sophomore years, particularly my sophomore year, which would have been his junior year, 4—5 parties that my friends and i attended. you're watching beyond 100 days. we are staying with live coverage as the first woman to accuse donald trump's nominee of the supreme court is giving testimony to at a committee of senators. christine blasey ford says that her life has been drastically affected by this assault. that's rejoining hearing. —— let's rejoin the hearing. assault. that's rejoining hearing. —— let's rejoin the hearinglj assault. that's rejoining hearing. -- let's rejoin the hearing. i can go into further detail if you want me to. go ahead and finish answering your question. did you want me to describe those parties? iam happy describe those parties? i am happy to describe them if you

wa nted i am happy to describe them if you wanted me to, or i am happy to not, whatever is your preference. my question is, was there anything else that was sexually inappropriate, any inappropriate sexual behaviour on the part of brett kavanaugh at any of these other functions? not. you know you are not on trial. you are sitting here before members of the united states senatejudiciary committee because you had the courage to come forward, because, as you have said, you believe it was your civic duty. i was struck in your civic duty. i was struck in your testimony by what you indicated as your intention when you first let anyone associated with these feelings known about it. you basically 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 is extremely persuasive about your motivation for coming forward. i wa nt to motivation for coming forward. i want to thank you for your courage andi want to thank you for your courage and i want to tell you i believe you. i believe you. and i believe many americans across this country believe you. and what i find striking about your testimony as you remember key seizing details about what happened to you. you told your husband and therapist to of the most intimate of your confidant, and you told them years ago about this assault. you have sheared this experience with multiple friends yea rs experience with multiple friends years after that, and before these feelings ever started. i know having prosecuted sexual assault cases and child sexual assault cases, that

study after study shows, trauma, shame, and the fear of consequences, almost always cause survivors to at the very least delay reporting, if they ever report at all. police recognise that. prosecutors recognise that. prosecutors recognise that. prosecutors recognise that. medical and mental health professionals recognise that. the notes from your therapy sessions we re the notes from your therapy sessions were treated long before this nomination and corroborate what you have said today. you have passed a polygraph, and submitted the results to this committee. judge kavanaugh has not. you have called for outside witnesses to testify, and for expert witnesses to testify, and for expert witnesses to testify, and for expert witnesses to testify. judge kavanaugh witnesses to testify. judge kava naugh has witnesses to testify. judge kavanaugh has not. but most importantly, you have called for an independent fbi investigation into the facts. judge kavanaugh has not. and we all you that, we all the

american people that. and let us talk about why this is so important. contrary to what has been said today, the fbi does not reach conclusions. the fbi investigates. the interviews witnesses, gathers fa cts , the interviews witnesses, gathers facts, and then presents that information to the united states senate for our consideration and judgment. this committee knows that, in spite of what you have been told. in 1991 during in spite of what you have been told. in1991 during a in spite of what you have been told. in 1991 during a similar hearing one of my republican colleagues in this committee stated these claims were taken seriously by having the fbi launch an inquiry on the glitzy, the fbi fulfil this duty and issued a confidential report. that could have and should have been done here. this morning as was said that this could have been investigated confidentially back in july. have been investigated confidentially back injuly. but this could also have been

investigated in the last 11 days since you came forward, yet that has not happened. the fbi could have interviewed patrick smith, you, and judge kavanaugh, on these issues. the fbi could have examined various maps from the prosecutor, they could have gathered facts about the music 01’ have gathered facts about the music or conversation have gathered facts about the music 01’ conversation or have gathered facts about the music or conversation or other details about the gathering that occurred that evening. that is standard received your in a sexual assault case. in fact the manual that was signed off, the manual that is posted on the attorneys website as a guiding principle for what should happen with sexual assault cases highlights the details of what should happen in terms of the need foran should happen in terms of the need for an objective investigation into any sexual assault case. it said it

requires cooperation with the multidisciplinary team including dedicated forensic interviewers, and other law enforcement members. the manual also stresses the importance of obtaining outside witness information. you have bravely come forward. and i want to thank you because you clearly have nothing to gainfor because you clearly have nothing to gain for what you have done. you have been a true patriot and fighting for the best of whom bric country. i believe you are doing that because you love this country andi that because you love this country and i believe history will show that you are a true profile encourage at this time in the history of our country and i thank you. senator kennedy now will proceed. we are almost done. a couple of clean—up questions. which of your two lawyers

did senator feinstein's office recommend? katz firm. when you did leave that night did leland follow—up? leave that night did leland follow-up? i have had communications with her recently. i am talking about the next day. she did not know about the next day. she did not know about the next day. she did not know about the event, she was downstairs during the event, i did not share it with her. are you aware that the people at the party beside yourselves and brett kavanaugh have given statements to the committee? yes. are you aware of what those statements say? yes. that they have fio statements say? yes. that they have no memory or knowledge of such a party? yes. do you have particular

