that u “m "; ur ; that lying is not “a?" =,_.3:~"-‘" :{,,\ wk" 2§?,.\._,-g:\.,_,. 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 introduce dr ford. from the

beginning of the republicans have the opportunity, a control the process , the opportunity, a control the process, and i think they have done everything possibly wrong that they could have done today. the other point i have to say is that brett kava naugh the other point i have to say is that brett kavanaugh hasn't spoken yet. everyone thought that any tailback in 1981 was a credible witness and justice thomas was still brought forth and still made it to the supreme court. we still have many hours to go to see whether or not brett kava naugh many hours to go to see whether or not brett kavanaugh will eventually make it, but boy, it seems like he has a lot of convincing to do. kristian, what do the republicans have to do to change the dynamic of this? is difficult, because they have given it overdue rachel mitchell and they are not going to break that format. but i'm sure that they will be huddled together trying to get to the nub of what she's

trying to prove. she's working around the outer ring of the case, trying to play out that she was prepared to go flying on our holidays but not willing to fly to give evidence in washington. that is not a strong line of questioning, for me. she's not particularly focusing on what happened in the bedroom, what her recollections of that are, it is more about where the house was, the dates, the times, try to pick holes in the story, and i don't think it is working particularly well. as a prosecutor, how would you be handling this? particularly well. as a prosecutor, how would you be handling this7m is fascinating. the republicans are trying to establish a timeline, what time did this take place, where was it, when was it, and trying to pick apart her credibility but as we have spoken several times, this is not a courtroom, this is a politicalforum so courtroom, this is a politicalforum so what the republicans are trying to do is use a criminal procedure technique in a form that is for policy and politics and it is not very effective, thus far. one of the

things that concerns to me, sorry to interrupt, is what is at stake, looking at it from outside america. it becomes very clear to you that the ra three or four on this panel who have presidential credentials and this is the opportunity in the spotlight. we've seen strong performances from the democrats so far. you put into that reputation of the president and how the allegations that he's faced have come into this, and it was played very big in the press conference la st very big in the press conference last night, and then the midterms, and why this is politically so crucial for the republicans particularly, because women are walking away from the republican party at the moment. that's absolutely right. the midterms will hinge on what happens later today. are you going to turn away women as a voting bloc from the republican party based on her testimony today, 01’ party based on her testimony today, ora party based on her testimony today, or a republican is going to come on

a very narrow edge, be able to confirm this nominee? we don't know yet. republicans have themselves largely to blame in this instance. they are the ones who brought forth this format, for a hearing. many people have said let's not rush through this, let's have the time to talk to more people and so it is the republican majority that is going to face the electorate in just over a month. we have seen chuck grassley, the chairman of the judicial committee, taking his seat. you can see rachel mitchell, who is doing the questioning for the republicans in the foreground. that would suggest to me that these proceedings are about to start. they are all starting to filter back in, so it looks like they are going to start these proceedings very shortly. ron, before they do, before that gavel is banged on the table, what has to happen now? what do you think is going to happen? it remains to be

seen going to happen? it remains to be seen whether the republicans will change their tactics. i do think they will. we still have to hear from some democrats who want to seek a 2020 nomination. do you think that the chances of brett kavanaugh beings confirm to the supreme court on less than they were three hours ago? yes, i do, she came across as believable and credible, and brett kavanaugh is going to have two save himself this afternoon. christine blasey ford faces probably about another one hour of questioning, she then leaves, and brett kavanaugh comes back into the room. he will ta ke comes back into the room. he will take a seat and be questioned. that is her lawyer coming into the room with her. let's listen in to the proceedings, the resumption of the confirmation hearings brett kavanaugh to confirmation hearings brett kava naugh to the confirmation hearings brett kavanaugh to the supreme court of the united states, those hearings are about to resume. i may have

jumped the gun a little bit. seems like they are not quite ready. they are sorting out the papers. this is not unusual for a couple of senators not unusual for a couple of senators not to be listening. it sounds like chuck grassley is about to start again. i am organising my papers. i will be ready in 20 seconds. take as long as you need. thank you. i'm ready thank you, mr chairman. is it your intention that republican

