senate judiciary committee. the woman who accuses judge brett kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her. professor ford testified that she is 100% certain it was kavanaugh who attacked her at a party when they were both teenagers. she was 17 and she was 15. an emotional ford was also asked about her strongest memory from the alleged assault. >> indelible in the hippo campus is the laughter. the uproaruous laughter between the two and their having fun it's my expense. >> you never have forgotten that laughter? them laughing at you. >> they were laughing with each other. >> you were the object of the laughter? >> i was underneath one of them

while the two laughed. two friends having a really good time with one another. >> let's bring in from capitol hill, senator hatch has weighed in on ford's testimony. >> we are getting first response from the members of the committee as they have been flooding out of the room. my colleague just did speak with senator orrin hatch as he was leaving with a top republican. i want to highlight eyebrow raising comments. he said i will say this of christine blasey ford. she is attractive and she's a nice person. my colleague said what did he mean about attractive? i said in other words, she is pleasing. when every word matters here, many people are paying attention to each and every word that the senators say and the optics of what many republican men are

saying. i spoke with a republican source who is close to this committee process and asked this person, how is everything going on your side. how is everything going? this person said kavanaugh better be as compelling. that is an acknowledgement that her voice carried a lot of weight. it certainly was compelling this morning. >> kirstin powers and rick santorum is with us. how is it going? >> i don't think it's going very well for republicans. she is incredibly compelling. this is not a person who looks like she is making anything up. she is very emotional. she is clearly very anxious which goes along with what has been presented about her. she was anxious about coming forward and talked about having an anxiety disorder and a fear of flying which the prosecutor or the women, rachel mitchell, the person asking the questions seems to have locked in on the

idea that you said you were afraid of flying and you flew these other places. if this is the smoking gun, they are in a lot of trouble. anyone who knows anything about anxiety disorders, you can get on a plane when you are afraid of flying. you tend to do it if you are going to see your family than be questioned by people calling you a pawn and a liar. >> she is very, very compelling. >> just watching her, that she seems authentic. the emotional and everything seemed authentic and that's a problem for brett kavanaugh. that's what republicans are dealing with. they are not sure because they want to believe brett kavanaugh because he's a good upstanding man and these other things and

he said factually, this didn't happen. most folks are saying i probably believe him. >> before he said she could be a pawn of the democrats. what do you think now? >> i say that she is being used as a pawn. i'm not saying she is a pawn. she is being used as a pawn. >> do you think she is coming across that way? >> sometimes pawns can take kings. >> let me ask you about the fear of flying thing. we are seeing republicans, donald trump jr. on twitter and lindsey graham just now suggesting that they don't believe she has a fear of flying. i suppose the idea is and i can't speak for them, i guess they said she never had a fear of flying. the democrats wanted this big splashy hearing as opposed to having her come to give testimony. what do you make of it all? >> the technical legal term -- she doesn't like to fly.

a lot of people don't like to fly. it makes them nervous. it may be related to an earlier trauma. but guess what, she is a person who lives a modern life and flies anyway. sometimes because she wants to go somewhere for vacation or see her family or has a work travel, but she doesn't like it. so what. it's just a complete so what. >> i suppose they are trying to get credibility. >> the idea that the logical progression is that she doesn't really have a fear of flying. she is kpexaggerating the impac of this supposed attack. so the attack didn't really happen anyway. anyone who could believe that progression of arguments is a fool. >> can i say something about that? i have suffered with anxiety my entire life. i actually have ahold of it now, but in my 20s i suffered from anxiety and i was terrified of

flying, but i would fly to go see my family or go on vacation, but i avoid and usually heavily medicated. the way anxiety works is that when something anxious happens and triggers you, like for example, having to testify in front of the entire country, you are now going to become incapacitated. that's how anxiety works. you will be so much more incapacitated at the thought of getting on a plane. your fears will be bigger than you might be when you are going with your brother and mom on a trip somewhere. >> none of this gets at the issue of did brett kavanaugh attack christine blasey ford in 1982 and has he lied about it? >> has he lied about it. we heart from reporters on the hill that lindsey graham who is probably chafing, wants to hear more, for example, about who got her home that night. who took her there and got her home. >> she said she doesn't