motives to ascribe to leland? we could take those one at a time. that person has significant health challenges and i am happy she is focusing on getting the health treatment that she needs and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to ta ke me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her and she text as we afterwards with an apology and good wishes. i am glad that she is taking care of herself. ido that she is taking care of herself. i do not expect that pj and leland would remember this party because nothing remarkable happened. with brett it is a different story, i

expect he would remember what happened. the protocol on sexual assault, argue away... i have been impressed because you have spoken about cortisol and what we call in the profession neutral biological effects of trauma. have you also educated yourself on the best way to get to memory and truth in terms of interviewing victims of trauma? for me, interviewing victims of trauma? 0r, me, interviewing victims of trauma? or, the best practices for interviewing victims of trauma? no. would you believe me if i said there is no study that five—minute increments is the best way to do that? we can stipulate that. thank

you. did you know that the best way to do that is to have a trained interviewer talked to view one—on—onein interviewer talked to view one—on—one ina interviewer talked to view one—on—one in a private setting, and to let you do the talking, let you do the narrative? did you know that? it makes a lot of sense. it does make a lot of sense. and to follow up make a lot of sense. and to follow up and fill in the details and ask for clarification, does that make sense? yes. and research in the sexual assault failed, the cognitive interview, and this is not a cognitive interview. did anybody ever advise you, from senator feinstein's office, or from the representative's office, to get that

type of interview? no. instead you are advised to get an attorney and ta ke are advised to get an attorney and take a polygraph? many people advised me to get an attorney. 0nce i had advised me to get an attorney. 0nce ihad an advised me to get an attorney. 0nce i had an attorney we discussed using a polygraph. and instead of submitting to an interview in california, or having the heating here today in five—minute increments, is that right?|j here today in five—minute increments, is that right? i agree thatis increments, is that right? i agree that is what was agreed upon. thank you. no further questions. that is what was agreed upon. thank you. no further questionslj that is what was agreed upon. thank you. no further questions. i have something to submit for the record. we received three statements under penalty of felony from three witnesses identified by dr ford, leland, patrick smith, and another, all three denied knowledge. i will

enter in the record. i have something for the record as well. a numberof something for the record as well. a number of letters from family and friends of the witness. number of letters from family and friends of the witnesslj number of letters from family and friends of the witness. i will get to you. i have three letters addressed to you and the ranking memberandl addressed to you and the ranking memberand i ask addressed to you and the ranking member and i ask them to be put on the record. it is also my understanding that mr judge the record. it is also my understanding that mrjudge is not willing to come forward. failure to call to testify is critical and i hope this will be reconsidered.” ask if you have sworn statements that you are submitting for the re cord that you are submitting for the record that we have those

individuals come before us so that we can ask them questions about those statements? the nature of this proceeding would be compromised if we lack an opportunity to ask them questions about sworn statements that would be part of the record. i would object to entering them in the record. i have a number of letters that i would like to have submitted to the record that relate to the importance of proper investigation by trained professionals in pulling these type of investigations together. the national women's law ce ntre together. the national women's law centre and so forth. senator kennedy? i have a question, this statement that another senator talked about, those were statements

taken talked about, those were statements ta ken by talked about, those were statements taken by our majority staff? they are already in the record. yes but they were taken by our majority staff? 0r they were taken by our majority staff? or did minority staff participate? no. why not? were they instructed not to participate? beach was not to. that is right. if i may... let us listen to senator feinstein. can we be excused? their witness is tired. in fact, we are going to continue this meeting. let us going to continue this meeting. let usjust be nice to dr ford. dr ford, ican usjust be nice to dr ford. dr ford, i can only speak of —— speed as one of 21 senators but i thank you for your testimony and more importantly for your bravery, coming out and

trying to answer our questions as best you could remember. thank you. we will recess for 45 minutes. studio: that test many wrapping up for 45 minutes, senator grassley, chairman of that committee, finishing up by saying, let us be nice to her. with dr ford having finished questioning, we now expect that brett kavanaugh will come to the hearing is, able reset the room, and we will have brett kava naugh's test reset the room, and we will have brett kavanaugh's test many for the next couple of hours. republican and democratic senators will question him. that ended with a0 elise christie with the person chosen by republicans, beach all mitchell, basically saying she cannot do her job like this, this is not the best

way to do this, it sounded like she was protecting her professional legacy. she was admitting effectively that the questioning had not gone particularly well from the point of view of the republicans. i think that was self evident. all the way through she was trying to unpick details, not what happened in the actual bedroom, but the time, the actual bedroom, but the time, the place, the situation around this gathering that christine blasey ford had outlined for us. what she tried to do in that latter stage of the interview was pointed to the politics behind what was happening. when had the letter been leaked? who came for the polygraph? —— paid for? who appointed the tourneys sitting next to her? had she been steered in this way? a public forum rather than the korkut of interview she would probably direct a victim too if you are most