senators seek time to the prosecutor rather than they themselves ceding to? yes. we know that the prosecutor, this is clearly not a criminal proceeding but the prosecutor is asking doctor ford questions about what happened before and after, but basically not during the attack. the prosecutor should know that sexual assault survivors often do not remember peripheral information such as what happened before or after the traumatic event and yet you persist in asking these questions, all to undermine the memory and credibility of doctor ford, but we all know doctor ford's memory of the assault is very clear. doctor ford, the republicans' prosecutor has asked you all kinds of questions about who you called and when, asking details that would be asked in a cross examination of a witness in a criminal trial, but

this is not a criminal proceeding. this is a confirmation proceeding. i think i know what she is trying to get at. so i willjust ask the very plainly, doctor ford, is there a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by brett kavanaugh? know, andi assault by brett kavanaugh? know, and i would like to reiterate that againi and i would like to reiterate that again i was trying to get the information to you, whilst there was still a list of other what looked like equally qualified candidates. and yet they are not here to testify. doctor ford i would like to join my colleagues in thanking you for coming forward today. we all admire you for what you're doing. and i understand why you come forward. you wanted a sandy american people do know what you knew about the character of a man we are considering for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. i wa nt appointment to the supreme court. i want to take a moment to note the

significant personal sacrifices you've made to come forward, to share your traumatic experience with us share your traumatic experience with us and the american people. you pat the move, you've had death threats, all manner —— you have had to move, and all manner of victimisation experiences have come your way, and by coming forward you have inserted the question of character into this nomination and hopefully, back into american life, and rightly so. we should be made to face the question of who is we're putting in positions of who is we're putting in positions of power and decision—making in this country. we should look the question square in the face, does character matter? do are 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 any more? evidently they do and 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, sick and tired of the way that basic human decency has been driven from our public life. the president separates children from their parents, he takes basic health ca re their parents, he takes basic health care protections from those you need them most, he nominates and stands behind a man who stands credibly accused of a horrible act. i again wa nt accused of a horrible act. i again want to thank your for coming forward. mrchairman, i want to thank your for coming forward. mr chairman, i ask consent that six items consisting of various statements, letters, facts sheets, posts, are inserted into the record. is that one request or are you on your way for six? i have six separate items, because i can go over them for you. let me not

interrupt you. your request is accepted without objection. thank you. i would like to read from an item that has already been entered into the record. this is from a letter from the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence. the letter states, "this moment has become a crucible. it is a test of our progress. do become a crucible. it is a test of our progress. do we 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, sympathising with her perpetrator, attacking her credibility. they send a message to every victim of sexual violence that the pain doesn't matter, that they do not deserve justice, and that, for them, the treatment is out of reach. this will only serve to drive victims into the shadows and further

embolden abusers. " once victims into the shadows and further embolden abusers." once again, doctor ford, thank you very much. this is a moment for our country. miss rachel for the senator. good afternoon. when we left off we were talking about the polygraph. i believe you said it has not been paid for yet. is that correct? let me putan paid for yet. is that correct? let me put an end to this, her lawyers have paid for the polygraph. as is routine. as is routine. doctor ford, do you expect the price of a polygraph to be passed on to you? i'm not sure yet, i've not taken a look at the costs involved in this. we relocated twice, so i have not

kept track of all that paper right but i am sure that i will have a lot of work to do to catch up on all that. i get that you have had a lot going on and you have done 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'm aware that the have been several go find me sites but i have not ever had one of those before. several what? but i have not ever had one of those before. severalwhat? several gofundme sites that are raising money for security detail. i have not yet been able to focus on that. 0k. not yet been able to focus on that. ok. in your testimony this morning, you stated that senator dianne feinstein send your letter on the sist, feinstein send your letter on the 31st, is that right? —— sent you a