remember. >> perhaps she was inebriated and affect her memory of the events. that's something you expect a lawyer to do, but they haven't gotten to that yet. now we will hear more from her and when kavanaugh comes, he's clearly going to tell a different story and unless rachel mitchell discredits professor ford in one way or another, he's going to have a very, very difficult time. >> can i add one quick thing? it's a very controversial decision now that they are watching her to say rachel mitchell take over for republicans. >> in the hallways, orrin hatch said the following. it's too early to say if ford is credible. i don't think she is uncredible. i think these an attractive good witness. we know what he meant.

he meant to give her props, but the language he used is exhibit a of why republicans -- he took it away from all the men and gave it. >> hiring rachel mitchell suddenly makes a lot of sense. >> we will take a break. they are in recess. when they come back, we are waiting to hear from senator mazie hirono, cory bookinger and kamala harris and rachel mitchell will continue questioning for the republicans. much more after this. whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today.

each of us is different. and each cancer is different. how it reacts, how it evades and adapts. and how we attack it. that's why at cancer treatment centers of america, we use diagnostic tools that help us better understand what drives each person's cancer. this is what we mean by outsmarting cancer. and for some, it may uncover more effective treatment options. like christine bray.

after battling ovarian cancer for several years, her test results revealed a potential treatment not considered previously a drug therapy that targeted her tumor. today, christine's metastatic cancer is in remission. this is precision cancer treatment. because at cancer treatment centers of america. we're not just fighting cancer. we're outsmarting it. visit cancercenter.com and schedule an appointment with our cancer care specialists today. >> welcome back to our special coverage. the senate judiciary committee is taking a break and should be resuming momentarily and christine blasey ford, the professor will continue answering questions. the white house is watching this oh, so closely right now.

let's go to kaitlan collins at the white house. >> aides are glued to the televisions including president trump who returned back after a flight from new york. he went into the white house residence and not the west wing to watch more as the coverage plays out after sarah sanders said he was watching it on a bit of a delay because of a meeting he had at the united nations this morning. we know he is watching and cleared his schedule to watch the rest of the hearing today because they announced he will no longer be meeting with rod rosenstein because they don't want to interfere with the hearing. the same with the vice president who was supposed to drop in on an economic council later today. he is watching to see how the court nominee is going to perform. we know the president advised brett kavanaugh to come out and be forceful and aggressive and he doesn't think he has been aggressive and assertive enough

in swatting down the allegations. whether or not he takes the president's advice, we will find out when he delivers his opening statement and answers questions about this. we know president trump left himself a lot of wiggle room as we watched the press conference in new york to say he could be convinced by this woman's testimony and could be persuaded by it. whether or not the president does ultimately make the decision to pull brett kavanaugh's nomination, if it appears this woman has made a convincing argument is to be determined and we don't know yet. we know it has not been ruled out the at white house. president trump is watching this very, very closely. >> kaitlan collins at the white house. one of the things i said at the beginning of the process was that democrats and republicans on capitol hill both agreed that the more this testimony becomes about the movement and the moment of me, too, the worse for

brett kavanaugh. the more it is about this charge against him, the better. it's not good, but the better for him. we are hearing now from one of our reporters who asked senator, a republican from west virginia. a safe seat. do you think dr. ford -- what do you think of her testimony and until now she has not been a question of whether or not she would vote for kavanaugh. she is saying i think her testimony is riveting. one of the things that has been amazing for a lot of men about this movement is oh, my god, you read your facebook feed and your twitter feed. every woman has experienced something like this and it's shocking. >> we talked about it it in different periods of our lives. this is something women talk about. now america is seeing the conversations that have been kept private.