probably direct a victim too if you a re most interested probably direct a victim too if you are most interested in health and well—being # rather than a cognitive interview you would provide the direct a victim too. dr ford did not fight anything, she told them plainly what you did not know what she could not remember. she came across as credible, likeable, she was nice and polite to eve ryo ne likeable, she was nice and polite to everyone on the committee. she came across as human. she was careful in the way she answered the questions, she said when she remembered things, a ncestors she said when she remembered things, ancestors imported beef when she did not remember things stop and that line of questioning is. —— and just as importantly when she did not remember things. and the question of did brett kavanaugh sexually assault her in that room or not, and she

pointed to this as being a democratic setup and they could have paid for everything, but the essential question... christine blazey ford describes being pushed into the room with brett kava naugh being pushed into the room with brett kavanaugh and his friend. when i got to this small gathering people we re i got to this small gathering people were drinking in a small living room area on the first floor of the house. i drank one beer. brett and mark were visibly drunk. i went up the steers to use the rest room on the steers to use the rest room on the second floor. when i got to the top of the staircase i was pushed from behind to a bedroom across from the bathroom, i could not see who pushed me. brett and mark came into the bedroom and locked the door

behind them. there was music playing in the bedroom. it was turned up louder by either brett or mark once we we re louder by either brett or mark once we were in the room. i was pushed onto the bed and burnett got on top of me. he began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. —— and brett got on top. i yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me andi hoping someone downstairs might hear me and i tried to get away from him that his weight was heavy. brett tried to take off my clothes and groped me. he was very inebriated, andi groped me. he was very inebriated, and i was wearing a one—piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. i believed he was going to reap me. i tried to yell for help. when i did brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. this is what terrified me most and has had the

most lasting impact on my life. it was hard for me to believe and i thought that brett was accidentally going to kill me. both brett and mark were drunk and the laughing throughout the attack. they seems to be having a very good time. mark seemed ambivalent, at times urging brett on, at times telling him to stop. at couple of times i made eye contact with mark and thought he might try to help me, that he did not. during this assault mark came over, jumped on the bed twice, while brett was on top of me, and the last time that he did this, we toppled over, and brett was no longer on top of me. i was able to get up and run out of the room. directly across was a small bathroom, i ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. i waited until i heard brett and mark

leave the bedroom laughing, and walking down the stairway, pin bowling off the walls. i waited, and when i did not hear them come back at the stairway i left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. i remember being on the streets and feeling this enormous sense of relief that i had escaped that house and that brett and mark we re that house and that brett and mark were not coming outside after me. christine blasey ford. i have now listened to that four times and every single time it is hard to see. let us get reaction from our correspondent on capitol hill. as soon as there is a recess the senators and staff pour out into corridors where you are and start giving their reaction to what happened during the course of the morning and how they felt it went. what i do healing from members of either side? we heard the staunch defence are

rare from senator lindsey graham who was defending brett kavanaugh as staunchly as he has so far and as you would expect. i think they will be wanting to get onto the evidence of brett kavanaugh, republicans, i think they are aware that this has not gone particularly well for them today, this format has not helped them, the fractured nature of rachel mitchell's questioning has been unable to compete with the compelling narrative you heard there from christine blasey ford. i think they will be looking forward to that in the next couple of hours. i think it will be interesting to see exactly how brett kavanaugh handles himself this time. because he does not have much to say obviously apart from, this did not happen and i was not there. but it will be how he

sees it, how convincing he is, how passionate he is about how he delivers that message, and it will be interesting to see how republicans help them do that because clearly they are still determined to get him through. and therein is the difficulty because at the end of that session senator grassley was asked to put into the record three statements from supporting witnesses forjudge kavanagh which from supporting witnesses forjudge kava nagh which the from supporting witnesses forjudge kavanagh which the senator did not wa nt to kavanagh which the senator did not want to do because they were not appealing as witnesses. time and again they kept asking why has there been no fbi investigation? when there are people who can corroborate one way or the other what has happened here, and the republicans going to be asked time and again why they are trying to russia's through without a proper investigation? that is absolutely right. —— trying to rush this through. the democrats have been asking for this all the way a long and trying to point out that it way a long and trying to point out thatitis way a long and trying to point out that it is inconsistent with natural justice and inconsistent with what

