped was it is a case of mistaken identity, maybe she had brett kavanaugh confused with somebody else. another question, perhaps she had a drink,

had she taken any drugs? she said no to all of that. how certain was she that it was brett kavanaugh? she said, 100%. she said all those things. what does brett kavanaugh see? does he keep saying, i did not do that, it was not me. then which case the committee, american public, us president, has the choice to make, who is telling the truth? 0r is so desperate for the republicans to get brett kavanaugh on to the supreme court that people willjust say, maybe this did happen but i do not care too much, he can be on the supreme court, that would be a big jump, witha supreme court, that would be a big jump, with a lot of people sitting around the tv screens watching this being played out. and the president last night said he is going to be watching this, what do you think he is speaking of it? quite interesting. there was a great phrase used by an american journalist that i saw last night, it is the theme autumn fees, not the

postmortem, looking at what happens if it goes wrong. this morning he was flying back from new york to washington, apparently every tv on the aircraft was tuned to the news coverage of this hearing. i think he will be in a reflective and anxious mood. he may be thinking it is time that he starts looking at to his next supreme court nominee is going to be because it might not be brett kavanaugh. there is a long way to 90, kavanaugh. there is a long way to go, an entire hearing this afternoon, but did things go the way that the republicans would have hoped this morning? very firmly the a nswer hoped this morning? very firmly the answer is no. i agree. it is hard to see how this will be something, and we were watching fox news earlier, and that is what the president is watching, and if they are saying it is not going well, the president will be hearing that, and that is worth mentioning. thank you forjoining us. these hearings are about to resume. we we re hearings are about to resume. we were told they would resume at ten

past the hour, now 25 minutes past the hour, a delay in resumption, the drake is going on longer. i did notice that dr ford had said before the break that she needed a bit of a break so maybe they have delayed for that. i can see some of the democratic senators are back in their seats now which would suggest that other senators are going to come back into their seats, and then this hearing will resume. there you can see the table that will be where she comes back into the room, it is on the right—hand side of your screen is there, and when comes back in, there will be a fume or democratic senators. i should have counted how many have spoken, by my count six or seven have done their questioning, that means we hear from three have done their questioning, that means we hearfrom three more senators, babel have five minutes to ask questions, most of them are not

asking questions, just making statements. that gives rachel mitchell three more bites at this chance to put their case of prosecutor, basically, to try to catch inconsistencies in dr ford's account. but she only has a few more chances to do that and so far she has found it difficult to do that because of this process that we have been talking about. 0nce because of this process that we have been talking about. once we do that, we seem to have lost the photo, perhaps somebody has what in front of the kamara, there we go, once thatis of the kamara, there we go, once that is wrapped up, that is her having wrapped up, then at that point brett kavanaugh, we saw him leaving his house, he will be in the hot seat and he will be facing questions. he will face questions from democrats and republicans at the beginning. brett kavanaugh will also make an opening statement as well. christian fraser is in london.

you have been watching this. we will be talking about this for days to come but right now what is your initial reaction? watching it from over here it is obvious that the democrats have made this an issue of her credibility and believability, and quite successfully. i thought the line of questioning talking about the fight and fightand questioning talking about the fight and fight and what you remember any situation was interesting, certain things you remember, certain things you block out, part of the defence mechanism, i thought that was a smart line of questioning. what the republicans failed to do is to establish what is the fundamental problem in this case, that there is no evidence trail, and very little corroborating evidence. they have not been able to fix that in the public‘s might, largely because of the format they have chosen. five minutes blocks, you do not build the tension, build the line of

questioning. this is not a court of law. that they are subject to the court of public opinion and i think people will be more persuaded by what the democrats are doing here, and what the witness she talks, than they will be by the republicans so far. i was raising this point about her academic expertise. i had not acted that in before this hearing, she has expertise in things like memory. academic psychologist. she has studied these kinds of issues, that bolsters her as a witness. the other thing i am struck by this how compelling she is as a person. she is almost falling over herself to be nice to everybody in the course of these proceedings, to the republicans as well as to the democrats. it is notjust that she is being polite, she is nervous, you little bit scared, she comes across as human, she also comes across as

someone, as human, she also comes across as someone, and i raised this because i think it is why she is is a pathetic witness, somebody who is trying to be nice even to the people that are questioning her. yes, she does not fudge the things that she does not know, she tells them very clearly that she cannot remember. what has also come out of it and what the democrats managed to elicit from her as this idea that she had spoken about brett kavanaugh before he was nominated became a nominee for the supreme court. there we re nominee for the supreme court. there were three orfour nominee for the supreme court. there were three or four but this is that she had spoken to, including her husband, where she had mentioned his name, or she has talked about him as a federal courtjudge, and i think thatis a federal courtjudge, and i think that is strong. in her own words she said, she is nobody‘s pawn. she has no political axe to grind. the senator's complained that dianne feinstein did not bring this earlier, that lying is not working

because it is obvious from what she said and from what senator feinstein said and from what senator feinstein said that she wanted anonymity, she did not want this biting in the public domain. i am not sure that that frustration that senator g rassley that frustration that senator grassley is expressing his driving home the point that he thinks this is being done politically by the democrats. i wonder whether senator grassley has been the best place person that they could have produced on the republican side. ron christie, when you look at what senator grassley has said, the tone of his statements, complaining about the procedure, does he represent the republicans well on that committee? he does not. he comes across as being a cantankerous curmudgeon. he did not even say good morning to the witness, it took dianne feinstein to properly