it's something they talked about and the fear and shame she faced throughout her life, not wanting to tell her parents after all these years, still not wanting to talk about this. i am not surprised average women like her is finding this riveting. i think men are asking their daughters. you mentioned chris wallace, he asked his daughters and friends as well. i encourage men to do that. if they have daughters or sisters, they will hear the same testimony. >> taking the same short-term challenge. mitch mcconnell woke up with a math issue. why are we subpoenaing mark judge and getting sworn testimony from an eyewitness? does jeff flake come out of this hearing saying i agree with her? that's all it takes. he said he is still listening.

the other key voice on the committee during the break, walked up to professor ford and shook her hand and said thank you for coming. does shelly walk into the meeting they will have and this is mostly the committee meetings, does she walk in and -- >> they are having a republican lunch as we speak. he had a math issue this morning. he was trying to keep susan collins from being a party of one. if she gets two, that's a problem. the conversations inside the white house and among republi n republicans on capitol hill is that this so far has been a horrible day for us. >> senator whitehouse made an interesting point. he raised the prospect of a sitting supreme court justice being under an ongoing investigation if the democrats were to take over one of the house.

>> they are going to investigate and potentially impeach him. >> impeach him or if he is with drawn, what does it do for his current job? if he goes before the committee, the stakes are not only the supreme court, but everything. his entire career, because if he perjured himself. >> they hurt judge kavanaugh and in the rush to do this, they have now hurt judge kavanaugh. if you believe judge kavanaugh -- >> whether you have the hearing now or a week from now, he said this did not happen. the republicans have no culpability in hurri ihurting j kavanaugh and the republicans determine he is not telling the

truth. he's the that made the statement, this did not happen when he has to convince the american public it doesn't. >> if he wanted an fbi investigation, he could have told the president. >> if i were kavanaugh, let me ask jeff toobin who is a lawyer, let me ask you, if you were kavanaugh, wouldn't you say let's call witnesses because i am telling the truth here? would it be smart of him to do? >> he doesn't have witnesses. >> that's a good question if you really think, as brett kavanaugh, mark judge is going to help you. >> or the others came out. >> the obvious witness to call is mark judge. he's the one in the room, allegedly. i think yes, potentially that could stir the pot, but it would also be seen as the panic button. >> yes. >> whether that is a good thing

or not, what do you think? >> let's be honest. there other alternatives than brett kavanaugh on the president's list right now who could get confirmed very quickly. >> this is what i'm wondering. at what point does the republican shift before the mid-term elections when they are already experiencing such difficult we independents and women voters. >> i'm hearing this from republican strategists in and around town, focusing on one person. that is the president. so far strategically our focus has understandably given the president's very aggressive stand has been on the math and the numbers and whether or not he would be forced to pull the votes. as the morning went on and you were hearing this as well, the question is what is the president doing? is he -- to say he is a wild card is an under statement. especially on this issue, could

he do a 180 from yesterday or was the fact that his press conference was the way it was so combative because he was worried and what you have seen this morning just spoke to all of his fears. >> he opened the door yesterday at the presser. he said i could find her convincing. >> at what point do they decide the votes are not there. there won't be a vote. >> the votes are not there. it would be sfwog interesting t fly on the wall of this lunch. >> everybody stick around. the testimony is about to resume. we will hear more from professor ford and then we will hear from judge kavanaugh. stay with us. it's kind of like playing your own version of best ball. because here, you can choose any car in the aisle, even if it's a better car class than the one you reserved. so no matter what, you're guaranteed to have a perfect drive.