the committee does on other occasions when it tries to corroborate things like this. in particular, markjudge, the man allegedly there at the time of the assault that ms ford season took place, the fact that he is around, that there is this statement, the fa ct that there is this statement, the fact he is not being brought before the committee is difficult for republicans. the other two, the people downstairs, you could argue they did not know what happened, they did not know what happened, they had less to see perhaps, but they had less to see perhaps, but the fact that, and when you talk about sexual assault you are often talking about literally one person's word against another, here you had a third person allegedly in the room and you are not asking them what their recollection is. that is a tricky one for republicans and it is one that the democrats will not let go of. 0n

go of. on that issue of markjudge there was one moment during the testimony of where christine blasey ford said she saw her between six and eight weeks after the incident in a supermarket where he was working. reporters said he also referred to working in a supermarket himself. these are the kinds of things that people who are calling for an investigation, here opening of the background check, in light of these allegations, these are the kind of things the saying you could do, go to markjudge, things the saying you could do, go to mark judge, collaborates things the saying you could do, go to markjudge, collaborates his timetable against her timetable, perhaps start to piece this to whether more. at the moment it was suggested they could be the vote on committee tomorrow morning, c how the next few hours go. coverage continues.

s tock to ron christie. 0ne coverage continues. s tock to ron christie. one of the things that was said was about process , things that was said was about process, who paid for the polygraph, who paid for the lawyers? was she productive this by the democrats? we discussed this, you did not think it was a useful line of questioning. what she was trying to do as a prosecutor was impeached credibility of the witness, find inconsistencies in what she was saying. 0r of the witness, find inconsistencies in what she was saying. or in this case saying it is politically motivated, may be the democrats paid for lawyers and compelling her to

testify. the process here was a terrible one for republicans. republicans were bouncing all over the map, incidents that happened or allegedly did not happen. as opposed to being clear about what happened allegedly in that room with brett kavanaugh, allegedly in that room with brett kava naugh, what clothes allegedly in that room with brett kavanaugh, what clothes was he wearing? they should have gone per her credibility on that very night rather than talking about things on a procedural basis. if this was a criminal trial that would make sense. and rachel mitchell cn, this is not the way to do this, almost trying to protect her professional reputation. almost seeing, it was not me, this is what republicans have asked me to do. clearly in my view did not work. you

have already said that senator g rassley have already said that senator grassley did not come across well, referred to her as she, did not introduce her when she was about to give her statement, looked all wrong. what they should have done, is after the fiasco of 1991, put some woman on the committee, then they would not have been in that mess. if you are going to learn from the past and try to move forward in the future, why do you not have the lone african—american senator on the committee, why do you not have a couple of the woman, but the optics are 11 white guys on the committee, and they put themselves in this box by not wanting to appear as 11 white guys, by not wanting to appear as 11 white guys, sobering and a female prosecutor, but in the end it was about candy find a way to impeach the credibility of brett kavanaugh's

accuser. not only did they not do that but this entire process that they get was fumbling. what are the choices facing republicans now and the president? there are three. brett kava naugh after the president? there are three. brett kavanaugh after his testimony today could withdraw. the president can pressure brett kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination. 0r can pressure brett kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination. or we move forward tomorrow to evil mackerel to allow him to be seated one way or another by the first week in 0ctober. i want to bring in senator lindsey graham who has been drinking his reaction. the goal, not the goal of ms ford, never allow donald trump to fill this seat. i do not know who paid for the polygraph but somebody did.

iam more for the polygraph but somebody did. i am more convinced of this, friends on the other side set it up to be just the way it is. i feel ambushed, asa just the way it is. i feel ambushed, as a majority we will hear from judge kavanagh, the defence attorney here is what i will tell you, when it comes to where it happened, i still do not know. i do not know when it happened. she said she is 100% certain that happened. i bet you judge kavanaugh will see 100% he did not do it. that is the fact is i am left. the nice lady who has come forward to tell a hard story that is not corroborated, and this is enough. lindsey graham making a strong statement that he thinks this has been facilitated and paid for all

along by the democrats. problem republicans have, whether or not christine blasey ford is sympathetic, they have been pointing to the fact that there is no trail of evidence and no real corroborating witnesses, and we should not forget that. no question about that. i have certain problems with the manner in which this was brought forward, the timing of it, it does look political on its face, but let's be honest, the republicans control the senate, thejudiciary committee, they have the opportunity to find inconsistencies in her testimony and find inconsistencies about allegedly what happened and they did not do that today. lindsey graham as we heard a few seconds ago sounds like he is whining about process , sounds like he is whining about process, and he's part of the process. how can he say i feel ambitious? in the majority, they we re ambitious? in the majority, they were the ones who set this up, they make it sound like the democrats