letter. let me see. i sent her a letter. let me see. i sent her a letter onjuly 30 letter. let me see. i sent her a letter on july 30 and letter. let me see. i sent her a letter onjuly 30 and i don't have the date, i would have the plot my e—mail to find out the date of her e—mail to find out the date of her e—mail to find out the date of her e—mail to me. it was right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the letter. it wasn't right before the hearings? that is my memory but i can look it up for you, i could pull it up on my e—mail if you would like the exact date. i want to make sure that i understand what you said. the document has been turned over in response to a request for documents. thank you, counsel. i want to make sure i understand what you said. was it your understanding it is going to be kept confidential pontal right

the hearing? it was my understanding it was going to be kept confidential, period. period, ok. between your polygraph on august seven and your receipt of the letter from senator feinstein did you or anyone your behalf speak to members of congress or the staff about these allegations? i personally did not. my question was that you or anybody on your behalf? your matter what do you mean, did someone speak for me? someone that is working with you or helping you, did somebody at your behest, on your behalf, speak to somebody in congress or staff? i'm not sure how those exchanges went but i didn't speak to anyone. is it possible that somebody did?|j

but i didn't speak to anyone. is it possible that somebody did? i think so, it could be possible. i am guessing that it would be possible but i don't know. excuse me you have asked for her not to guess and now you're asking her what is possible so you're asking her what is possible so if you're asking her what she knows, ask her what she knows. so if you're asking her what she knows, ask her what she knows]! that an objection, i will have the cheer rule on that. —— the chair. unless there is a legal reason for not answering it on advice of your counsel. i don't totally understand the question but i did not speak with anyone during that time frame older than my counsel. you have said repeatedly that you did not think that that letter that you wrote on july 30 was going to be released to

the public, is that correct? correct. is it correct you did not authorise it to be released at any time? correct. ok. besides your attorneys, did you provide, did you provide that letter to senator feinstein, is that correct?|j feinstein, is that correct?” provided it onjuly 30. feinstein, is that correct?” provided it on july 30. and you provided it on july 30. and you provided that letter to senator feinstein, correct? yes. and you provided the q feinstein, correct? yes. and you provided the o the representative to deliver to senator feinstein. yes. beside those two representatives —— individuals, and your attorneys, did you provide that letter to anyone else? no. do you know how that letter became public? no. after 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 that the washington post, they were continually reaching out to me, and i was not responding but at the time that i did respond and agree to do this it down was once the reporter started showing up at my home and at my workplace. thank you, mr chairman. doctor ford, thank you for being here. ijust wa nt thank you for being here. ijust want to remind everyone that this is not a courtroom, this is not a legal proceeding, you're here on the regulation, and although the prosecutors engaged to represent my colleagues, you are here, as you

said, out of a civic duty. and i wa nt said, out of a civic duty. and i want tojoin said, out of a civic duty. and i want to join my colleagues. it said, out of a civic duty. and i want tojoin my colleagues. it is really more than that. are founding documents talk about civic duty, the declaration of independence talks about pledging your lives and your secret honour, and anybody who has read your testimony knows what you have had to sacrifice by coming forward. your life has been upended. you have received vicious, hateful threats, death threats. you have to move out of your family home, to some expense i imagine to you and your family. you've had to engage security, do some expense. you've had to deal with incredible challenges and what's amazing, and i wa nt challenges and what's amazing, and i want tojoin challenges and what's amazing, and i want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your courage and bravery coming forward, all to help us bravery coming forward, all to help us deal with one of the most important obligations a senator has, to advise and consent on one of the

branches of our government, the highest court in the land, and individual running for a lifetime appointment and you have even said that the president had a lot of folk on that list and your fear was that this individual, who assaulted you, with a centre that seat. that's correct, right? correct. we macro and it is correct that you have given a lot of resources, taken a lot of threats, correct? correct. assaults on your dignity and humanity. absolutely. how has it affected your children? they are doing fairly well, as is my husband, considering, thank you. we have a very supportive community. that is good to hear. i want to use a different word for your courage, because this is more, as much as this hearing is about a supreme court justice, this hearing is about a supreme courtjustice, the reality is, by you coming forward, your courage, you coming forward, your courage, you are affecting the