[laughter] (vo) go national. go like a pro. see what i did there? what i just introduced you worto my parents.g? psst! craig and sheila broke up. what, really? craig and shelia broke up!? no, craig!? what happened? i don't know. is she okay? ♪ craig and sheila broke up! craig and sheila!? ♪ as long as office gossip travels fast, you can count on geico saving folks money. craig and sheila broke up! what!? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

now get get up to 30% off of youtop brands at sears. ♪ plus get an extra 15% off kenmore laundry. visit sears.com/kenmore to see how you can get more from kenmore at sears. until i held her. managing my type 2 diabetes wasn't my top priority. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. i take tresiba® once a day. tresiba® controls blood sugar for 24 hours for powerful a1c reduction. (woman) we'd been counting down to his retirement. it was our tresiba® reason. he needs insulin to control his high blood sugar and, at his age, he's at greater risk for low blood sugar.

tresiba® releases slow and steady and works all day and night like the body's insulin. (vo) tresiba® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, sweating, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness, swelling of your face, tongue or throat, dizziness or confusion. (man) i found my tresiba® reason. find yours. (vo) ask your health care provider about tresiba®. covered by most commercial health insurance and medicare part d plans.

>> i want to you take a listen to lindsey graham. just moments ago. >> what happened to her, i don't know. why don't you believe him? what is it about him you don't want to believe. i know what they don't want to believe. they were going to vote no matter what. they tried to destroy this guy's with one acquisition after another. some woman said i went to 10

parties where they drug and rain people. i don't believe that one bit. >> senator lindsey graham defending brett kavanaugh and pointing out the democrats were opposed to him. is that the best defense to be offered at this moment. >> is the only way you begin to turn this around. to begin to pick apart the story that was told, a compelling story told by dr. ford. there is a way to pick it apart. you have four people who have come forward and said that didn't happen. >> that's not what they said. they said they are not aware it happened. i can fact check this for a second. the two people accused of being in the room and the people she named who were downstairs said

they don't know. >> no corroborating evidence. tf it was very compelling testimony and the evidence is not there to support it. you have to raise up the specter that while she may feel those things and be emotional engaged, if you don't have the facts, you can't convict someone on just simply a recitation, uncorroborated. >> this is how every sexual assault case is discussed. there is usually one or two people involved. in this case three people involved. you have to rely on other things. you have other people who made sworn statements that she told them about this long before donald trump was president and senator, do you understand most case of sexual assault, there is

only two people and people still get convicted. it's not just based on somebody denying it. they look at other things. to suggest there is no other evidence -- >> it's not a matter of no evidence, but evidence that contradicts her story. >> when i interviewed democratic senators, there is a presumption of innocence and where is the evidence. the one thing that the democrats push back on, why aren't we trying to get more evidence? why isn't there an fbi investigation. why are they not subpoenaing mark judge? i don't have an answer to that. do you? >> chuck grassley does. >> there have been six fbi investigations. >> the staff and the senate committee investigated this. they called witnesses. they have taken statements down. they asked for other witnesses. >> would that be sufficient for you if it was a democratic staff

and a republican nominee and saying i trust the staff? >> if you look at what the fbi is supposed to do, it's present what they say. >> it's not a matter of doing an investigation. >> does it make a difference to you that another woman, a classmate at yale university when they were freshman has now made similar allegations? >> i wouldn't say they were similar. again, if you look at the corroborating evidence, those who have come forward to say no, that's not what happened. again, you have an uncorroborated story. i understand. you have a series of uncorroborated story. we have a pattern. you don't have a pattern because you don't have evidence to support the story. >> the fact that senators don't want to have these conversations right now, we are paying for this. >> not enough. >> the senators up for

reelection don't want to have these conversations with kwe constituents. how much is that factoring in? >> it is it is a critical point. you are having a conversation about how the cases are litigated in courts of law. the question is up to the judge and what testimony to admit and to follow a judge's instruction and make a common sense decision. we are not talking about that. we are talking about first the committee and then the 100 senators who -- what is the standard? we know society and the times have change and we have living breathing proof in the testimony we watched. how remarkable and courageous that is. it's not written down in the rules anywhere. they get up in arms about the process. what are you going to do about this? when you see shelly moore saying this is riveting and them thanking the witness, this is