organise the raiders was going to be run but my understanding of the committee is that is the majority, in this case than republicans who decide the process. yes, but this is politics. what senator graham is saying, we were ambushed by the democrats, were 31 hours of testimony withjudge democrats, were 31 hours of testimony with judge kavanaugh, democrats, were 31 hours of testimony withjudge kavanaugh, this never came up, now testimony withjudge kavanaugh, this never came up, now it testimony withjudge kavanaugh, this never came up, now it comes testimony withjudge kavanaugh, this never came up, now it comes up at the last second and legal ambushed by the process. on the line is chris tim clark. —— 0n the line is kristen clarke, president and executive director of the national lawyers committee for civil rights under law. she's been on capitol hill all day following dr ford's testimony. i had the opportunity to sit a few seats behind doctor ford during her testimony. it was striking listening to. you could hear her voice cracking. what was most true was

honestly, her truthfulness, the clarity with which she recalled some the most horrendous acts of the alleged assault, at the hands of kavanaugh. it was interesting having a bird's eye view of the senators as they listen her. it was compelling listening to her account. i don't know what the senate does at this stage but it would be irresponsible and reckless to move forward with the boat tomorrow. hanging in the air is the fact that there is not been professionally conducted investigation into these facts. we heard from doctor ford that she could put a more perfect time period if there was a way to get the records from markjudge's alleged employment tenure by a supermarket. we understand that he does not want to testify and he is holed up, he

does not want to hand —— put his hand up and testify to this body. we need to hear from hand up and testify to this body. we need to hearfrom him, we will hear from mr kavanaugh, but there is so much that needs to be done for the senate to responsibly carry out this obligation to provide, this is a lifetime appointment, with deep, disturbing allegations, and i don't see a way for the senate to move forward tomorrow. you were sitting behind her, so you were watching the senators, you're not seeing christine blasey ford's face as she testified, you were watching the senators. give us some of the reactions from some of the republican senators as she described what she said happened to her. republican senators as she described what she said happened to henm was disturbing watching senator hatch, she did not flinch. another senator, during the entire time, i felt for doctor ford, who must have

felt for doctor ford, who must have felt such pain and difficulty presenting testimony under his watch. senator flake i thought appeared moved and there were points when he was looking down and very thoughtful. he seemed to be hanging on doctor ford's every word. he seemed to absolutely listen to her story. i don't know what that means is far as we're senator flake lands with respect to mr kavanaugh today but he clearly seemed moved. senator hatch was paying attention and was extremely attentive. and other senators felt very dismissive, i thought. i felt for doctor ford, you must have found it somewhat difficult, pouring her heart out, the people who felt like they had

their minds made and were merely ticking a box by being there, hearing her testimony today. as a fellow lawyer, what would you say about the way that rachel mitchell went about it? in the final few questions that she asked doctor ford, she seemed to be trying to salvage your own reputation. and this wasn't a very opportune way to interview christine ford, these five—minute blocks that did not really hold together. it didn't. i didn't understand the strategy to her approach. i found the didn't understand the strategy to her approach. ifound the issues that she spent time on to be fully irrelevant. doctor ford is not on trial here today. you know, she seemed to be focus a bit on credibility and questioning why she wasn't willing to fly into washington, dc when discussions were opened up about getting a statement

from her. there seemed to be some focus on the polygraph and whether the fact that she took the polygraph nearer the time to her grandmother's funeral may have impacted the results of the polygraph. none of that speaks to the truthfulness of her account of what happened inside that house at the hands of brett kavanaugh. so i did not think the prosecutor was fully effective today, to the extent that she cares about credibility ad would be interested to see her pick apart what kava naugh testifies interested to see her pick apart what kavanaugh testifies during his hearing, moments that raise grave and important questions about whether mr kava naugh was and important questions about whether mr kavanaugh was truthful on issues raised by senator leahy and others but in trying to undermine the strength and power of doctor ford's testimony in any way, she did

not do that, at all. thank you very much for your thoughts, kirsten clark. we're waiting forjudge kavanaugh to come into the committee room. let's look back at some the evidence that christine blasey ford gave. this was about claims of mistaken identity. professor ford said she was certain it was judge kavanaugh who had assaulted her. you were very clear about the attack, being pushed into the room, you do not know quite by whom, but that it was brett kavanaugh that covered your mouth to prevent you from screaming and then you escaped. how are you so sure that it was he? the same way that i'm sure i'm talking to you. basic memory functions.

neurotransmitters in the brain encode memories into the hippocampus. the johnny ace beanies is locked theirand other the johnny ace beanies is locked their and other details kind of drift. what you're saying is that this could not be a case of mistaken identity. absolutely not. and a reminder that professor ford is a professor of psychology, and she has studied things like memory so she was able to study —— speak about this with an air of gravitas, she is an expert in this field, and the dead know if that threw off rachel mitchell a little bit, the fact that she was dealing with somebody who had studied memory, but it bolstered her credibility on issues of why it is that you can remember some things and not others, and why is that somebody who has been a victim of

sexual assault, they can remember whilst the person who has committed the assault may not remember. that is something we have seen from academic studies and she can speak about that with some credibility not just because of what happened to her but because of what she has studied during a professional career. the professional aspect, when she talked about these memories going into the hippocampus, the point that the rest of the material that they wanted to know, time, place, that didn't really matter, what had embedded itself in her memory for 36 years was this awful moment where she claimed thatjudge kavanaugh was on top of her with his hand over her mouth, i thought that she was he was king to kill me and that was the snapshot moment she has carried throughout her life and that is what she tried to set out for the listening senators. and the fact that they were laughing and having a joke and she was the but of the joke, i think that the bits that will be replayed, because for a lot of people, is the middle of the day

here, they will watch this when they finish work and from they will watch it on their phones on the commute home, or listen on the radio, the bits that they will hear are the assault, the fact that it is indelibly on her mind and that they we re indelibly on her mind and that they were laughing at her, as she is 100% sure that it was brett kavanaugh that did this. so let's wait and see what he has to say because they will be playing excerpts from his testimony as well. those will get played as well. just how important is the supreme court, and who gets appointed to the supreme court, it really matters. the 9—member panel plays a critical role in american political life. it has the final say on very contentious issues like abortion, gun rights, it can challenge government policy, for example, and right now the court is balance, there are four supreme court justices leaning to balance, there are four supreme courtjustices leaning to the right and four uhlein more to the left, justice kennedy who retired earlier this year, you judge kavanaugh would

like to replace was always known as the swing vote. if brett kavanaugh is confirmed then he will tip the court ina is confirmed then he will tip the court in a conservative direction and potentially for many years, possibly decades, to come. these appointments, we remind you, are for life. let's bring in our north america reporter. you were listening to the testimony, getting any feedback from either side on how they felt it when? watching social media and watching some of the cable channels here, across the political spectrum there certainly is a sense that christine blasey ford is a credible witness and that many people who have been watching her are convinced by what she's saying. of course it is important to stress that we will also hear from brett kavanaugh and he has denied all of the claims, but it is interesting that channels such as fox news have been expressing that sentiment as well. what do you thinkjudge

kavanaugh well. what do you thinkjudge kava naugh has to well. what do you thinkjudge kavanaugh has to do this afternoon, to change that narrative, to either put a dent in christine blasey ford's credibility or to give himself a better chance of coming out of this so that republican senators will be happy to vote for him? it is tough for him, because the ground work that was made this morning is going to be difficult to him to kind of unbelief. part of that lies in the hands of chuck grassley and rachel mitchell, who was the sex crimes prosecutor brought in by the republicans to ask questions. she tried very hard to undermine christine blasey ford's credibility but, at the end of the day, she was very honest about what she remembers and also very honest about what she doesn't remember as well. and there were certain things that will stick in the head, certain things that don't, and you mentioned, the one clip that is

likely to be played and played again on the nightly news around the world and that is her memories of the two men she accused of being involved in this assault, laughing matter. we must stress again that this is one version of events that we have heard, and we will hearjudge kavanaugh's. it will be very difficult, partly as well because of something that camilla harris raised earlier in the hearing, which is that the fbi is not looking into this. i know other witnesses are going to be appearing before this committee is mac there are no other witnesses. so it really is, a case of he shed, she said. somebody has pulled me up on twitter, he's not just fighting for his seat on the supreme court, but boy reputation and for potentially his future as a federaljudge. and i say that because if he doesn't get the seat, if it is pooled and president from thinks there is too much there, he's not just link thinks there is too much there, he's notjust link to walk back to the

federal court without the democrats who promised an fbi investigation this afternoon following through. funny, as you mentioned that, i was reminded of the allegations made against roy moore and alabama. a different case, but remembering the reaction and alabama. there were people down there, of course he lost that race but people down the said this happened a long time ago, this is nothing to do with what he was like in the justice system, how he was as a judge, and people, women, discrediting what the accusers had said, a numberof discrediting what the accusers had said, a number of them, what they had said. it is whether or not some of those women who voted for donald trump will be bothered by this. and i wonder whether this might be one that actually does change moods and opinions. it is difficult to know right now but because we got to see

christine blasey ford, she was questioned, she seemed authentic, whether, in this case, it might make a difference. thank you very much. we heard from donald trump last night, he gave a press conference in which he defended judge kavanaugh, a fulsome defence of the judge. what did he make of what happened today? he has flown back from new york to washington and has stepped off air force one, let's have a look at those pictures. now stepping off marine 0ne. as soon as he got off he was asked the question so let's see if reporters are going to question him. clamour of questions. the