about can i get 50 votes? >> where do you think -- somebody like susan collins and senator from maine, swing vote who is trying to get to yes on kavanaugh. what does today do for her? >> i don't think it gives her closer to yes. i think she has to figure out what kavanaugh is going to say. she has been asking for more details. more witnesses. why isn't mark judge coming forward and why are they not subpoenaing him? one of the reasons in her testimony is one of the reasons you might want to hear from judge. it places mark judge working in this safeway in potomac. she saw him and it was awkward because of what she said happened. if you are susan collins, you are moving further away from this. not just susan collins, but an average moderate republican, do you want to take a vote at this point based on what we heard

today and will hear later? >> i heard from a republican strategist who was very bullish on this at the beginning and he said i'm not sure what kavanaugh can do to fix this. she said 100% it hand appened ae will say 100% it didn't. that's just not good for us. >> it's going to be a tough road ahead for judge kavanaugh. more testimony for professor fort. the committee is still in princess and we'll be right back. n obvious and hotels.com rewards me basically everywhere. so why am i hosting a dental convention after party in my vegas suite? or wearing a full-body wetsuit at this spa retreat? or sliding into this ski lodge with my mini horse kevin? because hotels.com lets me do me, right? sorry, the cold makes him a little horse. hotels.com.

you do you and get rewarded. you're wearing a hat. that's funny. and i'm still going for my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily

and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you.

the senate judiciary committee will resume its hearing momentarily. we are all awaiting the resumption of this hearing. let's first listen to a key vote republican senator jeff flake of arizona emerged from part one of the hearing and said this. >> why would someone go through this which is an excruciating experience if they weren't telling the truth? >> i want to hear the whole hearing before commenting. >> i want to hear the whole hearing before commenting. >> that's what he should say. >> that's ridiculous. give him a chance.

>> i heard amy klobuchar said if they allowed the fbi investigation and not outsource their constitutional duties, they wouldn't have been surprised for things like the reason she took her polygraph there was she was at her grand mother's funeral. >> how does the majority leader pull the nomination? they are not going to allow a vote. >> they want this seat fill and they want it filled before january of next year. i have no doubt that if the calculus is that this is done, this can't happen and i don't think we are there yet, but if it does come to that, they'll appoint someone within minutes. they may even do it -- >> nominate, not appoint. >> they will nominate someone and i wouldn't be surprised if they nominate in the same press

release. it probably won't be, but it will be very quick. it the be more than 90 days and more than three months. votes on chris mat eve and there have been votes on christmas eve. they will vote before the end of the year. >> i'm not sure what they had for lunch, but dr. christine blasey ford is seated. it's about to resume. let's listen in. >> i'm just organizing my papers. >> take as long as you need. >> 20 seconds. thank you. >> i'm ready.

>> okay. senator hirono. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, is it your intent to seed time to your prosecutor rather than they themselves seeding your time to her? >> yes. >> we all know that the prosecutor, even though this clearly is not a criminal proceeding is asking dr. ford questions about what happened before and after, but basically not during the attack. the prosecutor should know the that sexual assault survivors often do not remember information such as what happened before or after the event, yet she will persist in asking these questions all to undermine the memory and basically the credibility of dr. ford, but we all know dr. ford's memory of the assault is very clear. dr. ford, the republican's prosecutor has asked you 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. i will just ask you very plainly, dr. ford, is there a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by brett kavanaugh? >> no and i'd like to reiterate that i was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other, what looked like equally qualified candidates. >> and yet they are not here to testify. dr. ford, i would like to join my colleagues to thank you for coming forward today. i understand why you have come forward. you wanted us and the american

peop people. the character of the man we are considering for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. i want to note the significant personal sacrifices you made to come forward to share your traumatic experience with us and the american people. you had to move. you had death threats. all a manner of basically revictimization. experiences that have come your way. by coming forward, you have inserted the question of character and hopefully back into american life. we should be made to face the question of where we are putting in positions of power and decision making in this country. we should look the question square in the face. does character matter? do our values about what is right and what is wrong and whether we treat our fellow human beings with dignity and respect, do they matter anymore?