clamour 0f questions. the reporter stander waiting for him to come. quite often the president does stop and answer questions. that tiny decided not to. you could hear them shouting out questions. he decided not to answer. he said a conference he is going to watching this. we understand that what the white house was not particularly impressed with his interview that he did on fox news, that he had not given an impassioned defence of himself, and we wonder whether he will want brett kavanaugh to make a more forceful appearance, more emotional appearance, more emotional appearance, defiant appearance, this afternoon. it'll be interesting to see, perhaps that is not in his nature. it is very hard on these things to be something you're not. let's see how he manages to satisfy the president that he comes across as more assertive in defence of

himself. they had been watching on air force one, they had all the tvs tuned to fox news, and it was supposed to be rod rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, but he didn't want that meeting to interfere with what was going on in congress say he has cancelled that an apparently according to reports he will meet next week.” an apparently according to reports he will meet next week. i was watching fox news, and if the president was watching he will not have liked what he heard because the commentators and anchors were saying that this was not going well for the republican side and four brett kavanaugh, so the stakes are high for brett kavanaugh as he gives in to that committee room and answers questions. let's get more of the testimony. democratic senator chris koons has been giving his reaction to the proceedings so far. let's have a listen to what he had to say. the way that doctor ford spoke to the committee, although holding at times, it was clear it was very difficult for her to speak about, but it was very genuine. it is clear

that she's a very smart, an experienced professional and psychologist so at times she gets into a very detailed psychological and technical terms about memory, when i asked her about the impact of trauma and memory she is likely to give answers that are, that reveal the fact that she has got a doctorate in psychology. there were also flashes of humour, at the point when she's talking about how she first came to talk about the assault with her husband, she says, well, are house has got two front doors and the two of an exchange the look, and the two of an exchange the look, and laughed. i think her testimony overall has been very powerful and very compelling. senator chris koons, the democrat from delaware, he has been on this programme often. he has spoken to us about international issues, he is on the

judiciary committee. i thought his line of questioning was one of the most interesting when he was pushing on the idea of memory and selective memory. that was something she could bring in her expertise to talk about. it is difficult forjudge kavanaugh about. it is difficult forjudge kava naugh because she about. it is difficult forjudge kavanaugh because she has a story to tell, and narrative that goes all the way through what we have seen, this afternoon. he can only deny it. there is not a lot you can say apart from i wasn't there, it wasn't me, so how does he come across as as convincing as she was? also, remember most of the democrats just made statements in her support during the time and there were no republicans asking her, grilling her, with questions. he is now going to have the republicans who will kind of softball him but he will have the democratic senators who will now, they have been holding their fire, they will be coming will now, they have been holding theirfire, they will be coming up with the tough questions. they are going to try to pick holes in his

account and his credibility. i spoke to one of the democrats on the committee earlier today. he said he's going to pursue a line of questioning asking about brett kavanaugh's questioning asking about brett kava naugh's credibility because brett kava naugh gave kava naugh's credibility because brett kavanaugh gave that fox news interview in which he talked about his time in high school and painted himself as kind of a choir boy, i only drank when i was above the legal age, i did service, only drank when i was above the legalage, i did service, i only drank when i was above the legal age, i did service, i was concentrating on my studies, then some of his contemporaries have said he did drink quite a lot, sometimes to excess and he went all of these parties, so he's having to roll back some of the things he already said about himself. 0ne senator told me thatis about himself. 0ne senator told me that is a question that he's going to pursue the dry on the democratic side, to question brett kavanaugh's credibility. so he has a tougherjob in some ways because he doesn't have a narrative, a story to tell, he's got to keep saying i didn't do it, and he will face tough questioning from senators, which she didn't get.

at the end of the day, it is he shared, she said, and it comes down to his credibility and how persuasive he is in the arguments he put forward. i thought he made a mistake in the fox news interview painting himself as this choirboy when quite clearly the yearbook was out there, pointing to the drinking culture at yale and that school. clearly he was not as pure as the driven snow and that undermines what he's talking about. let's give back to what doctor ford was telling us this afternoon, she was asked by a democratic senator about what part of the assault that she remembered most vividly. what is the strongest memory, something you cannot forget, ta ke memory, something you cannot forget, take whatever time you need. indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter

between the two, and they're having fun at my expense. you've never forgotten that laughter, never forgotten that laughter, never forgotten them laughing at you. they we re forgotten them laughing at you. they were laughing with each other. you will the object of the laughter.” was underneath one of them while the two laughed. two friends having a really good time with one another. that will be one of the sound bites that people keep hearing during the course of this evening here in the us. the republicans on the committee, as we said before, they had a woman prosecutor who was an expert on sex crimes, rachel mitchell. she was asking the questions. the democrats asked their own questions. that might have been to avoid the pics of having a group