i believe they do and i believe the reaction we have seen to this coverage right now and your courage all over this country shows us that we are not alone. you are not alone. women and men across america are disgust and sick and tired of the way basic human decency has been driven from our public life. he sprayeds children from their parents. he takes health care protection and nominates and stands behind a man who stands behind a man who commits a horrible act. thank you for coming forward. i ask unanimous consent that six items consisting of letters, fact sheet posts are inserted into the record. >> is that one request or you want me to wait for six? >> i have six separate items.

>> okay. >> 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 something that has been entered into the record, but a letter from the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence. the letter states this moment has become a crews bell. it's a test of our progress. do we start by believing victims of sexual assault and dignity or don't we. senate leaders are facing that test. prejudging the outcome and sympathizing with her perpetrator and attacking her credibility. they sent a message to every victim of sexual violence that their pain doesn't matter. they do not deserve justice and that for them, fair treatment is out of reach.

this will only serve to drive vehicles into the shadows and embolden abusers. once again, dr. ford, thank you very much. this is a moment for our country. mahalo. >> miss mitchell. >> good afternoon. when we left off, we were still talking about the hpolygraph. i believe you said it hasn't been paid for yet. is that correct? >> let me put an end to this. her lawyers have paid for her polygraph. >> as is routine. >> as is routine. >> dr. ford, do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you?

>> i'm not sure yet. i have not looked at the costs involved. we have relocated now twice. i haven't kept track of the paperwork. i'm sure i have a lot of work to do to catch up later. >> i get that you had a lot going on and have for several months, but is it your understanding that someone else is going to assist you with these fees including the cost for the polygraph? >> i'm aware that there has been several go fund me sites i haven't had to figure out how to figure one. >> several what? >> go fund me sites. they raised money primarily for our security detail. i'm not quite sure how to dleakt m collect that money or how to distribute it. i haven't been able to focus on that yet. >> in your testimony this morning, you stated that senator

feinstein sent you a letter on august 31st of this year. is that right? >> is it the 31st? let me see. i sent her a letter on july 30th and i don't have the date -- i would have to pull up my e-mail to find out the date of her e-mail to me. right before the hearings that she was going to maintain the confidentiality of the letter. >> say that again. it was until right before the hearings? >> that's my memory, but i can look it up for you if you would like. i can pull it up on my e-mail. >> i want to make sure i understood what you said. >> that are document has been turned over in response for the documents. you have it. >> thank you, counsel.

i want to make sure i understood what you said. was it your understanding it would be kept confidential until right before the hear something. >> it was my understanding it would be kept confidential, period. >> period? okay. between your polygraph on august 7th and your receipt of the letter from senator feinstein, did you or anyone on your behalf speak to any member of congress or congressional staff about the allegations? >> i personally did not. >> my question was, did you or anybody on your behalf? >> what do you mean? did someone speak for me? >> somebody working with you or helping you. did somebody at your behest, on your behalf speak to somebody in congress or staff? >> i'm not sure.

i'm not sure how the exchanges went, but i didn't speak to anyone. >> is it possible that somebody did? >> i think so. it would be possible. i'm guessing it would be possible, but i don't know. >> excuse me. you asked her not to guess and now you are asking her what's possible. if you want to ask her what she knows, ask her what she knows. >> is that a rejection? >> it is. >> i will have the chair rule on that. >> i don't understand. >> unless there is a legal reason for not answering it on advice of your counsel. >> so i don't totally understand the question, but i didn't speak with anyone during that time frame other than my counsel.