of only men interviewing a woman about an alleged sexual assault. let's look at the make—up of the committee. 11 republicans on the senatejudiciary committee. 11 republicans on the senate judiciary committee, all of them white men. 0n the democratic side, four of the committee members are women, the other six are men. on the republican side is senator flake who is wavering along with susan collins. they are the three that you would guess could be pushed to the other side. i've had a note that senator flake has been asked about this as he came out, he has said the only words, still listening to the rest of proceedings. it was the sex crimes prosecutor rachel mitchell who was asking questions on behalf of republican senators. we got a sense of her own senatla the when she asked christine blasey ford if she asked christine blasey ford if she had educated herself on the best way to get to the truth were

survivors of trauma and sexual assault. no, would you believe me if isaid assault. no, would you believe me if i said that there was no study that says this setting in five increments, is the best way to do that? thank you, counsel! agreed. did you know that the best way to do it is to have a trained interviewer talked to you one—on—one in a private setting, and to let you do the talking, just to let you do the narrative. do you know that? that makes a lot of sense. it does, doesn't it, and to follow up, to fill in the details and ask for clarification, does that make sense? that makes sense. u2 she was trying to explain to people why this was not a great forum to interview someone who claimed to have suffered sexual abuse, to interview them in five minutes chunks but what she was

saying they're almost spoke to the democrats because it was, she was saying we need a proper sit down cognitive interview with a trained investigator you can go through this and help you remember elements of what you went through. this is not the place to do it. she was trying to say, well, the democrats have set this up this way but really it speaks to the idea that you need a proper fbi investigation. it was the republicans who set it up this way. i wish you could have seen chuck grassley, the republican leader of the committee because he said, this woman that i have just flown in from arizona and employee, she has thrown me under the bus because she said the way that this has been conducted i cannot do myjob this way. the way that this has been conducted i cannot do my job this way. she was making the point that it was political, because they wanted a political, because they wanted a political point scoring exercise, and what should have happened is that this should have been done behind closed doors by fbi investigators in the proper way that you would expect that they would

have interviewed one of harvey weinstein's accusers, but this seems to have been done another way, and this is the problem that the republicans are always think you have in this case. what happens now? lets talk to our washington reporter who has been following this case. what does brett kavanaugh have to do to satisfy republicans, to make sure that those republicans who might be wavering, we've had jeff flake saying he still has an open mind on this, what does he have to do to satisfy them and to satisfy the guy in the white house behind you, donald trump, who is also watching this? he has to seem credible and heartfelt, donald trump was the cm aggressive, pushing back and in digging. the case that the democrats are making is that there needs to be more investigation, more witnesses. the case that brett kavanaugh's side

is making is that they need to have a decision now, they need to have a vote, not in favour of further investigation. brett kavanaugh has to make the case that any further investigation would be fruitless. he doesn't remember any of this happening and the senators and that room will find him believable. and after what christine blasey ford has testified too, that is going to be a challenge, but he has to come across, i think, challenge, but he has to come across, ithink, as challenge, but he has to come across, i think, as authentic. challenge, but he has to come across, ithink, as authentic. last night at this press conference, the president said that we are in danger of slipping into a system where we have death by headline. talking about the wake of headlines and coverage such as we have had today pointing towards christine blasey ford, that a man likejudge kavanaugh cannot get a fair hearing. the problem is for the president that he conflates this with the idea that he conflates this with the idea that you cannot bring forward a navigation 36 years after it has happened. what is telling listening

to the republican senators talking, lindsey graham and the senator for texas, they were attacking the process. they, ithink, realise they could not question christine blasey ford's belief in astoria, and her apparent sincerity in retelling what happened. they were upset about the timing. lindsey graham actually said that he views christine blasey ford as as much of a victim as brett kavanaugh in that she is a victim of democrats trying to use her for political gain. the fact that they do not feel that they can take christine blasey ford head on, that they have to question the process, that says a lot about how this morning's events went. anthony, what do you think happens after today? speu do you think happens after today? spell out the various options over the course of the next 2448 hrs. chuck grassley has said there could bea

chuck grassley has said there could be a vote of the committee as early as tomorrow morning. democrats have said that is totally unfair. do you think that vote goes ahead tomorrow, do you think of the senate votes any time soon as what we have heard today mean that this process gets put on hold for some kind of or at least some kind of pause? there are a variety of options... we wa nt there are a variety of options... we want to get this done if not before the midterms which seems unlikely if they go with someone new then after they go with someone new then after the midterms during the lame—duck session between the midterms and with any senate is —— when a new senate is formed in. they could very well push forward if brett kavanaugh does a decent job, well push forward if brett kavanaugh does a decentjob, if he studies the ship so to speak in his testimony later today. they could have a vote tomorrow. they started the procedural ball