>> okay. you said repeatedly that you did not think that that letter on july 30th was going to be released to the public. is that correct? >> correct. >> is it true you did not authorize it to be released at any time? >> correct. >> okay. besides your attorneys, did you provide -- you provided that letter to senator feinstein, is that correct? >> i provided her a letter on july 30th. >> we are talking about the july 30th letter. you provided that letter to senator feinstein, correct. is that a yes? >> yes. >> you provided the letter to representative eshoo to deliver to senator feinstein. >> yes. >> besides the two individuals. representative e shoo and senator feinstein, did you provide that letter to anyone else?

>> no. >> do you know how that letter became public? >> no. >> okay. after that letter was made public or leaked, did you reach back out to "the washington post"? >> um, i reached out to the -- they were continuously reaching out to me and i was not responding. but the time that i did respond and agree to do the sit down was once the reporters started showing up at my home and workplace. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. ford, thank you for being here. i just want to remind everyone that this is not a courtroom. this is not a legal proceeding. you are here under your own

volition and though the prosecutors is here to represent my colleagues, you are here out of a civic duty. i want to join my colleagues. it is really more than that. our foundig documents talk about civic duty and talk about pledging your lives and fortunes and sacred honor and anyone who read your testimony knows what you had to sacrifice by coming forward. your life has been upended. you have received vicious, hateful threats. death threats. you had to move out of your family home, to some expense, i imagine, to you and your family. you had to engage security. you had to deal with incredible

us deal with one of the most important obligations a senator has, to advise and consent on one of the branches of our government, the highest courts in the land, an individual going before a lifetime appointment. you even said that the president had a lot of folks on that list and your fear was that this individual who assaulted you would ascend to that. that's correct, right? >> correct. >> yes. and it is correct that you have given a lot of resources, taken a lot of threats to come forward. correct? >> correct. >> assaults on your dignity and your humanity? >> absolutely. >> how has it affected your children? >> they're doing fairly well considering. thank you for asking. >> and your husband? >> doing fairly well considering. we have a very supportive community. >> that's good to hear. i want to use a different word for your courage because this is more -- as much as this hearing is about a supreme court

justice, the reality is by you coming forward, your courage, you are affecting the culture of our country. we have a wonderful nation, an incredible culture, but there are dark elements that allow unconscionable levels of sexual assault and harassment that are affecting girls and boys and affecting men and women from big media outlets to corporations, to factory floors, to servers in restaurants to our intimate spaces in apartments and homes all around this country. i stepped out on the break was deluged with folks all over the country that there are hundreds of thousands of people around the country watching your testimony right now and people in tears feeling pain and anguish, not just feeling your pain but feeling their own, who have not come forward. you are opening up to open air

hurt and pain that goes on across this country. and for that the word i would use, it's nothing short of heroic. because what you're doing for our nation right now beside giving testimony germane to one of the most sacred of our offices, you are speaking truth that this country needs to understand. and how we deal with survivors who come forward right now is unacceptable. and the way we deal with this unfortunately allows for the continued darkness of this culture to exist. and your brilliance shining a light under this, speaking your truth is nothing short of heroic. but to the matter at hand, one of my colleagues, who i have a lot of respect for and i do consider him a friend, went to the senate floor and spoke truth to both sides of the political aisle. senator flake said yesterday this a lifetime appointment and this is said to be a deliberative body.

in the interest of due diligence and fairness, her claims must be fully aired and considered. i agree with him. but you've asked for things that would give a full airing from corroborating witnesses to be called, you've submitted to an intrusive polygraph test. can you answer for me how do you feel that all the things that could have been done thoroughly to help this deliberative body have not been honored in this so-called investigation? >> i wish that i could be more helpful and that others could be more helpful and that we could collaborate in a way that would get at more information. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i'd just like to introduce for the record seven letters from mormon women for

ethical government. youth led organizations around this country, the international unions, bricklayers, allied craft workers, a letter from 279 survivors of sexual violence in support of dr. ford and a letter from 1,600 men in support of dr. ford and those who want to assert, men and women, survivors are not opportunist, do not have political axes to grind but are coming forward to speak their truth and end the scourge of sexual violence in our country. >> so ordered without objection. miss miller. >> dr. ford, in choosing attorneys, did anybody help you on the choice with who to choose? >> various people referred me to lawyers that they knew in the

washington, d.c. area. so, as you know, i grew up in this area so i asked some family members and friends and they would -- they referred me to like divorce attorneys that might know somebody that might know somebody and i ended up interviewing several law firms from the d.c. area. >> and did anybody besides friends and family refer you to any attorneys? >> i think that the staff of dianne feinstein's office suggested the possibility of attorneys. >> including the two on either side of you? >> not both of them, no. >> we've heard a lot about fbi investigations. when did you personally first request an fbi investigation?

>> how many weeks ago? i guess when we first started talking about the possibility of a hearing, i was hoping that there would be a more thorough investigation. >> would that investigation have been something that you would have submitted to an interview? >> i would be happy to cooperate with the fbi, yes. >> would you have been happy to submit to an interview by staff members from this committee? >> absolutely. >> okay. >> besides -- you mentioned some go fund me accounts. beside those, are there any other efforts outside of your personal finances to pay for your legal fees or any of the costs incurred or accrued? >> it's my understanding that some of my team is working on a pro bono basis. i don't know the exact details and there are members of the

community in palo alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera. >> have you been provided -- >> i think i can help you with that. both her counsel are doing this pro bono. we are not being paid and we have no expectation of being paid. >> thank you, counsel. >> have you seen any of the questions that i was going to ask you today? >> no. >> have you -- you've been asked a few questions by other people as well. have you seen any of those questions in advance? >> no. >> you have been told them in advance? >> no. >> and likewise with my questions, have you been told my questions in advance? >> definitely not. >> okay. you mentioned about some possible information such as when mark judge worked at the supermarket. i want to ask you about someone else. you mentioned that there was a classmate who was really sort of

the connection between you and brett kavanaugh. who was this person? >> i think that that case with mr. whalen, who was looking at my linked in page and then trying to blame the person, i just don't feel like it's right for us to be talking about that. >> i'm not trying to blame anybody. i just want to know that who the common friend -- >> the person that mr. whalen was trying to say looked like mr. kavanaugh. >> how long did you know this person? >> maybe for a couple of months we socialized but he also was a member of the same country club and i knew his younger brother as well. >> okay. so a couple months before this took place? >> yes. >> okay. how would you characterize your relationship with him both before and after this took place, this person?

>> he was somebody that we used the phrase i went out with. i wouldn't say date, i went out with for a few months. that was how we termed it at the time. after that we were distant friends and ran into each other periodically at columbia country club. i didn't see him often. i saw his brother and him several times. >> was this person the only common link between you and judge kavanaugh? >> he's the only one that i would be able to name right now, that i would like to not name but you know who i mean. but there are certainly other members of columbia country club that were common friends or they were more acquaintances of mine and friends of mr. kavanaugh. >> okay. can you describe all of the other social interactions that you had with mr. kavanaugh. >> briefly, yes, i can.

there were during freshman and sophomore year, particularly my sophomore year, which would have been his junior year of high school, four to five parties that my friends and i attended that were attended also by him. >> okay. did anything happen at these events, like we're talking about? besides the time we're talking about? >> you can answer that question and then i'll go to senator harris. >> there was no sexual assault at any of those events. is that what you're asking? >> yes. >> yes, those were just parties. >> or anything inappropriate? >> maybe we can go into more detail when there's more time. i feel time pressure on that question. i'm happy to answer in further detail if you want me to. >> i'm sorry, go ahead and finish answering your question. >> oh, okay. did you want me to describe those